FMA Challenge 3 - Revision history

Anne.Kolega: /* Open Boundaries */ i.e.

2026-04-02T01:56:41Z

Open Boundaries: i.e.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:56, 2 April 2026
Line 81:		Line 81:
	===Open Boundaries===		===Open Boundaries===
	A single hydrograph, derived from a previous hydrologic analysis was applied as a QT boundary via a 1d_bc.		A single hydrograph, derived from a previous hydrologic analysis was applied as a QT boundary via a 1d_bc.
	All outflow from the model was assumed to be only via the main channel (ie. there was no water level boundary applied to the 2D overbank domain).		All outflow from the model was assumed to be only via the main channel (i.e. there was no water level boundary applied to the 2D overbank domain).

	===1D/2D Linking===		===1D/2D Linking===

ElizaCollison: /* Relevant Tutorials */

2023-01-06T04:38:37Z

Relevant Tutorials

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 6 January 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:
	=Relevant Tutorials=		=Relevant Tutorials=
	Other tutorials that are relevant to this challenge that may help refresh your memory are as follows:<br>		Other tutorials that are relevant to this challenge that may help refresh your memory are as follows:<br>
	*1D-2D Linking - [[Tutorial_M03\|Tutorial Module 3]]		*1D-2D Linking - <u>[[Tutorial_M03\|Tutorial Module 3]]</u>
	*1D Nested Channel - [[Tutorial_M11\|Tutorial Module 11]]		*1D Nested Channel - <u>[[Tutorial_M11\|Tutorial Module 11]]</u>
	*Running Scenarios - [[Tutorial_M08\|Tutorial Module 8]]		*Running Scenarios - <u>[[Tutorial_M08\|Tutorial Module 8]]</u>
	*Running Events - [[Tutorial_M09\|Tutorial Module 09]]		*Running Events - <u>[[Tutorial_M09\|Tutorial Module 09]]</u>
	<br>		<br>

ElizaCollison: /* Relevant Tutorials */

2023-01-06T04:38:13Z

Relevant Tutorials

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 6 January 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:
	=Relevant Tutorials=		=Relevant Tutorials=
	Other tutorials that are relevant to this challenge that may help refresh your memory are as follows:<br>		Other tutorials that are relevant to this challenge that may help refresh your memory are as follows:<br>
	*1D-2D Linking - [[~~Tutorial Module02~~\|Tutorial Module 2]]		*1D-2D Linking - [[Tutorial_M03\|Tutorial Module 3]]
	*1D Nested Channel - [[~~Tutorial Module04~~\|Tutorial Module 4]]		*1D Nested Channel - [[Tutorial_M11\|Tutorial Module 11]]
	*Running ~~Events and~~ Scenarios - [[~~Tutorial Module10~~\|Tutorial Module 10]]		*Running Scenarios - [[Tutorial_M08\|Tutorial Module 8]]
			*Running Events - [[Tutorial_M09\|Tutorial Module 09]]
	<br>		<br>

Chris Huxley: /* Introduction */

2022-06-17T04:56:47Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 17 June 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	*Understanding the Green and Ampt infiltration method and USDR soil types.<br>		*Understanding the Green and Ampt infiltration method and USDR soil types.<br>

	~~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~~ ~~'Demo~~ ~~Models'.<br>~~		DData 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_3_QGIS.zip QGIS Data Download]
			*[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/TUFLOW/Demo_Models/FMA_Challenge_Model_3_Mapinfo.zip MapInfo Data Download]
			*[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/TUFLOW/Demo_Models/FMA_Challenge_Model_3_ArcGIS.zip ArcGIS Data Download]

	=Relevant Tutorials=		=Relevant Tutorials=

Pavlina Monhartova: /* Sensitivity Creek Manning's n Test (Scenario 100ft n0.1) */

2019-07-09T06:25:03Z

Sensitivity Creek Manning's n Test (Scenario 100ft n0.1)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 9 July 2019
Line 93:		Line 93:

	==Sensitivity Creek Manning's n Test (Scenario 100ft n0.1)==		==Sensitivity Creek Manning's n Test (Scenario 100ft n0.1)==
	As discussed in the Manning’s n table above, the main creek n value of 0.20 is considered very high, especially in the lower reaches of the study area. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by lowering all the Manning’s n values in the main channel (~~modeled~~ as 1D cross-sections) to 0.10.		As discussed in the Manning’s n table above, the main creek n value of 0.20 is considered very high, especially in the lower reaches of the study area. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by lowering all the Manning’s n values in the main channel (modelled as 1D cross-sections) to 0.10.

	The image below shows the flood depths and extent for the two non-infiltration simulations at 100ft resolution (left with channel 'n' = 0.2, right with channel 'n' = 0.1). Some significant deviations in flood extent can be observed, ~~particually~~ ~~soth~~ of the main channel. This can be largely attributed to the higher conveyance in the channel for the 'n'=0.1 case. <br>		The image below shows the flood depths and extent for the two non-infiltration simulations at 100ft resolution (left with channel 'n' = 0.2, right with channel 'n' = 0.1). Some significant deviations in flood extent can be observed, particularly south of the main channel. This can be largely attributed to the higher conveyance in the channel for the 'n'=0.1 case. <br>
	[[File:FMA3_3.jpg\|600px]][[File:FMA3_4.jpg\|600px]]<br>		[[File:FMA3_3.jpg\|600px]][[File:FMA3_4.jpg\|600px]]<br>

Mitch3007: /* Topography and Bed Resistance */

2017-12-14T06:28:42Z

Topography and Bed Resistance

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 14 December 2017
Line 71:		Line 71:
	\|}		\|}

	To check these Manning's 'n' assumptions, a sensitivity testing was completed on the in-bank roughness.		To check these Manning's 'n' assumptions, a sensitivity testing was completed on the in-bank roughness and is detailed further in the following sections.

	==Boundary Conditions==		==Boundary Conditions==

Mitch3007: /* Levee Overtopping Assessment */

2017-12-13T00:02:17Z

Levee Overtopping Assessment

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 13 December 2017
Line 88:		Line 88:

	==Levee Overtopping Assessment==		==Levee Overtopping Assessment==
	To assess the timing and location of where levee banks were overtopped, the TGC was setup with the Read GIS Z Shape Route == shp\2d_zshr_T3_levees_001_L.shp \| shp\2d_zsh_T3_levees_001_P.shp		To assess the timing and location of where levee banks were overtopped, the TGC was setup with the evacuation route command:<br> <font color="blue"><tt>Read GIS Z Shape Route </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==</tt></font> shp\2d_zshr_T3_levees_001_L.shp \| shp\2d_zsh_T3_levees_001_P.shp.<br>
			Via review of the RC Map Output Data Type and the _RCP output point layer we can identify sections of the levee where a breach has occured (refer below).<br>
	[[File:FMA3_6.jpg\|600px]]		[[File:FMA3_6.jpg\|600px]]

Mitch3007: /* Levee Overtopping Assessment */

2017-12-12T23:57:23Z

Levee Overtopping Assessment

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:57, 13 December 2017
Line 88:		Line 88:

	==Levee Overtopping Assessment==		==Levee Overtopping Assessment==
			To assess the timing and location of where levee banks were overtopped, the TGC was setup with the Read GIS Z Shape Route == shp\2d_zshr_T3_levees_001_L.shp \| shp\2d_zsh_T3_levees_001_P.shp
	[[File:FMA3_6.jpg\|600px]]		[[File:FMA3_6.jpg\|600px]]

Mitch3007: /* Results - No Infiltration */

2017-12-12T23:36:06Z

Results - No Infiltration

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:36, 13 December 2017
Line 86:		Line 86:

	[[File:FMA3_3.jpg\|600px]]		[[File:FMA3_3.jpg\|600px]]

			==Levee Overtopping Assessment==
			[[File:FMA3_6.jpg\|600px]]

	==Sensitivity Creek Manning's n Test (Scenario 100ft n0.1)==		==Sensitivity Creek Manning's n Test (Scenario 100ft n0.1)==

Mitch3007: /* Conclusion */

2017-12-12T07:21:24Z

Conclusion

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 12 December 2017
Line 141:		Line 141:
	In this challenge, we explored typical non-urban stream of the California Central Valley, with scenarios of various infiltration and flood levees adopted. From this, we gained a better understanding of the influence of flood levees on surface water behaviour, understanding of the Green Ampt infiltration method and USDR soil types, and a better understanding of nested 1D/2D models.		In this challenge, we explored typical non-urban stream of the California Central Valley, with scenarios of various infiltration and flood levees adopted. From this, we gained a better understanding of the influence of flood levees on surface water behaviour, understanding of the Green Ampt infiltration method and USDR soil types, and a better understanding of nested 1D/2D models.

	Congratulations on finishing the FMA Demo Model 3. Please click here to return the [[Wiki Main Page~~\| Main_Page~~]].		Congratulations on finishing the FMA Demo Model 3. Please click here to return the [[Main_Page\| Wiki Main Page]].