Changeset 7401
- Timestamp:
- Aug 21, 2009, 5:56:38 PM (15 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
anuga_work/publications/boxing_day_validation_2008/patong_validation.tex
r7399 r7401 165 165 It consists of geodetic measurements of the 166 166 Sumatra--Andaman earthquake that are used to validate the description 167 of the tsunami source, altimetry data from the JASONsatellite to test167 of the tsunami source, altimetry data from the \textsc{jason} satellite to test 168 168 open ocean propagation, eye-witness accounts to assess near shore 169 169 propagation, and a detailed inundation survey of Patong city, Thailand … … 329 329 used to validate the propagation stage in Section 330 330 \ref{sec:resultsPropagation}. 331 FIXME (Ole): See Phil's second point and email with help from David 332 333 331 334 %DB I suggest we combine with model data to reduce the number of figures. The satellite track is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:satelliteTrack}. 332 335 … … 393 396 \end{figure} 394 397 FIXME (Jane): legend? Were the contours derived from the final dataset? 395 This is not the entire mode , only the bay and the beach.398 This is not the entire model, only the bay and the beach. 396 399 397 400 \subsubsection{Buildings and Other Structures} … … 404 407 405 408 \subsubsection{Inundation Survey} 406 Tsunami run-up i s the cause of the largestfinancial and human409 Tsunami run-up in built-up areas can be the cause of large financial and human 407 410 losses, yet run-up data that can be used to validate model run-up 408 predictions is scarce. Of the two field benchmarks proposed 411 predictions is scarce because such events are relatively infrequent. 412 Of the two field benchmarks proposed 409 413 in~\cite{synolakis07}, 410 414 only the Okushiri benchmark facilitates comparison between … … 429 433 \subsubsection{Eyewitness Accounts}\label{sec:eyewitness data} 430 434 Eyewitness accounts detailed in~\cite{papadopoulos06} 431 report that most people at Patong Beach observed an initial retreat of 432 the shoreline of more than 100 m followed a few minutes later, by a 435 report that many people at Patong Beach observed an initial 436 retreat (trough or draw down) of 437 the shoreline of more than 100 m followed a few minutes later by a 433 438 strong wave (crest). Another less powerful wave arrived another five 434 439 or ten minutes later. Eyewitness statements place the arrival time of 435 440 the strong wave between 2 hours and 55 minutes to 3 hours and 5 436 441 minutes after the source rupture (09:55am to 10:05am local time). 442 FIXME (Ole): We should add observed arrival time and later relate that to 443 the modelled dynamics. 444 445 446 \begin{figure}[ht] 447 \begin{center} 448 \includegraphics[width=8.0cm,keepaspectratio=true]{gauge_locations.jpg} 449 \caption{Location of timeseries extracted from the model output.} 450 \label{fig:gauge_locations} 451 \end{center} 452 \end{figure} 453 454 455 456 437 457 438 458 Two videos were sourced\footnote{The footage is … … 517 537 518 538 \subsection{Generation}\label{sec:modelGeneration} 539 FIXME (Ole and Jane): Does this need to be so long? 519 540 520 541 There are various approaches to modelling the expected crustal … … 641 662 simulating water flow onto a beach or dry land and around structures 642 663 such as buildings. \textsc{Anuga} has been validated against 643 %a number of analytical solutions and FIXME: These have not been published 664 %a number of analytical solutions and 665 %FIXME (Ole): Analytical solutions have not been published. Ask Steve. 644 666 the wave tank simulation of the 1993 Okushiri 645 667 Island tsunami~\cite{nielsen05,roberts06}. … … 725 747 shown in Figure~\ref{fig:computational_domain}. 726 748 749 FIXME (Ole): I know that a nested ursga model was trialled for the 750 end-to-end modelling. However, for the study done here, where models 751 were coupled, I didn't think nested grids were used with URSGA - 752 and certainly not down to 1 arc second. Can someone shed some light 753 on this please? 754 727 755 \begin{figure}[ht] 728 756 \begin{center} … … 781 809 efficiently increase the simulation accuracy for the impact area. 782 810 The grid resolution ranged between a 783 maximum triangle area of $1\times 10^5$ m$^2$ near the western ocean 784 boundary to $20$ m$^2$ in the small regions surrounding the inundation 785 region in Patong Bay. Due to a lack of available data, friction was 811 maximum triangle area of $1\times 10^5$ m$^2$ 812 (corresponding to approximately 440 m between mesh points) 813 near the western ocean 814 boundary to $20$ m$^2$ (corresponding to 815 approximately 6 m between mesh points) 816 in the small regions surrounding the inundation 817 region in Patong Bay. The coarse resolution was chosen to be 818 commensurate with the model output from the \textsc{ursga} model 819 (FIXME - this has to be clearly stated in ursga section) 820 while the latter was chosen to match the available resolution of topographic 821 data and building data in Patong city. 822 Due to a lack of available roughness data, friction was 786 823 set to a constant throughout the computational domain. For the 787 824 reference simulation, a Manning's coefficient of 0.01 was chosen to … … 816 853 817 854 Maximum onshore inundation depth was computed from the model 818 throughout the entire Patong Bay region. 855 throughout the entire Patong Bay region and used to generate 856 a measure of the inundated area. 819 857 Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} (left) shows very good 820 858 agreement between the measured and simulated inundation. However … … 899 937 \begin{figure}[ht] 900 938 \begin{center} 901 \includegraphics[width=8.0cm,keepaspectratio=true]{gauge_locations.jpg}902 \caption{Location of timeseries extracted from the model output.}903 \label{fig:gauge_locations}904 \end{center}905 \end{figure}906 907 908 \begin{figure}[ht]909 \begin{center}910 939 \includegraphics[width=10.0cm,keepaspectratio=true]{gauge_bay_depth.jpg} 911 940 \includegraphics[width=10.0cm,keepaspectratio=true]{gauge_bay_speed.jpg} … … 929 958 The estimated depths and flow rates given in Section 930 959 \ref{sec:eyewitness data} are shown together with the modelled depths 931 and flow rates obtained from the model in Table \ref{tab:depth and 932 flow comparisons}. The minimum depths shown in the model are clearly 933 lower than expected and an indication that the tsunami model does not 934 predict flow dynamics accurately at this level of detail. However, 935 this comparison serves to check that depths and speeds predicted are 936 within the range of what is expected. 960 and flow rates obtained from the model in 961 Table \ref{tab:depth and flow comparisons}. 962 The predicted maximum depths and speeds are all of the same order 963 of what was observed. However, unlike the real event, 964 the model estimates complete withdrawal of the water between waves at the 965 chosen locations and shows that the model must be used with caution at this 966 level of detail. 967 Nonetheless, this comparison serves to check that depths and speeds 968 predicted are within the range of what is expected. 937 969 938 970 … … 1168 1200 \begin{figure}[ht] 1169 1201 \begin{center} 1170 \includegraphics[width=6cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f0_0003_depth} 1171 \includegraphics[width=6cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f0_03_depth} 1202 %\includegraphics[width=6cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f0_0003_depth} 1203 %\includegraphics[width=6cm,keepaspectratio=true]{sensitivity_f0_03_depth} 1204 \includegraphics[width=12cm,keepaspectratio=true]{friction_comparison_depth} 1172 1205 \caption{Model results for different values of Manning's friction 1173 1206 coefficient shown to assess sensitivities. The reference inundation extent for a
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.
