Changeset 7401


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 21, 2009, 5:56:38 PM (11 years ago)
Author:
ole
Message:

More comments from Jane and me

File:
1 edited

Legend:

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

    r7399 r7401  
    165165It consists of geodetic measurements of the
    166166Sumatra--Andaman earthquake that are used to validate the description
    167 of the tsunami source, altimetry data from the JASON satellite to test
     167of the tsunami source, altimetry data from the \textsc{jason} satellite to test
    168168open ocean propagation, eye-witness accounts to assess near shore
    169169propagation, and a detailed inundation survey of Patong city, Thailand
     
    329329used to validate the propagation stage in Section
    330330\ref{sec:resultsPropagation}.
     331FIXME (Ole): See Phil's second point and email with help from David
     332
     333
    331334%DB I suggest we combine with model data to reduce the number of figures. The satellite track is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:satelliteTrack}.
    332335
     
    393396\end{figure}
    394397FIXME (Jane): legend? Were the contours derived from the final dataset?
    395 This is not the entire mode, only the bay and the beach.
     398This is not the entire model, only the bay and the beach.
    396399
    397400\subsubsection{Buildings and Other Structures}
     
    404407
    405408\subsubsection{Inundation Survey}
    406 Tsunami run-up is the cause of the largest financial and human
     409Tsunami run-up in built-up areas can be the cause of large financial and human
    407410losses, yet run-up data that can be used to validate model run-up
    408 predictions is scarce. Of the two field benchmarks proposed
     411predictions is scarce because such events are relatively infrequent.
     412Of the two field benchmarks proposed
    409413in~\cite{synolakis07},
    410414only the Okushiri benchmark facilitates comparison between
     
    429433\subsubsection{Eyewitness Accounts}\label{sec:eyewitness data}
    430434Eyewitness 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
     435report that many people at Patong Beach observed an initial
     436retreat (trough or draw down) of
     437the shoreline of more than 100 m followed a few minutes later by a
    433438strong wave (crest). Another less powerful wave arrived another five
    434439or ten minutes later. Eyewitness statements place the arrival time of
    435440the strong wave between 2 hours and 55 minutes to 3 hours and 5
    436441minutes after the source rupture (09:55am to 10:05am local time).
     442FIXME (Ole): We should add observed arrival time and later relate that to
     443the 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
    437457
    438458Two videos were sourced\footnote{The footage is
     
    517537
    518538\subsection{Generation}\label{sec:modelGeneration}
     539FIXME (Ole and Jane): Does this need to be so long?
    519540
    520541There are various approaches to modelling the expected crustal
     
    641662simulating water flow onto a beach or dry land and around structures
    642663such 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.
    644666the wave tank simulation of the 1993 Okushiri
    645667Island tsunami~\cite{nielsen05,roberts06}.
     
    725747shown in Figure~\ref{fig:computational_domain}.
    726748
     749FIXME (Ole): I know that a nested ursga model was trialled for the
     750end-to-end modelling. However, for the study done here, where models
     751were coupled, I didn't think nested grids were used with URSGA -
     752and certainly not down to 1 arc second. Can someone shed some light
     753on this please?
     754
    727755\begin{figure}[ht]
    728756\begin{center}
     
    781809efficiently increase the simulation accuracy for the impact area.
    782810The 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
     811maximum triangle area of $1\times 10^5$ m$^2$
     812(corresponding to approximately 440 m between mesh points)
     813near the western ocean
     814boundary to $20$ m$^2$ (corresponding to
     815approximately 6 m between mesh points)
     816in the small regions surrounding the inundation
     817region in Patong Bay. The coarse resolution was chosen to be
     818commensurate with the model output from the \textsc{ursga} model
     819(FIXME - this has to be clearly stated in ursga section)
     820while the latter was chosen to match the available resolution of topographic
     821data and building data in Patong city.
     822Due to a lack of available roughness data, friction was
    786823set to a constant throughout the computational domain. For the
    787824reference simulation, a Manning's coefficient of 0.01 was chosen to
     
    816853
    817854Maximum onshore inundation depth was computed from the model
    818 throughout the entire Patong Bay region.
     855throughout the entire Patong Bay region and used to generate
     856a measure of the inundated area.
    819857Figure~\ref{fig:inundationcomparison1cm} (left) shows very good
    820858agreement between the measured and simulated inundation. However
     
    899937\begin{figure}[ht]
    900938\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}
    910939\includegraphics[width=10.0cm,keepaspectratio=true]{gauge_bay_depth.jpg}
    911940\includegraphics[width=10.0cm,keepaspectratio=true]{gauge_bay_speed.jpg}
     
    929958The estimated depths and flow rates given in Section
    930959\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.
     960and flow rates obtained from the model in
     961Table \ref{tab:depth and flow comparisons}.
     962The predicted maximum depths and speeds are all of the same order
     963of what was observed. However, unlike the real event,
     964the model estimates complete withdrawal of the water between waves at the
     965chosen locations and shows that the model must be used with caution at this
     966level of detail.
     967Nonetheless, this comparison serves to check that depths and speeds
     968predicted are within the range of what is expected.
    937969
    938970
     
    11681200\begin{figure}[ht]
    11691201\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}
    11721205\caption{Model results for different values of Manning's friction
    11731206  coefficient shown to assess sensitivities. The reference inundation extent for a
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.