MikeShe course - Team 2

Daily Report - February 26th

Team and Coordination

Work sharing within our team:
We split into two groups.
One group searched for the coordinates of the river points and told the other group.
The other group inserted these values into an Excel table which calculated all values as discribed in the report from Feb. 25th.

Steps of the exercise

Defining the coordinates of each river point.

Longitudinal profil before smoothing the sinks and peaks.

Overview over the inserted crossections

Problems occuring

In the end our river of course must flow down. Therefore each downsteam cross section must be lower then the corresponding upsteam cross section. (As far as we know the Mike11 can not consider this case) After the calculation this situation is NOT GIVEN in all points.
Our solution : We checked our completed results in the excel table. So far there where to many cross sections anyway. So the high peaks were simply deleted. That smothed our longitudinal profil.

Accuracy of our results

The following mistakes influence the final results :

Adjusting the river position: The correct river position got shifted to the edge of the 300m grid. That finally leads to a new river bed.
Evaluation : minor mistake, not much influence expected

Calculation of the hight of the river bed : For each point we figured out two different hights and choose the lower one. But our natural hight is inbetween the two calculated values.
Evaluation : minor mistake, not much influence expected

Defining the cross sections : Since the cross sections where not given, we had to define them ourselves. That of course causes a simplification and therefore a mistake in the entire calculation.

Evaluation : has influence on the behaviour of the river, but should still more correct then the 2d model

Removing sinks and high peaks : This step of course smothed our river bed. That means less friction in the end.
Evaluation : less friction causes a higher discharge, so the result should be on the save side.

Leaving out some cross sections : Not every possible cross section is included in the model. This is done for the following resons:
All in all we will get a large river network and the number of cross sections increases the time of running the model.
Not all cross sections are really necessary. For example on straight sections they are of less interest.
Evaluation : this should also be a minor mistake with only little influence

Team and Coordination

	Work sharing within our team: We split into two groups. One group searched for the coordinates of the river points and told the other group. The other group inserted these values into an Excel table which calculated all values as discribed in the report from Feb. 25th.

Steps of the exercise

	Defining the coordinates of each river point. Longitudinal profil before smoothing the sinks and peaks. Overview over the inserted crossections

Problems occuring

	In the end our river of course must flow down. Therefore each downsteam cross section must be lower then the corresponding upsteam cross section. (As far as we know the Mike11 can not consider this case) After the calculation this situation is NOT GIVEN in all points. Our solution : We checked our completed results in the excel table. So far there where to many cross sections anyway. So the high peaks were simply deleted. That smothed our longitudinal profil.

Accuracy of our results

	The following mistakes influence the final results :
	Adjusting the river position: The correct river position got shifted to the edge of the 300m grid. That finally leads to a new river bed. Evaluation : minor mistake, not much influence expected
	Calculation of the hight of the river bed : For each point we figured out two different hights and choose the lower one. But our natural hight is inbetween the two calculated values. Evaluation : minor mistake, not much influence expected
	Defining the cross sections : Since the cross sections where not given, we had to define them ourselves. That of course causes a simplification and therefore a mistake in the entire calculation. Evaluation : has influence on the behaviour of the river, but should still more correct then the 2d model
	Removing sinks and high peaks : This step of course smothed our river bed. That means less friction in the end. Evaluation : less friction causes a higher discharge, so the result should be on the save side.
	Leaving out some cross sections : Not every possible cross section is included in the model. This is done for the following resons: All in all we will get a large river network and the number of cross sections increases the time of running the model. Not all cross sections are really necessary. For example on straight sections they are of less interest. Evaluation : this should also be a minor mistake with only little influence