Revision as of 15:11, 22 May 2025 view source Emilie Nielsen (talk \| contribs) Administrators 6,146 edits →TUFLOW CATCH Interventions Output Summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:20, 22 May 2025 view source Emilie Nielsen (talk \| contribs) Administrators 6,146 edits →TUFLOW CATCH Interventions Output Summary Newer edit →
Line 13: <br> <li> Notice that bufferStrip1 has no pathogen masses entering or being removed, as it has no paddocks near it. <li> If the removed mass is divided by the cumulative mass, the resulting value represents either the removal constant (if a constant removal equation was used), or the average removal performance (if a table removal method was used). For example, in trench1, the removal performance for SED_CLAY is calculated by: rem SED_CLAY [g] / cum SED_CLAY [g] = 0.4. This matches the removal constant defined in the .tcc. In contrast, bufferStrip1 uses a table removal method for SED_CLAY, resulting in: rem SED_CLAY [g] / cum SED_CLAY [g] = 0.999. This shows that bufferStrip1 removed significantly more clay than trench1. The graph below demonstrates this calculation for each pollutant across all the treatment devices: <br> <pre>rem SED_CLAY [g] / cum SED_CLAY [g] = 1506257 / 107959 = 0.4 </pre> This matches the removal constant defined in the .tcc. In contrast, bufferStrip1 uses a table removal method for SED_CLAY, resulting in: rem SED_CLAY [g] / cum SED_CLAY [g] = 0.999. This shows that bufferStrip1 removed significantly more clay than trench1. The graph below demonstrates this calculation for each pollutant across all the treatment devices: <br> <br> [[File: image as described above. eg in onenote]]<br>

TUFLOW CATCH Tutorial M02 Results QGIS: Difference between revisions