FMA Challenge 3: Difference between revisions

DataDData for this model is provided viain ZIPa compressedvariety fileof availabledifferent [http://www.tuflow.com/Tuflow%20Tutorial%20Models.aspxGIS compatible onformats. Download the TUFLOWdataset Downloadsthat Page]matches underthe 'DemoGIS Models'.<br>software you are using:

*1D-2D Linking - <u>[[Tutorial Module02Tutorial_M03|Tutorial Module 23]]</u>

*1D Nested Channel - <u>[[Tutorial Module04Tutorial_M11|Tutorial Module 411]]</u>

*Running Events and Scenarios - <u>[[Tutorial Module10Tutorial_M08|Tutorial Module 108]]</u>

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.

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 (modeledmodelled 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, particuallyparticularly sothsouth of the main channel. This can be largely attributed to the higher conveyance in the channel for the 'n'=0.1 case. <br>