Changeset 6900


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Apr 24, 2009, 2:34:16 PM (15 years ago)
Author:
ole
Message:

Added sensitivity figures and first cut of some text

Location:
anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008
Files:
1 edited
4 moved

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008/patong_validation.tex

    r6736 r6900  
    170170%================Section===========================
    171171\section{Results}
     172\label{sec:results}
    172173Maximum onshore inundation elevation was simulated throughout the entire Patong Bay region. Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} shows very good agreement between the measured and simulated inundation. Discrepencies between the survey data and the modelled inundated area are apparant and would be due to a number of issues: These include uncertainties in the elevation data, simplifications in the models involved, effects of erosion and deposition by the tsunami event, unknown distribution of surface roughness, as well as measurement errors and missing data in the field survey data itself.
    173174
     
    188189\end{center}
    189190\end{figure}
     191
     192
     193
     194
     195%================Section===========================
     196\section{Sensitivities of inundation model}
     197
     198This section shows how model results vary as a result of changing the waveheight at the ANUGA boundary where it was coupled with the URSGA model
     199(Figures \ref{fig:sensitivity_boundary} and
     200\ref{fig:sensitivity_boundary_speed}), how model
     201results vary with different values of Manning's friction coefficient
     202(Figures \ref{fig:sensitivity_friction} and
     203\ref{fig:sensitivity_friction_speed}),
     204and finally
     205the effect of removing buildings from the elevation dataset.
     206(Figures \ref{fig:sensitivity_nobuildings} and
     207\ref{fig:sensitivity_nobuildings_speed}).
     208
     209The observations are as expected; The inundation extent increases with
     210boundary waveheight and decreases with friction. It also increases if
     211buildings are removed from the model. From the maximal inundation figures it
     212appears that the presence or absence of buildings is the most important parameter followed by the right choice of friction whereas a small pertubation in
     213the waveheight at the ANUGA boundary has comparatively little effect on the model results.
     214
     215FIXME(Ole): It would be nice if we could be a little more quantitative - e.g. along the lines of the MISG study that John and Jane participated in. Thoughts anyone?
     216
     217 
     218
     219
     220\begin{figure}[ht]
     221\begin{center}
     222\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_reference}
     223\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_minus10}
     224\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_plus10}
     225\caption{Model results with waveight at ANUGA boundary artifically modified
     226to asses sensitivities. The first image is the reference inundation extent as reported in Section \protect \ref{sec:results} while the second and third show the inundation results if the wave at the ANUGA boundary is reduced or increased by 10cm respectively. As expected the inundation severity varies in proportion to the boundary waveheight, but the model results are not overly sensitive to
     227this parameter.}
     228\label{fig:sensitivity_boundary}
     229\end{center}
     230\end{figure}
     231
     232
     233\begin{figure}[ht]
     234\begin{center}
     235\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_reference_speed}
     236\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_minus10_speed}
     237\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_plus10_speed}
     238\caption{Same models as in Figure \protect \ref{sensitivity_boundary} but
     239showing the maximal flow speeds.}
     240\label{fig:sensitivity_boundary_speed}
     241\end{center}
     242\end{figure}
     243
     244
     245
     246\begin{figure}[ht]
     247\begin{center}
     248\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_reference}
     249\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f0003}
     250\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f03}
     251\caption{Model results for different values of Manning's friction coefficient.
     252The first image is the reference inundation extent as reported in Section \protect \ref{sec:results} where the friction value $0.01$ was used across the
     253entire domain while the second and third show the inundation results for friction values of 0.0003 and 0.03 respectively. As expected, the inundation extent increases for the lower friction value while the higher slows the flow and decreases the inundation extent. Ideally, friction should vary across the entire domain depending on terrain and vegetation, but this has not been done in this study.}
     254\label{fig:sensitivity_friction}
     255\end{center}
     256\end{figure}
     257
     258
     259
     260
     261\begin{figure}[ht]
     262\begin{center}
     263\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_reference_speed}
     264\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f0003_speed}
     265\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f03_speed}
     266\caption{Same models as in Figure \protect \ref{sensitivity_friction} but
     267showing the maximal flow speeds.}
     268\label{fig:sensitivity_friction_speed}
     269\end{center}
     270\end{figure}
     271
     272
     273\begin{figure}[ht]
     274\begin{center}
     275\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_reference}
     276\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_nobuildings}
     277\caption{This figure shows the effect of having buildings as part of the
     278elevation data set.
     279The first image is the reference inundation extent as reported in Section \protect \ref{sec:results} where buildings were included. The second shows the inundation results for a model entirely without buildings.
     280As expected, the absence of buildings will increase the inundation extent
     281beyond what was surveyed.}
     282\label{fig:sensitivity_nobuildings}
     283\end{center}
     284\end{figure}
     285
     286
     287\begin{figure}[ht]
     288\begin{center}
     289\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_reference_speed}
     290\includegraphics[width=3.5cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_nobuildings_speed}
     291\caption{Same models as in Figure \protect \ref{sensitivity_nobuildings} but
     292showing the maximal flow speeds.}
     293\label{fig:sensitivity_nobuildings_speed}
     294\end{center}
     295\end{figure}
     296
     297
     298
     299
     300
     301
     302
     303
    190304
    191305
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.