Changeset 5668

Timestamp:

Aug 19, 2008, 2:51:19 PM (15 years ago)

Author:

duncan

Message:

add rmsd graphs to anuga paper

Location:

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007

Files:

• T1_rmsd.pdf (added)
• T2_rmsd.pdf (added)
• T3_rmsd.pdf (added)
• T4_rmsd.pdf (added)
• anuga-bibliography.bib (modified) (1 diff)
• anuga_validation.tex (modified) (3 diffs)

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga-bibliography.bib

@@ -419 +419 @@
 JOURNAL = {Ocean Engineering},
 }
+
+@ARTICLE{Kobayshi2000,
+AUTHOR = {Kazuhiko Kobayashi and Moin Us Salam},
+TITLE = {Comparing Simulated and Measured Values Using Mean Squared Deviation and its Compenents},
+YEAR = {2000},
+volume = {92},
+pages = {345-352},
+JOURNAL = {Agronomy Journal},
+}

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex

@@ -566 +566 @@
 were used, with each test being repeated once.
 
-A variety of measurements were taken during the simulation.  The wave
-height at breaking, when present, were measured using a video
-recorder. Mid-depth water velocity and wave height were measured on
-the approach section.  The water height at several points along the
-flume were measured using pressure transducers.
+A variety of measurements were taken during the simulation.  Mid-depth
+water velocity and wave height were measured on the approach section.
+The water height at several points along the flume were measured using
+pressure transducers. The wave profile was video recorded, this
+determined the location of breaking waves. All the tests produced 4 to
+7 waves.  Generally the first wave did not break, with subsequent
+waves breaking; accept for T2R1 and T2R2, for which the first 3 waves
+did not break.
 
 Details of the tests performed are given in Table \ref{tab:hinwoodSummary}.
@@ -582 +585 @@
     Test Name & Beach slope nominal, \emph{degrees}   & Water depth offshore,
     \emph{mm } & Wave frequency nominal, \emph{Hz}  \\ \hline
-    T1R3 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.200 \\ \hline
-    T1R5 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.200 \\ \hline
-    T2R7 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.125 \\ \hline
-    T2R8 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.125 \\ \hline
-    T3R28 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.200 \\ \hline
-    T3R29 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.200 \\ \hline
-    T4R31 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.125 \\ \hline
-    T4R32 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.125 \\ \hline
+    T1R1 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.200 \\ \hline
+    T1R2 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.200 \\ \hline
+    T2R1 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.125 \\ \hline
+    T2R2 & 3.5 & 400 & 0.125 \\ \hline
+    T3R1 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.200 \\ \hline
+    T3R2 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.200 \\ \hline
+    T4R1 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.125 \\ \hline
+    T4R2 & 1.5 & 336 & 0.125 \\ \hline
+    
+    % Mapping of new names to old names
+    % T1R2 T1R3 
+    % T1R1  T1R5 
+    % T2R1  T2R7 
+    % T2R2   T2R8 
+    % T3R2  T3R28
+    % T3R1    T3R29
+    % T4R2  T4R31
+    % T4R1  T4R32
+    
+
     
   \end{tabular}
@@ -601 +616 @@
 as boundary conditions for the ANUGA simulations.  For both the
 experimental and simulation results the zero data was the still water
-line.  To quantify the difference between the simulated stage and the
-experimental stage the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD)
-(\cite{Kobayshi2000}) was used 
+line.  A Manning's friction coefficient of zero was used.  To quantify
+the difference between the simulated stage and the experimental stage
+the Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) (\cite{Kobayshi2000}) was used
 
 \[
 RMSD =\sqrt {\frac{1 }{n} \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}{(x_i - y_i)}^2}
 \]
+
+Figures \ref{fig:} to \ref{fig:} show the RMSD of each sensor and the
+location where each wave broke.
+
+
+
+
+