Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/osd-4-399-2007
https://doi.org/10.5194/osd-4-399-2007

  26 Apr 2007

26 Apr 2007

Review status: this preprint was under review for the journal OS. A revision for further review has not been submitted.

LIDAR vs. GEODAS land elevation data in hurricane induced inundation modelling

M. Peng1, L. J. Pietrafesa2, S. Bao1, H. Liu1, M. Xia1, and T. Yan1 M. Peng et al.
  • 1Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA
  • 2College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

Abstract. 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.

M. Peng et al.

 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
 
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

M. Peng et al.

M. Peng et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 916 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
538 317 61 916 74 75
  • HTML: 538
  • PDF: 317
  • XML: 61
  • Total: 916
  • BibTeX: 74
  • EndNote: 75
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Feb 2013)

Saved

Latest update: 22 Oct 2021