Changeset 3343
 Timestamp:
 Jul 18, 2006, 10:45:01 AM (18 years ago)
 Location:
 production/onslow_2006/report
 Files:

 2 edited
Legend:
 Unmodified
 Added
 Removed

production/onslow_2006/report/modelling_methodology.tex
r3342 r3343 1 GA bases its risk modelling on the process of understanding the hazard and a community's vulnerability in order to determine the impact of a particular hazard event. The resultant risk relies on an assessment of the likelihood of the event. An overall risk assessment for a particular hazard would then rely on scaling each event's impact by its likelihood. 1 GA bases its risk modelling on the process of understanding the hazard and a community's 2 vulnerability in order to determine the impact of a particular hazard event. 3 The resultant risk relies on an assessment of the likelihood of the event. 4 An overall risk assessment for a particular hazard would then rely on scaling 5 each event's impact by its likelihood. 2 6 3 To develop a tsunami risk assessment, the tsunami hazard itself must first be understood. These events are generally modelled by converting 7 To develop a tsunami risk assessment, 8 the tsunami hazard itself must first be understood. These events are generally modelled by converting 4 9 the energy released by a subduction earthquake into a vertical displacement of the ocean surface. 5 10 %Tsunami hazard models have been available for some time. … … 9 14 %using a relatively coarse model 10 15 %based on bathymetries with a typical resolution of two arc minutes. 11 The hazard itself is then reported as a maximum wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline, (e.g. \50m). This is how the preliminary tsunami hazard assessment was reported by GA to FESA in September 2005 \cite{}. That assessment used the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST) 16 The hazard itself is then reported as a maximum wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline, 17 (e.g. \50m). This is how the preliminary tsunami hazard assessment was reported by GA 18 to FESA in September 2005 \cite{BC:FESA}. That assessment used the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST) 12 19 \cite{VT:MOST} model. 13 20 %The maximal wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline … … 18 25 %\cite{somerville:urs} follow this paradigm. 19 26 20 MOST, which generates and propagates the tsunami wave from its source, is not adequate to model the wave's impact to communities ashore. 21 To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community, the model must be capable of capturing more detail about the wave, particularly how it is affected by the local bathymetry, as well as the local topography as the wave penetrates onshore. 27 MOST, which generates and propagates the tsunami wave from its source, is not adequate to 28 model the wave's impact to communities ashore. 29 To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community, 30 the model must be capable of capturing more detail about the wave, 31 particularly how it is affected by the local bathymetry, as well as the 32 local topography as the wave penetrates onshore. 22 33 %the details of how waves are reflected and otherwise 23 34 %shaped by the local bathymetries as well as the dynamics of the … … 25 36 It is well known that local bathymetric and topographic effects are 26 37 critical in determining the severity of a hydrological disaster 27 \cite{matsuyama:1999}. To model the impact of the tsunami wave on the coastal community, we use ANUGA \cite{ON:modsim}. In order to capture the details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA concentrates on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast can tolerate a coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact from an earthquake event a distant source, we adopt the hybrid approach of modelling the event itself with MOST and modelling the impact with ANUGA. In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA. In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA. 38 \cite{matsuyama:1999}. To model the impact of the tsunami wave on the 39 coastal community, we use ANUGA \cite{ON:modsim}. In order to capture the 40 details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is 41 required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA concentrates 42 on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast can tolerate a 43 coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact 44 from an earthquake event a distant source, we adopt the hybrid approach of 45 modelling the event itself with MOST and modelling the impact with ANUGA. 46 In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA. 47 In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA. 28 48 29 The risk of this tsunami event cannot be determined until the likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a complete probabilistic hazard map which is due for completion later this year. Therefore, we report on the impact of a single tsunami event only. As the hazard map is completed, the impact will be assessed for a range of events which will ultimately determine a tsunami risk assessment for the NW shelf. 49 The risk of this tsunami event cannot be determined until the 50 likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a 51 complete probabilistic hazard map which is due for completion 52 later this year. Therefore, we report on the impact of a single 53 tsunami event only. As the hazard map is completed, the impact 54 will be assessed for a range of events which will ultimately 55 determine a tsunami risk assessment for the NW shelf. 30 56 %To model the 31 57 %details of tsunami inundation of a community one must therefore capture %what is 
production/onslow_2006/report/onslow_2006_report.tex
r3339 r3343 66 66 \input{tsunami_scenario} 67 67 68 \section{Data sources} 69 \label{sec:data} 70 \input{data} 71 68 72 \section{Inundation model} 69 73 \label{sec:anuga} … … 71 75 \input{computational_setup} 72 76 73 \section{Data sources} 74 \label{sec:data} 75 \input{data} 76 77 \section{Modelling results} 77 \section{Inundation modelling results} 78 78 \label{sec:results} 79 79 … … 125 125 \label{sec:issues} 126 126 127 128 \pagebreak 129 130 131 \section{Summary} 127 \section{Summary} 132 128 \input{summary} 133 129 … … 154 150 \input{damage_inputs} 155 151 156 \pagebreak157 158 \section{Time series}159 \label{sec:timeseriescompare}160 161 \pagebreak162 163 \input{compare_output_datasets}164 152 \end{document}
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.