MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Photonic Communication Systems
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythHydrology (agriculture)FloodplainChannel (broadcasting)Flooding (psychology)ChannelizedHydrological modellingSimulation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAdvanced Photonic Communication SystemsFrench-language works237,207