TUFLOW 2D Hydraulic Structures: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 237:
The safest and strongly recommended approach with regard to establishing head losses and therefore flood levels, is to not resolve the obstructions in the mesh but instead model the effects of such obstructions with form (drag) loss coefficients (applied to selected mesh cells) that have been derived from physical testing. This approach has been shown to provide the most consistent results across various mesh resolutions. It also has the added benefit that, by avoiding small cells in the mesh, it will provide much more efficient run times for flow solvers.<br>
== What are the limitations of explicitly modelling bridge piers in TUFLOW? ==
Explicitly representing small-scale obstructions, such as bridge piers, in TUFLOW requires extremely fine mesh resolutions. This results in significantly higher computational costs and often fails to accurately capture the complex flow phenomena. Additional head losses caused by drag characteristics are better represented through empirical coefficients rather than direct modelling.
For more information please see: <u>[[TUFLOW_2D_Hydraulic_Structures#Can_I_model_bridge_piers_explicitly_in_2D_using_very_small_cells.3F | Can I model bridge piers explicitly in 2D using very small cells?]]</u>
== How to best convert flow constriction data (2d_fc or 2d_fcsh) into newer formats (2d_lfcsh or 2d_bg)? ==
| |||