Changeset 5698 for anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex

Timestamp:

Aug 27, 2008, 3:47:27 PM (16 years ago)

Author:

duncan

Message:

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

File:

• anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex (modified) (9 diffs)

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex

@@ -556 +556 @@
 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.
@@ -564 +564 @@
 
 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
@@ -572 +572 @@
 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}
@@ -598 +596 @@
     
     % 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
     
 
@@ -616 +614 @@
 
  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
 
@@ -630 +628 @@
 
  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.
  
@@ -652 +650 @@
 \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
@@ -667 +665 @@
 
 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]
@@ -702 +699 @@
 \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}.
+