TUFLOW Benchmarking: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 88:
TUFLOW has been benchmarked against other software, physical models and analytical equations on many occasions:
<ol>
<li>
Daniel Sheehy, Dr Sharmil Markar, Dr David Newton from WRM Water & Environment Pty Ltd assessed the capability of the TUFLOW HPC to accurately simulate an idealised dam break scenario by comparing the model results to analytical solutions. The results were also compared the model results for coastal inundation by a tsunami to real-world data from the 2004 Banda Ache (Indonesia) tsunami. The findings demonstrate that TUFLOW HPC correctly captures the dam break flood fronts and the flood wave propagation. As such TUFLOW HPC is well suited for dam break flood modelling: <br>
*[https://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Dambreak_Benchmark_ANCOLD2018_WRM.pdf Assessing the Accuracy of a Two-dimensional Hydraulic Model for Dambreak Analysis: Sheehy et al (ANCOLD, 2018)]</li>
<li>The Environment Agency in the United Kingdom have documented independent testing of most 2D modelling packages. Testing was undertaken in both 2010 and 2013 and all three TUFLOW engines were submitted for testing in 2013. This is a good resource for comparing TUFLOW to other available software. The tests have subsequently been rerun and documented using the latest version of TUFLOW in 2017: <br>
*[http://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/SC120002_Benchmarking_2D_hydraulic_models_Report.sflb.ashx Benchmarking the Latest Generation of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages (Environment Agency, 2013)]</li>
| |||