Changeset 5641


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 12, 2008, 3:51:21 PM (16 years ago)
Author:
duncan
Message:

removing the friction model validation

Location:
anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007
Files:
1 deleted
1 edited

Legend:

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

    r5599 r5641  
    439439
    440440
    441 \subsection{1D flume tank to verify friction}
    442 \label{sec:friction}
    443 The same tilting flume tank was used to validate stage and velocity
    444 was used to validate the ANUGA friction model. A ground slope of 1:20,
    445 reservior lenght of 0.85m and damn depth of 0.4 m was used to verify
    446 the friction. The PVC bottom of the tank is equivalent to a friction
    447 value of 0.01.  {\bf Add ref } Depth sensors were placed 0.2, 0.3,
    448 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 m from the bed gate.
    449 
    450  
    451 As described in the model equations in ~\ref{sec:model}, the bed
    452 friction is modelled using the Manning's model. {\bf Add the formula}
    453 Validation of this model was carried out by comparing results
    454 from ANUGA against experimental results from flume wave tanks.
    455  
    456 This experiment was simulated twice by ANUGA: without using the
    457 friction model {\bf Duncan says: It really used the friction model, with a
    458 value of 0.0, representing no friction model.  Is it ok to say
    459 'without using the model?'} and using the friction model with a
    460 Manning's friction value of 0.01.  The results from both of these
    461 simulations were compared against the experimental flume tank results
    462 using the Root Mean Square Relative Error (RMSRE). The RMSRE was
    463 summed over all of the depth sensors, for the first 30 seconds of the
    464 experiment.  This resulted in one number which represents the error
    465 between tow data sets, with a lower number representing less
    466 differences.  The RMSRE for no friction model was 0.380, the RMSRE for
    467 the friction model with a Manning's friction value of 0.01 was
    468 0.358. So for this experiment using a friction value given from a
    469 standard fricition table improved the accuracy of the ANUGA
    470 simulation.  {\bf Add ref to table}
    471 
    472 % Validation UQ friction
    473 % at X:\anuga_validation\uq_friction_2007
    474 % run run_dam.py to create sww file and .csv files
    475 % run plot.py to create graphs, and move them here
    476 \begin{figure}[htbp]
    477 \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4in]{uq-friction-depth}}
    478 \caption{Comparison of wave tank and ANUGA water height at .4 m
    479   from the gate, simulated using a Mannings friction of 0.0 and
    480   0.1.}\label{fig:uq-friction-depth}
    481 \end{figure}
    482 
    483441\subsection{Okushiri Wavetank Validation}
    484442\label{sec:okushiri}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.