Changeset 7228

Timestamp:

Jun 19, 2009, 12:54:43 PM (16 years ago)

Author:

ole

Message:

Fiddled with text about inundation thresholds

File:

• anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008/patong_validation.tex (modified) (2 diffs)

anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008/patong_validation.tex

@@ -628 +628 @@
 of this data comes uplifted or subsided coral heads. The length of
 vector increases with the magnitude of the displacement, the length
-corresponding to 1m of observed motion is shown in the top right
+corresponding to 1 m of observed motion is shown in the top right
 corner of the figure. As can be seen, the source model detailed in
 Section~\ref{sec:modelGeneration} produces a crustal deformation that
@@ -767 +767 @@
 %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.  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. 
+Maximum onshore inundation elevation was computed from the model
+throughout the entire Patong Bay region. 
+Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} (left) shows very good
+agreement between the measured and simulated inundation. However
+these results are dependent on the classification used to determine
+whether a region in the numerical simulation was inundated. In
+Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} (left) a point in the computational
+domain was deemed inundated if at some point in time it was covered by
+at least 1 cm of water. However, the precision of the inundation boundary 
+generated by the on-site survey is most likely less than that as it 
+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 is likely to vary significantly 
+and somewhat unpredictably. 
+Consequently, an inundation threshold of 10 cm was selected for inundation 
+extents reported in this paper to reflect
+the more likely accuracy of the survey and subsequently facilitate a more
+appropriate comparison between the modelled and observed inundation
+area.
+Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} (right) shows the simulated
+inundation using a larger threshold of 10 cm. 
+
 
 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}.