TUFLOW Benchmarking: Difference between revisions

[[File:Boyte_2014_Catchment.PNG|400px]]

<br>

== Leister (2010) ==

The author undertook research to ascertain the accuracy of TUFLOW in calculating the energy losses associated with the contraction and expansion of flow through a constriction and to ascertain the most appropriate method/s for reliably modelling the energy losses associated with bridge piers. To undertake the research 2D model results were compared to physical flume test undertaken by Liu et al (1957).

The results from the analysis undertaken have shown that TUFLOW can, within reasonable bounds, reproduce the results of the physical model. Recommendations regarding the modeling of constrictions and piers within a 2D hydraulic model are made.

<br>

== Caddis (2010) ==

 

* Assess the influence that varying soil types have on surface runoff; and

* Assess the influence that ponding depth has on infiltration, and the subsequent affect on surface runoff.<br>

== Huxley (2004) ==

This thesis validates TUFLOW against independent analytical calculations. The study used over 300 benchmark models to verify the accuracy of TUFLOW for a range of flow conditions (super critical, critical and subcritical). The specific test cases included:

 

[[File:Huxley_2004_Variance.PNG|400px]]<br>

 

== Barton (2001) ==

 

[[File:Barton_2009.PNG|400px]]<br>

== Syme (1991) ==

TUFLOW was first developed as a result of this Masters study. This thesis summarises the mathematical theory that underpins TUFLOW. It presents a discussion on the process of selecting TUFLOW's 1D and 2D schemes. It also details:

* The wetting and drying method; the dynamic 2D/1D link; and

* The stabilisation of oblique water level boundaries. <br>

 

= Other Benchmark Studies =