1 | %================Section=========================== |
---|
2 | \section{Sensitivity Analysis} |
---|
3 | \label{sec:sensitivity} |
---|
4 | The numerical models used to simulate tsunami impact |
---|
5 | are computationally intensive and high resolution models of the entire |
---|
6 | evolution process will often take a number of days to |
---|
7 | run. Consequently, the uncertainty in model predictions is difficult to |
---|
8 | quantify as it would require a very large number of runs. |
---|
9 | However, model uncertainty should not be ignored. The aim of this section is |
---|
10 | not to provide a detailed investigation of sensitivity but to rather |
---|
11 | illustrate that changes in important parameters of the \textsc{usrga--anuga} |
---|
12 | model produce behaviour consistent with the known physics and that |
---|
13 | small changes in these parameters produce bounded variations in the output. |
---|
14 | |
---|
15 | This section investigates the effect of different values of Manning's |
---|
16 | friction coefficient, changing waveheight at the 100 m depth contour, |
---|
17 | and the presence and absence of buildings in the elevation dataset on |
---|
18 | model maximum inundation. |
---|
19 | |
---|
20 | The reference model is the one reported in |
---|
21 | Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} (right) with a friction coefficient of 0.01, buildings included and the boundary condition produced by the |
---|
22 | \textsc{ursga} model. |
---|
23 | |
---|
24 | %========================Friction==========================% |
---|
25 | \subsection{Friction} |
---|
26 | \label{sec:friction sensitivity} |
---|
27 | The first sensitivity study investigated the impact of surface roughness on the |
---|
28 | predicted run-up. According to Schoettle~\cite{schoettle2007} |
---|
29 | appropriate values of Manning's coefficient range from 0.007 to 0.03 |
---|
30 | for tsunami propagation over a sandy sea floor and the reference model |
---|
31 | uses a value of 0.01. To investigate sensitivity to this parameter, |
---|
32 | we simulated the maximum onshore inundation using a Manning's |
---|
33 | coefficient of 0.0003 and 0.03. The resulting inundation maps are |
---|
34 | shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity_friction} |
---|
35 | % and the maximum flow speeds in Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity_friction_speed}. |
---|
36 | The figure, along with Table~\ref{table:inundationAreas}, |
---|
37 | shows that the on-shore inundation extent decreases with increasing |
---|
38 | friction and that small perturbations in the friction cause bounded |
---|
39 | changes in the output. This is consistent with the conclusions of |
---|
40 | Synolakis~\cite{synolakis05} et al, who state that the long wavelength of |
---|
41 | tsunami tends to mean that friction is less important in |
---|
42 | comparison to the motion of the wave. |
---|
43 | |
---|
44 | %========================Wave-Height==========================% |
---|
45 | \subsection{Input Wave Height}\label{sec:waveheightSA} |
---|
46 | The effect of the wave height used as input to the inundation model |
---|
47 | \textsc{anuga} was also investigated. |
---|
48 | Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity_boundary} and Table~\ref{table:inundationAreas} |
---|
49 | indicate that the inundation |
---|
50 | severity is directly proportional to the boundary waveheight but small |
---|
51 | perturbations in the input wave height of 10 cm appear to have little |
---|
52 | effect on the final inundated area. Obviously larger perturbations |
---|
53 | will have greater impact. However, wave heights in the open ocean are |
---|
54 | generally well |
---|
55 | predicted by the generation and propagation models such as |
---|
56 | \textsc{ursga} as demonstrated in Section \ref{sec:resultsPropagation} |
---|
57 | and also in \cite{thomas2009}. |
---|
58 | |
---|
59 | |
---|
60 | |
---|
61 | %========================Buildings==========================% |
---|
62 | \subsection{Buildings and Other Structures} |
---|
63 | The presence or absence of physical buildings in the elevation model was also |
---|
64 | investigated. |
---|
65 | Figure~\ref{fig:sensitivity_nobuildings} shows the inundated area |
---|
66 | %and the associated maximum flow speeds |
---|
67 | in the presence and absence of buildings. From |
---|
68 | Table~\ref{table:inundationAreas} it is apparent that densely built-up |
---|
69 | areas act as dissipators greatly reducing the inundated area. |
---|
70 | This result suggest that, when possible the presence of human-made structures |
---|
71 | should be included into the model topography. Furthermore this result also |
---|
72 | indicates that simply matching point sites with much lower resolution meshes |
---|
73 | than used here is an over simplification. Such simulations cannot capture the |
---|
74 | fine detail that so clearly affects inundation. |
---|
75 | %However, flow speeds tend to increase in passages between buildings. |
---|
76 | |
---|
77 | |
---|
78 | \begin{table} |
---|
79 | \begin{center} |
---|
80 | \label{table:inundationAreas} |
---|
81 | \caption{$\rho_{in}$ and $\rho_{out}$ of the reference simulation and all sensitivity studies.} |
---|
82 | \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|} |
---|
83 | \hline |
---|
84 | & $\rho_{in}$ & $\rho_{out}$ \\ |
---|
85 | \hline\hline |
---|
86 | Reference model & 0.79 & 0.20\\ |
---|
87 | Friction = 0.0003 & 0.83 & 0.26 \\ |
---|
88 | Friction = 0.03 & 0.67 & 0.09\\ |
---|
89 | Boundary wave hight minus 10 cm & 0.77 & 0.17 \\ |
---|
90 | Boundary wave hight plus 10 cm & 0.82 & 0.22 \\ |
---|
91 | No Buildings & 0.94 & 0.44 \\ |
---|
92 | \hline |
---|
93 | \end{tabular} |
---|
94 | \end{center} |
---|
95 | \end{table} |
---|