{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":21,"sheets":["Details","Summary","Model_Approach","1D_Model_Build","1D_Boundary_Conditions","Stamp","1D_Structures","1D_Run_Parameters","2D_Model_Build","2D_Structures","2D_Boundary_Conditions","2D_Run_Parameters","Linked_1D_2D","Model_Stability","Model_Outputs_Calibration","Model_Sensitivity","Audit_Trail","Additional Info.","Roughness Values","Lists","Version_control"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":2,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":4,"comments":16,"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":[[5,6,5,8],[6,1,6,5],[7,4,7,5],[7,6,7,7],[7,8,7,9],[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]]}
[]
[null,"NON-REAL TIME HYDRAULIC MODEL REVIEW"]
[]
[null,"Type of review"]
[]
[null,"Project","White Cross Farm, Wallingford",null,"Job Number",null,"Required coastal standard\n (if applicable)"]
[]
[null,"Model Type","1D/2D ","Software","FMP/TuFlow",null,"2nd review",null,"3rd review",null,"4th review"]
[null,"Revision",null,"Date","2022-12-21"]
[null,"Area Client",null,"Reviewer","B B-R"]
[]
[null,"REVIEW SUMMARY/CONCLUSION"]
[null,"Is the model suitable for intended use?","### 1st review ###\nThere is one major concern with the model which is the increase in the cell size from 10m to 20m. This is a very large cell size which may not be accurately representing flow paths. Please return the cell size to 10m or provide evidence that the increase in cell size is not negatively impacting the models ability to accurately represent reality (also see amber comment under calibration on comparing with previous model). Please also see other amber (LiDAR date, model boundary glass walling and lowered zpt warning) and green comments for other concerns."]
[]
[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":[[29,1,29,3],[28,1,28,3],[25,1,25,3],[26,1,26,3],[27,1,27,3],[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],[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]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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","Existing 1D-2D model for Abingdon Flood Schemes – River Thames Model. Minor changes to 2D for baseline and some other changes for extraction phases"]
[1.2,"Software used, including versions? ",null,null,"OK","FMP 5.0 and TUFLOW version 2020-10-AA-iDP-w64"]
[1.3,"Model Version Reviewed ",null,null,"OK","Baseline (WCF_V03-A) and phases 1 to 4 (WCF_V03-P1/P2/P3/P4)"]
[1.4,"Are all model files provided? ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[1.5,"Does the model run? ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]
[]
["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","Q20, Q100 and Q100 + 12% CC for baseline and all phases"]
[2.2000000000000002,"Is a development being modelled? If so are appropriate scenarios modelled to assess the impact?",null,null,"OK","Phases of mineral extraction are modelled"]
[2.2999999999999998,"Flood Mapping scenarios?",null,null,"N/A"]
[2.4,"Have climate change runs been undertaken?",null,null,"OK","Yes, + 12% CC which is the Thames and South Chilterns Management Catchment 2020s central allowance"]
[2.5,"Has a study for quantifying uncertainty been undertaken?\nIf yes, what are the results?",null,null,"N/A"]

{"sheet":"1D_Model_Build","index":3,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[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],[6,0,6,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[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","485 nodes\n68.208 km"]
[3.2,"Have appropriate distances between sections and/or nodes been used (dx)?  ",null,null,"OK","Large distances between cross sections but this is deemed as ok for this type of model"]
[3.3,"Are out of bank flows represented in 1d? If so, how has it been done and is it appropriate?",null,null,"N/A","Model connected to 2D throughout"]
[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","No survey to check and no changes have been made from previous model. Cross sections generally look ok although some look like they extend into the floodplain in upstream sections. Sections around site of interest look ok"]
[3.6,"Chainage – compared to surveyed sections",null,null,"Green","No survey to check","As we're unable to check there remains uncertainty for this","Unfortunately we do not have the survey either. In fact, the reporting from the model supplied to us also notes that they had no survey either. Given the history of this model, I would expect that the EA probably hold the original survey, but it's not been pulled out in recent history. However, the Thames has not had significant alterations to channel or structures within this extent, so assuming the original survey was brought into the original model accurately, this should still suffice for current purposes."]
[3.7,"Does conveyance look appropriate? ",null,null,"Green","Selection checked around site of interest. Conveyance generally ok but some kinks in curve which could be smoothed out with panel markers","It would be ideal if the kinks were smoothed out of the conveyance curves","Note that this is the case with the supplied model, which has been used for both flood mapping and major scheme optioneering. If it was fit for those purposes, it ought to be fit for the current use of assessing the impact of a minor alteration within the floodplain. However, we have corrected this in our most recent modelling by adding panel markers where kinks are evident."]
[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,"N/A"]
[3.9,"Bank Markers. Are they used and if so, are they suitably located? ",null,null,"Green","A quick check shows bank markers haven't been used","It would be ideal if bank markers were used","Bank markers make no difference to the hydraulic calculations and as such have no bearing on the fitness for purpose of the model. They can impact the analysis of results, if one relies upon the long section plots from FMP in ones analysis, however they do not impact our analysis which is primarily undertaken using the 2D results."]
[3.1,"What approach to channel roughness has been used? ",null,null,"OK","A combination of fixed and varying bed and bank"]
[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,"OK","0.03 to 0.035 in channel. Along the banks there is a roughness of 0.06 in places"]
[3.12,"What method has been used to estimate roughness (USGS, Chow, etc. based on survey, photographs)? Are they appropriate",null,null,"Green","Cannot find in the report for this model but the previous model report suggests recorded data used to verify","It would be ideal if information about roughness was included in this report","No additional data has been obtained to inform roughness. As such, our best data source is the supplied model and the associated reporting. The values with the supplied model have been retained, since the justifications provided in the associated reporting seemed reasonable."]

{"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,"N/A","Linked to 2D"]
[4.2,"How have the inflows boundaries been applied? \n",null,null,"OK","QTBDY applying unchanged hydrology calculations from 2017. This has been checked against hydrology calcs in previous reporting and peak flows match for each inflow"]
[4.3,"How is the downstream boundary(s) applied?\n",null,null,"OK","QHBDY using high flow rating based on results from Reading Complex Change Project. This is unchanged from previous model"]
[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","Downstream boundary has not been changed from previous model and is far enough downstream not to have any impacts on the site of interest"]

{"sheet":"Stamp","index":5,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}

{"sheet":"1D_Structures","index":6,"n_rows":14,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":14,"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],[13,1,13,3],[12,1,12,3],[10,1,10,3],[11,1,11,3],[8,1,8,3],[9,1,9,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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","Unchanged from previous modelling. No survey to check and no mention of excluded strcutures in reporting. A quick check against Google maps show structure representation is ok especially around the site of interest"]
[5.2,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"Green","No survey data to check but not changed from previous model","As we're unable to check there remains uncertainty for this","Unfortunately we do not have the survey either. In fact, the reporting from the model supplied to us also notes that they had no survey either. Given the history of this model, I would expect that the EA probably hold the original survey, but it's not been pulled out in recent history. However, the Thames has not had significant alterations to channel or structures within this extent, so assuming the original survey was brought into the original model accurately, this should still suffice for current purposes."]
[5.3,"Do bridges surcharge? If so has orifice flow been enabled?",null,null,"OK","Orifice flow enabled with 0.1 upper and lower transition for all structures"]
[5.4,"Are there spills around the structure or over the top represented appropriately? ",null,null,"Green","No survey data to check but not changed from previous model. A lot of structures don't have 1D spills or ability to spill in 2D although those checked would not overtop during peak of Q100 +12%","As we're unable to check there remains uncertainty for this","Unfortunately we do not have the survey either. In fact, the reporting from the model supplied to us also notes that they had no survey either. Given the history of this model, I would expect that the EA probably hold the original survey, but it?s not been pulled out in recent history. However, the Thames has not had significant alterations to channel or structures within this extent, so assuming the original survey was brought into the original model accurately, this should still suffice for current purposes. As noted, structures without spills are sufficiently high that they would not overtop in the modelled event, so their inclusion would not alter any results."]
[5.5,"If there are any movable structures have they been modelled correctly? \n",null,null,"N/A","None found"]
[5.6,"Structure coefficients - Have they been changed from default values?",null,null,"OK","No survey to check but structure coefficients look ok"]

{"sheet":"1D_Run_Parameters","index":7,"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","2.5 sec, this is half of the 2D"]
[6.2,"What initial conditions have been used? Steady state, hotstart file?",null,null,"OK","Unsteady (fixed timestep), warm start. Initial conditions from IIC file"]
[6.3,"Have any of the parameters and advanced parameters been changed from the default. If so, has it been justified?",null,null,"Green","dflood set to 5. This is not included in this model's report or the previous models. Not expected to have an impact on the model results","Please include change of default in the report. Has the model been tested without this change to default?","No sensitivity has been undertaken, however given this is a linked 1D-2D flood model it is very much expected that water should exceed the top of the section data; if it were to do so by more than 3m at any location then dflood would need increasing. It may be that the event modelled does not benefit from the higher dflood, however larger magnitude events as may be modelled in future may well require it (this is retained from the supplied model, which presumably required it for the larger events). A small alteration to dflood such as this can not have any adverse impact on model results (since this will still provide ample resolution for determining the conveyance curves). No change required."]

{"sheet":"2D_Model_Build","index":8,"n_rows":24,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":24,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[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],[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]]}
[]
[]
[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","Two polygons in the code layer acting as a single domain"]
[7.2,"Area of 2d domain/s",null,null,"OK","59.29 sq km in total"]
[7.3,"What dataset has been used to define the DTM elevations? LiDAR, Photogrammetric DTM?",null,null,"Amber","1m LiDAR resampled to 10m. No information about year of LiDAR in either this model's report or the previous model's report","Please include what year the LiDAR was flown in the report. Were any checks conducted to make sure there isn't new LiDAR that the model can be updated with","There is more uptodate LiDAR available. A sensitivity has been undertaken to determine whether there would be any notable impact from the use of more recent LiDAR, which showed only uniform cheanges to the results; the types of change which would be equally present in bothbaseline and proposed modelling as so would not impact the outcomes of a study such as this. Therefore, rather than needing to consider whether wider changes should be make to the model to be consistent with this latest LiDAR it was decided to retain the LiDAR used in the supplied model.\nA 10m sampled DTM is sufficient resolution for use in a 20m model such as we are presenting, since TUFLOW samples at twice the grid resolution (ie.e every 10m); any greater detail would be ignored by TUFLOW uness sub-grid sampling was applied, which it has not been for this model. Note that this sampled dataset was used and accepted for the mapping and and optioneering studies previously despite their 10m resolution model."]
[7.4,"What grid resolution has been used?\nIs it suitable to accurately represent flow paths, e.g. between buildings?",null,null,"Red","Model updated with 20m cell size (previously 10m). It is understood this is to speed up run times. This is a very large cell size and there are concerns that it will not be picking up the level of detail needed for this assessment","Please provide results of a test run using 10m cell size to compare against the 20m cell size to prove that there is no loss of detail in the results","Sensitivity tests have been undertaken where the model is run on a 10m grid instead of a 20m grid. There are two noteworthy outcomes from this:\n1) The flood levels and extents are largely unchanged\n2) while the 10m model exhibits instabilities and mass error throughout, the 20m grid is more stable and more mass conservative.\nIn addition to this, the 20m grid, is sufficeint for represetning the relevant features in and around the area of interest, so will be retained for this study."]
[7.5,"Has the DTM been rotated to optimise flow route representation?",null,null,"OK","No loc line for DTM rotation however the orientation is ok as it is, particularly for the site of interest area"]
[7.6,"Is there any obstruction to flow?",null,null,"OK","There are 'floodplain features' that are represented using z lines and z points. The previous model report says these are embankments, ditches and ridges which have elevations taken from 2m LiDAR"]
[7.7,"Has additional site specific topographic survey data been used?\n",null,null,"OK","No additional survey found however several 2d z shapes have been used which uses more detailed 2m LiDAR to stamp in certain features. More detail in page 63 of previous model report"]
[7.8,"How have buildings been represented within the DTM?",null,null,"OK","Roughness value of 1. This seems a little high but is generally ok"]
[7.9,"Are defences/embankments/bank crests accurately represented?",null,null,"Green","Bank levels enforced using LiDAR because deemed more accurate than modelled cross sections. No survey to check bank levels against to verify","As we're unable to check there remains uncertainty for this","In this instance, the data in the cross may be taken as survey. The modelled cross sections are fairly spaced out, so using these to inform bank tops would generate long linear interpolated bank tops, however from the LiDAR it may be seen that there is some variation in bank elevation. Thus using the LiDAR is going to permit water to spill over into the 2D at the correct elevations better than using the surveyed section data could. In this instance, bank tops are well inundated at peak levels, so either selection would make no difference to results. As such, this does not generate uncertainty in the modelled outputs nor influence this model's fitness for purpose."]
[7.1,"If post-development scenarios are required have the proposed ground levels and building been represented appropriately?",null,null,"OK","Four phases of excavation have been modelled by including z shapes which lower the ground level by 0.5 or set to 39. Z lines and points also used to stamp elevations. 2D materials also change the roughness for the phases modelled. All modelled correctly"]
[]
["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,     0.055  \t! Default floodplain\n10089, 0.035  \t! Water\tinland          \n10111, 0.150\t! Natural environment (confierous/non coniferous trees)\theavy woodland and forest\n10167, 0.045   \t! Rail\t \n10172, 0.025   \t! Roads tracks and paths\ttarmac       \n10183, 0.025   \t! Roads tracks and paths (roadside)\tpavement   \n10053, 0.080   \t! General surface\tresidential yards\n10021, 1.000\t! Building\n99, 0.250\t! Stability"]
[8.1,"What methods have been used to estimate roughness? ",null,null,"OK","OS MasterMap"]
[8.1999999999999993,"Is the representation of different roughness areas sufficiently accurate and detailed? ",null,null,"OK","Yes"]

{"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","Culverts (2d_zsh, 1d_nwk and 2d_lfcsh), 'floodplain features', pools/lake beds. Represented using z lines, z points and SX lines for the culverts. More detail in previous model report page 63 of which they are unchanged"]
[10.199999999999999,"Are invert levels correct compared to survey data?",null,null,"Green","No survey data to check but not changed from previous model","As we're unable to check there remains uncertainty for this","Unfortunately we do not have the survey either. In fact, the reporting from the model supplied to us also notes that they had no survey either. Given the history of this model, I would expect that the EA probably hold the original survey, but it's not been pulled out in recent history. However, the Thames has not had significant alterations to channel or structures within this extent, so assuming the original survey was brought into the original model accurately, this should still suffice for current purposes."]
[10.3,"How have defences been represented? Zline? If there are flood zone scenarios have the defences been excluded adequately? ",null,null,"N/A"]
[10.4,"Have appropriate loss coefficients and roughness values been used?",null,null,"Green","All ok although SH3 has entry loss of 5. TUFLOW manual says it will default to 1 if above 1","Is this a typo? Please provide explanation/correct","This does look like a typo, although being in the supplied model this is difficult to confirm. However, our judgment is that this value is incorrect, so in our latest modelling we have corrected it to 0.5 to match all other nearby structures. This has no discernable impact upon results in the area of interest."]

{"sheet":"2D_Boundary_Conditions","index":10,"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","2D downstream boundaries modelled as 2D rating curves with slope of 1 in 100. 2D SX linking ESTRY culverts"]
[{"$f":"A9+0.1","v":9.1999999999999993},"Is the model boundary suitably large? i.e. the flood extent should not reach the boundary.",null,null,"Amber","There are a couple areas of glasswalling against the 2D domain, one of which is close to the site of interest. There are no 2D boundaries to let the water leave the model so it's pooling against the boundary. No information about this can be found in this model's report or the previous model's report","Please make edits to the model so the flood extent is not reaching the boundary and include information in the report","This is consistent with the results of the supplied model where for all simulated events larger than the 1%AEP design event, there is glass walling at this location. It would not be appropriate to have a boundary at this location to remove water that reaches this location, as it is simpy low ground to one side of the floodplain. The additional storage that is being removed from the model by having the active code where it is (instead of including the area of ground where elevations are below peak flood level) is small, in the context of flood flows on the Thames, so would have no impact on peak flood levels. This would not impact the results of this study so no change required, although it will be taken as a recommended improivement should further modelling be undertaken."]
[{"$f":"A10+0.1","v":9.2999999999999989},"Has rainfall been applied directly to the 2d model domain? ",null,null,"N/A"]
[9.3999999999999986,"Coastal - How has the wave overtopping been applied?",null,null,"N/A"]

{"sheet":"2D_Run_Parameters","index":11,"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","5 sec timestep which is 1/4 of the cell size"]
[11.2,"Have initial water levels been applied? Are they correct?",null,null,"OK","Initial water levels applied for ponds throughout the model and for the excavated area for each phase"]
[11.3,"Are the other 2D model parameters reasonable (e.g. flooding & drying, eddy viscosity). Are they different from default?",null,null,"OK","Boundary viscosity factor set to 3. This is above default but according to TUFLOW manual will have limited effect on results"]

{"sheet":"Linked_1D_2D","index":12,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[4,4,4,16],[6,4,6,16],[6,0,6,3],[11,1,11,3],[10,1,10,3],[12,1,12,3],[7,1,7,3],[9,1,9,3],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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,"OK","HX lines with some SX lines for 2D culverts"]
[12.2,"Is the digitisation of the links acceptable? ",null,null,"OK","A sense check focusing on the area around the site of interest has indicated that the digitisation of the links is acceptable. The 2D bank heights are comparable to the 1D bank heights and seem sensible. 1d_2d check shows water is transferring into 2D in correct locations"]
[12.3,"Is the 2d representation of the river channel comparable in width with the 1d model cross sections?",null,null,"OK","2D widths are comparable to 1D widths and deactivated 1D channel matches HX lines"]
[12.4,"Representation of 1D output in 2D domain",null,null,"N/A"]
[12.5,"Have any default link parameters been changed (i.e. to improve stability)?",null,null,"Green","a' attribute in HX lines have been given a value of 0.5 across the model and to 1 in isolated places. This is explained in the previous models report","As this is a deviation from default, it would be ideal if this information was included in this models report","As noted, this is as per the supplied modelling. Any future revisions of the reporting can be updated to include more reference to the historical work."]

{"sheet":"Model_Stability","index":13,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[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],[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]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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,"OK","Some warnings in zzd but not of particular concern"]
[13.2,"Convergence",null,null,"OK","Convergence looks ok"]
[13.3,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"OK","Selection of animations and graphed outputs around site of interest ok"]
[]
["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,"OK","Yes MB is within tolerable limits"]
[14.2,"Are CE and dV values relatively stable and remain so once the run has got going. ",null,null,"OK","dV and CE look ok"]
[14.3,"Errors/Comments/Warnings?",null,null,"Amber","All checks and warnings occur prior to simulation. Checks and warnings should be looked at to make sure there isn't anything that's effecting the model. Please check the WARNING 2118 e.g. Lowered SX ZC Zpt by 4.85m to 1D node bed level.","Please confirm you have looked at the checks and warnings and made sure they don't impact the results. Particularly W2118 as levels lowered as much as 4.85m. Have these been sense checked?","The errors have been reviewed; indeed one of the few changes to the baseline model from that supplied is adjusting the locations of ESTRY culvert SX links in the vicinity of the area of interest to that this particular warning (W2118) would no longer occur and there would be good connectivity between conduit and floodplain (the need for this change arising from the move to a 20m grid resolution). The remaining instances of this warning are a long way upstream of the area of interest and will have no impact on the study. Nonetheless, it will be noted as a future recommendation that these SX connections be adjusted appropriately too, should further modelling be undertaken."]
[14.4,"Negative Depths\n",null,null,"OK","No negative depths found"]
[14.5,"Does a basic check of animations and graphed outputs give an indication of good model stability?",null,null,"OK","Ok"]
[14.6,"2d extents and outputs",null,null,"OK","Extents and outputs ok"]

{"sheet":"Model_Outputs_Calibration","index":14,"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 has not been completed for this model however it has been completed for the previous model"]
[15.2,"Are the simulated hydrograph peaks reasonably similar to the recorded peaks? ",null,null,"N/A"]
[15.3,"Is the shape of the simulated hydrograph and therefore the volume suitably similar? ",null,null,"N/A"]
[15.4,"Are simulated floodplain extents similar to recorded extents? Are flow routes similar?",null,null,"N/A"]
[15.5,"Has suitable effort been made to attempt and improve calibration. Have attempted changes been documented with a quantification of impact?",null,null,"N/A"]
[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,"Amber","There are some changes from the preivous model, most noteable being the cell size change. It would be beneficial to have a brief comparison of the previous model flood extent against this models flood extent to see the impacts (if any) of the changes","Please provide a brief comparison of the flood extent from this model compared to the flood extent for the previous model e.g. Q100. This would help with 7.4 and providing evidence for the cell size change","Sensitivity tests have been undertaken where the model is run on a 10m grid instead of a 20m grid. Significantly, the flood levels and extents are largely uncganged and are certainly within the tolerances of the calibration exercise as reported in the previous study."]

{"sheet":"Model_Sensitivity","index":15,"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,"N/A","Not requested for this model. Sensitivity testing has been complete with previous model"]
[16.2,"Do the results of the tests show the models to be particularly sensitive to certain parameters?",null,null,"N/A"]
[16.3,"Have confidence limits for model results (+/- mm) been presented? How were they derived and does this seem sensible? ",null,null,"N/A"]

{"sheet":"Audit_Trail","index":16,"n_rows":20,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":20,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[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],[8,1,8,3],[19,1,19,3],[18,1,18,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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 model run log provided however there is a lot of information in the previous models report about files names etc.","It would be beneficial to have a model run log in the future"]
[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","Yes"]
[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,"Green","There is very limited information in the model report however the previous model report provides a detailed background of the model","It would be beneficial if the previous model report could be included as an appendix and/or referenced and included with the files for this model to make sure the technical background is not lost","The letter supplied with this review gives relevant details"]
[17.8,"Were notes on how the model operates under different flow conditions  provided?",null,null,"Green","This has been provided in the previous model report but not for this model","It would be ideal if information on the model operation under different flow conditions was also included in this models report","This modelling study only consideres a single design event, so operation under different flow conditions is not relevant for this study."]
[17.899999999999999,"Was an explicit statement of any concerns about the accuracy of the model or its ability to represent reality provided?",null,null,"Green","This has been provided in the previous model report but not for this model","It would be beneficial if statements around the accuracy of the model and its ability to represent reality was provided for this model","This has now been covered extensively in the letter accompanying this review response."]
[18,"Is there anything else missing or are there suggestions for additional information or clarification?",null,null,"N/A"]
[18.100000000000001,"Comment on the quality of the reports:",null,null,"Green","See 17.7","See 17.7","See 17.7"]
[18.2,"is a freeboard analysis necessary?\nIf yes have you review the report?\nWhat are is the agreed freeboard?",null,null,"N/A"]

{"sheet":"Additional Info.","index":17,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":17,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[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],[8,1,8,3],[4,0,4,3],[4,4,4,16],[6,0,6,3],[6,4,6,16],[7,1,7,3]]}
[]
[]
[]
[]
["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":18,"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":19,"n_rows":27,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":27,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"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":20,"n_rows":4,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":4,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"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"]