TUFLOW 1D2D Boundary Configuration Guidance: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Anne.Kolega (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 52:
The modelled flow rates are shown in the figure below.
[[File:1D2D Model Stability 005.png|500px]]<br>
==SX Boundary Lines (2d_bc)==
2d_bc SX line features are often used to connect 1D structure to the 2D domain if the structure width is greater than one 2D cell wide (e.g. <u>[[Tutorial_M02 |Tutorial Module 02]]</u>). This configuration not only increases the number of 1D/2D linking cells, it also has the added benefit of defining the 1D/2D boundary cells at the approximate location of the inlet/outlet of the 1D culvert. An additional benefit of this approach is that the "width" of the linking cells remains similar in length and location irrespective of 2D cell size. <br>
The 1D/2D linking cells in the 5m, 2m and 1m cell size models are shown in the the figure below.<br>
Line 92:
TUFLOW HPC inflow boundaries may experience recirculation when a uniform elevation is defined along the length of the boundary. This problem may also occur along HX boundaries in 1D-2D linked models that outflow from the 1D to the 2D domain. This is not a common configuration, though may occur when using a 1D channel to convey the flow from a dam break or similar along a defined channel onto floodplains in the 2D domain.
Consider setting up the 1D-2D linking shown in
<font color="blue"><tt>HPC Boundary Approach </font> <font color="red">==</font> Method B</tt>. Note that this will likely cause water level lines to display some discontinuity between the 1D and 2D domain across the boundary.
| |||