5. Results

z
BEFORE THE FACE TO FACE
a

That is the schedule before the face to face. Each two weeks, we have done a technical report about GIS analysis, hydrological modelling and 1D, 2D hydraulic modelling.



Here, our results are presented. Results before the face to face meeting. You can just click on the title of the part or the picture.


https://sites.google.com/a/aquacloud.net/17he02/Results/gis-analysis


https://sites.google.com/a/aquacloud.net/17he02/Results/hydrological-analysis


https://sites.google.com/a/aquacloud.net/17he02/Results/hydrological-modelling



https://sites.google.com/a/aquacloud.net/17he02/Results/2d-hydraulic-modelling-1


https://sites.google.com/a/aquacloud.net/17he02/Results/2d-hydraulic-modelling




ff
WEEK 1 : WHEN COMBINIG 1D/2D MODELS
AND ADDED VALUE?
(in using Mike SHE, Mike 11 Mike 21)

The purpose is to know when we can combining 1D and 2D models to simulate the 1994 flood event and the added value of the combining softwares. The assumption is the combinaison product more accuracy results than 2D softwares as Mike 21 for example. So the 1D model (Mike 11) is very accurate and it haven't instabilities at the difference of Mike 21 and it can complete this representation in two dimensions using Mike Flood. We also coupling Mike SHE (hydrological model) with Mike 11 (hydraulic software) and compare to Mike Flood using the same parameters as Strickler coefficient and the DEM 75 x 75 m resolution.




 
WEEK 2 : RESULTS COMPARISON WITH MIKE 11, MIKE 21, MIKE 21 FM, ISIS, HEC Ras & Mascaret/Telemac


The purpose of this week is simply to compare our different results of seven softwares. So to work efficiently, we made some assumptions : reduce the area of computing, so we just simulate 500m of river from the airport, computing without the Napoleon III bridge and no calibrate our model because it takes too long time. Moreover, we choose to work on the 2011 flood event because of the data precision (water level at the "La Manda" bridge), we simulate with a DEM of 15m resolution to be accurate and to avoid the time of computing and we all choose a Strickler coefficient at 20 to approach the reality.

                                                 => Results here !