Revision as of 12:00, 7 January 2015 view source Mitch3007 (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,585 edits →Model Calbration ← Older edit		Revision as of 12:02, 7 January 2015 view source Mitch3007 (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,585 edits →Simple Manning’s n / Topography Test Newer edit →
Line 46: ===Simple Manning’s n / Topography Test=== The initial runs were carried out using the same Manning’s n over the entire model over a coarse resolution grid and flexible mesh. ~~These runs were carried out using TUFLOW and TUFLOW GPU (30m grid), and TUFLOW FV (flexible mesh) models.~~ The topography for these runs did not include any special provision for incorporating the levee and road embankments. The elevation sampling of the DEM was simply based on inspecting the DEM at the models’ elevation points. At this stage no 3D breaklines along the embankment crests were used to ensure the crest of the elevation was correctly represented by the models’ elevations. Line 53 ⟶ 52: The Manning’s n used for the results provided was 0.035, which seems to give a reasonable first pass reproduction of the high water marks. A value of 0.035 is consistent with the global n value that would typically apply to this study area. Also of interest is the comparison between the ~~three~~two different 2D solvers ~~TUFLOW, TUFLOW’s GPU Module and TUFLOW FV (all three use a different solution technique). There is~~with generally good agreement between all three schemes. A high resolution .jpg image is provided in the ftp downloads for viewing the HWMs and results of these three simulations. Open “Images\FMA C2.n0.035.HWM All 2D Solvers.jpg” and zoom in and pan around to easily view the flow patterns (velocity arrows), water level contours every 0.2m (blue lines), depths (blue shading) and high water marks (red is the recorded value, light blue is TUFLOW, black is TUFLOW GPU and yellow is TUFLOW FV).

FMA Challenge 2: Difference between revisions