# Changeset 5698

Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 27, 2008, 3:47:27 PM (14 years ago)
Message:

Hinwood - continuing fix for line overrunning graph in anuga report, plus words for the report

Files:
12 edited

Unmodified
Removed
• ## anuga_validation/Hinwood_2008/calc_rmsd.py

 r5696 #scenarios = [scenarios[0]] # !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! outputdir_tag = "_nolmts_wdth_0.1_z_0.0_ys_0.5_mta_0.01_A" outputdir_tag = "_nolmts_wdth_0.1_z_0.0_ys_0.01_mta_0.01_A" calc_norms = True #calc_norms = False
• ## anuga_work/development/Hinwood_2008/calc_norm.py

 r5697 outputdir_tags = [] outputdir_tags.append("_lmts_wdth_0.1_z_0.0_ys_0.01_mta_0.01_I") outputdir_tags.append("_nolmts_wdth_0.1_z_0.0_ys_0.01_mta_0.01_I") #outputdir_tag = "_test_limiterC" #scenarios = [scenarios[0]] # !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• ## anuga_work/development/Hinwood_2008/plot.py

 r5697 time_sim) time_sim = compress(condition_sim, time_sim) condition_exp = get_max_min_condition_array(run_data['wave_times'][0], run_data['wave_times'][1], time_exp) time_exp = compress(condition_exp, time_exp) if is_interactive: # Trim the simulation data, due to strange anuga paper bug quantity_sim = compress(condition_sim, quantity_sim) quantity_exp = compress(condition_exp, quantity_exp)
• ## anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex

 r5680 To explicitly determine if ANUGA can model waves after breaking several experiments were conducted at the Monash University Institute for Sustainable Water Resources using a wave flume.  The experiment was designed to produce a variety of breaking waves.  The experiment was Sustainable Water Resources using a wave flume.  The experiments were designed to produce a variety of breaking waves.  The experiments were conducted on a 2.5$^\circ$ and a 1.5$^\circ$ plane beach slope set-up in a glass-sided wave flume of 40m in length, 1.0m wide and 1.6m deep. Four scenarios with different combinations of wave height and wave period were used, with each scenario being repeated once. A variety of measurements were taken during the simulation.  Mid-depth were used, with each test being repeated. A variety of measurements were taken during each test.  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 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 scenario 2, for which the first 3 waves did not break.  Scenario 1 produced plunging breakers.  Scenario 3 waves breaking; accept for scenario 2, for which the first 3 waves did not break.  Scenario 1 produced plunging breakers.  Scenario 3 produced collapsing breakers.  All other scenarios produced spilling breakers. Details of the tests performed are given in Table \ref{tab:hinwoodSummary}. breakers.  Details of the tests performed are given in Table \ref{tab:hinwoodSummary}. \begin{table} % Mapping of new names to old names % T1R2 T1R3 % T1R1  T1R5 % T2R1  T2R7 % T2R2   T2R8 % T3R2  T3R28 % T3R1    T3R29 % T4R2  T4R31 % T4R1  T4R32 % S1R2 T1R3 % S1R1  T1R5 % S2R1  T2R7 % S2R2   T2R8 % S3R2  T3R28 % S3R1    T3R29 % S4R2  T4R31 % S4R1  T4R32 All of these tests were simulated using ANUGA. The Mid-depth water velocity and wave height measured on the approach section were as boundary conditions for the ANUGA simulations.  For both the experimental and simulation results the zero data was the still water line. The origin of the x coordinate is the toe of the beach, x measured positive shorewards 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) velocity and wave height measured on the approach section were used as boundary conditions for the ANUGA simulations.  The origin of the z coordinate was the still water line, positive upwards. The origin of the x coordinate was the toe of the beach, x measured positive shorewards 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 Figures \ref{fig:S1-rmsd} to \ref{fig:S4-rmsd} show the RMSD of each sensor in four tests and the location where each wave broke.  The sensor for all tests and the location where each wave broke.  The RMSD is calculated over the time of the experiment. \caption{RMSD of stage between the wave tank and ANUGA for S3R1 and S3R2. Horizontal lines represent the x location of breaking waves. Circles represent gauges shown in \ref{fig:S3-stage-compares}} The circles represent gauges shown in \ref{fig:S3-stage-compares}} % More, circles represent gauges shown in %\protect{\ref{fig:S3-stage-compares}} Again, circles represent gauges For a more direct comparision between the simulation and the experiment the stages at three gauges, generally the initial, final experiment the water stages at three gauges, generally the initial, final and worst fit, were compared in Figures \ref{fig:S1-stage-compare} to \ref{fig:S4-stage-compare}. \ref{fig:S4-stage-compare}. \begin{figure}[htbp] \label{fig:S4-stage-compare} \end{figure} Overall these results show an excellent level of agreement between predicted and measured stage.  The RMSD figures generally show a decrease in accuracy, the further the gauge is from the initial condition, untill wave breaking.  Generally after wave breaking the RMSD value decreases. This is a clear indication of ANUGA accurately predicting the stage after the wave has broken.  There are several points worth emphasising here.  Overall all of the RMSD values are good.  There is not much difference between the worst and best gauges (-0.7 m and 5.6m) for S1R1, for example.  A decrease in RMSD does not necesarily mean the accuracy of ANUGA is improving.  For example, in S4R1 the drop in RMSD between gauges 7.6 and 11.6 is partially due to vertical water motion effecting gauge 7.6 and a decrease in the time period where waves are being measured, as oppossed to still water, for gauge 11.6.  Additionally, sensors near the wave run-up have a lower amplitude than the wave at breaking, which can result in a low RMSD, which may not be the case if the results were relative, see gauge 5.6 and 7.6 \ref{fig:S1-stage-compare}.
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.