Changeset 3343


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 18, 2006, 10:45:01 AM (18 years ago)
Author:
sexton
Message:

minor updates

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.
     1GA bases its risk modelling on the process of understanding the hazard and a community's
     2vulnerability in order to determine the impact of a particular hazard event.
     3The resultant risk relies on an assessment of the likelihood of the event.
     4An overall risk assessment for a particular hazard would then rely on scaling
     5each event's impact by its likelihood.
    26
    3 To develop a tsunami risk assessment, the tsunami hazard itself must first be understood. These events are generally modelled by converting
     7To develop a tsunami risk assessment,
     8the tsunami hazard itself must first be understood. These events are generally modelled by converting
    49the energy released by a subduction earthquake into a vertical displacement of the ocean surface.
    510%Tsunami hazard models have been available for some time.
     
    914%using a relatively coarse model
    1015%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)
     16The 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
     18to FESA in September 2005 \cite{BC:FESA}. That assessment used the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST)
    1219\cite{VT:MOST} model.
    1320%The maximal wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline
     
    1825%\cite{somerville:urs} follow this paradigm.
    1926
    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.
     27MOST, which generates and propagates the tsunami wave from its source, is not adequate to
     28model the wave's impact to communities ashore. 
     29To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community,
     30the model must be capable of capturing more detail about the wave,
     31particularly how it is affected by the local bathymetry, as well as the
     32local topography as the wave penetrates onshore.
    2233%the details of how waves are reflected and otherwise
    2334%shaped by the local bathymetries as well as the dynamics of the
     
    2536It is well known that local bathymetric and topographic effects are
    2637critical 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
     39coastal community, we use ANUGA \cite{ON:modsim}. In order to capture the
     40details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is
     41required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA concentrates
     42on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast can tolerate a
     43coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact
     44from an earthquake event a distant source, we adopt the hybrid approach of
     45modelling the event itself with MOST and modelling the impact with ANUGA.
     46In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA.
     47In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA.
    2848 
    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.
     49The risk of this tsunami event cannot be determined until the
     50likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a
     51complete probabilistic hazard map which is due for completion
     52later this year. Therefore, we report on the impact of a single
     53tsunami event only. As the hazard map is completed, the impact
     54will be assessed for a range of events which will ultimately
     55determine a tsunami risk assessment for the NW shelf.
    3056%To model the
    3157%details of tsunami inundation of a community one must therefore capture %what is
  • production/onslow_2006/report/onslow_2006_report.tex

    r3339 r3343  
    6666    \input{tsunami_scenario}
    6767
     68  \section{Data sources}
     69    \label{sec:data}
     70    \input{data}
     71
    6872   \section{Inundation model}
    6973    \label{sec:anuga}
     
    7175    \input{computational_setup}
    7276   
    73   \section{Data sources}
    74     \label{sec:data}
    75     \input{data}
    76    
    77   \section{Modelling results}
     77  \section{Inundation modelling results}
    7878     \label{sec:results}
    7979         
     
    125125     \label{sec:issues}
    126126
    127 
    128 \pagebreak
    129 
    130 
    131      \section{Summary}
     127   \section{Summary}
    132128     \input{summary}
    133129     
     
    154150     \input{damage_inputs}
    155151
    156 \pagebreak
    157 
    158         \section{Time series}
    159      \label{sec:timeseriescompare}
    160 
    161 \pagebreak
    162 
    163 \input{compare_output_datasets}
    164152\end{document}
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.