Onderzoeksoutput

Welkom op het expertplatform!

Dit platform verschaft informatie en kennis omtrent de WL expertisedomeinen 'hydraulica en sediment', 'havens en waterwegen', 'waterbouwkundige constructies', 'waterbeheer' en 'kustbescherming' - gaande van WL medewerkers met hun expertise, het curriculum van deze instelling, tot publicaties, projecten, data (op termijn) en evenementen waarin het WL betrokken is.

Het WL onderschrijft het belang van "open access" voor de ontsluiting van haar onderzoeksresultaten. Lees er meer over in ons openaccessbeleid.

log in

• 
  People
• 
  Curriculum
• 
  Projects
• 
  Data sets
• 
  Publications
• 
  Events

[ meld een fout in dit record ]

mandje (0): toevoegen | toon

---

Study of a simplified Scheldt model: subreport 2. Comparison between iFlow and Telemac Kaptein, S.J.; Bi, Q.; Schramkowski, G.; Mostaert, F. (2020). Study of a simplified Scheldt model: subreport 2. Comparison between iFlow and Telemac. Version 2.0. FHR reports, 19_025_2. Flanders Hydraulics Research: Antwerp. VII, 18 pp. Deel van: FHR reports. Flanders Hydraulics Research: Antwerp, meer

---

Beschikbaar in	Auteurs
Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium: Open Repository 355913 [ OWA ]
Documenttype: Projectrapport

---

Trefwoorden

Hydraulics and sediment > Hydrodynamics > Tides Hydraulics and sediment > Hydrodynamics > Water levels Numerical modelling ANE, Schelde-estuarium [Marine Regions]

Author keywords

Idealized modelling; numerical simulations

---

Auteurs		Top
Kaptein, S.J., meer Bi, Q. Schramkowski, G., meer Mostaert, F.

---

Abstract

The objectve of this report is to compare the results of two diferent modeling tools iFlow and Telemac. Each modeling tool is applied to an extremely simplifed Scheldt model: a geometry with a rectangular cross‐secton, a constant width and a constant depth. The main purpose of the study is to challenge the assumptons on which iFlow is based and to estmate the extend to which they infuence the reliability of the results. The results show that it was not possible to determine a rato of between the water depth and the amplitude of the M2 tde for which iFlow clearly fails to reproduce the results of Telemac, in the present fow confguraton and for the present parameters. Additonally, no single parameter governing the diferences between iFlow and Telemac has been identfed. However, more data (i.e. number of simulatons) is required to carry out a signifcant study about the diferences between iFlow and Telemac and iFlow needs to be pushed to the limits in terms of the rato between the water depth and the magnitude of the M2 tde.

---

Alle informatie in het Integrated Marine Information System (IMIS) valt onder het VLIZ Privacy beleid

Top | Auteurs

IMIS is ontwikkeld en wordt gehost door het VLIZ.