Revision as of 16:21, 29 May 2020 view source ShuangGao (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,087 edits →Model Mesh Size vs Remap Result ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:33, 29 May 2020 view source ShuangGao (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,087 edits →Model Mesh Size vs Remap Result Newer edit →
Line 45: =Model Mesh Size vs Remap Result= Beside the quality of hazard output discussed above, the model mesh size can still impact the remapped output in ~~different~~the ~~ways~~following situations. ==Road Crest== At location ~~that~~with ~~bed~~steep ~~elevation~~slope, typically when water flows over a ~~changes~~road ~~sharply~~crest, the remapped water depth may become negative if the output grid size is too large. The figure below shows the remapped depth over a road crest from models with different mesh sizes. As can be seen, some area doesn't have remapped output despite the water is clearly over-topping the road. <br> [[File:Fig9 road mesh size.png\|1050px]]<br> '''Figure 9 Remapped depth over a road crest from different mesh size models.'''<br><br> As illustrated in the figure below, the DEM has mush smaller resolution and the elevation changes rapidly over the road crest, when interpolation the coarser water level to the finer DEM, the interpolated water level may become lower than the DEM level, due to the difference in grid resolution. In the actual simulation, this type of location treated as 'weir flow' and proper depth is used. This issue will be further addressed in the high resolution SGS output scheduled in the future release.<br> [[File:Fig10 road mesh size2.png\|500px]]<br> '''Figure 10 Modelled water level line over the road crest.'''<br> ==Upstream Catchment==

TUFLOW Remapping: Difference between revisions