Changeset 5718

Timestamp:

Aug 29, 2008, 4:43:32 PM (17 years ago)

Author:

ole

Message:

Added comments to validation paper after talking to Duncan

Location:

anuga_work

Files:

• development/boxingday08/project.py (modified) (1 diff)
• publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex (modified) (2 diffs)

anuga_work/development/boxingday08/project.py

@@ -99 +99 @@
 patong_bay_polygon = read_polygon(dir+sep+'patong_bay_polygon.csv')
     
-tide=0.15
+tide=0.80 # Tide at Phuket at XXam adjusted to MSL
 
 ######################################

anuga_work/publications/anuga_2007/anuga_validation.tex

@@ -551 +551 @@
 \end{figure}
 
-
+\clearpage
 \subsection{Flume tank validation before and after breaking waves}
+
+% The Hinwood report is in TRIM: D2008-97610 and in georisk_model/inundation/data/flumes/Hinwood2008
+% Photo material is photos_movies under that directory
 
 To explicitly determine if ANUGA can model waves after breaking
@@ -713 +716 @@
 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
+to vertical water motion effecting gauge 7.6 (vertical water motion creates 
+an artificial pressure spike which is not representative of the physical wave 
+(Michael Hughes)) and a decrease in the
+time period where waves are being measured, as opposed to still
+water, for gauge 11.6 (Comment: This means that due the late arrival 
+of the wave most of the comparison will have very low RMSD error). 
+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,