Changeset 3375


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 19, 2006, 1:23:38 PM (18 years ago)
Author:
sexton
Message:

inputting reviewer's comments

Location:
production
Files:
23 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • production/onslow_2006/report/anuga.tex

    r3340 r3375  
    3030\item computational requirements relating to the mesh construction.
    3131\end{itemize}
    32 
    33 As part of the CRA, it was decided to provide results for the
    34 extremes of the tidal regimes to understand the potential range of impacts
    35 from the event. In this study, we used the Australian Height Datum (AHD)
    36 as the vertical datum. Mean Sea Level (MSL) is approximately equal to
    37 0m AHD with the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
    38 and Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) defined as 1.5m AHD
    39 and -1.5m AHD respectively for Onslow, \cite{antt:06}.
    40 These values are tidal
    41 predictions based on continous tidal observations from Standard Ports
    42 over a period of
    43 at least one year, with the Australian Hydrographic Service
    44 recommending this be extended to three years to capture
    45 changes to the mean sea level. Onslow is listed as
    46 a Standard Port. As an aside, current work at GA is
    47 extracting information from LANDSAT imagery to reconstruct the
    48 tidal variations for various WA locations. Future modelling of
    49 these areas will incorporate this information.
    50 
    51 The initial conditions used for this scenario are MSL, HAT and LAT.
     32 
     33The initial conditions used for this scenario are MSL, HAT and LAT which were
     34defined in Section \ref{sec:data}.
    5235The dynamics of
    5336tidal effects (that is, the changes in water height over time for
     
    5841the friction coefficients, and
    5942thus it has not been incorporated
    60 in the scenario presented in this report. The
     43in the scenario. The
    6144results are therefore likely to be over estimations.
    6245
  • production/onslow_2006/report/computational_setup.tex

    r3342 r3375  
    99the tsunami wave at the boundary is approximately 20km. A much
    1010higher model resolution will be used in developing the probabilistic
    11 models for further studies.}. Historical runup heights are
     11models for further studies.}. Historical run-up heights are
    1212of the order of 10m and we would expect that a tsunami wave
    1313would penetrate no higher for this scenario.
     
    1818approximately 10m elevation.
    1919
    20 The finite volume technique relies on the construction of a triangular mesh which covers the study region. This mesh can be altered to suit the needs of the scenario in question. The mesh can be refined in areas of interest, particularly in the coastal region where the complex behaviour is likely to occur. In setting up the model, the user defines the area of the triangular cells in each region of interest\footnote{Note that the cell
     20The finite volume technique relies on the construction of a triangular mesh which covers the study region. This mesh can be altered to suit the needs of the scenario in question. The mesh can be refined in areas of interest, particularly in the coastal region where complex behaviour is likely to occur. In setting up the model, the user defines the area of the triangular cells in each region of interest\footnote{Note that the cell
    2121area will be the maximum cell area within the defined region and that each
    2222cell in the region does not necessarily have the same area.}.
     
    3434Region 1: Surrounds Onslow town centre with a cell area of 500 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 30m).
    3535Region 2: Surrounds the coastal region with a cell area of 2500 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 70m).
    36 Region 3: Water depths to the 50m contour line (approximately) with a cell area of 20000 m$^2$ (later accuracy 200m).
     36Region 3: Water depths to the 50m contour line (approximately) with a cell area of 20000 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 200m).
    3737Region 4: Water depths to the boundary (approximately 100m contour line) with a cell area of 100000 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 445m).
    3838}
  • production/onslow_2006/report/damage.tex

    r3361 r3375  
    4343district level derived from the ABS 2001 Census.
    4444
    45 From this database, we find that there
    46 are 325 residential structures and a population of approximately 770
     45There are an estimated
     46325 residential structures and a population of approximately 770
    4747in Onslow\footnote{Population is determined by census data and the 1999
    4848ABS housing survey}.
     
    6666& of Total Value & Losses & of Total Value \\ \hline
    6767%MSL & & 1 & \$ &   \% & \$ &  \% \\ \hline
    68 HAT 68& 1&\$6M & &\$13M & & \\ \hline
     68HAT 70& 1&\$6M & 10\%&\$13M & 15\% & \\ \hline
    6969%LAT & & & & & & \\ \hline
    7070\end{tabular}
  • production/onslow_2006/report/data.tex

    r3361 r3375  
    11The calculated run-up height and resulting inundation ashore is determined by
    2 the input topographic and bathymetric elevation, the forcing terms, the
     2the input topographic and bathymetric elevation, the
    33initial and boundary conditions, as well as the cell area of the computational
    44mesh.
     
    88errors to the inundation maps, in addition to the range of approximations
    99made within the model.
     10
     11In this study, we used the Australian Height Datum (AHD)
     12as the vertical datum. Mean Sea Level (MSL) is approximately equal to
     130m AHD with the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
     14and Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) defined as 1.5m AHD
     15and -1.5m AHD respectively for Onslow \cite{antt:06}.
     16These values are tidal
     17predictions based on continous tidal observations from Standard Ports
     18over a period of
     19at least one year, with the Australian Hydrographic Service
     20recommending this be extended to three years to capture
     21changes to the mean sea level. Onslow is listed as
     22a Standard Port. As an aside, current work at GA is
     23extracting information from LANDSAT imagery to reconstruct the
     24tidal variations for various WA locations. Future modelling of
     25these areas will incorporate this information.
    1026
    1127Data for this study have been sourced from a number of agencies. With
     
    2238Figure \ref{fig:contours_compare}(a) shows the contour lines for
    2339HAT, MSL and LAT for Onslow using the DTED data where it is evident
    24 that the extent of the tidal inundation is exaggerated. This is due to
     40that the extent of the tidal inundation is exaggerated. In particular,
     41parts of Onslow town are inundated at HAT before a tsunami has
     42even been generated. This is due to
    2543short comings with the digital elevation model (DEM) created from
    2644the DTED data.
     
    6987have been clipped at the derived coastline.
    7088Appendix \ref{sec:metadata} provides more details and the supporting metadata
    71 for this study.
    72 Table \ref{table:data} summarises the available data for this study.
    73 Figure \ref{fig:onslowdataarea} shows the offshore data indicating a number of gaps.
     89for this study, including images of the data extent.
     90Table \ref{table:data} summarises the available data.
    7491
    7592\begin{table}
     
    87104\end{table}
    88105
    89 \begin{figure}[hbt]
    90 
    91   \centerline{ \includegraphics[width=100mm, height=75mm]
    92 {../report_figures/onslow_data_extent.png}}
    93 
    94   \caption{Data extent for Onslow scenario. Offshore data shown in blue
    95 and onshore data in green.}
    96   \label{fig:onslowdataarea}
    97 \end{figure}
    98 
    99106
    100107\pagebreak
  • production/onslow_2006/report/discussion.tex

    r3361 r3375  
    1 The purpose of this section then is to show the differences to the impact
    2 when each data set is used to demonstrate the importance of using the
     1The purpose of this section is to show the differences of impact
     2and the importance of using the
    33best possible data set. Given that the 1.5m AHD contour
    44line is further from the coast for the DTED data than the DLI data, we
  • production/onslow_2006/report/execsum.tex

    r3340 r3375  
    1313This report describes the modelling methodology and the results
    1414for a particular tsunami-genic event as it impacts the Onslow township
    15 and its surrounds. This report and the decision support tool are the
     15and its surrounds. Future studies
     16will present a series of scenarios for a range of return periods to
     17assist FESA in developing appropriate plans for a range of event impacts.
     18This report and the decision support tool are the
    1619June 2006 deliverables of the Collaborative Research Agreement
    1720between FESA and GA.
  • production/onslow_2006/report/interpretation.tex

    r3361 r3375  
    22tsunami wave and resultant impact ashore is described in this section.
    33We have
    4 chosen a number of locations which we believe would be important
    5 in an emergency situation, such as the hospital and power station, or
     4chosen a number of locations which we believe would be critical
     5in an emergency situation, such as the hospital and power station; or
    66effect recovery efforts, such as the airport and docks. These locations
    77are described in Table \ref{table:locations} and shown in
     
    2828%2 & 100m Olympic male freestyle \\ \hline
    2929%3 & mackeral \\ \hline
    30 4 & average person maintain for 1000m \\ \hline
     304 & average person can maintain running for 1000m \\ \hline
    3131%5 & blue whale \\ \hline
    323210 & 100m Olympic male sprinter \\ \hline
     
    7777It is evident that the sand dunes west of
    7878Onslow are very effective in halting the tsunami wave,
    79 see Figure \ref{fig:MSL_max_inundation}.
     79(see Figure \ref{fig:MSL_max_inundation}).
    8080There is inundation between the western sand dunes at high
    8181tide, Figure \ref{fig:HAT_max_inundation}, however, this water
  • production/onslow_2006/report/introduction.tex

    r3340 r3375  
    1313The key role of the Risk Research Group at Geoscience Australian
    1414is to develop knowledge on the risk from natural and
    15 human-caused hazards for input to policy and operational decision makers
    16 for the mitigation of risk to Australian communities. The group achieves
     15human-caused hazards for input to policy and operational decision making on
     16the mitigation of risk to Australian communities. The Group achieves
    1717this through the development of computational methods, models and decision
    18 support tools that assess the hazard, vulnerability and risk posed by hazards.
    19 To develop an understanding of the tsunami risk, these
    20 decision support tools consist of inundation
     18support tools that assess the hazard, vulnerability and risk posed by hazard
     19events. To develop an understanding of the tsunami risk, GA has developed
     20decision support tools, consisting of inundation
    2121maps overlaid on aerial photography of the region
    2222detailing critical infrastructure as well as damage modelling estimates.
     
    2424This report is the first in a series of tsunami assessments
    2525of the North West Shelf. The scenario used for this study has
    26 an unknown return period, however it is a plausible event (see
    27 Section \ref{sec:tsunamiscenario}.
     26an unknown return period, but considered a plausible event (see
     27Section \ref{sec:tsunamiscenario}).
    2828Subsequent assessments will use refined hazard models with
    2929associate return rates for other localities, as advised by FESA.
    30 In this report,
    31 the methods, assumptions and impacts of a
    32 single tsunami source scenario is described for the Onslow area in the
    33 North West shelf region. Future studies
    34 will present a series of scenarios for a range of return periods to
    35 assist FESA in developing appropriate plans for a range of event impacts.
     30
    3631Onslow has a population of around 800 and
    3732is part of the Shire of Ashburton in the Pilbara region of
  • production/onslow_2006/report/modelling_methodology.tex

    r3344 r3375  
    1616The hazard itself is then reported as a maximum wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline,
    1717(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)
     18to FESA in September 2005 \cite{BC:FESA}. The assessment used the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST)
    1919\cite{VT:MOST} model.
    2020%The maximal wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline
     
    2626
    2727MOST, which generates and propagates the tsunami wave from its source, is not adequate to
    28 model the wave's impact to communities ashore. 
     28model the wave's impact on communities ashore. 
    2929To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community,
    3030the model must be capable of capturing more detail about the wave,
    3131particularly how it is affected by the local bathymetry, as well as the
    32 local topography as the wave penetrates onshore.
     32local topography as the wave moves onshore.
    3333%the details of how waves are reflected and otherwise
    3434%shaped by the local bathymetries as well as the dynamics of the
     
    4040details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is
    4141required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA concentrates
    42 on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast can tolerate a
     42on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast uses a
    4343coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact
    44 from an earthquake event a distant source, we adopt the hybrid approach of
     44from an earthquake event from a distant source, we adopt a hybrid approach of
    4545modelling the event itself with MOST and modelling the impact with ANUGA.
    4646In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA.
    4747In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA.
    4848 
    49 The risk of this tsunami event cannot be determined until the
     49The risk of the scenario tsunami event cannot be determined until the
    5050likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a
    5151complete 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
     52in late 2006. We therefore report on the impact of a single
     53tsunami event only. When the hazard map is completed, the impact
    5454will be assessed for a range of events which will ultimately
    5555determine a tsunami risk assessment for the NW shelf.
  • production/onslow_2006/report/summary.tex

    r3340 r3375  
    1 This report has described the impact to Onslow from a tsunami
     1This report has described the impact on Onslow from a tsunami
    22generated by a Mw 9 earthquake on the Sunda Arc subduction zone
    33occurring at Highest Astronomical Tide, Lowest Astronomical Tide
     
    1010in the inundation maps. An onshore grid resolution of the order
    1111of tens of metres is required, however, it is more important that the data
    12 is accurate (or at least well known).
     12are accurate (or at least well known).
    1313These scenarios will be revisited once the probabilistic models
    1414are complete so that a suite of tsunami impact assessments can be made.
  • production/onslow_2006/report/tsunami_scenario.tex

    r3340 r3375  
    11The tsunamigenic event used in this report was developed for a
    22preliminary tsunami hazard assessment study delivered by GA
    3 to FESA in September 2005,
    4 \cite{BC:FESA}. In that assessment, a suite of Mw 9 earthquakes
     3to FESA in September 2005
     4\cite{BC:FESA}. In the assessment, a suite of Mw 9 earthquakes
    55were evenly spaced along the Sunda Arc subduction zone and there
    66was no consideration of the likelihood of each event.
     
    2626Figure \ref{fig:mw9} shows the maximum wave height of a tsunami initiated
    2727by a Mw 9 event off
    28 the coast of Java. It is this event which provides the source and
     28the coast of Java. This event provides the source and
    2929boundary condition to the
    3030inundation model presented in Section \ref{sec:anuga}.
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/make_report.py

    r3374 r3375  
    226226fid.write(s)
    227227
    228 s = '\\begin{sidewaysfigure} \n \centerline{ \includegraphics[width=\pagewidth]{../report_figures/%s}}' %gauge_map
     228s = '\\begin{sidewaysfigure} \n \centerline{ \includegraphics[width=\paperwidth]{../report_figures/%s}}' %gauge_map
    229229fid.write(s)
    230230
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/anuga.tex

    r3365 r3375  
    3131\end{itemize}
    3232
    33 As part of the CRA, it was decided to provide results for the
    34 extremes of the tidal regimes to understand the potential range of impacts
    35 from the event. In this study, we used the Australian Height Datum (AHD)
    36 as the vertical datum. Mean Sea Level (MSL) is approximately equal to
    37 0m AHD with the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
    38 and Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) defined as 3.6m AHD
    39 and -3.9m AHD respectively for Onslow, \cite{antt:06}.
    40 These values are tidal
    41 predictions based on continous tidal observations from Standard Ports
    42 over a period of
    43 at least one year, with the Australian Hydrographic Service
    44 recommending this be extended to three years to capture
    45 changes to the mean sea level. Onslow is listed as
    46 a Standard Port. As an aside, current work at GA is
    47 extracting information from LANDSAT imagery to reconstruct the
    48 tidal variations for various WA locations. Future modelling of
    49 these areas will incorporate this information.
    50 
    51 The initial conditions used for this scenario are MSL, HAT and LAT.
     33The initial conditions used for this scenario are MSL, HAT and LAT which
     34are defined in Section \ref{sec:data}.
    5235The dynamics of
    5336tidal effects (that is, the changes in water height over time for
     
    5841the friction coefficients, and
    5942thus it has not been incorporated
    60 in the scenario presented in this report. The
     43in the scenario. The
    6144results are therefore likely to be over estimations.
    6245
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/computational_setup.tex

    r3372 r3375  
    1313the tsunami wave at the boundary is approximately 20km. A much
    1414higher model resolution will be used in developing the probabilistic
    15 models for further studies.}.  Historical runup heights are
     15models for further studies.}.  Historical run-up heights are
    1616of the order of 10m and we would expect that a tsunami wave
    1717would penetrate no higher for this scenario.
     
    2222approximately 10m elevation.
    2323
    24 The finite volume technique relies on the construction of a triangular mesh which covers the study region. This mesh can be altered to suit the needs of the scenario in question. The mesh can be refined in areas of interest, particularly in the coastal region where the complex behaviour is likely to occur. In setting up the model, the user defines the area of the triangular cells in each region of interest\footnote{Note that the cell
     24The finite volume technique relies on the construction of a triangular mesh which covers the study region. This mesh can be altered to suit the needs of the scenario in question. The mesh can be refined in areas of interest, particularly in the coastal region where complex behaviour is likely to occur. In setting up the model, the user defines the area of the triangular cells in each region of interest\footnote{Note that the cell
    2525area will be the maximum cell area within the defined region and that each
    2626cell in the region does not necessarily have the same area.}.
     
    3838Region 1: Surrounds Port Hedland town centre with a cell area of 500 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 30m).
    3939Region 2: Surrounds the coastal region with a cell area of 50000 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 220m).
    40 Region 3: Water depths to the 50m contour line (approximately) with a cell area of 250000 m$^2$ (later accuracy 700m).
     40Region 3: Water depths to the 50m contour line (approximately) with a cell area of 250000 m$^2$ (lateral accuracy 700m).
    4141}
    4242  \label{fig:pt_hedland_area}
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/damage.tex

    r3373 r3375  
    4343district level derived from the ABS 2001 Census.
    4444
    45 From this database, we find that there
    46 are ? residential structures and a population of approximately ?
     45There are an estimated
     46? residential structures and a population of approximately ?
    4747in Port Hedland\footnote{Population is determined by census data and the 1999
    4848ABS housing survey}.
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/data.tex

    r3373 r3375  
    11The calculated run-up height and resulting inundation ashore is determined by
    2 the input topographic and bathymetric elevation, the forcing terms, the
     2the input topographic and bathymetric elevation, the
    33initial and boundary conditions, as well as the cell area of the computational
    44mesh.
     
    88errors to the inundation maps, in addition to the range of approximations
    99made within the model.
     10
     11As part of the CRA, it was decided to provide results for the
     12extremes of the tidal regimes to understand the potential range of impacts
     13from the event. In this study, we used the Australian Height Datum (AHD)
     14as the vertical datum. Mean Sea Level (MSL) is approximately equal to
     150m AHD with the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
     16and Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) defined as 3.6m AHD
     17and -3.9m AHD respectively for Port Hedland \cite{antt:06}.
     18These values are tidal
     19predictions based on continous tidal observations from Standard Ports
     20over a period of
     21at least one year, with the Australian Hydrographic Service
     22recommending this be extended to three years to capture
     23changes to the mean sea level. Onslow is listed as
     24a Standard Port. As an aside, current work at GA is
     25extracting information from LANDSAT imagery to reconstruct the
     26tidal variations for various WA locations. Future modelling of
     27these areas will incorporate this information.
    1028
    1129Data for this study have been sourced from a number of agencies. With
     
    2240Figure \ref{fig:contours_compare}(a) shows the contour lines for
    2341HAT, MSL and LAT for Port Hedland using the DTED data where it is evident
    24 that the extent of the tidal inundation is exaggerated. This is due to
     42that the extent of the tidal inundation is exaggerated.
     43In particular,
     44parts of Port Hedland are inundated at HAT before a tsunami has
     45even been generated.
     46This is due to
    2547short comings with the digital elevation model (DEM) created from
    2648the DTED data.
     
    7092Appendix \ref{sec:metadata} provides more details and the supporting metadata
    7193for this study, including images of the data extent.
    72 Table \ref{table:data} summarises the available data for this study.
     94Table \ref{table:data} summarises the available data.
    7395
    7496\begin{table}
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/discussion.tex

    r3364 r3375  
    1 The purpose of this section then is to show the differences to the impact
    2 when each data set is used to demonstrate the importance of using the
     1The purpose of this section is to show the differences of impact
     2and the importance of using the
    33best possible data set. Given that the 1.5m AHD contour
    44line is further from the coast for the DTED data than the DLI data, we
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/execsum.tex

    r3364 r3375  
    1313This report describes the modelling methodology and the results
    1414for a particular tsunami-genic event as it impacts the Port Hedland township
    15 and its surrounds. This report and the decision support tool are the
     15and its surrounds. Future studies
     16will present a series of scenarios for a range of return periods to
     17assist FESA in developing appropriate plans for a range of event impacts.
     18This report and the decision support tool are the
    1619June 2006 deliverables of the Collaborative Research Agreement
    1720between FESA and GA.
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/interpretation.tex

    r3373 r3375  
    22tsunami wave and resultant impact ashore is described in this section.
    33We have
    4 chosen a number of locations which we believe would be important
    5 in an emergency situation, such as the hospital and power station, or
     4chosen a number of locations which we believe would be critical
     5in an emergency situation, such as the hospital and power station; or
    66effect recovery efforts, such as the airport and docks. These locations
    77are described in Table \ref{table:locations} and shown in
     
    2828%2 & 100m Olympic male freestyle \\ \hline
    2929%3 & mackeral \\ \hline
    30 4 & average person maintain for 1000m \\ \hline
     304 & average person can maintain running for 1000m \\ \hline
    3131%5 & blue whale \\ \hline
    323210 & 100m Olympic male sprinter \\ \hline
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/introduction.tex

    r3364 r3375  
    1313The key role of the Risk Research Group at Geoscience Australian
    1414is to develop knowledge on the risk from natural and
    15 human-caused hazards for input to policy and operational decision makers
    16 for the mitigation of risk to Australian communities. The group achieves
     15human-caused hazards for input to policy and operational decision making
     16on the mitigation of risk to Australian communities. The Group achieves
    1717this through the development of computational methods, models and decision
    18 support tools that assess the hazard, vulnerability and risk posed by hazards.
    19 To develop an understanding of the tsunami risk, these
    20 decision support tools consist of inundation
     18support tools that assess the hazard, vulnerability and risk posed by hazard
     19events.
     20To develop an understanding of the tsunami risk, GA has developed
     21decision support tools, consisting of inundation
    2122maps overlaid on aerial photography of the region
    2223detailing critical infrastructure as well as damage modelling estimates.
     
    2425This report is the first in a series of tsunami assessments
    2526of the North West Shelf. The scenario used for this study has
    26 an unknown return period, however it is a plausible event (see
    27 Section \ref{sec:tsunamiscenario}.
     27an unknown return period, but considered a plausible event (see
     28Section \ref{sec:tsunamiscenario}).
    2829Subsequent assessments will use refined hazard models with
    2930associate return rates for other localities, as advised by FESA.
    30 In this report,
    31 the methods, assumptions and impacts of a
    32 single tsunami source scenario is described for the Port Hedland area in the
    33 North West shelf region. Future studies
    34 will present a series of scenarios for a range of return periods to
    35 assist FESA in developing appropriate plans for a range of event impacts.
    3631Pt Hedland has a population of around 42000 (including South Hedland) and
    3732is part of the Pilbara region of Western Autralia
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/modelling_methodology.tex

    r3364 r3375  
    1616The hazard itself is then reported as a maximum wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline,
    1717(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)
     18to FESA in September 2005 \cite{BC:FESA}. The assessment used the Method of Splitting Tsunamis (MOST)
    1919\cite{VT:MOST} model.
    2020%The maximal wave height at a fixed contour line near the coastline
     
    2626
    2727MOST, which generates and propagates the tsunami wave from its source, is not adequate to
    28 model the wave's impact to communities ashore. 
     28model the wave's impact on communities ashore. 
    2929To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community,
    3030the model must be capable of capturing more detail about the wave,
    3131particularly how it is affected by the local bathymetry, as well as the
    32 local topography as the wave penetrates onshore.
     32local topography as the wave moves onshore.
    3333%the details of how waves are reflected and otherwise
    3434%shaped by the local bathymetries as well as the dynamics of the
     
    4040details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is
    4141required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA concentrates
    42 on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast can tolerate a
     42on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast uses a
    4343coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact
    44 from an earthquake event a distant source, we adopt the hybrid approach of
     44from an earthquake event from a distant source, we adopt a hybrid approach of
    4545modelling the event itself with MOST and modelling the impact with ANUGA.
    4646In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA.
    4747In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA.
    4848 
    49 The risk of this tsunami event cannot be determined until the
     49The risk of the scenario tsunami event cannot be determined until the
    5050likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a
    5151complete 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
     52in late 2006. We therefore report on the impact of a single
     53tsunami event only. When the hazard map is completed, the impact
    5454will be assessed for a range of events which will ultimately
    5555determine a tsunami risk assessment for the NW shelf.
     
    9797%\end{figure}
    9898   
    99 
    100 
    101 
    10299 
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/summary.tex

    r3364 r3375  
    1 This report has described the impact to Onslow from a tsunami
     1This report has described the impact on Port Hedland from a tsunami
    22generated by a Mw 9 earthquake on the Sunda Arc subduction zone
    33occurring at Highest Astronomical Tide, Lowest Astronomical Tide
     
    1010in the inundation maps. An onshore grid resolution of the order
    1111of tens of metres is required, however, it is more important that the data
    12 is accurate (or at least well known).
     12are accurate (or at least well known).
    1313These scenarios will be revisited once the probabilistic models
    1414are complete so that a suite of tsunami impact assessments can be made.
  • production/pt_hedland_2006/report/tsunami_scenario.tex

    r3364 r3375  
    11The tsunamigenic event used in this report was developed for a
    22preliminary tsunami hazard assessment study delivered by GA
    3 to FESA in September 2005,
    4 \cite{BC:FESA}. In that assessment, a suite of Mw 9 earthquakes
     3to FESA in September 2005
     4\cite{BC:FESA}. In the assessment, a suite of Mw 9 earthquakes
    55were evenly spaced along the Sunda Arc subduction zone and there
    66was no consideration of the likelihood of each event.
     
    2626Figure \ref{fig:mw9} shows the maximum wave height of a tsunami initiated
    2727by a Mw 9 event off
    28 the coast of Java. It is this event which provides the source and
     28the coast of Java. This event provides the source and
    2929boundary condition to the
    3030inundation model presented in Section \ref{sec:anuga}.
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.