multi-scale simulation of tsunami from tohoku earthquake and diffracted tsunami waves in hokkaido
DESCRIPTION
Multi-scale Simulation of tsunami from Tohoku Earthquake and Diffracted Tsunami Waves in Hokkaido. ZHU AIYU, Zhang Dongning Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake Administration Yuen Dave A. University of Minnisota Song Shenyi Computer Network Information Center, China Academy of Science. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Multi-scale Simulation of tsunami from Tohoku
Earthquake and Diffracted
Tsunami Waves in Hokkaido
ZHU AIYU, Zhang DongningInstitute of Geophysics, China Earthquake AdministrationYuen Dave A.University of MinnisotaSong ShenyiComputer Network Information Center, China Academy of Science
Outlines Governing equations and numerical
methods
Numerical simulation
Tsunami diffraction
Generation Propagation Runup Inundation
Governing equations
2D nonlinear shallow water equations
Numerical methods Finite volume method (clawpack)
fy
fx
Sy
bghghhv
yhuv
xhv
t
Sx
bghhuv
yghhu
xhu
t
hvy
huxt
h
)2
1()()(
)()2
1()(
0)()(
22
22
3/4222
3/4222
hvuvnS
hvuunS
fx
fx
bottom frictional terms
Computing Domain longitude from 135° to 160°E latitude from 30 ° to 45°N DART 21401, DART 21413, DART 21418 and
DART 21419
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dart.shtml
Generation
length L=510km width W=150km the fault dips δ=14˚ rakes λ=81˚ strikes θ=193˚ average slip D=20m
Figure 1 The tsunami source model based on USGS
The first source model
Figure 5 Offshore DART buoys wave height records versus computed results of the F1 model
Figure 3 (a) Surface projection of the slip distribution superimposed on ETOPO2 (http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/faculty/ji/big_earthquakes/2011/03/0311_v3/Honshu.html); (b) The tsunami source model based on UCSB
The second source model
consists in a 190 sub-faults system
(a) (b)
Figure 6 Offshore DART buoys wave height records versus computed results of the F2 model
finite element method,
uses the GPS data for constrain condition
Figure 3 The tsunami source model of GPS
The third source model
Figure 7 Offshore DART buoys wave height records versus computed results of the F3 model
Which is the best source model ? The arrival times of the first wave, the results of F2
and F3 gives have a generally better agreement with the observed data, but not for case of F1 that is much slower than the observation.
The amplitude of the first wave, all of the model have there bad side and good side
It is indeed difficult to distinguish which one is the best
correlation coefficient
Table 1 the correlation relation of the different models
ModelsBuoy gauge
Correlation coefficient
Average correlation strength
F1 21401 -0.7806 0.9226
21413 -0.9334
21418 0.9975
21419 0.9786
F2 21401 -0.8497 0.95602
21413 -0.9404
21418 0.9962
21419 0.9979
F3 21401 -0.4821 0.7902
21413 -0.6827
21418 1.0
21419 1.0
DD
EEE
DD
Covxy
)(),(
The second source model is the best!
Grid is 1800×3000PropagationVisualized by Avizo
Characters: (1) The tsunami wave is split into two waves, one is towards to the northeast coast of Japan, Another wave faces to the Pacific Ocean (2) tsunami wave is that first arriving wave is negative and then the positive wave which agrees with the observed data.
Table 2 Maximum run-up values for calculated and observed values
LocationCoordinates(Lat,. Long.)
Computational height (m)
Observed height (m)
Shimakita (41.3636, 141.2306) 2.2838 2-3
Hachinohe* (40.5317,141.5278) 7.4699 2.7 or more
Miyako* (39.6436,141.9753) 15.6069 8.5 or more
Ofunato* (39.0194,141.7536) 20.4789 8.0 or more
Onahama (36.9369,140.8919) 3.9363 3.5- 4
Ohoshigyoko (35.7444,140.8583) 3.3574 3-4
Mera (34.9189,139.8247) 1.4855 1-2
Chiba (35.5681,140.0456) 0.5038 0-1
Okada (34.7894,139.3914) 0.5864 0-1
runup
http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/KANKYO/TIDE/real_time_tide/sel/index_e.htm the notation * means the maximum height of tsunami cannot be retrieved so far due to the troubles, and actual maximum height might be higher according to the observed data
Adaptive mesh refinement method
Inundation
Tohoku tsunami diffraction
movie
Add the Gaussian noise to the topography
Topography
Topography add Gauss noise
movies
No flooding phenomenon at Hokkaido Island ?
Possible reason The earthquake source is not exactly correct The shallow water equations are not a perfe
ct model for the wave motion, The 1-mintute resolution etopo ocean bathy
metry is maybe not fine enough The Gaussian noise maybe not appropriate
Thank you
Diffraction