Revision as of 14:01, 22 October 2020 view source Pavlina Monhartova (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 5,368 edits →Hardware Benchmark Testing ← Older edit		Revision as of 11:03, 27 September 2023 view source Melissa.Moghanloo (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 2,918 edits m Update link to https Tag: Visual edit Newer edit →
Line 94: [https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Dambreak_Benchmark_ANCOLD2018_WRM.pdf Assessing the Accuracy of a Two-dimensional Hydraulic Model for Dambreak Analysis: Sheehy et al (ANCOLD, 2018)]</li> <li>The Environment Agency in the United Kingdom have documented independent testing of most 2D modelling packages. Testing was undertaken in both 2010 and 2013 and all three TUFLOW engines were submitted for testing in 2013. This is a good resource for comparing TUFLOW to other available software. The tests have subsequently been rerun and documented using the latest version of TUFLOW in 2017: <br> [~~http~~https://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/SC120002_Benchmarking_2D_hydraulic_models_Report.sflb.ashx Benchmarking the Latest Generation of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages (Environment Agency, 2013)]</li> [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290884/scho0510bsno-e-e.pdf Benchmarking of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages (Environment Agency, 2010)]~~</li>~~ The above benchmark documents have been superseded by the document below. It is a revision of the benchmark modelling using the 2017-09-AC version of TUFLOW. It includes results for TUFLOW Classic, FV, GPU and the new TUFLOW HPC solver. [https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/UK%20EA%202D%20Benchmarking%20Results.TUFLOW%20Products%202017-09.pdf United Kingdom Environment Agency 2D Benchmarking Results - TUFLOW Products (2017)]~~</li>~~ <li>Chris Huxley compared the speed of TUFLOW Classic against the TUFLOW HPC for high resolution integrated urban drainage applications. The modelling included the underground stormwater network and 1D elements and 2D for the representation of above ground flooding. Models ranging in size from 7,500 2D cells to 12,500,000 2D cells were assessed. Line 105: [[Wood_Rodgers_FMA2015 \| Wood Rodgers Model Benchmark Testing (FMA Conference, 2015)]]</li> Chris Huxley built on the dataset for the 2015 TUFLOW User Conference [[Benchmark_Comparison_User_Conference2015 \| Model Benchmark Testing (TUFLOW User Conference, 2015)]]~~</li>~~ <li>Bill Syme presented model validation/benchmark results for bends, structures and obstructions at the 2011 Australian TUFLOW Workshop and 2011 Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Conference [~~http~~https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Presentations/2012/2012%20Aust%20Workshops%20-%20TUFLOW%20Modelling%20Bends,%20Structures%20and%20Obstructions.pdf 1D and 2D Modelling of Bends, Structures and Obstructions (TUFLOW Workshop, 2011)] [http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Presentations/Modelling%20Structures.Syme.ASFPM%20SMS%20Workshop%20USA%202011.pdf Modelling Structures (ASFPM Conference, 2011)]</li>

TUFLOW Benchmarking: Difference between revisions