TUFLOW 2D Hydraulic Structures: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 11:
= 2D Bridge Modelling in TUFLOW =
The TUFLOW 2D solution automatically predicts the majority of “macro” losses due to the expansion and contraction of water through a constriction, or around a bend, provided the resolution of the grid is sufficiently fine ([http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Flow%20Through%20an%20Abrupt%20Constriction%20-%202D%20Hydrodynamic%20Performance%20and%20Influence%20of%20Spatial%20Resolution,%20Barton,%202001.pdf Barton, 2001]; [http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Publications/Modelling%20of%20Bends%20and%20Hydraulic%20Structures%20in%20a%202D%20Scheme,%20Syme,%202001.pdf Syme, 2001]; [http://www.tuflow.com/Download/Technical_Memos/Modelling%20Bridge%20Piers%20in%202D%20using%20TUFLOW.pdf Ryan, 2013]). Where the 2D model is not of fine enough resolution to simulate the “micro” losses (e.g. from bridge piers, vena contracta, losses in the vertical (3rd) dimension), additional form loss coefficients and/or modifications to the cells widths and flow height need to be added. 2D flow constriction commands/layers are the recommended approach for this purpose:
* <font color="blue">Read GIS FC Shape</font> <font color="red">==</font>
* <font color="blue">Read GIS Layered FC Shape</font> <font color="red">==</font>
[[File:FC_Velocity_Example.PNG|600px]] [[File:FC_Graph_Example.PNG|500px]]
Line 32:
</li>
<li> Flow widths (conversely, blockage factors) and flow height should be updated in the <font color="blue">
<li>The head loss across key structures should be reviewed, and if necessary, benchmarked against other methods (Recorded calibration data, HEC-RAS). Note that a well-designed 2D model will be more accurate than a 1D model, provided that any “micro” losses are incorporated.</li>
<li>TUFLOW check files should also be reviewed to confirm that the correct form losses are being applied.</li>
| |||