Revision as of 13:26, 16 August 2018 view source Chris Huxley (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 7,785 edits →Test Case 1 ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:42, 16 August 2018 view source Chris Huxley (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 7,785 edits →Test Case 1 Newer edit →
Line 16: The model has a single inflow at the top of the catchment. <br> [[File:Mesh Converge Model Inflow 001.png\|500px]]<br> The water flows downhill through the respective EA reporting points. Reporting location 4 and 5 are at the bottom of the model, furthest from the inflow locations.<br> [[File:Mesh_Converge_SMS_0.5hr.png\|500px]]▼ [[File:~~Mesh_Converge_SMS_1~~Mesh Converge SMS 0.5hr.png\|500px]]~~<br>~~ ▲[[File:~~Mesh_Converge_SMS_0~~Mesh Converge SMS 1.5hr.png\|500px]]<br> The EA benchmark testing original assumed a 50m cell resolution. For the purpose of this assessment a range of cell sizes ~~from 10m to 300m~~ have been used to determine the impact changing ~~cell~~grid ~~size~~resolution has on the model result. The following grid resolutions were used: * 10m resolution (188240 cell count) * 20m resolution (47080 cell count) * 50m resolution (7540 cell count) * 100m resolution (1880 cell count) * 150m resolution (840 cell count) * 200m resolution (480 cell count) == Test Case 1 - Results == Test results have focused on reporting locations 4 and 5. Their location furthest downstream makes them most sensitive. Any divergence in result due to poor representation of the upstream topography will accumulate, amplifying the result difference associated with a change in cell resolution. {\| class="wikitable "

TUFLOW 2D Cell Size Selection: Difference between revisions