Changeset 5318


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 14, 2008, 11:38:09 AM (16 years ago)
Author:
duncan
Message:

update

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex

    r5316 r5318  
    536536
    537537Figure~\ref{fig:uq-flume-depth} shows that ANUGA predicts the actual
    538 water depth very well, with the exception of the fluid tip-region {\bf
    539 Duncan - what does that mean? About where on the graph is that).
    540 Water depth and velocity are coupled as described by the nonlinear shallow water equations, thus
    541 if one of these quantities accurately estimates the measured values, we would expect
    542 the same for the other quantity. This is demonstrated in figure~\ref{fig:uq-flume-velocity)
    543 where the water velocity is also predicted accurately. Sediment transport studies
    544 rely on water velocity estimates in the region where the sensors cannot provide this data.
    545 With water velocity being accurately predicted, studies such as sediment transport can now use
     538water depth very well, although there is an initial drop in water depth
     539within the first second that is not simulated by ANUGA.
     540Water depth and velocity are coupled as described by the nonlinear
     541shallow water equations, thus if one of these quantities accurately
     542estimates the measured values, we would expect the same for the other
     543quantity. This is demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:uq-flume-velocity}
     544where the water velocity is also predicted accurately. Sediment
     545transport studies rely on water velocity estimates in the region where
     546the sensors cannot provide this data.  With water velocity being
     547accurately predicted, studies such as sediment transport can now use
    546548reliable estimates.
    547549
     
    549551\subsection{1D flume tank to verify friction}
    550552
    551 The same flume tank experimental setup was used to obtain friction values for
    552 use in hydrodynamic models. A number of bed friction scenarios were simulated in
    553 the flume tank. The PVC bottom of the tank is equivalent to a friction value of 0 (i.e
    554 completely smooth) and small pebbles were used to cover the base of the tank and the
    555 aim of the experiment was to determine what the Manning's friction value is for
    556 this case.
     553The same flume tank experimental setup was used to obtain friction
     554values for use in hydrodynamic models. A number of bed friction
     555scenarios were simulated in the flume tank. The PVC bottom of the tank
     556is equivalent to a friction value of 0 (i.e completely smooth) and
     557small pebbles were used to cover the base of the tank and the aim of
     558the experiment was to determine what the Manning's friction value is
     559for this case.
    557560 
    558561As described in the model equations in \section~\ref{sec:model}, the bed
     
    568571\centerline{\includegraphics[width=4in]{uq-friction-depth}}
    569572\caption{Comparison of wave tank and \ANUGA{} water height at .4 m
    570   from the gate, simulated using a Mannings friction of 0.0 and 0.1.}\label{fig:uq-friction-depth}
     573  from the gate, simulated using a Mannings friction of 0.0 and
     574  0.1.}\label{fig:uq-friction-depth}
    571575\end{figure}
    572576
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.