## 3 Results, Analysis, and Discussions
### Comparison of Dam-Break Tests with CFD Simulation  
The pressure and velocity results of the frame for both the CFD simulation and the laboratory experiment were compared, as shown in Table 14. The purpose of CFD simulation in this research was to provide a very good assumption for the parameters that would be used for conducting the laboratory experiment. The maximum value of velocity from the contour and the maximum value of velocity from the graph were compared with the experimental results and the results around the model from the contour. The maximum velocity value from the graph was higher than the result of velocity from the contour and the experimental work. Additionally, the experimental result of velocity was less than the maximum result of velocity from the contour due to the assumed applied pressure during  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Accelerometers**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Peak Accelerations (m/s\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **1 m Reservoir Water** & **2 m Reservoir Water** & **3 m Reservoir Water** \\  & **Height** & **Height** & **Height** \\ \hline AC1 & 0.012 & 0.080 & 0.170 \\ AC2 & 0.014 & 0.070 & 0.100 \\ AC3 & 0.013 & 0.050 & 0.090 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 13: Peak values of accelerations for the IBS frame.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Experimental Results**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Results of Contour at the Model Side**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Maximum CFD for Frame**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **Contour at the Model Side** & **Contour** & **Graph** \\ \hline Velocity (m/s) & 7.67 & 17.5 & 88.77 & 89.58 \\ Pressure (N/mm\({}^{2}\)) & 31.75 & 0.40 & 1.58 & 25.91 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 14: Comparison between dam-break and CFD results for IBS frame.  
the simulation or due to some issues related to the meshing. The lesser the size of the meshing, the better the results, but it needs a high-speed processor and time.  
Furthermore, the experimental result of the pressure was higher than the results of CFD for both the contour and the graph. The CFD simulation was simulated properly, and the fluid domain, meshing, and boundary conditions were carefully controlled appropriately, leading to this accurate simulation. Comparing the results of the CFD from the contour with the results of the CFD graph showed the accuracy of the simulation because they have a reasonable result, which proves their good agreement, and the percentage difference between the maximum velocities for both contour and graph was 0.9% (Table 14). Moreover, the fluid flows for CFD in Figure 12a correspond to the experimental fluid flows in Figure 14b, Figure 16a, and Figure 19a. The pressure impact for CFD on the graph in Figure 12c corresponds precisely to the pressure graphs depicted in Figure 15, Figure 18, and Figure 20 for the experimental test. The CFD simulation predicted the experimental dam-break test properly, and it also provided a very good guideline for the experimental work. However, the experimental results represent the real behavior of the model under the laboratory test. The CFD simulation was made earlier, before the experimental work, and it helped in carrying out the experimental work successfully.