FMA Challenge 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
 
Line 145:
 
===Are Manning’s n Values the Same for 1D and 2D models?===
Generally Manning’s n values are very similar for 1D and 2D schemes. Where there is rapid changes in flow direction and magnitude (e.g. at a structure, sharp bend or embankment opening), fully 2D schemes will simulate energy losses associated with the change in flow patterns, whereas 1D schemes either require user specified energy losses (ege.g. a structure) or artificially increasing Manning’s n. In these situations 1D schemes may utilize higher Manning’s n values than 2D schemes. Conversely, 2D schemes typically apply no side wall friction, so if there is significant wall friction a 2D scheme may require a slightly lower Manning’s n than a 1D scheme.
 
===Calibration Challenges===
Line 156:
 
 
<li>The modeller should NOT adopt unrealistic parameter values (ege.g. excessively low or high Manning’s n values) for the sole purpose of achieving a good calibration. It is invariably the fact that there are other uncertainties causing the discrepancy when unrealistic Manning’s n values are used. Unrealistic Manning’s n values or other parameters (ege.g. high eddy viscosity) distort the results and are a sure sign that there is something else wrong.
 
<li>Levees, roads, railways and other embankments can have a major influence on the flood behavior. Those embankments that overtop should be ground surveyed along their crests and the crest height correctly represented in the model’s elevations. Often for calibration events the height or presence of the embankments is not known accurately and this needs to be taken into account in the ability of a model to reproduce flood marks.