Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 4, 2008, 9:20:36 AM (14 years ago)
Author:
sexton
Message:

(1) update to validation paper - references and loose text and (2) update to urs2sts testing

File:
1 edited

Legend:

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

    r5371 r5599  
    6262\ead{Matthew.Barnes@uq.edu.au}
    6363
    64 \address[GA]{Natural Hazard Impacts Project,
     64\address[GA]{Georisk Project,
    6565 Geospatial and Earh Monitoring Division,
    6666 Geoscience Australia, Canberra, Australia}
     
    152152tests. They described the evolution of these models from fixed, nested
    153153to adaptive grids and the ability of the solvers to cope with the
    154 moving shoreline. They highlighted the difficulty in verify the
     154moving shoreline. They highlighted the difficulty in verifying the
    155155nonlinear shallow water equations themselves as the only standard
    156156analytical solution is that of \citet{Carrier58} that is strictly for
     
    201201conclusions outlined in section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
    202202
     203NOTE: This is just a brain dump at the moment and needs to be incorporated properly
     204in the text somewhere.
     205
     206Need some discussion on Bousssinesq type models - Boussinesq equations get the
     207nonlinearity and dispersive effects to a high degree of accuracy
     208
     209moving wet-dry boundary algorithms - applicability to coastal engineering
     210
     211Fuhrman and Madesn 2008 \cite{Fuhrman2008}do validation - they have a Boussinesq type
     212model, finite
     213difference (therefore needing a supercomputer), 4th order, four stage RK time stepping
     214scheme.
     215 
     216their tests are (1) nonlinear run-up on periodic and transient waves on a sloping
     217beach with excellent comparison to analytic solutions (2) 2d parabolic basin
     218(3) solitary wave evolution through 2d triangular channel (4) solitary wave evolution on
     219conical island (we need to compare to their computation time and note they use a
     220vertical exaggeration for their images)
     221
     222excellent accuracy mentioned - but what is it - what does it mean?
     223
     224of interest is that they mention mass conservation and calculate it throughout the simulations
     225
     226Kim et al \cite{DaiHong2007} use Riemann solver - talk about improved accuracy by using 2nd order upwind
     227scheme. Use finite volume on a structured mesh. Do parabolic basic and circular island. Needed?
     228
     229Delis et all 2008 \cite{Delis2008}- finite volume, Godunov-type explicit scheme coupled with Roe's
     230approximate Riemann solver. It accurately describes breaking waves as bores or hydraulic jumps
     231and conserves volume across flow discontinuties - is this just a result of finite volume?
     232
     233They also show mass conservation for most of the simulations
     234
     235similar range of validation tests that compare well - our job to compare to these as well
    203236
    204237\section{Mathematical model, numerical scheme and implementation}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.