Changeset 5322
 Timestamp:
 May 14, 2008, 2:44:50 PM (16 years ago)
 File:

 1 edited
Legend:
 Unmodified
 Added
 Removed

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex
r5319 r5322 139 139 modelling (see \cite{Rigby2008}). 140 140 141 The validity of other hydrodynamic models have been reported elsewhere, 142 with Hubbard and Dodd (2002) \cite{Hubbard02} providing 143 an excellent review of 1D and 2D models and associated validation tests. They 144 described the evolution of these models from fixed, nested to adaptive grids 145 and the ability of the solvers to cope with the moving shoreline. They highlighted the 146 difficulty in verify the nonlinear shallow water equations themselves as the only 147 standard analytical solution is that of Carrier and Greenspan (1958) 148 \cite{Carrier58} that is strictly 149 for nonbreaking waves. Further, whilst there is a 2D analytic solution from Thacker (1981), it 150 appears that the circular island wave tank example of Briggs et al will become 141 The validity of other hydrodynamic models have been reported 142 elsewhere, with Hubbard and Dodd (2002) \cite{Hubbard02} providing an 143 excellent review of 1D and 2D models and associated validation 144 tests. They described the evolution of these models from fixed, nested 145 to adaptive grids and the ability of the solvers to cope with the 146 moving shoreline. They highlighted the difficulty in verify the 147 nonlinear shallow water equations themselves as the only standard 148 analytical solution is that of Carrier and Greenspan (1958) 149 \cite{Carrier58} that is strictly for nonbreaking waves. Further, 150 whilst there is a 2D analytic solution from Thacker (1981), it appears 151 that the circular island wave tank example of Briggs et al will become 151 152 the standard data set to verify the equations. 152 153 … … 155 156 present an exhaustive validation of the numerical model. Further to these tests, we will 156 157 incorporate a test to verify friction values. The six tests are: 158 157 159 (1) verification against the 1D analytical solution of Carrier and Greenspan; 158 160 (2) testing against 1D (flume) data sets to verify wave height and velocity … … 166 168 %whilst the mesh can be refined, it is based on rectangular mesh. 167 169 168 The \ANUGA{} model and numerical scheme is briefly described in section~\ref{sec:model}. 169 A detailed description of the numerical scheme and software implementation can be found in 170 the MODSIM, CTAC etc papers. The six case studies to validation and verify \ANUGA{} will be 171 presented in section~\ref{sec:validation}, with the conclusions 172 outlined in section~\ref{sec:conclusions}. 170 The \ANUGA{} model and numerical scheme is briefly described in 171 section~\ref{sec:model}. A detailed description of the numerical 172 scheme and software implementation can be found in the MODSIM, CTAC 173 etc papers. The six case studies to validation and verify \ANUGA{} 174 will be presented in section~\ref{sec:validation}, with the 175 conclusions outlined in section~\ref{sec:conclusions}. 173 176 174 177 {\bf question  if the Okushiri result has already been presented in the … … 492 495 493 496 \subsection{Stage and Velocity Validation in a Flume} 494 This section will describe flume tank experiments that were497 This section will describe tilting flume tank experiments that were 495 498 conducted at the Gordon McKay Hydraulics Laboratory at the University of 496 499 Queensland that confirm \ANUGA{}'s ability to estimate wave height … … 502 505 in wide, and 0.4m deep, with a PVC bottom. The reservoir in the flume 503 506 was 0.75m long. For this experiment the reservoir water was 0.2m 504 deep. At time zero the reservoir gate is opened and the water flows507 deep. At time zero the reservoir gate is manually opened and the water flows 505 508 into the other side of the flume. The water ran up a flume slope of 506 509 0.03 m/m. To accurately model the bed surface a Manning's friction … … 551 554 \subsection{1D flume tank to verify friction} 552 555 553 The same flume tank experimental setup was used to obtain friction554 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. 556 The same tilting flume tank was used to validate stage and velocity 557 was used to validate the ANUGA friction model. A ground slope of 1:20, 558 reservior lenght of 0.85m and damn depth of 0.4 m was used to verify 559 the friction. The PVC bottom of the tank is equivalent to a friction 560 value of 0.01. Depth sensors were placed 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 m 561 from the bed gate. 562 560 563 561 As described in the model equations in \section~\ref{sec:model}, the bed562 friction is modelled using the Manning's model. 564 As described in the model equations in ~\ref{sec:model}, the bed 565 friction is modelled using the Manning's model. {\bf Add the formula} 563 566 Validation of this model was carried out by comparing results 564 567 from ANUGA against experimental results from flume wave tanks. 565 568 569 This experiment was simulated twice by ANUGA: without using the 570 friction model {\bf Duncan: It really used the friction model, with a 571 value of 0.0, representing no friction model. Is it ok to say 572 'without using the model?'} and using the friction model with a 573 Manning's friction value of 0.01. The results from both of these 574 simulations were compared against the experimental flume tank results 575 using the Root Mean Square Relative Error (RMSRE). The RMSRE was 576 summed over all of the depth sensors, for the first 30 seconds of the 577 experiment. 578 579 566 580 % Validation UQ friction 567 581 % at X:\anuga_validation\uq_friction_2007
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.