Changeset 3394
- Timestamp:
- Jul 20, 2006, 6:53:57 PM (19 years ago)
- Location:
- production/pt_hedland_2006/report
- Files:
-
- 5 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
production/pt_hedland_2006/report/anuga.tex
r3375 r3394 7 7 technique belongs to the class of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) 8 8 methods which is based on discretizing the study area in 9 control ''volumes''. The method satisfi ces conservation10 of mass , momentum and energy and is exactlysatisfied for9 control ''volumes''. The method satisfies conservation 10 of mass and horizontal momentum and is satisfied for 11 11 each control volume. 12 12 An advantage of this technique is that the discretization … … 15 15 is treated robustly as part of the numerical scheme.}. 16 16 ANUGA is continually being developed and validated to ensure 17 the modelling approximations reflect new theory or 18 available experimental data sets. 17 the modelling approximations are as accurate as possible. 18 However, model sensitivity to errors in bathymetric data, 19 frictional resistance of the seafloor and the size of the 20 tsunamigenic event are not well understood and the topic 21 of ongoing research. 19 22 As such, the current results are preliminary. 20 23 … … 41 44 the friction coefficients, and 42 45 thus it has not been incorporated 43 in the scenario. The44 results are therefore likely to be over estimations.46 in the scenario. 47 The results are therefore likely to be over estimations. 45 48 -
production/pt_hedland_2006/report/damage_inputs.tex
r3364 r3394 1 \begin{table} 1 \begin{table}[p] 2 2 \begin{center} 3 3 \caption{Framed residential building collapse probability. $h$ is the … … 6 6 \label{table:collapse} 7 7 \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline 8 Building Location&8 Distance from coast ($d[m]$) & 9 9 $h$<1.0 &1.0<$h$<2.0& 2.0<$h$<3.0 &3.0<$h$<5.0 &$h$>5.0 \\ \hline 10 First 2 Rows 11 (1st block) &0.05 &0.6 &0.8 &0.95 &0.99 \\ \hline 12 Second 2 Rows (2nd block) &0.02 &0.3 &0.4 &0.7 &0.9 \\ \hline 13 Third 2 Rows 14 (3rd block) &0.01 &0.1 &0.25 &0.5 &0.65 \\ \hline 15 Beyond 3rd block &0.0 &0.05 &0.15 &0.3 &0.45 \\ \hline 10 $d < 125$ &0.05 &0.6 &0.8 &0.95 &0.99 \\ \hline 11 $125 < d < 200$ &0.02 &0.3 &0.4 &0.7 &0.9 \\ \hline 12 $200 < d < 250$ &0.01 &0.1 &0.25 &0.5 &0.65 \\ \hline 13 $200 < d$ &0.0 &0.05 &0.15 &0.3 &0.45 \\ \hline 16 14 \end{tabular} 17 15 \end{center} … … 23 21 \label{table:casualty} 24 22 \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline 25 Hazard Exposure & 23 Hazard Exposure & depth above floor & Unharmed &Minor 26 24 &Moderate &Serious &Death \\ \hline 27 25 Collapse &<1.0 &0.3 &0.28 &0.08 &0.04 &0.30 \\ \hline 28 26 &>1.0 &0.01 &0.028 &0.008 &0.004 &0.95 \\ \hline 29 No Collapse 1st 3 blocks&<1.0 &0.35 &0.40 &0.1 &0.05 &0.1027 No Collapse - $d < 250$ &<1.0 &0.35 &0.40 &0.1 &0.05 &0.10 30 28 \\ \hline 31 29 &>1.0 &0.1 &0.28 &0.08 &0.04 &0.50 \\ \hline 32 No Collapse - Elsewhere&<1.0 &0.4 &0.4 &0.1 &0.05 &0.05 \\ \hline30 No Collapse - $250 < d$ &<1.0 &0.4 &0.4 &0.1 &0.05 &0.05 \\ \hline 33 31 &>1.0 &0.12 &0.33 &0.1 &0.05 &0.40 \\ \hline 34 32 \end{tabular} … … 38 36 \begin{table} 39 37 \begin{center} 40 \caption{Injury level classifications }38 \caption{Injury level classificationse. Floor height is assumed to be 30cm} 41 39 \label{table:injury} 42 40 \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{|l|p{.695\textwidth}|}\hline … … 65 63 \end{table} 66 64 \clearpage 65 -
production/pt_hedland_2006/report/data.tex
r3375 r3394 36 36 20m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and orthophotography 37 37 covering the NW Shelf. The DTED Level 2 data is ``bare earth'' and 38 the DLI data distorted by vegetation and buildings.38 the DLI data is distorted by vegetation and buildings. 39 39 40 40 Figure \ref{fig:contours_compare}(a) shows the contour lines for … … 42 42 that the extent of the tidal inundation is exaggerated. 43 43 In particular, 44 parts of Port Hedland a re inundated at HAT before a tsunami has44 parts of Port Hedland appear to be inundated at HAT before a tsunami has 45 45 even been generated. 46 46 This is due to -
production/pt_hedland_2006/report/execsum.tex
r3375 r3394 11 11 threat and develop detailed response plans for a range of plausible events. 12 12 13 This report describes the modelling methodology and theresults13 This report describes the modelling methodology and first results 14 14 for a particular tsunami-genic event as it impacts the Port Hedland township 15 15 and its surrounds. Future studies -
production/pt_hedland_2006/report/modelling_methodology.tex
r3375 r3394 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. 1 Geoscience Australia aims to define the economic and social threat posed to urban communities 2 by a range of rapid onset natural hazards. Through the integration of natural hazard research, defining national exposure and 3 estimating socio-economic vulnerabilities, predictions of the likely impacts of events can be made. 4 Hazards include earthquakes, landslides, tsunami, severe winds and cyclones. 5 6 By modelling the likely impacts on urban communities as accurately as possible and 7 building these estimates into land use planning and emergency 8 management, communities will be better prepared to respond to 9 natural disasters when they occur. 10 11 12 %GA bases its risk modelling on the process of understanding the hazard and a community's 13 %vulnerability in order to determine the impact of a particular hazard event. 14 %The resultant risk relies on an assessment of the likelihood of the event. 15 %An overall risk assessment for a particular hazard would then rely on scaling 16 %each event's impact by its likelihood. 6 17 7 18 To develop a tsunami risk assessment, … … 25 36 %\cite{somerville:urs} follow this paradigm. 26 37 27 MOST, which generates and propagates the tsunami wave from its source,is not adequate to38 While MOST is suitable for generating and propagating the tsunami wave from its source, it is not adequate to 28 39 model the wave's impact on communities ashore. 29 40 To capture the \emph{impact} of a tsunami to a coastal community, … … 39 50 coastal community, we use ANUGA \cite{ON:modsim}. In order to capture the 40 51 details of the wave and its interactions, a much finer resolution is 41 required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA concentrates42 on a specific coastal community. MOST by contrast uses a52 required than that of the hazard model. As a result, ANUGA simulations concentrate 53 on specific coastal communities. MOST by contrast uses a 43 54 coarser resolution and covers often vast areas. To develop the impact 44 55 from an earthquake event from a distant source, we adopt a hybrid approach of … … 46 57 In this way, the output from MOST serves as an input to ANUGA. 47 58 In modelling terms, the MOST output is a boundary condition for ANUGA. 48 59 60 \bigskip %FIXME (Ole): Should this be a subsection even? 49 61 The risk of the scenario tsunami event cannot be determined until the 50 62 likelihood of the event is known. GA is currently building a … … 97 109 %\end{figure} 98 110 111 112 113 99 114 115
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.