2D Meshing - (Baseline vs. Development Scenario) - Changes to the wider 2D domain

So is it something else? Is one (or more) of your banks unstable, leading to an unrealistic maximum level? They are evil creatures and conspire against us!

If I understand correctly, you have River Reaches in the scenario but not the base network. Therefore, you're fundamentally changing the geometry that requires meshing. This would result in different meshes. This would mean it would not be possible to do a direct comparison between element depths. However, an alternative approach would be to interpolate the results from the mesh into an ascii grid or similar is GIS and then do the comparison based on this.

The alternative approach may have to be adopted on this occasion.
Cheers Duncan.

Adding swales will create different and probably smaller triangles in the area where the swales are. You can't really avoid that.
But you can
a) specify several mesh zones and only remesh those which have changed. You'll need to change the baseline scenario as well, but from then onwards you should have consistency in the wider area
b) generalise the results by interpolating into a consistent (say 1m) grid, which may smooth out any effects from changes to the mesh between scenarios

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICM User

No.

The baseline model site boundary is subject to flood risk. The development scenario is to raise the site and use swales / channel, etc to reduce the flood risk.
Therefore by introducing rivers reaches into the development scenario to represent swale features, etc , you are forced to re-mesh and this appears to create smaller mesh elements, which has a knock on effect to the wider 2D domain. Perhaps extending the mesh zone boundary may solve this, they are close to the mesh zone boundary.

Any suggestions welcome?

---