FMA Challenge 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 46:
The Manning’s n used for the results provided was 0.035, which seems to give a reasonable first pass reproduction of the high water marks. A value of 0.035 is consistent with the global n value that would typically apply to this study area.
Additional simulations were carried out using TUFLOW that included the NLCD Land Cover GIS layer, and 3D breaklines of the levee and road embankments visible in the DEM and aerial photo. This scenario (we envisage) would probably be representative of the present day conditions, and not representative of the 1964 flood event conditions.
Line 90 ⟶ 89:
| 101 || 0.02 ||Water/Sand/Silt
|}
=Model Calibration=
| |||