TUFLOW Benchmarking: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 30:
The primary objectives were to determine whether TUFLOW GPU was a suitable software package to use in industry applications, whether the direct rainfall model was able to reproduce the hydrology of a real storm event in a gauged catchment more accurately than the hydrologic model; and to understand hydraulic resistance mechanisms at shallow flow and at different roughness scales. These objectives were met through numerical modelling with real data produced from experiments, stream gauges, or analytical solutions. Dressler’s sloping dam break analytical model was used to validate TUFLOW GPU, a gauged catchment in New South Wales was used to compare hydrology representation in the direct rainfall model and hydrologic model, and experimental data from an open channel at shallow flow was analysed to analyse hydraulic resistance mechanisms. Monte Carlo testing by simulating non uniformity in bed roughness was undertaken on an ungauged catchment in New South Wales to determine the practical impacts of secondary flows, which arose after analysis of the experimental data.
[[File:Boyte_2014_Dressler.PNG|400px]]
*[http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/2012Boyte_DirectRainfallValidation.pdf Thesis Link (Boyte, 2014)]▼
<br> <br>
▲*[http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/2012Boyte_DirectRainfallValidation.pdf Click Here For Thesis Link (Boyte, 2014)]
= Independent Benchmark Testing =
| |||