NTHMP Mapping and Modeling Benchmarking Workshop: Tsunami Currents
For a description of the workshop and all data provided, see the
workshop webpage.
For GeoClaw code, see the
GitHub
repository
Results for other problems
GeoClaw results for Benchmark problem 4
Results presented at workshop:
Notes:
- The data provided for the wavemaker speed \(s(t)\)
can be fit quite well with a
Gaussian of the form \(s(t) = A \exp(\beta(t - t_0)^2)\) with \(\beta =
0.25, t_0 = 14.75\) and amplitude \(A = 0.51\)
[Figure].
However, the amplitude at the Wave Gauge at \(x=5\)
matched better in our computation by
setting \(A = 0.6.\).
- Adaptive mesh refinement was used. The coarsest grid had a resolution
of approximately 0.5 meter cells (\(54 \times 88\) grid cells on the full
domain). The finest grid, which only covered the Seaside model region, was
refined by a total factor of 40 relative to the coarsest grid (1.25 cm cell
size).
- Manning \(n= 0.025\) was used for these results. Still need to test
other values.
Work done after the workshop:
Since the workshop we have worked with Mike Motley and his student Xinsheng
Qin in the UW Department of Civil and Environmental Energy, to compare our 2D
GeoClaw simulations with 3D simulations they have performed using the OpenFOAM
software. Results of their work and comparisons of 2D and 3D results are
presented in the papers:
- Three-Dimensional Modeling of Tsunami Forces on 2 Coastal
Communities, by X. Qin, M. R. Motley, and N. Marafi,
- A comparison of a two-dimensional depth averaged flow model and a
three-dimensional RANS model for predicting tsunami inundation, by Xinsheng
Qin, Michael R. Motley, Randall J. LeVeque, Frank I. Gonzalez, and Kaspar
Mueller.
Both of these papers have been submitted for publication and are currently
under review.
Two sample animations of a 3D simulation.
Of potential interest to other groups comparing against the experimental data
provided for this problem: In the experiment, the peak velocity of the bore
front was estimated by analyzing the video data instead of measured by
velocimeter, due to air entrained in the bore front. The speed of the bore
front is not the same as the peak fluid velocity, which occurs behind the
front, and sampling the velocity from the numerical results gives higher peak
velocities than the published experimental results. However, Qin, Motley, and
Marafi determined that if the video data from the numerical simulation is used
to compute the peak velocity in a manner that mimics the experimental
procedure, the predicted peak velocity nearly matches the experiment. This is
discussed further in their first paper listed above.