Changeset 5322


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 14, 2008, 2:44:50 PM (17 years ago)
Author:
duncan
Message:

adding friction validation info

File:
1 edited

Legend:

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

    r5319 r5322  
    139139modelling (see \cite{Rigby2008}).
    140140
    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 non-breaking 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
     141The validity of other hydrodynamic models have been reported
     142elsewhere, with Hubbard and Dodd (2002) \cite{Hubbard02} providing an
     143excellent review of 1D and 2D models and associated validation
     144tests. They described the evolution of these models from fixed, nested
     145to adaptive grids and the ability of the solvers to cope with the
     146moving shoreline. They highlighted the difficulty in verify the
     147nonlinear shallow water equations themselves as the only standard
     148analytical solution is that of Carrier and Greenspan (1958)
     149\cite{Carrier58} that is strictly for non-breaking waves. Further,
     150whilst there is a 2D analytic solution from Thacker (1981), it appears
     151that the circular island wave tank example of Briggs et al will become
    151152the standard data set to verify the equations.
    152153
     
    155156present an exhaustive validation of the numerical model. Further to these tests, we will
    156157incorporate a test to verify friction values. The six tests are:
     158
    157159(1) verification against the 1D analytical solution of Carrier and Greenspan;
    158160(2) testing against 1D (flume) data sets to verify wave height and velocity
     
    166168%whilst the mesh can be refined, it is based on rectangular mesh.
    167169
    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}.
     170The \ANUGA{} model and numerical scheme is briefly described in
     171section~\ref{sec:model}.  A detailed description of the numerical
     172scheme and software implementation can be found in the MODSIM, CTAC
     173etc papers. The six case studies to validation and verify \ANUGA{}
     174will be presented in section~\ref{sec:validation}, with the
     175conclusions outlined in section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
    173176
    174177{\bf question - if the Okushiri result has already been presented in the
     
    492495
    493496\subsection{Stage and Velocity Validation in a Flume}
    494 This section will describe flume tank experiments that were
     497This section will describe tilting flume tank experiments that were
    495498conducted at the Gordon McKay Hydraulics Laboratory at the University of
    496499Queensland that confirm \ANUGA{}'s ability to estimate wave height
     
    502505in wide, and 0.4m deep, with a PVC bottom. The reservoir in the flume
    503506was 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 flows
     507deep. At time zero the reservoir gate is manually opened and the water flows
    505508into the other side of the flume.  The water ran up a flume slope of
    5065090.03 m/m.  To accurately model the bed surface a Manning's friction
     
    551554\subsection{1D flume tank to verify friction}
    552555
    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.
     556The same tilting flume tank was used to validate stage and velocity
     557was used to validate the ANUGA friction model. A ground slope of 1:20,
     558reservior lenght of 0.85m and damn depth of 0.4 m was used to verify
     559the friction. The PVC bottom of the tank is equivalent to a friction
     560value of 0.01. Depth sensors were placed 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 m
     561from the bed gate.
     562
    560563 
    561 As described in the model equations in \section~\ref{sec:model}, the bed
    562 friction is modelled using the Manning's model.
     564As described in the model equations in ~\ref{sec:model}, the bed
     565friction is modelled using the Manning's model. {\bf Add the formula}
    563566Validation of this model was carried out by comparing results
    564567from ANUGA against experimental results from flume wave tanks.
    565568 
     569This experiment was simulated twice by ANUGA: without using the
     570friction model {\bf Duncan: It really used the friction model, with a
     571value of 0.0, representing no friction model.  Is it ok to say
     572'without using the model?'} and using the friction model with a
     573Manning's friction value of 0.01.  The results from both of these
     574simulations were compared against the experimental flume tank results
     575using the Root Mean Square Relative Error (RMSRE). The RMSRE was
     576summed over all of the depth sensors, for the first 30 seconds of the
     577experiment.
     578
     579
    566580% Validation UQ friction
    567581% at X:\anuga_validation\uq_friction_2007
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.