1 | To initiate the modelling, the computational mesh is constructed to |
---|
2 | cover the available data. The resolution is chosen to balance |
---|
3 | computational time and desired resolution in areas of interest, |
---|
4 | particularly in the interface between the on and offshore. he |
---|
5 | following figure illustrates the data extent for the |
---|
6 | scenario and where further mesh refinement has been made. The choice |
---|
7 | of the refinement is based around the important inter-tidal zones and |
---|
8 | other important features such as islands and rivers. |
---|
9 | The resultant computational mesh is then seen in \ref{fig:mesh_onslow} |
---|
10 | which has an area of around ? km$^2$. |
---|
11 | In contrast to the Onslow study, the most northern |
---|
12 | boundary of the study area is placed approximately around the 50m contour |
---|
13 | line. The driver for this change was the computational time taken to |
---|
14 | develop the mesh and associate the points to that mesh. By comparison, the |
---|
15 | 100m contour for the Onslow study is approximately 100km from the coast, |
---|
16 | with that distance approximately 200km for Pt Hedland. The increased |
---|
17 | study area (from 6300 km$^2 for Onslow to 24400 km$^2 for Pt Hedland) |
---|
18 | then increases the number of triangles, thereby increasing |
---|
19 | the computational time. It would be possible to increase the cell resolution |
---|
20 | to minimise the number of triangles, however, the cell resolution would have |
---|
21 | to be raised to an unacceptable level. |
---|
22 | However, initial comparisons between the deep water model MOST (Method of |
---|
23 | Splitting Tsunami) and ANUGA show that they are reasonably well matched |
---|
24 | to the 50m contour line. More detailed investigations are necessary to |
---|
25 | confirm this position as the point may be dependent on the local bathymetry. |
---|
26 | |
---|
27 | \begin{figure}[hbt] |
---|
28 | |
---|
29 | \centerline{ \includegraphics[width=100mm, height=75mm] |
---|
30 | {../report_figures/pt_hedland_data_poly.png}} |
---|
31 | |
---|
32 | \caption{Study area for Pt Hedland scenario} |
---|
33 | \label{fig:pthedland_area} |
---|
34 | \end{figure} |
---|
35 | |
---|
36 | |
---|
37 | \begin{figure}[hbt] |
---|
38 | |
---|
39 | %\centerline{ \includegraphics[width=100mm, height=75mm]{}} |
---|
40 | |
---|
41 | \caption{Computational mesh for Pt Hedland study area} |
---|
42 | \label{fig:meshpthedland} |
---|
43 | \end{figure} |
---|
44 | |
---|
45 | For the simulations, we have chosen a resolution of 500 m$^2$ for the |
---|
46 | region surrounding the Pt Hedland town centre. The resolution is increased |
---|
47 | to 2500 m$^2$ for the region surrounding the coast and further increased |
---|
48 | to 100000 m$^2$ for the region reaching approximately the 50m contour line. |
---|
49 | With these resolutions in place, the study area consists of ? triangles. |
---|
50 | The associated accuracy |
---|
51 | for these resolutions is approximatly 22m, 50m, and 315m for the increasing |
---|
52 | resolutions. This means |
---|
53 | that we can only be confident in the calculated inundation to approximately |
---|
54 | 22m accuracy within the Pt Hedland town centre. |
---|
55 | This is because ANUGA calculates whether each cell in the triangular |
---|
56 | mesh is wet or dry. It is important |
---|
57 | to refine the mesh to be commensurate with the underlying data especially in |
---|
58 | those regions where complex behaviour will occur, such as the inter-tidal |
---|
59 | zone and estuaries. |
---|
60 | |
---|
61 | Whilst friction has been incorporated into the model, we have not |
---|
62 | implemented it here. |
---|
63 | We have an outstanding issue with regard how friction is |
---|
64 | modelled which is not yet resolved. |
---|