FMA Challenge 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 156:
In conclusion, we would surmise that some of the key embankments within the study area either did not exist at the time of the 1964 event or were of a lower height or configuration.
[[File:Critical_Embankment3.jpg|600px]]
[[File:Critical_Embankment4.jpg|600px]]
The data was much easier to work with than the first challenge!
No unexpected “challenges” for Challenge 2, but it is worth noting the challenges that arise in calibration exercises. Sometimes there is an expectation that models should be able to reproduce recorded levels to within a very small tolerance. In these situations there needs to be a good understanding/appreciation by both the client and the modeler of the uncertainties and reasons for discrepancies; and the acceptable tolerances between the modeling and recorded observations accordingly set.
| |||