Changeset 7220

Timestamp:

Jun 19, 2009, 3:12:18 AM (15 years ago)

Author:

jakeman

Message:

John Jakeman: Made minor changes to validation study and added .bst file necessary for Ocean Dynamics Journal format

Location:

anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008

Files:

• patong_validation.tex (modified) (5 diffs)
• spmpsci.bst (added)

anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008/patong_validation.tex

@@ -663 +663 @@
 \end{figure}
 
-
 \subsection{Propagation}\label{sec:resultsPropagation}
 The deformation results described in Section~\ref{sec:modelGeneration}
@@ -680 +679 @@
 Figure \ref{fig:jasonComparison} provides a comparison of the
 \textsc{ursga} predicted sea surface elevation with the JASON
-satellite altimetry data. The \textsc{ursga} model replicates the
-amplitude and timing of the first peak and trough well. However, the
-model does not resolve the double peak of the first wave. Also note
+satellite altimetry data. The \textsc{ursga} model replicates the 
+amplitude and timing of the the wave observed at 2.5 degrees South,
+but underestimates the amplitude of the wave further to the south at
+4 degrees South. In the model, the southern most of these two waves
+appears only as a small bump in the cross section of the model shown
+in Figure~\ref{fig:jasonComparison} instead of being a distinct peak
+as can be seen in the satellite data. Also note
 that the \textsc{ursga} model prediction of the ocean surface
 elevation becomes out of phase with the JASON data at 3 to 7 degrees
@@ -755 +758 @@
 reasonable
 
-FIXME (Ole): Perhaps rephrase a bit as the 1cm vs 10cm is hard to
-understand.  Maximum onshore inundation elevation was computed from
-the model throughout the entire Patong Bay
+%FIXME (Ole): Perhaps rephrase a bit as the 1cm vs 10cm is hard to
+%understand.  Remove figure using 1cm inundation
+Maximum onshore inundation elevation was computed from the model throughout the entire Patong Bay
 region. Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} shows very good
-agreement between the measured and simulated inundation. The
-\textsc{anuga} simulation determines a region to be inundated if at
-some point in time it was covered by at least 1cm of water. This
-precision in field measurements is impossible to obtain. The
-inundation boundary is determined by observing water marks and other
-signs left by the receding waters. The precision of the observed
-inundation map is, most likely, at least an order of magnitude worse
-than the \textsc{anuga} simulation. The simulated inundation based
-upon a 10cm threshold is shown in
-Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm}. An inundation threshold of
-10cm was selected for all future simulations to reflect the likely
+agreement between the measured and simulated inundation.  However these results are dependent on 
+the classification used to determine whether a region in in the numerical simulation was inundated.
+In Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} a point in the computational domain was deemed
+inundated if at some point in time it was covered by at least 1cm of water. 
+However the precision of the field measurements is most likely different to the 1cm used
+to determine the simulated inundation. The inundation boundary generated by the on-site survey
+was determined by observing water marks and other signs left by the receding waters. Consequently 
+the measurement error along the inundation boundary of the survey varies significantly. However it is 
+impossible to quantify this error. Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} shows the simulated
+inundation using a threshold of 10cm. An inundation threshold of 10cm was selected for 
+the current and all future simulations to reflect the likely
 accuracy of the survey and subsequently facilitate a more appropriate
-comparison between the modelled and observed inundation area.
+comparison between the modelled and observed inundation area. 
 
 An animation of this simulation is available on the ANUGA website at \url{https://datamining.anu.edu.au/anuga} or directly from \url{http://tinyurl.com/patong2004}.
@@ -789 +792 @@
 introduce the measure
 \begin{equation}
-A(I_{in})=\frac{A(I_m\cap I_o)}{A(I_o)}
+\rho_{in}=\frac{A(I_m\cap I_o)}{A(I_o)}
 \end{equation}
-representing the ratio $A(I_{in})$ of observed
+representing the ratio $\rho_{in}$ of observed
 inundation region $I_o$ captured by the model $I_m$. Another useful
 measure is the fraction of the modelled inundation area that falls
 outside the observed inundation area given by the formula
 \begin{equation}
-A(I_{out})=\frac{A(I_m\setminus (I_m\cap I_o))}{A(I_o)}
+\rho_{out}=\frac{A(I_m\setminus (I_m\cap I_o))}{A(I_o)}
 \end{equation}
 These values for the two aforementioned simulations are given in
-Table~\ref{table:inundationAreas} FIXME (Ole): The left hand side of
-these equations are not areas - consider another symbol.
+Table~\ref{table:inundationAreas} %FIXME (Ole): The left hand side of
+%these equations are not areas - consider another symbol.
 
 Discrepancies between the survey data and the modelled inundated
@@ -942 +945 @@
 \begin{center}
 \label{table:inundationAreas}
-\caption{$A(I_{in})$ and $A(I_{out})$ of the reference simulation and all sensitivity studies}
+\caption{$\rho_{in}$ and $\rho_{out}$ of the reference simulation and all sensitivity studies}
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
 \hline
- & $A(I_{in})$ & $A(I_{out})$ \\ 
+ & $\rho_{in}$ & $\rho_{out}$ \\ 
 \hline\hline
 Reference & 0.76 & 0.22\\