{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":24,"sheets":["Details","Summary","Model_Approach","1D_Model_Build","1D_Boundary_Conditions","1D_Structures","1D_Run_Parameters","2D_Model_Build","2D_Boundary_Conditions","2D_Structures","2D_Run_Parameters","1D_2D_Surface_Water","Coastal_boundary","Wave_Transformation","Wave_Overtopping","Linked_1D_2D","Model_Stability","Model_Outputs_Calibration","Model_Sensitivity","Audit_Trail","Additional Info.","Roughness Values","Lists","Version_control"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":4,"macros":1,"external_links":1,"defined_names":4,"comments":20,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Details","index":0,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[null,"Content details"]
[]
[null,"Title","Non-real time Hydraulic Model Review Template"]
[null,"Audience","Environment Agency, Defra"]
[null,"Type","Template"]
[null,"Reference","LIT 17617"]
[null,"Version",6]
[null,"Security marking","OFFICIAL"]
[]
[null,"CONTROLLED CONTENT"]

{"sheet":"Summary","index":1,"n_rows":16,"n_cols":11,"rows_kept":16,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[3,2,3,4],[15,1,16,18],[11,1,11,18],[12,2,12,18],[14,1,14,18],[7,10,7,11],[8,4,8,5],[8,6,8,7],[8,8,8,9],[8,10,8,11],[9,4,9,5],[9,6,9,7],[9,8,9,9],[9,10,9,11],[6,13,7,17],[5,2,5,3],[5,6,5,8],[6,1,6,5],[7,4,7,5],[7,6,7,7],[7,8,7,9]]}
[]
[null,"NON-REAL TIME HYDRAULIC MODEL REVIEW"]
[]
[null,"Type of review"]
[]
[null,"Project","Land at North West Bicester",null,"Job Number",null,"Required coastal standard\n (if applicable)"]
[]
[null,"Model Type","1D/2D ","Software","Estry/TuFlow",null,"2nd review",null,"3rd review",null,"4th review"]
[null,"Revision",1,"Date"]
[null,"Area Client",null,"Reviewer"]
[]
[null,"REVIEW SUMMARY/CONCLUSION"]
[null,"Is the model suitable for intended use?","This model is not suitable for use. Key concerns highlighted are;\n8.2 Properties that should be included in the mapping are not present.\n13-14 There are missing log files, only the 20year are supplied.\n12.1 HX links are touching that could cause recirculation of out of bank flows\n3.11 High in channel mannings roughness\n4.2 Flows don't match those reported in table 1 of the report.\n13.1 Warning messages that need addressing\n14.2 Potentially unstable 2D flows, mass balance not stabilising.\n\n\n"]
[]
[null,"MODEL REVIEW PROCESS"]
[null,"\nHydraulic Model reviews are an essential component of the Hydraulic Modelling Quality Assurance (QA) process that provides confidence in a model’s suitability for its intended purpose. Evidence that the model has undergone QA may be requested by external parties and hence all reviews should be written with an expectation that they could be read externally.\n\nShould any issue(s) be raised during the review process, which require attention, the reviewer should detail the action(s) required in sufficient detail to allow the modeller to complete the changes as appropriate. Completion of this Model Review document does not automatically constitute model approval. Once the suggested changes have been completed, the reviewer may require that the model be resubmitted for further review to establish whether the actions have been completed satisfactorily. Only once all the amendments have been completed satisfactorily, will the model be approved and the quality assured by the reviewer.\n\nIt is recommended that the reviewer makes good use of the fluvial design guide chapter 7\nand the user manual/help guides for the appropriate modelling software.\n\nDepending on the work being reviewed some questions or entire sections may not be relevant, in which case they can be deleted. On completion of the review the reviewer may choose to use the following colour coding system to alert the modeller to the priority of the actions required (if any).\n\nColour coding used:\n\nOK – Good practice.\nMinimum response:  No minimum.\nMaximum expected response: No maximum.\nPlanning: No Objection.\n\nGreen – Consider for future studies. Negligible impact on the results that is unlikely to change the outcome of the study.\nMinimum response: Acknowledge the comment in the spreadsheet and update the limitation section of the report.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: No Objection.\n\nNote: Taking action to address issues would be expected and some issues may be addressed coincidentally by work on others.\n\nAmber – Follow recommendation. Potential impact on the results that may change the outcome of the study.\nMinimum response: Comments justifying the approach taken and update the limitation section of the report if not sorted.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: Consider objecting to the application based on comments highlighted in this category.\n\nNote: Taking action to address issues should be undertaken, some issues may be addressed coincidentally by work on others.\n\nRed – Must do. Has an impact on the results that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the study.\nMinimum response: Comments thoroughly justifying approach from applicant based on evidence and update the limitation section of the report if not sorted.\nMaximum expected response: Actions done to address the issue identified.\nPlanning: Objection - Application to be objected if comments are highlighted in this category.\nNote: If no action is taken the response must clearly demonstrate why the issue raised is not relevant and the approach employed is justified backed up with evidences. If issues highlighted red are ignored, then submissions should always be sent back."]

{"sheet":"Model_Approach","index":2,"n_rows":30,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":30,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,5,6,16],[15,4,15,16],[23,4,23,16],[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[15,0,15,3],[7,0,14,3],[7,4,14,16],[24,1,24,3],[21,1,21,3],[19,1,19,3],[20,1,20,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[23,0,23,3],[29,1,29,3],[28,1,28,3],[25,1,25,3],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["PROJECT BACKGROUND AND APPROACH"]
[]
["PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REQUIREMENTS"]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL APPROACH & SUMMARY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[1.1000000000000001,"What model approach has been adopted? Is it appropriate?\n(e.g. new 1D/2D build, existing model truncation, 1d only?). ",null,null,"OK","A new 1D-2D linked approach has been undertaken"]
[1.2,"Software used, including versions? ",null,null,"OK","ESTRY - TUFLOW\n2020-10-AA-iDP-w64"]
[1.3,"Model Version Reviewed ",null,null,"OK","Network file 26"]
[1.4,"Are all model files provided? ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[1.5,"Does the model run? ",null,null,"OK","Yes, model ran to completion"]
[]
["EVENTS & SCENARIOS "]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[2.1,"What events have been simulated (Q5, Q100, Q100CC, Q1000)?\nAre they sufficient to meet the project requirements?",null,null,"OK","1 in 20 \n1 in 100 \n1 in 100 + 15%CC \n1 in 100 + 25%CC \n1 in 1000"]
[2.2000000000000002,"Is a development being modelled? If so are appropriate scenarios modelled to assess the impact?",null,null,"OK","Outline planning application for new housing development"]
[2.2999999999999998,"Flood Mapping scenarios?",null,null,"OK","Outline planning application for new housing development"]
[2.4,"Have climate change runs been undertaken?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[2.5,"Has a study for quantifying uncertainty been undertaken?\nIf yes, what are the results?",null,null,"OK","Sensitivity testing has been carried out"]

{"sheet":"1D_Model_Build","index":3,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[19,1,19,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3]]}
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Chow roughness values"]
[]
["1D MODEL BUILD"]
[]
["1D NETWORK"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[3.1,"Model overview: Node Summary\n1d length",null,null,"OK","B---\t2\nBW---\t3\nC---\t7\nI---\t8\nR---\t3\nS---\t46\nX---\t1"]
[3.2,"Have appropriate distances between sections and/or nodes been used (dx)?  ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[3.3,"Are out of bank flows represented in 1d? If so, how has it been done and is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","Out of bank flows are in the 2D"]
[3.4,"Is the model geo-referenced?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[3.5,"Do the cross sections and bed profiles look reasonable?",null,null,"OK","A spot check of cross sections shows all matching data."]
[3.6,"Chainage – compared to surveyed sections",null,null,"OK","Chainage appears to match survey."]
[3.7,"Does conveyance look appropriate? ",null,null,"OK","Yes 1D_ta check file indicates this"]
[3.8,"If gauged flow is available, is there good flow reconciliation between the statistical estimates and the modelled, for given return periods?",null,null,"OK","No gauged flow available"]
[3.9,"Bank Markers. Are they used and if so, are they suitably located? ",null,null,"OK","Not included"]
[3.1,"What approach to channel roughness has been used? ",null,null,"OK","A fixed global approach has been undertaken"]
[3.11,"What manning’s n value(s) have been used for the channel? If it is 1d only what values and how have they been applied in the flood plain?",null,null,"Amber","The 1d_ta indicates that tmf code 1 has been used - Manning's n of 0.06. This is quite high.","Please detail in the reporting how these roughness values were determined."]
[3.12,"What method has been used to estimate roughness (USGS, Chow, etc. based on survey, photographs)? Are they appropriate",null,null,"Amber","Not detailed","As above"]

{"sheet":"1D_Boundary_Conditions","index":4,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[12,1,12,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[11,1,11,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
[]
["1D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[4.0999999999999996,"1d boundary model domain; is there glass walling anywhere in the modelled reaches?",null,null,"OK","No glass walling detected"]
[4.2,"How have the inflows boundaries been applied? \n",null,null,"Amber","Inflows have been applied through 3 QT boundaries. Lateral flows spread out over 10 inputs.\n\nFlows add up to totals shown in table one, however individual elements don't match.","Please correct the data in table 1 of the report."]
[4.3,"How is the downstream boundary(s) applied?\n",null,null,"OK","An HT boundary has been applied. A fixed water level of 78.14 m AOD was applied as a downstream boundary for the 1D model. This\nwas the surveyed water level and is thought to represent a typical likely dry weather flow condition.\n\nIdealy a more wet weather condition should be applied here, however there is sensitivity testing of the d/s boundary. This should be sufficient."]
[4.4000000000000004,"If tidal - how has the boundary been derived? \n\n",null,null,"N/A"]
[4.5,"Have appropriate locations been chosen for the downstream model extents?\n",null,null,"OK","Yes"]

{"sheet":"1D_Structures","index":5,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D STRUCTURES"]
[]
["1D STRUCTURES"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[5.0999999999999996,"Are all structures represented? If not have explanations for structures not modelled been given in the Log/report? \n",null,null,"OK","All structures appear represented."]
[5.2,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[5.3,"Do bridges surcharge? If so has orifice flow been enabled?",null,null,"OK","Yes, Form_Loss fields are greater than 0."]
[5.4,"Are there spills around the structure or over the top represented appropriately? ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[5.5,"If there are any movable structures have they been modelled correctly? \n",null,null,"OK","There are no moveable structures in the model."]
[5.6,"Structure coefficients - Have they been changed from default values?",null,null,"OK","All appear the defaults."]

{"sheet":"1D_Run_Parameters","index":6,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[10,1,10,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D RUN PARAMETERS"]
[]
["1D RUN PARAMETERS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[6.1,"What time step has been used for the 1D model? Is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","A 0.25s time step has been used, this is fine"]
[6.2,"What initial conditions have been used? Steady state, hotstart file?",null,null,"OK","IWL applied to the pond."]
[6.3,"Have any of the parameters and advanced parameters been changed from the default. If so, has it been justified?",null,null,"OK","Default parameters appear to be used."]

{"sheet":"2D_Model_Build","index":7,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[19,4,19,16],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[22,1,22,3],[23,1,23,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[19,0,19,3]]}
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Chow roughness values"]
[]
["2D MODEL BUILD"]
[]
["DIGITAL TERRIAN MODEL"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[7.1,"Number of domains?",null,null,"OK",1]
[7.2,"Area of 2d domain/s",null,null,"N/A"]
[7.3,"What dataset has been used to define the DTM elevations? LiDAR, Photogrammetric DTM?",null,null,"Green","1m LiDAR data was used","How old is the LiDar data, please include in reporting."]
[7.4,"What grid resolution has been used?\nIs it suitable to accurately represent flow paths, e.g. between buildings?",null,null,"OK","A 2m grid resolution has been applied, this is suitable."]
[7.5,"Has the DTM been rotated to optimise flow route representation?",null,null,"OK","Yes, a loc line is present."]
[7.6,"Is there any obstruction to flow?",null,null,"OK","No significant obstructions to flow in the 2D domain except for a retaining wall that has been included in the model. Zpt check file shows a level of 87.64m."]
[7.7,"Has additional site specific topographic survey data been used?\n",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[7.8,"How have buildings been represented within the DTM?",null,null,"OK","Buildings have been represented with a roughness of 0.2"]
[7.9,"Are defences/embankments/bank crests accurately represented?",null,null,"OK","Bank crests have been enforced with thick Zlines"]
[7.1,"If post-development scenarios are required have the proposed ground levels and building been represented appropriately?",null,null,"OK","Post development scenarios have yet to be supplied."]
[]
["2D ROUGHNESS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[8,"What manning’s n values have been used to define floodplain roughness? Have they been applied correctly?\n",null,null,"OK","1,0.06,,,!Arable,!Default \n2,0.05,,,!Pasture,\n3,0.2,,,! Buildings \n4,0.02,,,!roads,\n6,0.04,,,!Maintained Grass,\n7,0.08,,,!Trees or deep scrub,\n8,0.3,,,!Stability,\n9,0.025,,,!Railway,\n10,0.045,,,!Industrial land,\n11,0.07,,,!Urban\n12,0.03,,,!Water"]
[8.1,"What methods have been used to estimate roughness? ",null,null,"Green","Roughness has been estimated from aerial photography.","Was  Chow 1959 consulted in deriving the values?"]
[8.1999999999999993,"Is the representation of different roughness areas sufficiently accurate and detailed? ",null,null,"Red","No, properties to the south of the confluence are not represented in the model. See pics","Please update the representation of buildings in the model."]

{"sheet":"2D_Boundary_Conditions","index":8,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["2D BOUNDARIES"]
[]
["2D BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[9.1,"Have any boundaries been used in the 2D domain? If so detail.",null,null,"OK","Yes HQ boundaries have been applied"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":9.1999999999999993},"Is the model boundary suitably large? i.e. the flood extent should not reach the boundary.",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":9.2999999999999989},"Has rainfall been applied directly to the 2d model domain? ",null,null,"OK","No"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":9.3999999999999986},"Coastal - How has the wave overtopping been applied?",null,null,"OK","Not required"]

{"sheet":"2D_Structures","index":9,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["2D STRUCTURES"]
[]
["2D STRUCTURES"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[10.1,"Have any structures been included in the 2D domain? If so how have they been represented? ",null,null,"OK","Several bridges have been represented in the 2D."]
[10.199999999999999,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[10.3,"How have defences been represented? Zline? If there are flood zone scenarios have the defences been excluded adequately? ",null,null,"OK","Banks have been enforced with thick zlines derived from survey data."]
[10.4,"Have appropriate loss coefficients and roughness values been used?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]

{"sheet":"2D_Run_Parameters","index":10,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["2D RUN PARAMETERS"]
[]
["INITIAL CONDITONS & OTHER RUN PARAMETERS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[11.1,"What time step has been used for the 2D model? Is it appropriate?",null,null,"OK","A 0.5 second timestep has been applied. This is fine."]
[11.2,"Have initial water levels been applied? Are they correct?",null,null,"OK","An IWL has been added to the pond. It is fine"]
[11.3,"Are the other 2D model parameters reasonable (e.g. flooding & drying, eddy viscosity). Are they different from default?",null,null,"OK","All parameters appear to be default."]

{"sheet":"1D_2D_Surface_Water","index":11,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[22,1,22,3],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[17,1,17,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[11,1,11,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[7,1,7,3],[16,1,16,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[10,1,10,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D-2D Surface Water"]
[]
["SURFACE WATER MODELLING"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[18.100000000000001,"Check the geographical coverage of the model relative to the surface water catchment for the study. Is the model coverage sufficient for the study or project?   "]
[18.2,"Have contributing areas been applied appropriately? Are the sub catchment boundaries geocoded? Do the impermeable area assumptions appear correct? "]
[18.3,"How has the surface water network been represented, is it suitably detailed?"]
[18.399999999999999,"Does the overall model connectivity match the sewer records?"]
[18.5,"How are receiving watercourses represented in the model? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.600000000000001,"Has storage compensation been applied? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.7,"Has storage compensation been applied? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.8,"Are there any backfalls in the model and do these look realistic where they exist?"]
[18.899999999999999,"Have sediment depths and roughness coefficients been applied appropriately and are they within the expected ranges?"]
[18.100000000000001,"Are all significant outfalls included in model with appropriate detail?"]
[18.11,"Are all significant storage tanks included in model with appropriate detail?"]
[18.12,"Are all significant pumping stations included in the model with appropriate detail?"]
[18.13,"Has any infrastructure been omitted from the model network? If so what is the justification for this this? Is this appropriate?"]
[18.149999999999999,"Is the runoff model appropriate and have the parameters been applied correctly?"]
[18.16,"How has the design rainfall been generated and applied? Is this appropriate?"]

{"sheet":"Coastal_boundary","index":12,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[11,1,11,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["FORCING PARAMETERS AND JOINT PROBABILITY INCLUDING FOR WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELLING"]
[]
["PARAMETERS AND JOINT PROBABILITY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[19.100000000000001,"Does the approach utilised conform with best practice guidance?"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":19.200000000000003},"Inclusion of up to date data, such as Hindcast?"]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":19.300000000000004},"Creation of tidal curve created using appropriate source data?"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":19.400000000000006},"What Joint Probability method has been used (Defra 2005 or Multivariate) is this suitable for the study?"]
[{"$f":"A12+0.1","v":19.500000000000007},"Has the Coast Flood Boundary data (CFB) been applied appropriately within the models?"]
[{"$f":"A13+0.1","v":19.600000000000009},"Has climate change been accounted for appropriately?"]

{"sheet":"Wave_Transformation","index":13,"n_rows":54,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":54,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[45,1,45,3],[53,1,53,3],[48,1,48,3],[50,1,50,3],[52,1,52,3],[46,1,46,3],[51,0,51,3],[35,1,35,3],[37,1,37,3],[38,1,38,3],[40,1,40,3],[22,1,22,3],[32,0,32,3],[34,1,34,3],[23,1,23,3],[24,1,24,3],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3],[29,1,29,3],[30,1,30,3],[31,1,31,3],[33,1,33,3],[20,1,20,3],[21,1,21,3],[10,1,10,3],[19,0,19,3],[16,0,16,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[44,0,44,3],[44,4,44,16],[39,0,39,3],[39,4,39,16],[36,0,36,3],[36,4,36,16],[41,1,41,3],[42,1,42,3],[43,1,43,3],[51,4,51,16],[49,0,49,3],[49,4,49,16],[47,0,47,3],[47,4,47,16],[32,4,32,16],[28,0,28,3],[25,0,25,3],[28,4,28,16],[25,4,25,16],[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[19,4,19,16],[16,4,16,16],[9,0,9,3],[9,4,9,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["COASTAL WAVE TRANSFORMATION MODELLING"]
[]
["MODEL CHOICE"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[20.100000000000001,"Does the model fit the brief? (Phase averaging/ phase resolving, stationary / non-stationary)"]
["DOMAIN"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":20.200000000000003},"Does the boundary cover offshore waves from all relevant directions?"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":20.300000000000004},"Does the coastline file represent the coastline to a high enough resolution for the modelling required?"]
[{"$f":"A12+0.1","v":20.400000000000006},"Are all required output locations offshore of the chosen coastline?"]
[{"$f":"A13+0.1","v":20.500000000000007},"Does the model extend far enough offshore that computational error close to the model boundary will not effect the required results?"]
[{"$f":"A14+0.1","v":20.600000000000009},"Does the model domain extend far enough offshore so that wave boundary conditions are accurate for the model boundary?"]
[{"$f":"A15+0.1","v":20.70000000000001},"Does the model converge to a reasonable amount in the area of interest?\n\n"]
["ACTIVE/INACTIVE BOUNDARIES"]
[{"$f":"A16+0.1","v":20.800000000000011},"Are ocean and land boundaries set? "]
[{"$f":"A18+0.1","v":20.900000000000013},"Is the spectral shape to be applied to the ocean boundary appropriate given the geographic location and the boundary conditions available?"]
["BATHYMETRY"]
[{"$f":"A19+0.1","v":21.000000000000014},"Is the input bathymetry of a high enough resolution for the resolution required?"]
[{"$f":"A21+0.1","v":21.100000000000016},"Are bathymetry data available for areas which may dry out at low tide?"]
[{"$f":"A22+0.1","v":21.200000000000017},"Are boundaries between different bathymetry datasets smooth?"]
[{"$f":"A23+0.1","v":21.300000000000018},"Does the model mesh/grid represent the input bathymetry well?"]
[{"$f":"A24+0.1","v":21.40000000000002},"Are bathymetric features elsewhere within the model domain well represented if they are expected to alter wave propagation (e.g. Offshore sand banks)?"]
["WATER LEVEL"]
[{"$f":"A25+0.1","v":21.500000000000021},"If the model water level has been set constant across the model domain is this a realistic assumption given the tidal behaviour across the model domain?"]
[{"$f":"A27+0.1","v":21.600000000000023},"For non-stationary models has the underlying tide / surge behaviour been taken into consideration? If not is it justifiable?"]
["WIND FIELD"]
[{"$f":"A28+0.1","v":21.700000000000024},"If model wind speed and direction has been set constant across the model domain is this realistic?"]
[{"$f":"A30+0.1","v":21.800000000000026},"Are there any datasets available which could be used to construct a spatially varying wind field?"]
[{"$f":"A31+0.1","v":21.900000000000027},"For non-stationary models has an appropriate data set been identified to cover the required model period?"]
["WAVE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"]
[{"$f":"A32+0.1","v":22.000000000000028},"If modelled, wave boundary conditions should come from the same model data source as wind data otherwise there may be inconsistency between the two."]
[{"$f":"A34+0.1","v":22.10000000000003},"Is enough information available to generate a wave spectrum?"]
[{"$f":"A35+0.1","v":22.200000000000031},"For non-stationary models has an appropriate dataset been identified to cover the required model time period?"]
["OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS"]
[{"$f":"A36+0.1","v":22.300000000000033},"Model behaviour checked through output of Hs, Tp, Mdir fields for entire model domain."]
[{"$f":"A38+0.1","v":22.400000000000034},"Water depth at output points checked against real depth (interpolation / lower resolution may result in differing water depth which in shallow water can result in significant change to wave height)."]
["RESULTS"]
[{"$f":"A39+0.1","v":22.500000000000036},"Do errors at the model boundary disappear further into the model domain?"]
[{"$f":"A41+0.1","v":22.600000000000037},"Does wind growth occur as expected given the fetch length across the model?"]
[{"$f":"A42+0.1","v":22.700000000000038},"Are changes in wave period easily explained?"]
[{"$f":"A43+0.1","v":22.80000000000004},"Is the output wave height within the expected range?"]
["CALIBRATION"]
[{"$f":"A44+0.1","v":22.900000000000041},"Has the model been calibrated against appropriate quality controlled measured data?"]
[{"$f":"A46+0.1","v":23.000000000000043},"Do the locations of the calibration data allow calibration close to the required output locations?"]
["VALIDATION"]
[{"$f":"A47+0.1","v":23.100000000000044},"Has the model been validated against appropriate data independent from the calibration process?"]
["SENSITIVITY TESTING"]
[{"$f":"A49+0.1","v":23.200000000000045},"Have sensitivity runs been performed in order to test the sensitivity of the model at the output locations to reasonable variations in the model forcing data (for all boundary parameters)?"]
["STABILITY AND CONVERGENCE"]
[{"$f":"A51+0.1","v":23.300000000000047},"Have the number of iterations been modified away from the default and is this appropriate?"]
[{"$f":"A53+0.1","v":23.400000000000048},"Has the model achieved the appropriate levels of convergence?"]

{"sheet":"Wave_Overtopping","index":14,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[[19,1,19,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,0,16,3],[6,4,6,16],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[16,4,16,16],[11,0,11,3],[11,4,11,16],[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[6,0,6,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["WAVE OVERTOPPING"]
[]
["GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[21.1,"What is the source of data used?"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":21.200000000000003},"What level of calibration (where data exists) has been achieved?"]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":21.300000000000004},"How appropriate are any assumptions?"]
["DEFENCE CONCEPTUALISATION"]
[{"$f":"A11+0.1","v":21.400000000000006},"Is it the appropriate resolution?"]
[{"$f":"A13+0.1","v":21.500000000000007},"Are any key low crest levels missed out?"]
[{"$f":"A14+0.1","v":21.600000000000009},"Have the correct crest, toe and slope been used in terms of Neural Network constraints?"]
[{"$f":"A15+0.1","v":21.70000000000001},"Comparison/check against beach profile, AIMS, defence survey, LIDAR and any other data used for schematising."]
["EUROTOP APPLICATION"]
[{"$f":"A16+0.1","v":21.800000000000011},"Have correct values been input?"]
[{"$f":"A18+0.1","v":21.900000000000013},"Have the calculations been used within their applicable range?"]
[{"$f":"A19+0.1","v":22.000000000000014},"How has overtopping been considered when the still water levels rise near the crest/ just above the crest?"]

{"sheet":"Linked_1D_2D","index":15,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[12,1,12,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["1D/2D MODEL LINKS"]
[]
["MODEL LINKS"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[12.1,"How have the 1D/2D models been coupled, is it appropriate?",null,null,"Amber","1D-2D links coupled via HX lines - these look mostly OK. However in some places HX grids touch (see pic) this couild cause recirculation of flows and lead to incorrect flow paths.\n\n1D area has been deactivated from the 2D.","Please resolve the HX linking such as in the picture."]
[12.2,"Is the digitisation of the links acceptable? ",null,null,"Green","See 12.1"]
[12.3,"Is the 2d representation of the river channel comparable in width with the 1d model cross sections?",null,null,"Green","Yes"]
[12.4,"Representation of 1D output in 2D domain",null,null,"OK","Yes a WLL has been applied."]
[12.5,"Have any default link parameters been changed (i.e. to improve stability)?",null,null,"OK","All parameters appear as default."]

{"sheet":"Model_Stability","index":16,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[17,1,17,3],[18,1,18,3],[19,1,19,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[12,0,12,3],[12,4,12,16],[7,1,7,3],[10,1,10,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3],[4,0,4,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL STABILITY"]
[]
["1D MODEL STABILITY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[13.1,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Amber","Several warnings of WARNING 1100","Please detail and address"]
[13.2,"Convergence",null,null,"Red","Only log files for the 20yr have been supplied","We require all the results."]
[13.3,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"OK","These look fine"]
[]
["2D MODEL STABILITY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[14.1,"Is mass balance within tolerable limits?",null,null,"Red","Only log files for the 20yr have been supplied","We require all the results."]
[14.2,"Are CE and dV values relatively stable and remain so once the run has got going. ",null,null,"Amber","CE values increase towards the 7hr mark and then decrease but then do not reamin stable. There could be some instabilities around this.","Please investigate."]
[14.3,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Red","Only message and log files for the 20yr have been supplied","We require all the results."]
[14.4,"Negative Depths\n",null,null,"Red","Only results for the 20yr have been supplied","We require all the results."]
[14.5,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[14.6,"2d extents and outputs",null,null,"OK","Correct outputs specified"]

{"sheet":"Model_Outputs_Calibration","index":17,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL OUTPUTS & CALIBRATION"]
[]
["CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[15.1,"Have calibration runs been completed?\nIs data for calibration available? Gauge data, extents, anecdotal etc.",null,null,"OK","Calibration runs could not be completed, there is limited observed data available."]
[15.2,"Are the simulated hydrograph peaks reasonably similar to the recorded peaks? ",null,null,"OK","Calibration runs could not be completed, there is limited observed data available."]
[15.3,"Is the shape of the simulated hydrograph and therefore the volume suitably similar? ",null,null,"OK","Calibration runs could not be completed, there is limited observed data available."]
[15.4,"Are simulated floodplain extents similar to recorded extents? Are flow routes similar?",null,null,"OK","Calibration runs could not be completed, there is limited observed data available."]
[15.5,"Has suitable effort been made to attempt and improve calibration. Have attempted changes been documented with a quantification of impact?",null,null,"OK","Calibration runs could not be completed, there is limited observed data available."]
[15.6,"If no historic data is available, are the simulated flood outputs similar or very different from past modelling in the area? If there is a large difference, does it seem sensible?",null,null,"N/A"]

{"sheet":"Model_Sensitivity","index":18,"n_rows":11,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":11,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[10,1,10,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["MODEL SENSITIVITY"]
[]
["SENSITIVITY TESTING & UNCERTAINTY"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[16.100000000000001,"Have appropriate model parameters been chosen for sensitivity testing? \n\nTypical tests include:\n  Sensitivity to roughness ± 20% ( Manning's \"n\" both in 1D and 2D)\nSensitivity to flows ± 20% (From central estimate)\n Sensitivity to downstream boundary\n Key structure blockage(s)",null,null,"OK","Manning’s ‘n’ roughness;\nFlow;\nDownstream boundary condition; \nBlockages - \n\n1. Main culvert beneath B4100 100% blocked, lake full\n2. All culverts beneath B4100 100% blocked, lake full\n3. All culverts on site 100% blocked, lake not full"]
[16.2,"Do the results of the tests show the models to be particularly sensitive to certain parameters?",null,null,"OK","The roughness and flow sensitivity testing shows minor differences.\n\nChanging of the d/s boundarry does show some significant changes, but does not impact the site. Changes though do propogate close to some housing.\n\nBlockage scenarios show some flooding of the sites. As reported the extents are similar to tthe 1000yr event. "]
[16.3,"Have confidence limits for model results (+/- mm) been presented? How were they derived and does this seem sensible? ",null,null,"OK","The sensitivity tests give an element of confidence intervals to the results."]

{"sheet":"Audit_Trail","index":19,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[8,1,8,3],[19,1,19,3],[18,1,18,3],[4,4,4,16],[4,0,4,3],[17,1,17,3],[16,1,16,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[15,1,15,3],[14,1,14,3],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["AUDIT TRAIL"]
[]
["AUDIT TRAIL"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[17.100000000000001,"Was a model run log provided?",null,null,"Green","No log was provided.","Please provide the model log in future reviews"]
[17.2,"Was a suitable file naming, structure & management system used?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[17.3,"Were check files provided?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[17.399999999999999,"Were comments provided within the model?",null,null,"OK","No"]
[17.5,"Was there good version control? Is the model history detailed where applicable?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[17.600000000000001,"Were Errors / comments / warnings made available?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[17.7,"Was a technical overview of the model and its background provided ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[17.8,"Were notes on how the model operates under different flow conditions  provided?",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[17.899999999999999,"Was an explicit statement of any concerns about the accuracy of the model or its ability to represent reality provided?",null,null,"Amber","No,  please include this. ","As the site is ungauged and permeable please include reference to uncertainties."]
[18,"Is there anything else missing or are there suggestions for additional information or clarification?",null,null,"OK"]
[18.100000000000001,"Comment on the quality of the reports:",null,null,"Green","Reporting was of a good standard, though some additional information is required.","See the various comments in th hydraulic and hydrology review."]
[18.2,"is a freeboard analysis necessary?\nIf yes have you review the report?\nWhat are is the agreed freeboard?",null,null,"OK","Not at this stage"]

{"sheet":"Additional Info.","index":20,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3],[15,1,15,3],[16,1,16,3],[17,1,17,3],[9,1,9,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[12,1,12,3],[13,1,13,3],[14,1,14,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["Additional information"]
[]
["Additional information"]
["Item No.","Item Checked",null,null,"RAG 1","1st Review Comments","1st Review Actions","1st Review Response (DATE)","RAG 2","2nd Review Comments","2nd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 3","3rd Review Comments","3rd Review Response (DATE)","RAG 4","4th Review Comments","4th Review Response (DATE)"]
[100.1]
[100.2]
[100.3]
[100.4]
[100.5]
[100.6]
[100.7]
[100.8]
[100.9]
[101]

{"sheet":"Roughness Values","index":21,"n_rows":174,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":174,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[null,"Return to 1D model build"]
[null,"Return to 2D model build"]
[null,"Manning's n for Channels (Chow, 1959)."]
[null,"Type of Channel and Description","Minimum","Normal","Maximum"]
[null,"Natural streams - minor streams (top width at floodstage < 100 ft)"]
[null,"1. Main Channels"]
[null,"  a. clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools",2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null,"  b. same as above, but more stones and weeds",0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null,"  c. clean, winding, some pools and shoals",3.3000000000000002E-2,0.04,4.4999999999999998E-2]
[null,"  d. same as above, but some weeds and stones",3.5000000000000003E-2,4.4999999999999998E-2,0.05]
[null,"  e. same as above, lower stages, more ineffective ",0.04,4.8000000000000001E-2,5.5E-2]
[null,"  slopes and sections"]
[null,"  f. same as \"d\" with more stones",4.4999999999999998E-2,0.05,0.06]
[null,"Chainage – compared to surveyed sections",0.05,7.0000000000000007E-2,0.08]
[null,"  h. very weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways ",7.4999999999999997E-2,0.1,0.15]
[null,"  with heavy stand of timber and underbrush"]
[null,"2. Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along banks submerged at high stages"]
[null,"  a. bottom: gravels, cobbles, and few boulders",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"  b. bottom: cobbles with large boulders",0.04,0.05,7.0000000000000007E-2]
[null,"3. Floodplains"]
[null,"  a. Pasture, no brush"]
[null,"  1.short grass",2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null,"  2. high grass",0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05]
[null,"   b. Cultivated areas"]
[null,"  1. no crop",0.02,0.03,0.04]
[null,"  2. mature row crops",2.5000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2,4.4999999999999998E-2]
[null,"  3. mature field crops",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"    c. Brush"]
[null,"  1. scattered brush, heavy weeds",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05,7.0000000000000007E-2]
[null,"  2. light brush and trees, in winter",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05,0.06]
[null,"  3. light brush and trees, in summer",0.04,0.06,0.08]
[null,"  4. medium to dense brush, in winter",4.4999999999999998E-2,7.0000000000000007E-2,0.11]
[null,"  5. medium to dense brush, in summer",7.0000000000000007E-2,0.1,0.16]
[null,"    d. Trees"]
[null,"  1. dense willows, summer, straight",0.11,0.15,0.2]
[null,"  2. cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"  3. same as above, but with heavy growth of sprouts",0.05,0.06,0.08]
[null,"  4. heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little ",0.08,0.1,0.12]
[null,"  undergrowth, flood stage below branches"]
[null,"  5. same as 4. with flood stage reaching  branches",0.1,0.12,0.16]
[null,"4. Excavated or Dredged Channels"]
[null,"a. Earth, straight, and uniform"]
[null," 1. clean, recently completed",1.6E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2,0.02]
[null," 2. clean, after weathering",1.7999999999999999E-2,2.1999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null," 3. gravel, uniform section, clean",2.1999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null," 4. with short grass, few weeds",2.1999999999999999E-2,2.7E-2,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null,"b. Earth winding and sluggish"]
[null," 1.  no vegetation",2.3E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null," 2. grass, some weeds",2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null," 3. dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels",0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null," 4. earth bottom and rubble sides",2.8000000000000001E-2,0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null," 5. stony bottom and weedy banks",2.5000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null," 6. cobble bottom and clean sides",0.03,0.04,0.05]
[null,"c. Dragline-excavated or dredged"]
[null," 1.  no vegetation",2.5000000000000001E-2,2.8000000000000001E-2,3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null," 2. light brush on banks",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.05,0.06]
[null,"d. Rock cuts"]
[null," 1. smooth and uniform",2.5000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04]
[null," 2. jagged and irregular",3.5000000000000003E-2,0.04,0.05]
[null,"e. Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut"]
[null,"  1. dense weeds, high as flow depth",0.05,0.08,0.12]
[null,"  2. clean bottom, brush on sides",0.04,0.05,0.08]
[null,"  3. same as above, highest stage of flow",4.4999999999999998E-2,7.0000000000000007E-2,0.11]
[null,"  4. dense brush, high stage",0.08,0.1,0.14000000000000001]
[null,"5. Lined or Constructed Channels"]
[null,"a. Cement"]
[null," 1.  neat surface",0.01,1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null," 2. mortar",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"b. Wood"]
[null," 1. planed, untreated",0.01,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null," 2.  planed, creosoted",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null," 3. unplanned",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null," 4. plank with battens",1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2]
[null," 5. lined with roofing paper",0.01,1.4E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"c. Concrete"]
[null,"  1. trowel finish",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  2. float finish",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"  3. finished, with gravel on bottom",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  4. unfinished",1.4E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  5. gunite, good section",1.6E-2,1.9E-2,2.3E-2]
[null,"  6. gunite, wavy section",1.7999999999999999E-2,2.1999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null,"  7. on good excavated rock",1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  8. on irregular excavated rock",2.1999999999999999E-2,2.7E-2]
[null,"d. Concrete bottom float finish with sides of:"]
[null,"  1. dressed stone in mortar",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"  2. random stone in mortar",1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02,2.4E-2]
[null,"  3. cement rubble masonry, plastered",1.6E-2,0.02,2.4E-2]
[null,"  4. cement rubble masonry",0.02,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null,"  5. dry rubble or riprap",0.02,0.03,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null,"e. Gravel bottom with sides of:"]
[null,"  1. formed concrete",1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02,2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null,"  2. random stone mortar",0.02,2.3E-2,2.5999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  3. dry rubble or riprap",2.3E-2,3.3000000000000002E-2,3.5999999999999997E-2]
[null,"f. Brick"]
[null,"  1. glazed",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  2. in cement mortar",1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2]
[null,"g. Masonry"]
[null,"  1. cemented rubble",1.7000000000000001E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[null,"  2. dry rubble",2.3E-2,3.2000000000000001E-2,3.5000000000000003E-2]
[null,"h. Dressed ashlar/stone paving",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"i. Asphalt"]
[null,"  1. smooth",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"  2. rough",1.6E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"j. Vegetal lining",0.03,null,0.5]
[]
[]
[null,"Manning's n for Closed Conduits Flowing Partly Full  (Chow, 1959)."]
[null,"Type of Conduit and Description","Minimum","Normal","Maximum"]
[null,"1. Brass, smooth:",8.9999999999999993E-3,0.01,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"2. Steel:"]
[null,"Lockbar and welded",0.01,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Riveted and spiral",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"3. Cast Iron:"]
[null,"Coated",0.01,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Uncoated",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"4. Wrought Iron:"]
[null,"Black",1.2E-2,1.4E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Galvanized",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"5. Corrugated Metal:"]
[null,"Subdrain",1.7000000000000001E-2,1.9E-2,2.1000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Stormdrain",2.1000000000000001E-2,2.4E-2,0.03]
[null,"6. Cement:"]
[null,"Neat Surface",0.01,1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Mortar",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"7. Concrete:"]
[null,"Culvert, straight and free of debris",0.01,1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Culvert with bends, connections, and some debris",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Finished",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Sewer with manholes, inlet, etc., straight",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Unfinished, steel form",1.2E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Unfinished, smooth wood form",1.2E-2,1.4E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"Unfinished, rough wood form",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"8. Wood:"]
[null,"Stave",0.01,1.2E-2,1.4E-2]
[null,"Laminated, treated",1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2,0.02]
[null,"9. Clay:"]
[null,"Common drainage tile",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Vitrified sewer",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.4E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Vitrified sewer with manholes, inlet, etc.",1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Vitrified Subdrain with open joint",1.4E-2,1.6E-2,1.7999999999999999E-2]
[null,"10. Brickwork:"]
[null,"Glazed",1.0999999999999999E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2]
[null,"Lined with cement mortar",1.2E-2,1.4999999999999999E-2,1.7000000000000001E-2]
[null,"Sanitary sewers coated with sewage slime with bends and connections",1.2E-2,1.2999999999999999E-2,1.6E-2]
[null,"Paved invert, sewer, smooth bottom",1.6E-2,1.9E-2,0.02]
[null,"Rubble masonry, cemented",1.7999999999999999E-2,2.5000000000000001E-2,0.03]
[]
[]
[null,"Manning's n for Corrugated Metal Pipe  (AISI, 1980).  "]
[null,"  Type of Pipe, Diameter and Corrugation Dimension","n"]
[null,"  1. Annular 2.67 x 1/2 inch (all diameters)",2.4E-2]
[null,"  2. Helical 1.50 x 1/4 inch"]
[null,"8\" diameter",1.2E-2]
[null,"10\" diameter",1.4E-2]
[null,"  3. Helical 2.67 x 1/2 inch"]
[null,"12\" diameter",1.0999999999999999E-2]
[null,"18\" diameter",1.4E-2]
[null,"24\" diameter",1.6E-2]
[null,"36\" diameter",1.9E-2]
[null,"48\" diameter",0.02]
[null,"60\" diameter",2.1000000000000001E-2]
[null,"  4. Annular 3x1 inch (all diameters)",2.7E-2]
[null,"  5. Helical 3x1 inch"]
[null,"48\" diameter",2.3E-2]
[null,"54\" diameter",2.3E-2]
[null,"60\" diameter",2.4E-2]
[null,"66\" diameter",2.5000000000000001E-2]
[null,"72\" diameter",2.5999999999999999E-2]
[null,"78\" diameter and larger",2.7E-2]
[null,"  6. Corrugations 6x2 inches"]
[null,"60\" diameter",3.3000000000000002E-2]
[null,"72\" diameter",3.2000000000000001E-2]
[null,"120\" diameter",0.03]
[null,"180\" diameter",2.8000000000000001E-2]

{"sheet":"Lists","index":22,"n_rows":27,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":27,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
[]
["Model  Review Type","RAG","Coastal standard","Software","Model Type","Area Name","Tab List","QAR Sheet"]
["Coastal wave transformation only","Red","Strategic","ISIS/FMP","1D only","Cumbria and Lancashire","Model_Approach","FRA / Pre-App / ERR"]
["Coastal 1D inundation","Amber","Appraisal","FMP/TuFlow","2D only","Devon and Cornwall - East","1D_Model_Build","PDU"]
["Coastal 1D-2D inundation","Green","Design","Estry/TuFlow","1D/2D ","Devon and Cornwall - West","1D_Boundary_Conditions","CDF / CSF / MMF / MCF"]
["Coastal 2D inundation","OK",null,"TuFlow",null,"Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire","1D_Structures","Other"]
["Fluvial/tidal 1D model","N/A",null,"MIKE11",null,"Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk","1D_Run_Parameters"]
["Fluvial/tidal 1D-2D model",null,null,"MIKE21 HD",null,"East Midlands","2D_Model_Build"]
["Fluvial/tidal 2D model",null,null,"MIKE21 SW",null,"Greater Manchester Merseyside and Cheshire","2D_Boundary_Conditions","A - Design"]
["Surface water model",null,null,"MIKEFLOOD",null,"Hertfordshire and North London","2D_Structures","B - Appraisal"]
["Display all sheets",null,null,"SWAN",null,"Kent and South London","2D_Run_Parameters","C - Strategic"]
[null,null,null,"SWAN/EuroTop/TuFlow",null,"Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire","1D_2D_Surface_Water","U - Unsatisfactory"]
[null,null,null,"Other",null,"North East","Coastal_boundary"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Thames","Wave_Transformation"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"West and East Sussex","Wave_Overtopping"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Hampshire and Isle of Wight","Linked_1D_2D","Level 1"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Dorset and Wiltshire","Model_Stability","Level 2"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Somerset and West of England","Model_Outputs_Calibration","Level 3"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Shropshire Herefordshire Worcestershire and Gloucestershire","Model_Sensitivity"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"Staffordshire Warwickshire and West Midlands","Audit_Trail","1 Very good"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"North Yorkshire, East Ridings and Hull",null,"2 Good"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"South and West Yorkshire",null,"3 Fair"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"4 Poor"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"5 Very poor"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Not Previously assessed/known"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"Yes"]
[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,"No"]

{"sheet":"Version_control","index":23,"n_rows":4,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":4,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Date","Version","Description"]
["2019-09-06",4.5,"Baseline version"]
["2019-09-12",4.5999999999999996,"Add coastal  template to baseline.\nAdd version control sheet and version number\nAdd roughness example sheet\nAdd sheet 'Lists' for maintenance\nUpdate named ranges for RAG status\nAdd drop down box to select model type and VBA to hide/display relevant sheets\nExplicitly reference Model_checks in  cell comments\nSwitch off remove comments as code not yet resilient\n"]
["2020-01-17",4.7,"Add the QAF Tab\nAdd the Additional Info. Tab\nChange the VBA code to make them Hidden/Visible\nAdd the counting of colours in the QAR tab"]