Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Leanne

  • Rank
  1. Hello, We are building a 2D only model and are finding big differences in the Cum ME% between the _MB.csv and the _MB2D.csv. In the _MB.csv file the error remains within +/-1% apart from the start of the inflow hydrograph, but the _MB2D.csv has errors which range between -3% and -5% for most of the run following the start of the hydrograph. We are running the model on double precision due to the area being quite steep and with ground levels >100m. In previous model runs we had higher instabilities on the _MB file but these have been reduced by running in double precision, smoothing the inflows and downstream boundary, and improving the position of the inflows. Any suggestions for what may be the reason for the differences in the .csv files? Is the model healthy enough based on the _MB.csv or is there still a significant problem somewhere as the _MB2D.csv file suggests? We have looked at the MB1.dat file at various timesteps but can't find any errors much greater than 1%. Thanks Leanne
  • Create New...