source: production/onslow_2006/report/modelling_methodology.tex @ 3390

Last change on this file since 3390 was 3390, checked in by ole, 19 years ago

My comments

File size: 6.2 KB
Line 
1
2Geoscience Australia aims to define the economic and social threat posed to urban communities
3by a range of rapid onset natural hazards. Through the integration of natural hazard research, defining national exposure and
4estimating socio-economic vulnerabilities, predictions of the likely impacts of events can be made.
5Hazards include earthquakes, landslides, tsunami, severe winds and cyclones.
6
7By modelling the likely impacts on urban communities as accurately as possible and
8building these estimates into land use planning and emergency
9management, communities will be better prepared to respond to
10natural disasters when they occur.
11
12
13%GA bases its risk modelling on the process of understanding the hazard and a community's
14%vulnerability in order to determine the impact of a particular hazard event.
15%The resultant risk relies on an assessment of the likelihood of the event.
16%An overall risk assessment for a particular hazard would then rely on scaling
17%each event's impact by its likelihood.
18
19To develop a tsunami risk assessment,
20the tsunami hazard itself must first be understood. These events are generally modelled by converting
21the energy released by a subduction earthquake into a vertical displacement of the ocean surface.
22%Tsunami hazard models have been available for some time.
23The resulting wave is
24then propagated across a sometimes vast stretch of ocean towards the
25area of interest.
26%using a relatively coarse model
27%based on bathymetries with a typical resolution of two arc minutes.
28The hazard itself is then reported as a maximum wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline,
29(e.g. 50m). This is how the preliminary tsunami hazard assessment was reported by GA
30to FESA in September 2005 \cite{BC:FESA}. The assessment used the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST)
31\cite{VT:MOST} model.
32%The maximal wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline
33%(e.g. 50m) is then reported as the hazard to communities ashore.
34%Models such as Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST) \cite{VT:MOST} and the
35%URS Corporation's
36%Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis 
37%\cite{somerville:urs} follow this paradigm.
38
39While MOST is suitable for generating and propagating the tsunami wave from its source, it is not adequate to
40model the wave's impact on communities ashore. 
41To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community,
42the model must be capable of capturing more detail about the wave,
43particularly how it is affected by the local bathymetry, as well as the
44local topography as the wave moves onshore.
45%the details of how waves are reflected and otherwise
46%shaped by the local bathymetries as well as the dynamics of the
47%runup process onto the topography in question.
48It is well known that local bathymetric and topographic effects are
49critical in determining the severity of a hydrological disaster
50\cite{matsuyama:1999}. To model the impact of the tsunami wave on the
51coastal community, we use ANUGA \cite{ON:modsim}. In order to capture the
52details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is
53required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA simulations concentrate
54on specific coastal communities. MOST by contrast uses a
55coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact
56from an earthquake event from a distant source, we adopt a hybrid approach of
57modelling the event itself with MOST and modelling the impact with ANUGA.
58In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA.
59In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA.
60
61\bigskip %FIXME (Ole): Should this be a subsection even?
62The risk of the scenario tsunami event cannot be determined until the
63likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a
64complete probabilistic hazard map which is due for completion
65in late 2006. We therefore report on the impact of a single
66tsunami event only. When the hazard map is completed, the impact
67will be assessed for a range of events which will ultimately
68determine a tsunami risk assessment for the NW shelf.
69%To model the
70%details of tsunami inundation of a community one must therefore capture %what is
71%known as non-linear effects and use a much higher resolution for the
72%elevation data.
73%Linear models typically use data resolutions of the order
74%of hundreds of metres, which is sufficient to model the tsunami waves
75%in deeper water where the wavelength is longer.
76%Non-linear models however require much finer resolution in order to %capture
77%the complexity associated with the water flow from offshore
78%to onshore. By contrast, the data
79%resolution required is typically of the order of tens of metres.
80%The model ANUGA \cite{ON:modsim} is suitable for this type of non-linear
81%modelling.
82%Using a non-linear model capable of resolving local bathymetric effects
83%and runup using detailed elevation data will require more computational
84%resources than the typical hazard model making it infeasible to use it
85%for the entire, end-to-end, modelling.
86
87%We have adopted a hybrid approach whereby the output from the 
88%hazard model MOST is used as input to ANUGA at the seaward boundary of its %study area.
89%In other words, the output of MOST serves as boundary condition for the
90%ANUGA model. In this way, we restrict the computationally intensive part %only to
91%regions where we are interested in the detailed inundation process. 
92
93%Furthermore, to avoid unnecessary computations ANUGA works with an
94%unstructured triangular mesh rather than the rectangular grids
95%used by e.g.\ MOST. The advantage of an unstructured mesh
96%is that different regions can have different resolutions allowing
97%computational resources to be directed where they are most needed.
98%For example, one might use very high resolution near a community
99%or in an estuary, whereas a coarser resolution may be sufficient
100%in deeper water where the bathymetric effects are less pronounced.
101%Figure \ref{fig:refinedmesh} shows a mesh of variable resolution.
102
103%\begin{figure}[hbt]
104%
105%  \centerline{ \includegraphics[width=100mm, height=75mm]
106%             {../report_figures/refined_mesh.jpg}}
107%
108%  \caption{Unstructured mesh with variable resolution.}
109%  \label{fig:refinedmesh}
110%\end{figure}
111   
112
113
114
115 
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.