Changeset 5599 for anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex
 Timestamp:
 Aug 4, 2008, 9:20:36 AM (14 years ago)
 File:

 1 edited
Legend:
 Unmodified
 Added
 Removed

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex
r5371 r5599 62 62 \ead{Matthew.Barnes@uq.edu.au} 63 63 64 \address[GA]{ Natural Hazard ImpactsProject,64 \address[GA]{Georisk Project, 65 65 Geospatial and Earh Monitoring Division, 66 66 Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia} … … 152 152 tests. They described the evolution of these models from fixed, nested 153 153 to adaptive grids and the ability of the solvers to cope with the 154 moving shoreline. They highlighted the difficulty in verify the154 moving shoreline. They highlighted the difficulty in verifying the 155 155 nonlinear shallow water equations themselves as the only standard 156 156 analytical solution is that of \citet{Carrier58} that is strictly for … … 201 201 conclusions outlined in section~\ref{sec:conclusions}. 202 202 203 NOTE: This is just a brain dump at the moment and needs to be incorporated properly 204 in the text somewhere. 205 206 Need some discussion on Bousssinesq type models  Boussinesq equations get the 207 nonlinearity and dispersive effects to a high degree of accuracy 208 209 moving wetdry boundary algorithms  applicability to coastal engineering 210 211 Fuhrman and Madesn 2008 \cite{Fuhrman2008}do validation  they have a Boussinesq type 212 model, finite 213 difference (therefore needing a supercomputer), 4th order, four stage RK time stepping 214 scheme. 215 216 their tests are (1) nonlinear runup on periodic and transient waves on a sloping 217 beach with excellent comparison to analytic solutions (2) 2d parabolic basin 218 (3) solitary wave evolution through 2d triangular channel (4) solitary wave evolution on 219 conical island (we need to compare to their computation time and note they use a 220 vertical exaggeration for their images) 221 222 excellent accuracy mentioned  but what is it  what does it mean? 223 224 of interest is that they mention mass conservation and calculate it throughout the simulations 225 226 Kim et al \cite{DaiHong2007} use Riemann solver  talk about improved accuracy by using 2nd order upwind 227 scheme. Use finite volume on a structured mesh. Do parabolic basic and circular island. Needed? 228 229 Delis et all 2008 \cite{Delis2008} finite volume, Godunovtype explicit scheme coupled with Roe's 230 approximate Riemann solver. It accurately describes breaking waves as bores or hydraulic jumps 231 and conserves volume across flow discontinuties  is this just a result of finite volume? 232 233 They also show mass conservation for most of the simulations 234 235 similar range of validation tests that compare well  our job to compare to these as well 203 236 204 237 \section{Mathematical model, numerical scheme and implementation}
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.