Modelling Accuracy Uncertainties Impact Mapping: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
Anne.Kolega (talk | contribs) m →What are the reasons why models vary widely in their accuracy?: for model to vary... |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
=What are the reasons
* The level of uncertainty/inaccuracy in the input data, especially uncertainties in hydrological inflows (which can be considerable) and topography.
* Whether the model is calibrated, and if calibrated, the range of calibration events and quantity/quality/type of calibration data. A model well calibrated to a range of flood events will be much more accurate than an uncalibrated model. More information on calibration can be found in <u>[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/October2016_FMA_Newsletter_HuxleyRyan.pdf Flood Modelling: How Accurate is Your Model?]</u> or an Australian Water School webinar <u>[https://www.tuflow.com/library/webinars/#maximise_accuracy Maximising Hydraulic Model Accuracy]</u>.
Line 18:
*Accuracy of the input data (e.g. terrain, landuse, hydrologic inflows).
*Approach used for solving the underlying mathematical equations describing free surface fluid flow.
*
Understanding the degree of uncertainty is important for setting absolute metrics such as design levels and freeboard. While less important for impact mapping because the uncertainties are present in both sides of the comparison. The hydraulic modelling carried out should be based on recommended industry and software guidelines, and follow sound modelling practices.<br> An overview on uncertainties in flood modelling can be viewed in Australian Water School webinar <u>[https://www.tuflow.com/library/webinars/#jul2019_how_wrong How Wrong is Your Flood Model?]</u> <br> <br>
<br>▼
=What is numerical noise?=
Line 31 ⟶ 29:
<br>
=What approaches are
Establishing guidelines for mapping tolerances for flood impact assessments typically follow one of the approaches below, with the approach taken dependent on the objectives and the type of hydraulic modelling output field being mapped:
*A percentage, for example, a maximum increase in velocity of 10%. A threshold or cutoff is sometimes used below which the impact is assumed to be inconsequential or to discard slight changes to near zero values.
Line 43 ⟶ 41:
*The potential cumulative impact of multiple changes in the floodplain. For example, flood behaviour changes associated with a single development in isolation may be negligible, dozens of neighbouring developments over decades may however cause a significant change in flood behaviour relative to the pre-developed catchment state.<br>
▲<br>
=I am running existing and developed case and see differences away from the model changes. Why?=
Any geometry changes between models, no matter how small, will affect results, sometimes to a greater degree than that occurring in the area of change. For example, a few millimetres increase in water level can determine whether or not overtopping of an embankment occurs, and this can consequently cause even larger impacts on the downstream side of the embankment. Furthermore, these changes can be compounded by subsequent changes in timestepping when using the adaptive timestepping option (the default in TUFLOW HPC), especially at fringes of the flood extent, where cells are constantly wetting and drying. Modellers and reviewers should be judicious and pragmatic when assessing which impacts are real and which are numerical noise.<br>
Line 50 ⟶ 49:
* Use depth varying manning's n (lower manning's n for shallow water depths), specifically for direct rainfall models.
* Set appropriate <font color="blue"><tt>Map Cutoff Depth </tt></font> for the modelling task. e.g. direct rainfall models might have higher values to avoid undesirable noise on the wet/dry interface.<br>
* Use smaller 1D timestep for models with 1D features.
* Try double precision, specifically for models with higher elevation, 1D features and or very small flow/rainfall depth increments.
* When running HPC and or Quadtree, test control number factor smaller than 1.
<br>▼
=Why seemingly identical models can produce non-identical results?=
Generally speaking single path numerical solvers such as those used for hydraulic modelling should be able to produce the same numerical results twice to the last bit of every binary number calculated and output. However, this can become difficult with parallel computations as the order in which a list of single or double precision numbers are summated can produce slightly different rounding errors and thereby produce very slightly different results. For the vast majority of models TUFLOW Classic
Prior to 2020-10-AB release, the new boundary method introduced in TUFLOW HPC 2020-01-AA release for inflowing HT and QT boundaries (refer see Section 6.1 of the 2020 Release Notes) can in rare situations be affected by bitwise reproducibility when parallelised. When this issue occurs, very slight numerical differences can occur throughout the model, noting that they will be of a much smaller magnitude than those that occur when carrying out impact assessments, but will cause undesirable numerical noise in the impact mapping.<br>
▲<br>
<br>
{{Tips Navigation
| |||