Revision as of 15:55, 11 August 2025 view source ShuangGao (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,087 edits →Can I model bridge piers explicitly in 2D using very small cells? ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:55, 11 August 2025 view source ShuangGao (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,087 edits →What are the limitations of explicitly modelling bridge piers in TUFLOW? Newer edit →
Line 249: More recently, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been used to attempt to reproduce the velocity field in the wake of such objects. Although providing better results than 2D modelling, the results have not always agreed well with physical tests. In particular, the drag of a given profile depends on the exact location of flow separation points, which in turn depends on the ability of the CFD code to predict the laminar to turbulent transition in the boundary layer, which is many times smaller than the profile shape itself. In general, the form loss results from CFD models show significant sensitivity to mesh size, mesh design, and choice of turbulence model. Considerable caution needs to be exercised even for CFD modelling. ~~== What are the limitations of explicitly modelling bridge piers in TUFLOW? ==~~ Explicitly representing small-scale obstructions, such as bridge piers, in TUFLOW might require extremely fine mesh resolutions. This results in significantly higher computational costs and often fails to accurately capture the complex flow phenomena. Additional head losses caused by drag characteristics are better represented through empirical coefficients rather than direct modelling. For more information please see: <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures#Can_I_model_bridge_piers_explicitly_in_2D_using_very_small_cells.3F \| Can I model bridge piers explicitly in 2D using very small cells?]]</u> == How to best convert flow constriction data (2d_fc or 2d_fcsh) into newer formats (2d_lfcsh or 2d_bg)? ==

TUFLOW 2D Hydraulic Structures: Difference between revisions