TUFLOW Benchmarking: Difference between revisions

<gallery mode="packed-overlay" widths=200px heights=250px color:red>

 

Image:Hardware_Benchmark_001.PNG|[[Hardware_Benchmarking | Computer Hardware Benchmark Comparsions- What Performs Best for TUFLOW Simulations]]

</gallery>

[[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 =

<li>

Daniel Sheehy, Dr Sharmil Markar, Dr David Newton from WRM Water & Environment Pty Ltd assessed the capability of the TUFLOW HPC to accurately simulate an idealised dam break scenario by comparing the model results to analytical solutions. The results were also compared the model results for coastal inundation by a tsunami to real-world data from the 2004 Banda Ache (Indonesia) tsunami. The findings demonstrate that TUFLOW HPC correctly captures the dam break flood fronts and the flood wave propagation. As such TUFLOW HPC is well suited for dam break flood modelling: <br>

<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>

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.

 

<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.

 

<li>Wood Rodgers compared TUFLOW results against recorded flume data and standard engineering equations. The assessment results were presented at the 2015 Floodplain Management Association Conference in Rancho Mirage, California. The TUFLOW results are summarized in the following link:

*[[Wood_Rodgers_FMA2015 | Wood Rodgers Model Benchmark Testing (FMA Conference, 2015)]]</li>

Chris Huxley built on the dataset for the 2015 TUFLOW User Conference

 

<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

 

<li>Bill Syme presented model validation results for a case study in the Eudlo Creek Catchment, Australia at the 2006 Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) Conference. TUFLOW was benchmarked against a physical model and FESWMS.

 

<li>Additional TUFLOW benchmark articles are available from the "Library" section of the TUFLOW website:

</ol>

 

TUFLOW has been used on thousands of flood studies worldwide. Model calibration to historic events is a critical element of any flood study. Here are some links to public domain documents which have included TUFLOW model calibration/validation to historic flood events.

 

 

= Hardware Benchmark Testing =