Working Paper Article Version 2 This version is not peer-reviewed

Physical Modelling vs. Numerical Modelling: Complementarity and Learning

Version 1 : Received: 29 July 2020 / Approved: 31 July 2020 / Online: 31 July 2020 (14:01:04 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 25 August 2020 / Approved: 26 August 2020 / Online: 26 August 2020 (08:54:55 CEST)

How to cite: Antunes do Carmo, J.S. Physical Modelling vs. Numerical Modelling: Complementarity and Learning. Preprints 2020, 2020070753 Antunes do Carmo, J.S. Physical Modelling vs. Numerical Modelling: Complementarity and Learning. Preprints 2020, 2020070753

Abstract

We are witnessing a progressive divestment of some institutions with strong traditions and skills in physical modelling and their consequent impoverishment, to the detriment of numerical modelling. For many reasons, the economic imperatives and the exponential growth of computational means and numerical methods should certainly not be excluded. In this work, we aimed to highlight the new requirements of the recent sophisticated developments in physical modelling, precisely due to the new needs imposed on them by mathematical and numerical modelling and the growing risks in civil construction works. In this context, reflections are reported, justified by scientific and real-world examples, on the need for maintenance and reinforcement of investments in physical modelling, both to support the scientific community and to design buildings of significant economic, social and environmental impact.

Subject Areas

physical modelling; numerical modelling; construction works; growing risks; safety requirements; hybrid modelling

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 26 August 2020
Commenter: José Antunes do Carmo
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: Three points have been corrected/improved:
- ", under ideal conditions (τb = 0)" was added to the line that precedes Figure 9.
- The Figure 9 caption "Gate opening [h/H = 1.5]" has been changed to "Dam-break [h/H = 0.5]"
- Reference [47] has been updated.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.