TUFLOW Benchmarking: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
=
==
*[http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Dynamically%20Linked%202D%20and%201D%20Hydrodynamic%20Modelling,%20Syme,%201991.pdf Click Here For Thesis Link (Syme, 1991)]
==
This thesis study investigated the ability of 2D hydrodynamic models to adequately predict energy losses through an abrupt constriction. In particular, the investigation focuses on the impact that model spatial resolution has on the ability of the model to predict expansion and contraction losses due to the abrupt constriction.
Line 20:
*[http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Flow%20Through%20an%20Abrupt%20Constriction%20-%202D%20Hydrodynamic%20Performance%20and%20Influence%20of%20Spatial%20Resolution,%20Barton,%202001.pdf Click Here For Thesis Link (Barton, 2001)]
==
This thesis validates TUFLOW against independent analytical calculations. The study used over 300 benchmark models to verify the accuracy of TUFLOW for a range of flow conditions (super critical, critical and subcritical). The specific test cases included:
* 1D culvert flow;
Line 35:
*[http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/TUFLOW%20Validation%20and%20Testing,%20Huxley,%202004.pdf Click Here For Thesis Link (Huxley, 2004)]
==
==
This thesis investigated incorporating hydrology into direct rainfall models, with consideration given to hydraulic resistance mechanisms at shallow flow. The direct rainfall methodology was implemented into a two dimensional shallow water model, TUFLOW GPU; which was compared against an industry standard hydrologic model, XP RAFTS.
| |||