FMA Challenge 2 - Revision history

Anne.Kolega: /* Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models? */ e.g.

2026-04-01T04:36:22Z

Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?: e.g.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, 1 April 2026
Line 145:		Line 145:

	===Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?===		===Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?===
	Generally Manning’s n values are very similar for 1D and 2D schemes. Where there is rapid changes in flow direction and magnitude (e.g. at a structure, sharp bend or embankment opening), fully 2D schemes will simulate energy losses associated with the change in flow patterns, whereas 1D schemes either require user specified energy losses (eg. a structure) or artificially increasing Manning’s n. In these situations 1D schemes may utilize higher Manning’s n values than 2D schemes. Conversely, 2D schemes typically apply no side wall friction, so if there is significant wall friction a 2D scheme may require a slightly lower Manning’s n than a 1D scheme.		Generally Manning’s n values are very similar for 1D and 2D schemes. Where there is rapid changes in flow direction and magnitude (e.g. at a structure, sharp bend or embankment opening), fully 2D schemes will simulate energy losses associated with the change in flow patterns, whereas 1D schemes either require user specified energy losses (e.g. a structure) or artificially increasing Manning’s n. In these situations 1D schemes may utilize higher Manning’s n values than 2D schemes. Conversely, 2D schemes typically apply no side wall friction, so if there is significant wall friction a 2D scheme may require a slightly lower Manning’s n than a 1D scheme.

	===Calibration Challenges===		===Calibration Challenges===
Line 156:		Line 156:


	<li>The modeller should NOT adopt unrealistic parameter values (eg. excessively low or high Manning’s n values) for the sole purpose of achieving a good calibration. It is invariably the fact that there are other uncertainties causing the discrepancy when unrealistic Manning’s n values are used. Unrealistic Manning’s n values or other parameters (eg. high eddy viscosity) distort the results and are a sure sign that there is something else wrong.		<li>The modeller should NOT adopt unrealistic parameter values (e.g. excessively low or high Manning’s n values) for the sole purpose of achieving a good calibration. It is invariably the fact that there are other uncertainties causing the discrepancy when unrealistic Manning’s n values are used. Unrealistic Manning’s n values or other parameters (e.g. high eddy viscosity) distort the results and are a sure sign that there is something else wrong.

	<li>Levees, roads, railways and other embankments can have a major influence on the flood behavior. Those embankments that overtop should be ground surveyed along their crests and the crest height correctly represented in the model’s elevations. Often for calibration events the height or presence of the embankments is not known accurately and this needs to be taken into account in the ability of a model to reproduce flood marks.		<li>Levees, roads, railways and other embankments can have a major influence on the flood behavior. Those embankments that overtop should be ground surveyed along their crests and the crest height correctly represented in the model’s elevations. Often for calibration events the height or presence of the embankments is not known accurately and this needs to be taken into account in the ability of a model to reproduce flood marks.

Anne.Kolega: /* Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models? */ e.g.

2026-03-30T04:34:21Z

Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?: e.g.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, 30 March 2026
Line 145:		Line 145:

	===Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?===		===Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?===
	Generally Manning’s n values are very similar for 1D and 2D schemes. Where there is rapid changes in flow direction and magnitude (eg. at a structure, sharp bend or embankment opening), fully 2D schemes will simulate energy losses associated with the change in flow patterns, whereas 1D schemes either require user specified energy losses (eg. a structure) or artificially increasing Manning’s n. In these situations 1D schemes may utilize higher Manning’s n values than 2D schemes. Conversely, 2D schemes typically apply no side wall friction, so if there is significant wall friction a 2D scheme may require a slightly lower Manning’s n than a 1D scheme.		Generally Manning’s n values are very similar for 1D and 2D schemes. Where there is rapid changes in flow direction and magnitude (e.g. at a structure, sharp bend or embankment opening), fully 2D schemes will simulate energy losses associated with the change in flow patterns, whereas 1D schemes either require user specified energy losses (eg. a structure) or artificially increasing Manning’s n. In these situations 1D schemes may utilize higher Manning’s n values than 2D schemes. Conversely, 2D schemes typically apply no side wall friction, so if there is significant wall friction a 2D scheme may require a slightly lower Manning’s n than a 1D scheme.

	===Calibration Challenges===		===Calibration Challenges===

ElizaCollison: /* Relevant Tutorials */

2023-01-06T04:59:17Z

Relevant Tutorials

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:59, 6 January 2023
Line 22:		Line 22:
	=Relevant Tutorials=		=Relevant Tutorials=
	It may be useful to revisit some of the following tutorials:<br>		It may be useful to revisit some of the following tutorials:<br>
	*General 2D modelling- [[~~Tutorial Module01~~\|Tutorial Module 1]]		*General 2D modelling - <u>[[Tutorial_M01\|Tutorial Module 1]]</u>
	*2D topography modification- [[~~Tutorial Module03~~\|Tutorial Module 3]]<br><br>		*2D topography modification - <u>[[Tutorial_M02\|Tutorial Module 2]]</u><br><br>

	=Model Setup=		=Model Setup=

Chris Huxley: /* Introduction */

2022-06-17T04:54:52Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 17 June 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:
	A key investigation of this FMA Challange is the performance of the differing 2D solution methods (CPU and GPU) in representing measured flood levels during a historical event.		A key investigation of this FMA Challange is the performance of the differing 2D solution methods (CPU and GPU) in representing measured flood levels during a historical event.

	Data for this model is provided ~~via~~ ~~ZIP~~ ~~compressed~~ ~~file~~ ~~available~~ ~~[http://www.tuflow.com/Tuflow%20Tutorial%20Models.aspx~~ on the ~~TUFLOW~~ ~~Downloads~~ ~~Page]~~ ~~under~~ ~~'Current~~ ~~Demo~~ ~~Models'.~~		Data for this model is provided in a variety of different GIS compatible formats. Download the dataset that matches the GIS software you are using:
			*[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/TUFLOW/Demo_Models/FMA_Challenge_Model_2_QGIS.zip QGIS Data Download]
	This demo model is also provided [[Hardware_Benchmarking \| here]] to allow you to benchmark the performance of your computer hardware.
			*[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/TUFLOW/Demo_Models/FMA_Challenge_Model_2_MapInfo.zip MapInfo Data Download]
			*[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/TUFLOW/Demo_Models/FMA_Challenge_Model_2_ArcGIS.zip ArcGIS Data Download]

	=Relevant Tutorials=		=Relevant Tutorials=

Rachel: /* Model Setup */

2016-07-27T15:40:36Z

Model Setup

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 28 July 2016
Line 25:		Line 25:
	=Model Setup=		=Model Setup=
	This section provides an overview and discussion of the model domain setup.		This section provides an overview and discussion of the model domain setup.
	It is at your discretion which GIS package, text editor and method of model simulation to use (batch mode or within the text editor). All files required to setup and run the models are available within the download package. You have the choice of running with shape file or mif for usage in ArcGIS/QGIS or Mapinfo respectively.		It is at your discretion which GIS package, text editor and method of model simulation to use (batch mode or within the text editor). All files required to setup and run the models are available within the download package. You have the choice of running with shape file or mif for usage in ArcGIS/QGIS or Mapinfo respectively.<br> <br>
			This model does not require a licence dongle to run.

	==Grid Setup and Cell Size==		==Grid Setup and Cell Size==

Rachel: /* Introduction */

2016-07-27T15:39:31Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 28 July 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Introduction =		= Introduction =
	The FMA Challenge models are example TUFLOW models submitted by BMT WBM for the Floodplain Management Association 2-Dimensional Model Challenges, 2012.		The FMA Challenge models are example TUFLOW models submitted by BMT WBM for the Floodplain Management Association 2-Dimensional Model Challenges, 2012. <br>
	This Wiki assumes an intermediate to advanced user level. If you haven't already completed FMA Challenge 1, please see ~~this~~ <u>[[FMA Challenge 1 (1D-2D linked)\|FMA Challenge 1]]</u> page.		This Wiki page assumes an intermediate to advanced user level. If you haven't already completed FMA Challenge 1, please see the <u>[[FMA Challenge 1 (1D-2D linked)\|FMA Challenge 1]]</u> page.

	~~In this~~ challenge, a tidally influenced floodplain and riverine system ~~will be explored~~ along the Californian Coast. More information is available in the document '''"FMA Challenge 2 Documention.TUFLOW.docx"''' that is provided withing the ZIP file download.		This challenge model investigates a tidally influenced floodplain and riverine system along the Californian Coast. More information is available in the document '''"FMA Challenge 2 Documention.TUFLOW.docx"''' that is provided withing the ZIP file download.

	A ~~series~~ of ~~fully~~ ~~functional~~ ~~example~~ ~~models~~ ~~have~~ ~~been~~ ~~developed~~ allowing you to review the model setup, run the model and review results ~~developing your understanding of:~~<br>		All three challenge models are presented as a fully functional examples, allowing you to review the model setup, run the model and review results.<br>
			This model specifically shows:
	*Tidal influences on floodplains and riverine systems;		*Tidal influences on floodplains and riverine systems;
	*Variation in results due to 2D cell resolution and whether or not the model should contain a 1D component;		*Variation in results due to 2D cell resolution and whether or not the model should contain a 1D component;
Line 12:		Line 13:
	*The differences between two different 2D solvers, TUFLOW classic and TUFLOW GPU.<br>		*The differences between two different 2D solvers, TUFLOW classic and TUFLOW GPU.<br>

	~~Notably, a~~ key investigation of this FMA Challange is the performance of the differing 2D solution methods (CPU and GPU) in representing measured flood levels during a historical event.		A key investigation of this FMA Challange is the performance of the differing 2D solution methods (CPU and GPU) in representing measured flood levels during a historical event.

	Data for this model is provided via ZIP compressed file available [http://www.tuflow.com/Tuflow%20Tutorial%20Models.aspx on the TUFLOW Downloads Page] under 'Current Demo Models'.		Data for this model is provided via ZIP compressed file available [http://www.tuflow.com/Tuflow%20Tutorial%20Models.aspx on the TUFLOW Downloads Page] under 'Current Demo Models'.

Rachel: /* Introduction */

2016-07-27T15:35:59Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 28 July 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Introduction =		= Introduction =
	The FMA Challenge models ~~provide~~ example TUFLOW models submitted by BMT WBM for the Floodplain Management Association 2-Dimensional Model Challenges, 2012.		The FMA Challenge models are example TUFLOW models submitted by BMT WBM for the Floodplain Management Association 2-Dimensional Model Challenges, 2012.
	This Wiki assumes an intermediate to advanced user level. If you haven't already completed FMA Challenge 1, please see this <u>[[FMA Challenge 1 (1D-2D linked)\|FMA Challenge 1]]</u> page.		This Wiki assumes an intermediate to advanced user level. If you haven't already completed FMA Challenge 1, please see this <u>[[FMA Challenge 1 (1D-2D linked)\|FMA Challenge 1]]</u> page.

Rachel at 15:35, 27 July 2016

2016-07-27T15:35:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 28 July 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Introduction =		= Introduction =
	The FMA Challenge ~~Wiki's~~ provide example TUFLOW models submitted by BMT WBM for the Floodplain Management Association 2-Dimensional Model Challenges, 2012.		The FMA Challenge models provide example TUFLOW models submitted by BMT WBM for the Floodplain Management Association 2-Dimensional Model Challenges, 2012.
	This Wiki assumes an intermediate to advanced user level. If you haven't already completed FMA Challenge 1, please see this <u>[[FMA Challenge 1 (1D-2D linked)\|FMA Challenge 1]]</u> page.		This Wiki assumes an intermediate to advanced user level. If you haven't already completed FMA Challenge 1, please see this <u>[[FMA Challenge 1 (1D-2D linked)\|FMA Challenge 1]]</u> page.

Mitch3007: /* Note on Runtimes */

2015-08-27T23:55:34Z

Note on Runtimes

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 28 August 2015
Line 54:		Line 54:
	There is a series of batch files provided with the demo model that give the choice of running only the 15m and 30m grid resolutions or all three. Due to the size of the model and large number of cells for the CPU only 10m case, it may take up to 24hrs of 'real time' to run on your computer. If you don't want to run the 10 m case then just run either 'run_all_001.bat' or '_run_all_CPU_001.bat'. Further details are provided in the Readme.txt within the runs directory.		There is a series of batch files provided with the demo model that give the choice of running only the 15m and 30m grid resolutions or all three. Due to the size of the model and large number of cells for the CPU only 10m case, it may take up to 24hrs of 'real time' to run on your computer. If you don't want to run the 10 m case then just run either 'run_all_001.bat' or '_run_all_CPU_001.bat'. Further details are provided in the Readme.txt within the runs directory.

	Current benchmarching of runtimes for the CPU vs GPU respectively has found that the GPU simulations are typically 20-30 times faster than the CPU for this demo model. For models with a much larger number of cells >10 million the benefit of the GPU increases dramatically with runtime increases of 100 ~~fold~~. Further detail on the benchmarking to FMA Demo Model 2 is provided [[Hardware_Benchmarking \| here]].		Current benchmarching of runtimes for the CPU vs GPU respectively has found that the GPU simulations are typically 20-30 times faster than the CPU for this demo model. For models with a much larger number of cells >10 million the benefit of the GPU increases dramatically with CPU/GPU runtime speed increases over 100. Further detail on the hardware benchmarking conducted on FMA Demo Model 2 is provided [[Hardware_Benchmarking \| here]].

	==Simple Manning’s n / Topography Test==		==Simple Manning’s n / Topography Test==

Mitch3007: /* Note on Runtimes */

2015-08-27T23:54:02Z

Note on Runtimes

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:54, 28 August 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	=== Note on Runtimes ===		=== Note on Runtimes ===

	There is a series of batch files provided with the demo model that give the choice of running only the 15m and 30m grid resolutions or all three. Due to the size of the model and large number of cells for the CPU only 10m case, it may take up to 24hrs of 'real time' to run on your computer. If you don't want to run the 10 m case then just run either ~~the~~ 'run_all_001.bat' or '_run_all_CPU_001.bat'. Further details are provided in the Readme.txt within the runs directory.		There is a series of batch files provided with the demo model that give the choice of running only the 15m and 30m grid resolutions or all three. Due to the size of the model and large number of cells for the CPU only 10m case, it may take up to 24hrs of 'real time' to run on your computer. If you don't want to run the 10 m case then just run either 'run_all_001.bat' or '_run_all_CPU_001.bat'. Further details are provided in the Readme.txt within the runs directory.

	Current benchmarching of runtimes for the CPU vs GPU respectively has found that the GPU simulations are typically 20-30 times faster than the CPU for this demo model. For models with a much larger number of cells >10 million the benefit of the GPU increases dramatically. Further detail on the benchmarking to FMA Demo Model 2 is provided [[Hardware_Benchmarking \| here]].		Current benchmarching of runtimes for the CPU vs GPU respectively has found that the GPU simulations are typically 20-30 times faster than the CPU for this demo model. For models with a much larger number of cells >10 million the benefit of the GPU increases dramatically with runtime increases of 100 fold. Further detail on the benchmarking to FMA Demo Model 2 is provided [[Hardware_Benchmarking \| here]].

	==Simple Manning’s n / Topography Test==		==Simple Manning’s n / Topography Test==