MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6929156837 · doi:10.4224/21268052

Simulation of flood scenarios on the Lower Pembina River flood plains with the Telemac2D Hydrodynamic Model Phase 3

2012· report· en· W6929156837 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Notice bibliographique

RevueNPARC · 2012
Typereport
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAdvanced Photonic Communication Systems
Établissements canadiensNational Research Council CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)FloodplainChannel (broadcasting)Flooding (psychology)ChannelizedHydrological modellingSimulation modeling

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In phase one of the Pembina modelling with the Telemac 2D software, a first 2 dimensional model was prepared to simulate the flooding along the lower Pembina River downstream of Walhalla, ND. This model did not extend far enough North and South of the Pembina River to be able to properly simulate scenarios where the elevated roads and the infrastructure could be adjusted. [Ref 1] In phase two of the project, the model was extended to cover the Aux Marais River and a large portion of Buffalo Creek, and Louden and Rosebud Coulees. Several scenarios were simulated where the road network was altered, and where proposed diversions and a floodway had been simulated to redirect some flood waters from the Pembina River to the adjacent coulees and rivers. [Ref 2]. The size of the second phase model was much larger than that of the first phase and represented accurately the lower Pembina River and its banks. It was successful in simulating flood propagation over the road network, but it described the other flow passages (coulees) with only a coarser cross section. This was designed to minimize the size of the model and the time it took to simulate a full month flood hydrograph. During some scenarios, extra water arriving from artificial diversions or from the removal of roads was added to the existing rivers and coulees, and the model was not able to reproduce with accuracy the flooding along their banks because of their coarse channel description. Also, all scenario simulations were performed with the same 2006 spring flood on Red River and Pembina River, which was a relatively large event that flooded the Pembina flood plain in many of the cases, providing only small differences between scenarios. In this phase 3 of the Pembina flood project, many of the small rivers and coulees have been described with a better description of the cross sections geometry, therefore providing a better representation of the conveyance of each channel. As an example, much of the Aux Marais River was described with a 3 to 6 m grid instead of the original 30 m. This fine description of the rivers has increased significantly the size of the model, and a new and faster cluster of processors were required to run with a reasonable speed. At the same time, other improvements were carried out such as extending the model from Letellier to Morris so that changes in the flow hydrodynamics on Aux Marais River or the Buffalo Creek would develop without being constrained by the downstream boundary. (The main features of importance are indicated in Figure 1. More bridges were added to the model, in particular on Buffalo Creek, the Aux Marais River, and under railway tracks that were affecting the propagation of floods. Another important modification to the modelling of the scenarios was that they were simulated with four different flood hydrographs (instead of the same 2006 hydrograph): 1:10, 1:50 and 1:100 year return period annual floods and the 1:20 year summer flood. This allowed a wide range of flood severity and consequently a progression in the protection required in each case. Spring flood hydrographs at Walhalla were developed by the USACE, summer flood hydrographs at Walhalla were developed by Manitoba Water Stewardship (MWS) and the remaining hydrographs were developed by NRC.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,530
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,977

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,282
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNPARCMême sujetAdvanced Photonic Communication SystemsTravaux en français237 207