Changeset 5318
 Timestamp:
 May 14, 2008, 11:38:09 AM (16 years ago)
 File:

 1 edited
Legend:
 Unmodified
 Added
 Removed

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex
r5316 r5318 536 536 537 537 Figure~\ref{fig:uqflumedepth} shows that ANUGA predicts the actual 538 water depth very well, with the exception of the fluid tipregion {\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:uqflumevelocity) 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 538 water depth very well, although there is an initial drop in water depth 539 within the first second that is not simulated by ANUGA. 540 Water depth and velocity are coupled as described by the nonlinear 541 shallow water equations, thus if one of these quantities accurately 542 estimates the measured values, we would expect the same for the other 543 quantity. This is demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig:uqflumevelocity} 544 where the water velocity is also predicted accurately. Sediment 545 transport studies rely on water velocity estimates in the region where 546 the sensors cannot provide this data. With water velocity being 547 accurately predicted, studies such as sediment transport can now use 546 548 reliable estimates. 547 549 … … 549 551 \subsection{1D flume tank to verify friction} 550 552 551 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. 553 The same flume tank experimental setup was used to obtain friction 554 values for use in hydrodynamic models. A number of bed friction 555 scenarios were simulated in the flume tank. The PVC bottom of the tank 556 is equivalent to a friction value of 0 (i.e completely smooth) and 557 small pebbles were used to cover the base of the tank and the aim of 558 the experiment was to determine what the Manning's friction value is 559 for this case. 557 560 558 561 As described in the model equations in \section~\ref{sec:model}, the bed … … 568 571 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4in]{uqfrictiondepth}} 569 572 \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:uqfrictiondepth} 573 from the gate, simulated using a Mannings friction of 0.0 and 574 0.1.}\label{fig:uqfrictiondepth} 571 575 \end{figure} 572 576
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.