OSD Ocean Science Discussions OSD Ocean Sci. Discuss. 1812-0822 Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/osd-4-399-2007 LIDAR vs. GEODAS land elevation data in hurricane induced inundation modelling Peng M. 1 Pietrafesa L. J. 2 Bao S. 1 Liu H. 1 Xia M. 1 Yan T. 1 Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA 26 04 2007 4 2 399 414 Copyright: © 2007 M. Peng et al. 2007 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ This article is available from https://os.copernicus.org/preprints/4/399/2007/osd-4-399-2007.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://os.copernicus.org/preprints/4/399/2007/osd-4-399-2007.pdf

LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and GEODAS (GEOphysical DAta System) are respectively taken as the land elevation data for a 3-D storm surge and inundation model to investigate the subsequent inundation differences. Hilton Head, South Carolina, and Croatan-Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary System (CAPES), North Carolina, are the two investigated regions. Significant inundation differences with LIDAR versus GEODAS are found in both regions. The modeled inundation area with GEODAS is larger than with LIDAR. For Category 2–3 hypothetical hurricanes, the maximum inundation difference in Hilton Head region is 67%, while the difference in the CAPES is 156%. Generally, vertical precision difference of the two databases is the major reason for the inundation difference. Recently constructed man-made structures, not included in the GEODAS, but included in the LIDAR data sets may be another contributing reason.

 References Falconer, R. A. and Owens, P. H.: Numerical simulation of flooding and drying in a depth-averaged tidal flow model, Proceedings Institution Civil Engineers, 83, 161–180, 1987. Flather, R. A. and Heaps, N. S.: Tidal computations for Morecambe Bay. Geophys, J. R. Astronomical Soc., 42, 489–517, 1975. Holland, G. J.: An analytic model of the wind and pressure profiles in hurricanes, Monthly Weather Rev., 108, 1212–1218, 1980. Hubbert, G. D. and McInnes, K. L.: A storm surge model for coastal planning and impact studies, J. Coastal Res., 15(1), 168–185, 1999. Hsu, S. A. and Yan, Z.: A note on the radius of maximum wind for hurricanes, J. Coastal Res., 14(2), 667–668, 1998. Large, W. G. and Pond, S.: Open ocean momentum fluxes in moderate to strong winds, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 11, 324–336, 1981. Oey, L.-Y.: A wetting and drying scheme for POM, Ocean Modell., 9, 133–150, 2005. Peng, M., L. Xie. and L. Pietrafesa., 2004: A numerical study of storm surge and inundation the Croatan-Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary System. Estuarine, coastal and shelf science 59, 121-137 Peng, M., Xie, L., and Pietrafesa, L.: Tropical cyclone induced asymmetry of sea level surge and fall and its presentation in a storm surge model with parametric wind fields, Ocean Modell., 14, 81–101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2006.03.004, 2006a. Peng, M., Xie, L., and Pietrafesa, L.: A Numerical Study on Hurricane Induced Storm Surge and Inundation in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C08017, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002755, 2006b. Pietrafesa, L. J. and Janowitz, G. S.: The Hydrodynamics of CAPES, NOAA Technical Report, 86-11, 1986. Powell, M. D., Vivkery, P. J., and Reinhold, T. A.: Reduced drag coefficient for high wind speeds in tropical cyclones, Nature, 422, 278–283, 2003. Xie, L., Pietrafesa, L., and Peng, M.: Incorporation of a mass-conserving inundation scheme into a three-dimensional storm surge model, J. Coastal Res., 20 1209–1223, 2004. United States Geological Survey (USGS): Standards for Digital Elevation Models. National Mapping Program, Reston, VA, 1998.