Supplementary material to "DebrisInterMixing-2.3: a finite volume solver for three-dimensional debris-flow simulations with two calibration parameters – Part 2: Model validation"

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albrecht v. Boetticher ◽  
Jens M. Turowski ◽  
Brian W. McArdell ◽  
Dieter Rickenmann ◽  
Marcel Hürlimann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Model Validation ◽  
Finite Volume ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Flow Simulations ◽  
Supplementary Material ◽  
Calibration Parameters

Reducing Undesired Wave Reflection at Domain Boundaries in 3D Finite Volume-Based Flow Simulations via Forcing Zones

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-47
Author(s):  
Robinson Peric ◽  
Moustafa Abdel-Maksoud
Keyword(s):  
Finite Volume ◽  
Wave Reflection ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Navier Stokes ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Computational Domain ◽  
Wave Reflections ◽  
Flow Simulations ◽  
Large Eddy ◽  
Domain Boundaries

This article reviews different types of forcing zones (sponge layers, damping zones, relaxation zones, etc.) as used in finite volume-based flow simulations to reduce undesired wave reflections at domain boundaries, with special focus on the case of strongly reflecting bodies subjected to long-crested incidence waves. Limitations and possible sources of errors are discussed. A novel forcing-zone arrangement is presented and validated via three-dimensional (3D) flow simulations. Furthermore, a recently published theory for predicting the forcing-zone behavior was investigated with regard to its relevance for practical 3D hydrodynamics problems. It was found that the theory can be used to optimally tune the case-dependent parameters of the forcing zones before running the simulations. 1. Introduction Wave reflections at the boundaries of the computational domain can cause significant errors in flow simulations, and must therefore be reduced. In contrast to boundary element codes, where much progress in this respect has been made decades ago (see e.g., Clement 1996; Grilli &Horillo 1997), for finite volume-based flow solvers, there are many unresolved questions, especially:How to reliably reduce reflections and disturbances from the domain boundaries?How to predict the amount of undesired wave reflection before running the simulation? This work aims to provide further insight to these questions for flow simulations based on Navier-Stokes-type equations (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes, Euler equations, Large Eddy Simulations, etc.), when using forcing zones to reduce undesired reflections. The term "forcing zones" is used here to describe approaches that gradually force the solution in the vicinity of the boundary towards some reference solution, as described in Section 2; some examples are absorbing layers, sponge layers, damping zones, relaxation zones, or the Euler overlay method (Mayer et al. 1998; Park et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2006; Choi &Yoon 2009; Jacobsen et al. 2012; Kimet al. 2012; Schmitt & Elsaesser 2015; Perić & Abdel-Maksoud 2016a; Vukčević et al. 2016).

scholarly journals DebrisInterMixing-2.3: a finite volume solver for three-dimensional debris-flow simulations with two calibration parameters – Part 2: Model validation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albrecht v. Boetticher ◽  
Jens M. Turowski ◽  
Brian W. McArdell ◽  
Dieter Rickenmann ◽  
Marcel Hürlimann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Model Validation ◽  
Material Properties ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Fluid Dynamic ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Clay Content ◽  
Friction Angle ◽  
Angle Of Repose ◽  
Model Parameters

Abstract. Here we present validation tests of the fluid dynamic solver presented in in v. Boetticher et al. (2016), simulating both laboratory-scale and large-scale debris-flow experiments. The new solver combines a Coulomb viscosplastic rheological model with a Herschel-Bulkley model based on material properties and rheological characteristics of the analysed debris flow. For the selected experiments in this study, all necessary material properties were known – the content of sand, clay (including its mineral composition) and gravel (including its friction angle) as well as the water content. We show that given these measured properties, two model parameters are sufficient for calibration, and a range of experiments with different material compositions can be reproduced by the model without recalibration. One calibration parameter, the Herschel–Bulkley exponent, was kept constant for all simulations. The model validation focuses on different case studies illustrating the sensitivity of debris flows to water and clay content, channel curvature, channel roughness and the angle of repose. We characterize the accuracy of the model using experimental observations of flow head positions, front velocities, run-out patterns and basal pressures.

scholarly journals DebrisInterMixing-2.3: a finite volume solver for three-dimensional debris-flow simulations with two calibration parameters – Part 2: Model validation with experiments

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 3963-3978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albrecht von Boetticher ◽  
Jens M. Turowski ◽  
Brian W. McArdell ◽  
Dieter Rickenmann ◽  
Marcel Hürlimann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Model Validation ◽  
Material Properties ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Fluid Dynamic ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Clay Content ◽  
Angle Of Repose ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Channel Curvature

Abstract. Here, we present validation tests of the fluid dynamic solver presented in von Boetticher et al. (2016), simulating both laboratory-scale and large-scale debris-flow experiments. The new solver combines a Coulomb viscoplastic rheological model with a Herschel–Bulkley model based on material properties and rheological characteristics of the analyzed debris flow. For the selected experiments in this study, all necessary material properties were known – the content of sand, clay (including its mineral composition) and gravel as well as the water content and the angle of repose of the gravel. Given these properties, two model parameters are sufficient for calibration, and a range of experiments with different material compositions can be reproduced by the model without recalibration. One calibration parameter, the Herschel–Bulkley exponent, was kept constant for all simulations. The model validation focuses on different case studies illustrating the sensitivity of debris flows to water and clay content, channel curvature, channel roughness and the angle of repose. We characterize the accuracy of the model using experimental observations of flow head positions, front velocities, run-out patterns and basal pressures.

scholarly journals DebrisInterMixing-2.3: a Finite Volume solver for three dimensional debris flow simulations based on a single calibration parameter – Part 2: Model validation

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 6379-6415 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. von Boetticher ◽  
J. M. Turowski ◽  
B. W. McArdell ◽  
D. Rickenmann ◽  
M. Hürlimann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Model Validation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Fluid Dynamic ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Clay Content ◽  
Friction Angle ◽  
Angle Of Repose ◽  
Channel Curvature ◽  
Head Positions

Abstract. Here we present the validation of the fluid dynamic solver presented in part one of this work (von Boetticher et al., 2015), simulating laboratory-scale and large-scale debris-flow experiments. The material properties of the experiments, including water content, sand content, clay content and its mineral composition, and gravel content and its friction angle, were known. We show that given these measured properties, a single free model parameter is sufficient for calibration, and a range of experiments with different material compositions can be reproduced by the model without recalibration. The model validation focuses on different case studies illustrating the sensitivity of debris flows to water and clay content, channel curvature, channel roughness and the angle of repose of the gravel. We characterize the accuracy of the model using experimental observations of flow head positions, front velocities, run-out patterns and basal pressures.

Debris flow impact on a flexible barrier: laboratory flume experiments and force-based mechanical model validation

2021 ◽  
Vol 106 (1) ◽  
pp. 735-756
Author(s):  
R. Brighenti ◽  
L. Spaggiari ◽  
A. Segalini ◽  
R. Savi ◽  
G. Capparelli
Keyword(s):  
Debris Flow ◽  
Model Validation ◽  
Mechanical Model ◽  
Flume Experiments ◽  
Flexible Barrier ◽  
Laboratory Flume
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document