Index: /anuga_validation/UQ_runup_2006/RE sensitivity results SECUNCLASSIFIED.htm =================================================================== --- /anuga_validation/UQ_runup_2006/RE sensitivity results SECUNCLASSIFIED.htm (revision 4678) +++ /anuga_validation/UQ_runup_2006/RE sensitivity results SECUNCLASSIFIED.htm (revision 4678) @@ -0,0 +1,504 @@ + +
+ + + + +From: Matthew Barnes +[mbarnes@uq.edu.au]Hi Duncan,
++
I'm well thanks, but +busy once again now the teaching semester is well underway. Research is +certainly more productive when the undergrads are on holiday! How are you and +the family?
+
Please find attached the data
+requested. Details of the initial conditions are included in the excel
+file.
Please note:
I have other data sets of equal
+quality at various measurement locations and for bed slopes = 1:50; 1:20; and
+1:10. Let me know if you would like anything further.
Cheers,
Matt.
Hi Matt,
+How are you going?
++
About a year ago you sent these +results comparing an experiment against an ANUGA simulation.
++
Could you send up the data and the +scripts used to create the simulations? Ole is considering a new flux +limiter and this is the best dataset to validate the new limiters against, but +we cant do the testing without the data.
++
Ill be away from the 27/8 18/9, +so it would be great if you could cc Ole into your reply.
++
Cheers
+Duncan
++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++
Attached is the sensitivity plot as +bitmap. The .emf extension stands for
+enhanced metafile. I usually save +Matlab plots that I plan to use for
+presentations in .emf format as the +compression is very good.
++
+
+
Enjoy NZ and speak to you +soon.
++
+
+
Matt.
++
+
+
+
+
Matthew Barnes
++
PhD Research Scholar, Dept. Civil +Engineering (Coastal Engineering)
++
The University of +Queensland, +Brisbane QLD 4072, +Australia
++
Ph: +61 7 3365 +4170
++
Email: +<mailto:mbarnes@uq.edu.au> mbarnes@uq.edu.au
++
http://www.uq.edu.au/coastal/main.htm
++
-----Original +Message-----
+From: Duncan.Gray@ga.gov.au +[mailto:Duncan.Gray@ga.gov.au]
+Sent: Wednesday, 13 September +2006 10:21 +AM
+To: +mbarnes@uq.edu.au
+Subject: RE:
++
+
+
Hi Matt,
++
Thanks for sending the files. +I suspect the unrealistic values would be due
+to the drop to the catchment not +being vertical. 2.0 m is at the bottom of
+the catchment. I think 1.99 +would be on the slope down. This could be why
+the water has high velocity in the +x. You're right as well, when you note
+that in ANUGA the water does not +project over the edge.
++
+
+
Actually, with regards to the files, +the velocity and depth files had no
+extension. I added .csv and +could open them in excel. I can't open the
+sensitivity file. I don't know +what application uses the extension .emf.
+Maybe this info could be sent as an +.xls file?
++
+
+
It's great that the simulated shear +stress compares well to the measured
+shear stress. +
++
+
+
Hope it goes well in +Japan and the Uni of +Aberdeen. I'll be in New Zealand
+next week.
++
+
+
Cheers
++
Duncan
++
+
+
--------------------------------------------
+Duncan +Gray +Software Engineer
+Risk Research +Group P: +61 2 6249 9077
+Geoscience Australia F: +61 2 6249 +9986
+E-mail: +Duncan.Gray@ga.gov.au +
+-------------------------------------------- +
++
-----Original +Message-----
+From: Matthew Barnes +[mailto:mbarnes@uq.edu.au]
+Sent: Tuesday, 12 September +2006 5:45 +
+To: Gray Duncan
+Subject:
++
Hi Duncan,
++
+
+
I hope you're well. I've attached a +few files that may be of interest.
++
+
+
The velocity x, velocity y, and +depth overtop files refer to the UQ dam with
+overtopping at the edge into a +catchment. Gauge points are at the flume edge
+(2.0), 0.01 m back from the edge +(1.99) and 0.1 m back from the edge (1.9).
+The modelled velocities and depths +close the edge (2.0 & 1.99) are
+unrealistic. I assume this is due to +ANUGA modelling the overtopping flow as
+"falling" down into the catchment +rather than "projecting" over the edge as
+the observed overtopping behaves. +Model data comparisons with a Dirichlet
+boundary at the edge are much +better.
++
+
+
The ANUGA sensitivity file is for +the same initial conditions (horizontal
+PVC bed, depth 0.2) but varying +Manning's n. The depth and velocity
+model/data comparisons for the +smaller n values are excellent. Predicting a
+shear stress using the modelled +velocity and allowing the Darcy friction
+factor f to vary (an approach I hope +will work for the swash) also compares
+well with the shear stress measured +by the shear plate. I'm very happy with
+this result!
++
+
+
I'll be away for the next couple of +months, but will continue working with
+ANUGA. I'll keep you posted with any +interesting comparisons.
++
+
+
Cheers,
++
+
+
Matt.
++
+
+
Matthew Barnes
++
PhD Research Scholar, Dept. Civil +Engineering (Coastal Engineering)
++
The University of +Queensland, +Brisbane QLD 4072, +Australia
++
Ph: +61 7 3365 +4170
++
Email: +<mailto:mbarnes@uq.edu.au> mbarnes@uq.edu.au
++
http://www.uq.edu.au/coastal/main.htm
++
+
+
+
+
+
--------------------------------------------
Duncan
+Gray
+Software Engineer
Risk Research
+Group P: +61 2 6249 9077
Geoscience
+Australia F: +61 2 6249 9986
E-mail:
+Duncan.Gray@ga.gov.au
--------------------------------------------
+