Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ing. K. Cuypers
The background picture of the front page is a well known colour woodcut by
Katsushika Hokusai, a famous late eighteenth century Japanese artist. It is No 20 from
the series Thirty-Six Views on the Mount Fuji. Many textbooks and web sites depict
this wave as a tsunami wave. Indeed it resembles the shape of a tsunami wave when
breaking occurs. But in fact it is a wind generated wave. Nevertheless it has become
an international symbol for tsunamis.
The small pictures in front are:
1. Severe damaged caisson breakwater at the Port of Okushiri after the 1993
Hokkaido tsunami
2. A snapshot of a computer model of the 12 July 1993 tsunami in the East
Japanese Sea
3. Damage due to the 1964 Alaska tsunami
4. The 1946 Aleutian tsunami arrives on the Hawaiian coast as a bore
5. An unbroken tsunami wave arriving at a steep coast
Final Report
05-01-2004
ing.K.Cuypers
Colophon
Master Thesis:
Cooperating company:
HAECON n.v.
Harbour and Engineering Consultants
Deinsesteenweg 110
B-9031 Drongen
Belgium
Supervising committee:
TU Delft
HAECON
Student:
ing. K. Cuypers
kim_cuypers@hotmail.com
st.nr. 1 055 739
Date:
December 2003
Preface
This report is the final thesis for the masters degree in Civil Engineering at the
Delft University of Technology. The study was conducted in cooperation with
the Belgian Harbor and Engineering Consultants company HAECON n.v.
I would like to thank the following people who attributed to the realization of
this thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my graduation committee at TU
Delft: Prof. M.J.F. Stive, who as chairman of the committee inspired me with
his enthusiasm, Prof. G.S. Stelling, for his help in setting up the mathematical
model and especially ir. H.J. Verhagen, who was always available for giving
advice. Secondly, I would like to thank the people of HAECON for their
continuous support, in particular ir. N. Gunst who was always available to
answer my questions and to provide me with the necessary information
concerning the Nicaragua project. Also, I would like to thank Dr. ir. M.
Huygens and ir. P. de Pooter for their feedback on the conducted research.
Special thanks to Prof. J. De Rouck and Dr.ir. P. Troch, of the University of
Ghent, for their critical reflections on the breakwater stability, and to Dr.ir.
P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, of TU Delft, for his kind advice regarding some
statistical questions.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their support during all these
years.
Kim Cuypers
The Hague, 5 January 2003
CONTENTS
COLOPHON
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
2.
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
4
4.1
ANALYZING THE TSUNAMI DATA FOR THE PACIFIC SIDE OF CENTRAL AMERICA 1
4.1.1
Homogenizing the dataset..........................................................................................................1
4.1.2
Do the available data for these events contain enough information for deriving a wave
or a wave train? .........................................................................................................................7
4.2
DETERMINING THE LARGEST TSUNAMI EVENT AT THE PACIFIC COAST OF
CENTRAL AMERICA........................................................................................................................9
4.2.1
Occurrence ...............................................................................................................................11
4.2.2
Compared to the entire Pacific Region...................................................................................14
4.3
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................16
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.5
6
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1
MODEL SET-UP .................................................................................................................................2
Model description.......................................................................................................................2
Model input.................................................................................................................................3
Available calibration data .........................................................................................................7
PIE DEL GIGANTE ..........................................................................................................................10
First Calculation ......................................................................................................................10
Possible reasons.......................................................................................................................14
Calibration of the model: the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami......................................................31
Design wave..............................................................................................................................35
BAHIA DEL SALINAS ....................................................................................................................38
Bathymetry at Bahia Del Salinas ............................................................................................39
Design wave at Bahia Del Salinas..........................................................................................40
Comparison between the design wave at Bahia del Salinas and Pie del Gigante..............41
DESIGN TSUNAMI WAVE .....................................................................................................................42
CONCLUSIONS
7.1
ON THE HYDRAULIC ASPECTS OF TSUNAMI BREAKWATERS IN JAPAN ....................1
Design formulas ..............................................................................................................................1
7.1.1
7.1.2
Comparing to the Goda design formulas for unbroken short period waves ...............................3
7.1.3
Comments ........................................................................................................................................6
7.2
OTHER REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 7
7.3
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................7
8
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10
10.1
STONE STABILITY UNDER FLOW...............................................................................................2
10.1.1
Izbash ..........................................................................................................................................2
10.1.2
Dutch Formula ...........................................................................................................................3
10.1.3
CERC formula ............................................................................................................................4
10.2
STONE STABILITY GOVERNED BY THE VELOCITY ON TOP OF THE
BREAKWATER CREST ....................................................................................................................5
10.2.1
A comparison between the calculated values...........................................................................7
10.2.2
A comparison between the calculated values and the experimental results...........................8
10.3
STONE STABILITY GOVERNED BY THE VELOCITY ON THE BACKSIDE
SLOPE OF THE BREAKWATER.....................................................................................................8
10.3.1
Velocity at the backside ............................................................................................................9
10.3.2
Comparing the calculated velocities with the experimental results by Kamel (1970)........10
10.3.3
Comparing the required stones with the experimental results by Kamel (1970) ................11
10.4
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................13
11
11.1
11.2
11.3
12
CONCLUSIONS
13.
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDICES
1. Databank of Tsunamis at the Pacific side of the Central American Region
2. A Short Introduction to Seismology
3. Mail correspondence concerning the deriving of tsunami wave characteristics out of tsunami data
or seismic data
4. The 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami
5. Bathymetry
6. Preliminary design of the Caisson Breakwater at Pie del Gigante
7. Comparing the Tanimoto design formulas for unbroken tsunami waves with the Goda design
formulas for unbroken short period waves
8. Calculations of the caisson stability under the design tsunami wave
9. Calculations concerning chapter 10: Theoretical stability concept for the rubble mound breakwater
10. Iteration problems of the Dutch formula
11. Rubble Mound breakwater for Pie del Gigante
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Introduction
This thesis is related to the technical feasibility study of the Nicaragua Dry
Canal. The Nicaragua Dry Canal is a container traffic between the Atlantic and
the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. The containers will be transported by train from
a container port at the Pacific coast to a container port at the Atlantic coast. This
thesis deals with the feasibility of the container port at the Pacific side of
Nicaragua. As the region is sensitive to tsunami attack, it is essential to take the
tsunami risk into consideration.
This study will focuses on the stability of the breakwater under tsunami attack,
for the two proposed harbor locations, Pie del Gigante and Bahia del Salinas.
The study consists of two parts: the derivation of a design tsunami and the
breakwater stability.
Part 1: Design Tsunami
The aim of part 1 is to formulate a realistic design tsunami for the two harbor
locations at the Pacific Coast of Nicaragua.
At first the basics of tsunami science will be presented. Next out of the
available tsunami data for Nicaragua it will be tried to derive a design tsunami
wave. A statistical approach for deriving the design tsunami is preferred, but it
is uncertain if this will be possible. The design tsunami has to be derived for
deeper water as to minimize local disturbance. And from deeper water the
tsunami has to be derived to the two possible harbor locations. For these wave
calculations a simple set-up is preferred with a 1D hydraulic model.
The Waiakea area of Hilo, Hawaii, after the 1960 Chilean tsunami struck the Hawaiian
islands. The force of the debris filled waves bent the parking meters.
Figure 1.1
Tsunami waves radiating outward like when a pebble is dropped in a pond.
The term tsunami comes from the Japanese term meaning harbor wave. Because
tsunamis often cause large standing waves in harbors and bays, which can persist
for many hours, tsunamis in ancient Japan became known as great harbor waves.
Other terms for tsunamis are tidal wave or seismic sea wave. The term tidal
wave is an exact translation from the ancient Greek name for a tsunami. It refers
to the initial manifestation of a tsunami at the shore, where it often resembles a
fast ebbing or flooding tide. The term tidal wave is less commonly used, to
avoid the association with tides. It is not only incorrect with regard to its origin as
a tsunami has nothing to do with the tides, but also inappropriate in its descriptive
character. Seismic sea wave is the most descriptive term, as most tsunamis are
generated by large underwater earthquakes.
As stated above far out the most common cause for tsunami generation are
earthquakes. Earthquakes are commonly associated with ground shaking that is a
result of elastic waves traveling through the solid earth. However, near the source
of submarine earthquakes, the seafloor is permanently uplifted and down-dropped,
pushing the entire water column up and down (Figure 1.2).
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 1 - 1
Figure 1.2
Underwater earthquake resulting in an uplift and down-drop of the ocean surface.
The potential energy that results from pushing water above mean sea level is then
transferred to horizontal propagation of the tsunami wave (kinetic energy) (Figure
1.3). The initial water displacement is split into a tsunami that travels into the
deep ocean (distant tsunami) and another tsunami that travels towards the nearby
coast (local tsunami). In deeper water a tsunami is barely noticeable and will only
cause a small and slow rising and falling of the sea surface as it passes.
Figure 1.3
Wave generation and propagation as a result of the initial surface disturbance
Near their generation point, tsunamis have a great wave length, often exceeding
200 km. The maximum ocean depth lies between 8 to 10 km in the ocean
trenches. This makes a tsunami a typical long wave, as the wave length is much
larger than the water depth. Therefore the propagation speed of tsunamis does
only depends on the water depth ( c = g .h ). As the local tsunami travels over the
continental slope, shoaling begins: the tsunami waves slow down and become
compressed, causing them to grow in height. This results in steepening of the
waves (Figure 1.4).
Part 1 - Chapter 1 - 2
05-01-2004
Figure 1.4
Shoaling process of tsunami wave, clearly showing the steepening of the wave
Contrary to many artistic images of tsunamis, most tsunamis arriving at the coast
do not result in giant breaking waves. Rather, they come in much like very strong
and very fast tides (i.e., a rapid, local rise in sea level) (Bryant, 2001). Much of
the damage inflicted by tsunamis is caused by strong currents and floating debris.
The small number of tsunamis that do break often form vertical walls of turbulent
water called bores.
Because of their great length, arriving tsunamis at the coast travel much farther
inland than normal wind waves. The extend of the area that is affected by the
onshore tsunami is expressed by the run-up height. The run-up height is the height
above a reference level, which the water reaches as the tsunami waves run out on
the coast (Figure 1.5).
Hrun-up
Figure 1.5
Tsunami arriving at a coast as fast incoming tide, causing a large run-up.
Tsunamis rank high on the scale of natural disasters. It has been estimated that
tsunamis cause between 5 and 15% of the earthquake damage worldwide
(Bernard, 2002). Since 1850, tsunamis have been responsible for the loss of over
120,000 lives and billions of U.S. dollars damage to coastal structures and
habitats. Over 99% of these casualties were caused by local tsunamis that occur
about once a year somewhere in the world. The last decade 12 major tsunamis
have struck coastlines around the Pacific Rim, causing more than 4,000 casualties
and an estimated 1 billion U.S. dollars in damage. This makes tsunamis the most
destructive ocean waves of all.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 1 - 3
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 2 - 1
Figure 2.1
Local and regional tsunami activities in the Pacific Ocean, from 1900 to1980
expressed in percent
A dataset for the tsunamis generated at the Pacific side of the Central American
region for the period 1900-2002, was derived out of the Historical Tsunami
Database for the Pacific, 47 B.C. to present. This is the most up to date tsunami
catalogue available. In appendix 1 it is described how the data are retrieved.
The results of this query are presented in Table 2.1. The epicentral locations of the
tsumanigenic earthquakes are plotted on a map of the Central American region
(Figure 2.1).
Part 1 - Chapter 2 - 2
05-01-2004
date
time
generation point
Year
Mo
Da
Hr
Mn
1906
31
15
36
Sec
1907
15
1928
22
17
9.6
1928
17
19
31.8
16.65
earthquake data
tsunami data
generation area
Lat
Long
Dep
Ms
Mw
Mt
Int
Hrmax
-81.5
25
8.6
8.7
8.7
1000
SAM Columbia-Ecuador:TUMACO
16.7
-99.2
25
8.2
7.8
CAM Mexico
16.84
-96.02
15
7.5
7.4
-96.5
7.8
7.9
8.1
-2
1.5
1930
31
40
36.6
33.9
-118.6
5.2
1932
10
36
54.2
19.46
-104.17
25
8.1
7.6
8.2
1932
18
10
12
17.8
19.53
-103.72
71
7.8
7.5
7.8
1932
22
12
59
27.5
19.09
-104.41
6.9
TR
Source Region
CAM MEXICO
CAM
2.5
-0.5
6.1
CAM S.CALIFORNIA
-0.5
0.7
0.1
10
1934
18
36
27.8
8.01
-82.56
25
7.7
7.6
10
1941
12
20
47
3.3
8.61
-83.18
32
7.5
7.3
-3
0.1
11
1941
12
8.5
-84
33
-3
0.1
12
1948
12
22
21.6
-106.7
33
13
1950
10
16
10.4
-85.2
60
7.7
7.7
7.8
1.5
-2
0.1
14
1950
10
23
16
13
14.3
-91.8
30
7.1
7.5
7.5
-1
0.2
CAM Guatemala-Nicaragua
15
1950
12
14
14
15
16.3
-98.2
50
7.5
7.1
-1
0.3
16
1951
24
13
-87.5
100
17
1957
28
40
9.8
16.88
-99.29
36
7.9
18
1958
19
14
25
0.99
-79.48
20
7.3
19
1962
12
11
40
15.3
8.09
-82.68
19
6.8
20
1962
11
14
11
56.8
17.14
-99.7
46
7.2
21
1962
19
14
58
13.1
16.99
-99.69
16
7.1
22
1965
23
19
46
1.5
16.17
-95.85
10
7.8
23
1973
30
21
13.5
18.45
-102.96
37
7.5
7.6
24
1979
14
11
15
17.77
-101.23
24
7.6
7.6
25
1979
12
12
59
4.6
1.6
-79.36
24
7.7
8.1
26
1981
10
25
22
15.8
18.12
-102
21
7.3
7.7
10
1.5
2.6
1.5
68
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
20
SAM Colombia-Ecuador
-3
0.1
0.8
CAM S.Mexico
30
CAM S.Mexico
7.5
-1
0.4
CAM MEXICO
-3
0.1
56
CAM S.Mexico:FARIAS,TECOMAN
-1.1
0.4
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
2.5
600
SAM Colombia-Ecuador
7.2
-3
0.1
CAM MEXICO
27
1985
19
13
17
49.7
18.46
-102.37
21
8.1
1.5
28
1985
21
37
13.5
17.83
-101.62
18
7.5
7.5
1.2
29
1988
30
15
42
32.6
-117.3
30
1992
16
2.7
11.72
-87.39
45
7.2
7.7
2.8
10.7
170
CAM Nicaragua
31
1994
17
12
30
55.5
34.16
-118.57
14
6.8
6.7
-3
0.1
32
1995
14
14
33.9
16.84
-98.61
29
7.2
7.3
-1
0.42
33
1995
10
15
35
54.1
19.05
-104.21
26
7.3
16.6
15.93
-98.1
17
6.9
7.1
-3
0.12
17.62
-101.6
2.5
34
1996
25
35
1999
12
18
7.9
Table 2.1
Databank for the tsunamis at the Pacific side of Central America from 1900 to 2002.
The data are retrieved out of the Historical Tsunami Database for the Pacific,
47 B.C. to present.
Legend
Earthquake data
Dep
Ms
Mw
05-01-2004
:
:
:
Part 1 - Chapter 2 - 3
Tsunami data
Mt
Int
Hrmax
N
D
N
S
M
L
F :
C:
T
L
M
U
: tsunami magnitude
: tsunami intensity
: maximum observed or measured wave height in meters
: total number of available run-up and tide-gauge observations
: damage code
:
non damaging event
:
slight damage
:
moderate damage
:
large (severe) damage
number of reported fatalities due to the event
cause of the tsunami
:
tectonic
:
landslide
:
meteorological
:
unknown
Generation area
TR
CAM
SAM
Source Region
:
:
:
:
Figure 2.2
The epicentral locations of tsunamigenic earthquakes in Central America for the
period 1900 to 2002
Part 1 - Chapter 2 - 4
05-01-2004
To be able to work with this data, and to make correct interpretations one has to
have the necessary background knowledge concerning tsunamis. In the following
chapter an overview of tsunami science will be given from a hydraulic
engineering point of view.
Looking at the cause of a tsunami it is clear that earthquakes are the dominant
cause : 32 tsunamis on 35 are generated by earthquakes and these events are
responsible for all casualties in Central America. This conforms the general idea
that tsunamis are predominantly generated by earthquakes. Therefore the rest of
the study will be emphasized on earthquake generated tsunamis. In the following
chapter an overview of the most relevant subjects of tsunami science will be
given. In appendix 2 a short introduction to seismology is given, which is a must
when one is not acquainted with seismology.
With the background knowledge out of chapter 3 and appendix 2 it will be tried,
in chapter 4, to decide how a design wave can be coupled to the available dataset;
is a statistical approach possible or does the largest tsunami event has to be taken
as a base for a design tsunami.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 2 - 5
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 1
Figure 3.1
Basic fault geometries
Submarine thrust and dip-slip faults produce tsunamis as the seafloor lifts up or
drops down, and either pushes the water up or pulls it down, triggering wave
motion on the ocean surface. On the other hand, strike-slip motions, generally, do
not generate sufficient vertical displacement on the seafloor, yet they may
generate tsunamis through coseismic events. Most faults combine both strike-slip
and thrust motion, but primarily only faults that have predominantly vertical
displacement and create sufficiently large seafloor deformations appear to trigger
tsunamis.
Figure 3.2
Tsunami generation by a subduction zone earthquake. The initial water
displacement equals the bottom displacement
05-01-2004
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 3
Figure 3.3
Generation of a tsunami by a landslide
Figure 3.4
Comparison of the rate of seismic force between a normal tsunamigenic
earthquake (Hokkaido) and a slow tsunamigenic earthquake (Nicaragua),
a so called tsunami earthquake
The cause of the slow rupturing can be found in the presence of an accretionary
prism developed at the interface of two crustal plates or in a plate interface filled
with soft subducted sediments (Figure 3.5).
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 4
05-01-2004
The sediment lenses at the accreting margin can amplify the bottom movement
caused by a rupture up to a factor 2 (Synolaksis, 2003). Occasionally also slumps
in this soft layer can be induced by earthquakes, thus amplifying the initial water
displacement.
In subduction zones without large amounts of sediment, the plate interface is filled
with soft sediments. When a shallow earthquake occurs at this interface, the slip
can extend to the surface, breaking through a relatively weak plate interface filled
with sediments. the shallow depth and soft sediments on the interface are then
responsible for efficient tsunami generation and slow rupture propagation
respectively.
Figure 3.5
Accreting and non-accreting margins
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 5
Figure 3.6
Tsunami waves radiating outward like when a pebble is dropped in a pond.
The maximum ocean depth lies between 8 to 10 km and tsunamis in the deep
ocean have typical wave lengths of hundreds of kilometers. Thus the wave length
exceeds many times the water depth (L>>d), therefore tsunami waves travel as
shallow water waves. The propagation speed of shallow water waves is solely a
function of the water depth:
c = g .h
c
g
h
(3.1)
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 6
05-01-2004
Due to the propagation speed being solely a function of the water depth, tsunamis
travel at speeds of 150-250 m/s (550-900 km/h) in the deeper ocean (d>2 km),
30-90 m/s (100-300 km/h) across the continental shelf (d<1000 m) and 10-20m/s
(35-70 km/h) in front of the coast (d=50-10m). Equation (3.1) implies that
tsunami waves are amplitude dispersive, meaning that higher waves travel faster
than lower waves. This phenomenon especially becomes significant at smaller
water depths (as h = water depth + wave elevation).
The wave length of a tsunami can be expressed as a simple function of the wave
speed (c) and the period of the wave (T), for a constant depth:
L = c.T
(3.2)
Figure 3.7
Shoaling process of a tsunami wave, clearly showing the steepening of the wave
When water depths become shallower, the tsunami waves slows down (equ.(3.1))
and becomes compressed (equ.(3.2)) causing them to grow in height (Figure 3.7).
This is called shoaling of the wave and it is a reversible process as long as the
wave does not break. This makes that the changes in the depth and in the seafloor
cause the tsunami waves to continuously evolve and change in shape as they
propagate.
On approaching land the wave height will have increased dramatically, whereas
the wave length will have significantly decreased. Despite of the steepening of the
tsunami waves, most waves hit the coast as a fast rising or falling tide (Figure
3.8). Occasionally when the wave steepness does cause the tsunami waves to
break, they hit the coast as a bore (Figure 3.9). Very rarely it can occur that
tsunami waves break on the coast.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 7
When the tsunami acts as a rapidly rising tide, the resulting incident current
velocities are relatively low and most initial damage will result from buoyant and
hydrostatic forces and the effects of flooding. Once the tip of the wave has
arrived, the velocities will gradually increase and a lot of damage will occur by
strong currents and floating debris. When the tsunami hits the coast as a bore,
initial damage will not only occur by buoyant and hydrostatic forces but also by
impact forces of the bore front caused by high turbulence, the high water
velocities and by dragged debris in the bore front. Once the bore front has passed
further damage can be attributed to strong currents and floating debris.
Figure 3.8
A tsunami arriving at the coast as a non breaking wave. The first picture is the arrival of
the wave and the last pictures is the retreat of the wave. Notice the absence of the small
truck in front on the last picture. Also notice the darker parts on the seawall, clearly
indicating the maximum water height.
Figure 3.9
A tsunami wave arriving at the coast as a bore
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 8
05-01-2004
3.2.2 Terminology
L
H0
:
:
h
H
Hr
:
:
:
:
:
wavelength (m)
wave height at deep
water (m)
water depth (m)
wave elevation (m)
water elevation (m)
wave height (m)
wave run-up (m)
Figure 3.10
Various terms to describe tsunami waves
Figure 3.11
Tide gauge recording at Port Orford of the 4 October 1994 Kuril Island tsunami
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 9
Figure 3.12
Different wave forms of tsunami waves.
One of the reasons it took so long before scientists started to accept the N-wave
form, is that the solitary wave was somewhat easier in describing mathematically
and also easier in generating during experiments. One must realize that before mid
eighties computational modeling and the computational control of experiments
was not so obvious as it is now.
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 10
05-01-2004
d
Cf
g
:
:
:
:
:
(3.3)
05-01-2004
(3.4)
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 11
The equations are coupled and nonlinear, they can be derived directly from the
Navier-Stokes equations, if the viscous effects and vertical accelerations are
neglected. A consequence of these approximations is that these equations are nondispersive, i.e. all waves travel at a speed c = g .h that only depends on the water
level h = d + , thus not of the wave length.
These equations are valid as long as the wave does not reach the point of
breaking; at this point the wave front becomes complex and can no longer be
described accurately by a hydrostatic approach. A better approach is then to
represent the waves by a non-hydrostatic approach, using Boussinesq or
Korteweg-de Vries equations or direct from Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes
equation as presented in Stelling (2003). However, mostly tsunami waves do not
break, and even when they do the propagation of the wave can still be modeled by
the SW equations, only the representation of the wave front is then incorrect.
When tsunamis travel trough the ocean (distant tsunamis), the sphericity of the
earth must be considered. Therefore the SW equations have to be adapted to a
spherical coordinate system (Camfield, 1980). As Central America is only
exposed to local and regional tsunamis, the use of spherical coordinates is not
necessary.
An overview of the implementation of SW equations in tsunami modeling and
some exact solutions of this theory for simple bathymetries are presented in
Synolaksis (2003).
3.2.5 Breaking
As stated above tsunami waves do rarely break, because of their very long wave
lengths and there modest wave height. A breaking criterion is given by Bryant
(2001):
Br =
2H
( g tan 2 )
Br
H
:
:
:
:
(3.5)
Breaker parameter (Br>1, wave breaks)
wave height (m)
slope of the coast (rad)
radiation frequency of the waves (1/s)
However it is not stated, which wave form is considered. As until recently the
solitary wave was regarded as the tsunami wave form in coastal waters, it is most
likely that the breaker criterion is derived for solitary waves. At this moment the
form of tsunami waves are often regarded as N-waves, which can become steeper
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 12
05-01-2004
than solitary waves before they break (Synolaksis, 2002). So, conveniently the
presented breaker criterion (equ.(3.5)) can be regarded as a lower limit for
breaking of tsunami waves, as N-waves break later than solitary waves.
Figure 3.13
Snapshots of a computer model of the 12 July 1993 tsunami in the
East Japan Sea (Byung, 2002). Notice the initial water displacement (00 hours)
and the waves radiating outward and hitting the coasts (01 hours).
After which reflection occurs (02 and 03 hours).
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 13
2D hydraulic model to derive the waves to the coast. The coast is mostly modeled
as a closed boundary, causing reflection at the coast. Sometimes also the coastal
zone is modeled in order to model the extent of the inundation.
Severe tsunami events are modeled in order to efficiently calibrate the models and
to constantly improve the mathematical techniques used in tsunami engineering.
The input for these models is then provided by the derived initial water
displacement for the respective tsunami event. Calibration of the model is done by
using the limited available tsunami data; tide gauge recordings, arrival times on
shore and reported run-up heights. In the paragraphs below, a more detailed
description is given on the modeling of a tsunami event.
Figure 3.14
Schematic view of the bottom deformation due to the earthquake rupture
and the resulting bottom deformation.
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 14
05-01-2004
NOAA
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 15
3.3.3 Calibration
The results of the model are compared with the scarce available data of the
tsunami event: tide gauge registrations and reported run-up heights.
Gathering accurate data is always a problem, for recent tsunamis international
survey teams are dispatched a few weeks after the tsunami. One of their main
objectives is to collect tide gauge recordings and run-up data.
The tidal registration is the most accurate data available for calibration; it provides
information about the wave height, the waveform and period. But most tide
gauges are located in or near harbors so the complex layout of the harbor should
be taken into account.
Run-up measurements are not so accurate as small variations in topography can
cause considerable variations in run-up height (Baptista, 1993) and for a strip of
coast of a hundred kilometer usually only at ten or fifteen locations run-up heights
are measured. Therefore the reported run-up height should only be regarded as a
rough indication. This means that comparing the run-up height calculated from the
reflected wave height with the reported wave height can only give a check for the
order of the run-up height, as both the calculated and the reported run-up height
are not very accurate.
In case of inconsequences between the calculated data and the reported data, the
model has to be adapted. Adaptations can be done at the side of the tectonic
source: the length, width and the height of the bottom deformation can be adapted
keeping the seismic moment constant (as the seismic moment is a measure for
the energy of an earthquake). Another possible adaptation is refining the of the
bathymetry near the coast.
where is the rigidity around the fault, u is the average slip, L is the fault length and W is the fault width.
The seismic moment of the earthquake is a measure for the energy of the earthquake. Thus by keeping the
seismic moment constant the released energy is kept constant (Appendix 2).
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 16
05-01-2004
2e Calculation
seismological
source model
Bottom
deformation
earthquake data
input
2D-mathematical model
Wave form
Height
Period
Reflected wave height
3e Feedback
comparing
Tsunami data
feedback for
callibration
bathymetry
Figure 3.15
Schematic overview of the modeling of a tsunami event.
Hydraulic models for modeling the propagation of tsunami waves are developed
by using recent well-documented tsunami events. A schematized overview of the
modeling of tsunami events is given in Figure 3.15 .The modeling of such a
tsunami event starts form the initial bottom deformation as output of a
seismological model. The initial water displacement equals the initial bottom
deformation. The initial water displacement is used as input for a hydraulic model
based on the shallow water equations. The calculated data is then compared with
available data (tide gauge recordings and run-up heights), the comparison is then
used as a feedback for calibration. Adaptations can be done of the bottom
deformations (keeping the seismic moment constant) and in a refining of the
bathymetry.
It is clear that the calculations made with such models are not extremely accurate;
the wave height is not represented with an accuracy of centimeters or a decimeter,
but more in the order of a few decimeters to half a meter.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 17
3.4.1 Scales
A short review will be given of the most common tsunami scales, based on work
of Satake (2002), Hatori (1995), Bryant (2001) and Abe (1983). These scales are
used to quantify tsunami events.
There are two distinct measures for describing tsunamis: intensity and magnitude.
The intensity gives an indication of the strength of the tsunami at a given location
and its magnitude is an indication for the total energy of a tsunami.
Values of historical tsunami events can be looked up in publications concerning a
singular event or in tsunami catalogues. The most complete and up to date
catalogue at this moment is the Historical Tsunami Database for the Pacific, 47
B.C. to Present, which is the joint project of IUGG/TC and ICG/ITSU . This
database can be accessed at http://tsun.sscc.ru/htdbpac.
3.4.1.1 Imamura-Ida scale, m
m = log 2 H r ,max
m
Hr,max
:
:
(3.6)
Imamura-Idas tsunami magnitude scale (-)
the maximum observed run-up height (m)
This is the traditional tsunami magnitude scale, designed by Imamura in the mid
fortys. Because of the obvious strong local influence by using the Hr,max, the
maximum observed run-up height, it is nowadays regarded as an intensity scale.
With a simple example one can illustrate very clearly the distinction between the two concepts:
intensity and magnitude.
Imagine two cars crashing against a monolithic wall with the same energy. One car being a Duck and
one car being a solid Volvo. The Duck will obviously have more damage than the Volvo. The damage
level of the car can be regarded as an intensity. The intensity of the crash with the Duck is greater than
the intensity of the crash with the Volvo, whereas the magnitude (being a measure for the energy) of
the two crashes is the same.
IUGG/TC: the tsunami commission of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
ICG/ITSU: International Coordination Group for the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 18
05-01-2004
The maximum run-up height is usually reported along the coast near the tsunami
source.
It is especially convenient for older tsunamis, of which no instrumental records
exist, and, of which the evidence can only be found in eye-witness reports, news
paper articles or old stories.
In order to get an idea of the physical meaning of the Imamura-Ida scale, the
relationship between the Imamura-Ida scale (m) and the maximum run-up (Hr,max)
is given in Table 3.1 and. Figure 3.16.
Table 3.1
Imamura-Ida scale, m
Imamura-Ida scale, m
25
20
15
10
5
-1
-2
0
-3
maximum run-up
height (m)
Tsunami
intensity, i
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
m (-)
Figure 3.16
Imamura-Ida scale, m
2.H r ,mean
(3.7)
i
: tsunami intensity (-)
Hr,mean : the mean run-up height on the coast nearest to the source (m)
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 19
For a tsunami event the maximum intensity (i) on the coast nearest to the source is
used to quantify the tsunami source. Soloviev did not state how long the regarded
strip of beach should be, so the definition of the mean run-up height is still
somewhat ambiguous.
Comparison of Eqs (3.6) and (3.7) suggest that the mean tsunami run-up height is
given as 1/2 times the maximum height (Satake, 2002).
In order to get an idea of the physical meaning of the tsunami intensity scale, the
relationship between the tsunami intensity (i) and the mean run-up (Hr,mean) is
given in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.17.
Table 3.2
Tsunami intensity scale, i
-1
-2
0
-3
Tsunami
intensity, i
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
i (-)
Figure 3.17
Tsunami intensity, i
05-01-2004
M t = log H + B
(3.10)
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 21
C
Honolulu
Hilo
California
Japan
Aleutian
+0.2
-0.6
+0.2
0.0
+0.2
Alaska, Aleutian
+0.5
0.0
+0.2
+0.3
0.0
-0.4
+0.1
-0.2
-0.2
+0.2
-0.3
+0.2
0.0
0.0
Source Region
Peru, Chile
whole region
Table 3.3
Values of C for different source regions and registration regions,
as determined by Abe 1983
At present, few values beyond these given in Table 3.3 have been set, so it is not
possible to give regressed values of Mt for all tsunami events .
The above formula (3.10) was calibrated with the moment magnitude, Mw,
(Bryant, 2001) of earthquakes. Therefore, the average tsunami magnitude, Mt, for
a coastline is in the same order as the Mw-value of the source earthquake. For
most earthquake generated tsunamis the correspondence between Mt and Mw does
not differ more than 0.2, nevertheless Mt and Mw can still differ considerably. The
most important disturbance factors for Mt not corresponding with Mw are:
- the local bathymetry: this can seriously affect the recorded wave height H,
although averaging Mt, as calculated from the different tidal recordings, almost
completely eliminates this effect;
- underwater landslides, triggered by earthquakes can amplify the initial water
displacement, thus giving a higher recorded wave height;
- accredited sediment wedges in the generation area can amplify the initial water
displacement, thus giving a higher recorded wave height.
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 22
05-01-2004
The three parameters wave length, wave height and form of the wave (not broken, bore or breaking), are
not sufficient for an exact representation of the tsunami wave. But as the exact form of a tsunami wave is
hard to derive exactly and because each tsunami event is different, it is believed that these parameters are
sufficient for representing a design load (Kamel 1970). Because of the inaccuracy involved a large
sensitivity analysis should be done.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 23
(e.g. the influence of a funnel shaped bay). Obviously the bathymetry and
topography of the regarded coast does influence the mean run-up, making it
difficult to compare different tsunami events.
However tsunami events occurring in a region with coasts with comparable
bathymetry and topography, can be compared with each other, making it possible
to estimate a reoccurrence period of the tsunami events in that region.
The tsunami magnitude scale, Mt, is based on the recorded wave heights on tide
gauges and the distance to the source. The Mt scale has a strong correlation with
the moment magnitude, Mw, of the generating earthquake.
These factors make the Mt scale the best base for a comparison of different
tsunami events. However an Mt value is not available for all tsunami events.
Are there alternatives for deriving tsunami waves?
Since the early nineties a deepwater tsunami registration program has been set up.
These recordings register the entire tsunami profile. However the registration
program only covers a small part of the Pacific. Consequently these detailed
measurements are not available for all tsunami events.
At this moment the only possible way to get accurate information about the
tsunami wave profile is by modeling the tsunami event right from the initial
bottom deformation, caused by the earthquake.
Part 1 - Chapter 3 - 24
05-01-2004
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 1
date
time
generation point
Year
Mo
Da
Hr
Mn
1906
31
15
36
Sec
1907
15
1928
22
17
9.6
1928
17
19
31.8
16.65
earthquake data
tsunami data
generation area
Lat
Long
Dep
Ms
Mw
Mt
Int
Hr,max
-81.5
25
8.6
8.7
8.7
1000
SAM Columbia-Ecuador:TUMACO
TR
Source Region
16.7
-99.2
25
8.2
7.8
CAM Mexico
16.84
-96.02
15
7.5
7.4
-96.5
7.8
7.9
8.1
CAM MEXICO
MEXICO: NEAR COAST OF
GUERRER
2.5
CAM
CAM S.CALIFORNIA
1930
31
40
36.6
33.9
-118.6
5.2
-0.5
6.1
1932
10
36
54.2
19.46
-104.17
25
8.1
7.6
8.2
-0.5
0.7
1932
18
10
12
17.8
19.53
-103.72
71
7.8
7.5
7.8
-2
0.1
1932
22
12
59
27.5
19.09
-104.41
6.9
1.5
10
1934
18
36
27.8
8.01
-82.56
25
7.7
7.6
10
1941
12
20
47
3.3
8.61
-83.18
32
7.5
7.3
-3
0.1
11
1941
12
8.5
-84
33
-3
0.1
12
1948
12
22
21.6
-106.7
33
13
1950
10
16
10.4
-85.2
60
7.7
7.7
7.8
1.5
-2
0.1
14
1950
10
23
16
13
14.3
-91.8
30
7.1
7.5
7.5
-1
0.2
CAM Guatemala-Nicaragua
15
1950
12
14
14
15
16.3
-98.2
50
7.5
7.1
-1
0.3
16
1951
24
13
-87.5
100
17
1957
28
40
9.8
16.88
-99.29
36
7.9
18
1958
19
14
25
0.99
-79.48
20
7.3
19
1962
12
11
40
15.3
8.09
-82.68
19
6.8
20
1962
11
14
11
56.8
17.14
-99.7
46
7.2
21
1962
19
14
58
13.1
16.99
-99.69
16
7.1
22
1965
23
19
46
1.5
16.17
-95.85
10
7.8
23
1973
30
21
13.5
18.45
-102.96
37
7.5
7.6
24
1979
14
11
15
17.77
-101.23
24
7.6
7.6
25
1979
12
12
59
4.6
1.6
-79.36
24
7.7
8.1
26
1981
10
25
22
15.8
18.12
-102
21
7.3
7.7
10
1.5
2.6
1.5
68
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
20
SAM Colombia-Ecuador
-3
0.1
0.8
CAM S.Mexico
30
CAM S.Mexico
7.5
-1
0.4
CAM MEXICO
-3
0.1
56
CAM S.Mexico:FARIAS,TECOMAN
-1.1
0.4
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
2.5
600
SAM Colombia-Ecuador
7.2
-3
0.1
CAM MEXICO
27
1985
19
13
17
49.7
18.46
-102.37
21
8.1
1.5
28
1985
21
37
13.5
17.83
-101.62
18
7.5
7.5
1.2
29
1988
30
15
42
32.6
-117.3
30
1992
16
2.7
11.72
-87.39
45
7.2
7.7
2.8
10.7
170
CAM Nicaragua
31
1994
17
12
30
55.5
34.16
-118.57
14
6.8
6.7
-3
0.1
32
1995
14
14
33.9
16.84
-98.61
29
7.2
7.3
-1
0.42
33
1995
10
15
35
54.1
19.05
-104.21
26
7.3
34
1996
25
16.6
15.93
-98.1
17
6.9
7.1
-3
0.12
35
1999
12
18
17.62
-101.6
2.5
7.9
Table 4.1
Databank for the tsunamis at the Pacific side of Central America from 1900 to 2002.
the crossed out events are removed to homogenize the dataset.
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 2
05-01-2004
Figure 4.1
The epicentral locations of the tsunamigenic earthquakes.
The crossed out events are removed to homogenize the dataset.
Also the tectonic setting of Central America is given.
(MAT: Middle American Trench, PFZ: Panama Fracture Zone)
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 3
05-01-2004
Comments
It is clear that tsunamis generated in Southern California (5, 29 and 31) do not
affect the coast bordered by the Middle American Trench. But the tsunamis
generated at the Columbian subduction zone can obviously affect this coast. This
were the 1906 Columbia-Ecuador tsunami (1) with intensity 3, the 1958
Columbia-Ecuador tsunami (18) with intensity 1.5 and the 1979 ColumbiaEcuador tsunami with intensity 2.5. These tsunamis are so called regional
tsunamis as they are generated at a certain distance of the Pacific coast of Central
America. This means that the large intensities due to the nature of the intensity
scale (defined for the mean run-up on a nearest coast, see 3.4) have no
significance for the Central American coast. They 1906 tsunami was observed
along the entire coast of Central America, but there is no specific reference made
of large damage along this coast due to this specific tsunami (Fernadez, 2000).
Therefore for statistical calculations these three tsunamis are still kept out of the
dataset.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 5
time
Mn
generation point
Sec
Lat
17
9.6
19
31.8
16.65
earthquake data
Year
Mo
Da
Hr
Long
Dep
Ms
Mw
1907
15
1928
22
16.7
-99.2
25
8.2
7.8
16.84
-96.02
15
7.5
7.4
1928
17
-96.5
7.8
7.9
1932
10
36
54.2
19.46
-104.17
25
8.1
1932
18
10
12
17.8
19.53
-103.72
71
7.8
1932
22
12
59
27.5
19.09
-104.41
6.9
1934
18
36
27.8
8.01
-82.56
25
7.7
7.6
10
1941
12
20
47
3.3
8.61
-83.18
32
7.5
7.3
11
1941
12
8.5
-84
33
tsunami data
Mt
Int
Hr,max
2.5
generation area
F
TR
Source Region
CAM Mexico
CAM MEXICO
CAM
8.1
7.6
8.2
-0.5
0.7
7.5
7.8
-2
0.1
1.5
10
-3
0.1
-3
0.1
12
1948
12
22
21.6
-106.7
33
13
1950
10
16
10.4
-85.2
60
7.7
7.7
7.8
-2
0.1
14
1950
10
23
16
13
14.3
-91.8
30
7.1
7.5
7.5
-1
0.2
CAM Guatemala-Nicaragua
15
1950
12
14
14
15
16.3
-98.2
50
7.5
7.1
-1
0.3
16
1951
24
13
-87.5
100
10
17
1957
28
40
9.8
16.88
-99.29
36
7.9
1.5
2.6
19
1962
12
11
40
15.3
8.09
-82.68
19
6.8
-3
0.1
0.8
CAM S.Mexico
30
CAM S.Mexico
CAM MEXICO
CAM S.Mexico:FARIAS,TECOMAN
20
1962
11
14
11
56.8
17.14
-99.7
46
7.2
21
1962
19
14
58
13.1
16.99
-99.69
16
7.1
1.5
22
1965
23
19
46
1.5
16.17
-95.85
10
7.8
7.5
23
1973
30
21
13.5
18.45
-102.96
37
7.5
7.6
24
1979
14
11
15
17.77
-101.23
24
7.6
7.6
-1.1
26
1981
10
25
22
15.8
18.12
-102
21
7.3
7.2
-3
27
1985
19
13
17
49.7
18.46
-102.37
21
8.1
1.5
28
1985
21
37
13.5
17.83
-101.62
18
7.5
7.5
30
1992
16
2.7
11.72
-87.39
45
7.2
7.7
32
1995
14
14
33.9
16.84
-98.61
29
7.2
33
1995
10
15
35
54.1
19.05
-104.21
26
34
1996
25
16.6
15.93
-98.1
17
68
-1
0.4
-3
0.1
56
0.4
0.1
N
0
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
CAM MEXICO
1.2
2.8
10.7
170
CAM Nicaragua
7.3
-1
0.42
7.3
6.9
7.1
-3
0.12
7.9
Table 4.2
Homogenized dataset
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 6
05-01-2004
Figure 4.2
Homogenized dataset.
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 7
tsunami to this one dominant wave, characterized by its wave height, length and
the form of the wave (not broken, bore or breaking) (3.4.2). So it is sufficient to
derive this one dominant wave.
4.1.2.2 Tsunami data
The relevant tsunami data available in the dataset are the maximum run-up
(Hr,max), the tsunami intensity (i) and for some tsunamis the tsunami magnitude
(Mt). in paragraph 3.4 an extensive overview of the scales is given. It is concluded
that nor the maximum run-up (Hr,max), nor the tsunami intensity (i), nor the
tsunami magnitude (Mt) can be used to derive a tsunami wave.
The tsunami intensity (i) can be used to compare different tsunami events as the
coast near to the Middle American Trench is assumed to have a similar
bathymetry and topography along the entire coast. The best base for a comparison
is the tsunami magnitude scale (Mt), but the Mt values are only available for 8
tsunami events.
4.1.2.3 Earthquake scales
The available earthquake data are the depth of the hypocenter (Dep), the surface
wave magnitude (Ms) and the moment magnitude (Mw). This data cant be coupled
directly to wave parameters and they contain insufficient information for deriving
an ocean bottom deformation.
4.1.2.4 Conclusion
The effect of a tsunami wave train can be represented by one dominant wave,
characterized by its wave height, wave length and the form of the wave (not
broken, bore or breaking).
The data available of the tsunami events contains insufficient information to link
to wave characteristics. Therefore a statistical approach for deriving a design
tsunami out of the available data is not possible.
As a statistical approach proves not to be possible, the largest tsunami event in the
Central American region will be identified. The largest event, will then be taken
as a basis for a design tsunami; the wave height and the period will be increased
with 20%.
The conclusions concerning the possibility of linking the tsunami data and the seismic data to tsunami
wave parameters, were the result of an extensive investigation. It was concluded that linking the limited
available data to wave parameters is not possible. However due to the importance of this conclusion for
this study, the expert opinion was asked of some tsunami researchers. They were contacted by mail and
there replies confirm my conclusions. These mails are shown in Appendix 4.
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 8
05-01-2004
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 9
date
time
generation point
Sec
earthquake data
Year
Mo
Da
Hr
Mn
1907
15
1928
17
19
1932
10
36
54.2
19.46
-104.17
25
8.1
1932
18
10
12
17.8
19.53
-103.72
71
7.8
1932
22
12
59
27.5
19.09
-104.41
6.9
1934
18
36
27.8
8.01
-82.56
25
7.7
7.6
10
1941
12
20
47
3.3
8.61
-83.18
32
7.5
7.3
11
1941
12
8.5
-84
33
31.8
Lat
Long
Dep
Ms
Mw
16.7
-99.2
25
8.2
7.8
16.65
-96.5
7.8
7.9
tsunami data
Mt
generation area
Int
Hr,max
C
T
CAM Mexico
TR
Source Region
8.1
2.5
CAM
7.6
8.2
-0.5
0.7
7.5
7.8
-2
0.1
1.5
10
-3
0.1
-3
0.1
12
1948
12
22
21.6
-106.7
33
13
1950
10
16
10.4
-85.2
60
7.7
7.7
7.8
1.5
-2
0.1
14
1950
10
23
16
13
14.3
-91.8
30
7.1
7.5
7.5
-1
0.2
CAM Guatemala-Nicaragua
15
1950
12
14
14
15
16.3
-98.2
50
7.5
7.1
-1
0.3
16
1951
24
13
-87.5
100
10
17
1957
28
40
9.8
16.88
-99.29
36
7.9
1.5
2.6
19
1962
12
11
40
15.3
8.09
-82.68
19
6.8
-3
0.1
20
1962
11
14
11
56.8
17.14
-99.7
46
7.2
0.8
22
1965
23
19
46
1.5
16.17
-95.85
10
7.8
7.5
-1
0.4
23
1973
30
21
13.5
18.45
-102.96
37
7.5
7.6
-3
0.1
56
24
1979
14
11
15
17.77
-101.23
24
7.6
7.6
-1.1
0.4
26
1981
10
25
22
15.8
18.12
-102
21
7.3
7.2
-3
0.1
27
1985
19
13
17
49.7
18.46
-102.37
21
8.1
1.5
28
1985
21
37
13.5
17.83
-101.62
18
7.5
7.5
1.2
7.9
68
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
CAM S.Mexico
CAM MEXICO
CAM S.Mexico:FARIAS,TECOMAN
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
CAM MEXICO
30
1992
16
2.7
11.72
-87.39
45
7.2
7.7
2.8
10.7
170
32
1995
14
14
33.9
16.84
-98.61
29
7.2
7.3
-1
0.42
33
1995
10
15
35
54.1
19.05
-104.21
26
7.3
34
1996
25
16.6
15.93
-98.1
17
6.9
7.1
-3
0.12
Table 4.3
Final dataset
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 10
05-01-2004
Figure 4.3
Final dataset
4.2.1 Occurrence
The occurrence of tsunamis with a certain intensity is shown in Table 4.4. Also
the mean run-up heights (Hr,mean) corresponding with the tsunami intensity (i)
(equ 3.7) are shown.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 11
Hr,mean (m)
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
-0,5
-1
-1,5
-2
-2,5
-3
11,3
8,0
5,7
4,0
2,8
2,0
1,4
1,0
0,7
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,1
Number of
tsunamis
0
0
1
0
0
4
3
1
2
1
5
0
3
0
6
Table 4.4
Tsunami intensity versus occurrence.
(the intensities are rounded of to a half)
T su n a m i D ata
num be r
8
6
4
2
0
-3
-2
-1
Figure 4.4
Tsunami intensity versus occurrence
05-01-2004
Figure 4.5
Tsunami exceedance probability versus intensity for tsunamis with i 0 for the
Central American region from 1900 to 2002
In Figure 4.5 the tsunamis with an intensity i 0 are plotted against their
exceedance probability. This gives for the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami (i = 3) a
return period between 85 and 850 years. The best fit distribution function gives an
return period of 120 years for the coast bordering the Middle American Trench.
As only local tsunamis occurred in this region, only a small part of the coast is
affected. In the case of the Nicaraguan tsunami only 250 km of coast was
seriously affected (Bryant, 2001) of the total of 4,000 km along the Middle
American Trench. This is a normal value for tsunamis of such a large intensity.
Figure 4.6
A tsunamigenic earthquake, similar to the 1992 tsunami event, can only affect a
certain location at the coast as the epicenter lies in the zone in front of the location.
As for the 1992 Nicaraguan earthquake the coastal region affected was 250km, the
length of the regarded strip in which the epicenter has to lie is 2x125 km.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 13
To get an impression of the occurrence at one location along the coast, the Middle
American Trench can be divided into strips of 250 km (Figure 4.6). The chance
for a tsunamigenic earthquake, as in Nicaragua1992, can be taken uniformly
distributed over the 16 cells of the Middle American Trench. Thus the chance that
the once in a 120 year tsunami affects one exact location, i.e. occurs in one of the
16 cells, is once in 1920 years. Taking into account the spreading, then the return
period for one location lies between 1360 and 13600 years
Clearly this is only a rough estimation of the return period. The tsumanigenic
earthquakes probably are not uniformly distributed along the Middle American
Trench (Figure 4.3), most tsunamigenic earthquakes seem to occur in Mexico. But
in order to give account for such heterogeneities a dataset for a longer period and
more detailed insight in geological processes is needed.
Nevertheless this simple calculation clearly illustrates the infrequency of large
tsunami events at the Pacific coast of Central America.
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 14
05-01-2004
Figure 4.7
For each region in the Pacific the number of generated large tsunamis (i 2.8) are
plotted. (based on Table 4.5)
Year
1900
1906
1918
1923
1923
1923
1927
1933
1939
1946
1946
1952
1957
1958
1960
1960
1963
1964
1968
1969
1975
1977
1992
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3.5
3
4
3
4
3.5
3.5
3
5
3
4.5
3
3
3
3.5
2.8
Hmax
Source Region
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 15
4.3 CONCLUSIONS
A full statistical approach proves not to be possible, because linking the available
tsunami data and the earthquake data to wave characteristics is not possible. This
conclusion is confirmed by tsunami researchers. Therefore deriving the design
tsunami is based on the biggest tsunami event that occurred along the Pacific
coast of Central America. The biggest tsunami event that occurred in the period
from 1900 to 2002 was the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami.
Large tsunami events are infrequent phenomena and mostly do only affect a small
part of the coast, making the occurrence frequency of large tsunami events for one
specific location very small. A rough estimation of the return period of the 1992
Nicaraguan event is 1920 years. Large tsunami events are not only infrequent
along the Central American coast, but also in the entire Pacific. Compared to the
Pacific, Central America is a rather modest tsunamigenic region. However large
tsunamis can occur and have to be taken account for.
An overview of the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami event is given in Appendix 4. In the
following chapter the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami is used as a base for deriving a
design tsunami. At first a 1D hydraulic model will be set-up which corresponds
with the Nicaraguan event. After this the wave will be modified in order to
become a design tsunami: the wave height and the wave length will be increased
with 20%.
Part 1 - Chapter 4 - 16
05-01-2004
Nicaragua
Figure 5.1
Pacific coast of Nicaragua
The goal of this chapter is deriving the design tsunami wave for the two sites of
interest i.e. Pie del Giagante and Bahia del Salinas. At first the 1992 tsunami wave
to the coast of Pie del Gigante will be derived. Later this tsunami will be adapted
in order to derive the design tsunami for the two sites.
The 1992 tsunami towards Pie del Gigante will be derived by means of a 1D
hydraulic model, starting from the initial bottom deformation of the 1992
Nicaragua tsunami. In order to simulate the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami, the model
will be calibrated using the available data from the 1992 Nicaragua event. These
include tide gauge readings, run-up data and data of available model
investigations. As the first arriving wave was reported as the highest wave, our
modeling efforts will be focused on the first wave.
In order to obtain the design tsunami for Pie del Gigante the bottom deformation
will be adapted in order to obtain a wave with an increased wave height and
length by 20 %. The same bottom deformation is then used to derive the design
tsunami to the site of Bahia Del Salinas. This way the resulting wave at the two
sites can be compared.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 1
+V.
= g.
Cf
t
x
x
d +
d
Cf
g
t
x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(5.1)
equation of continuity:
{(d + )V }
(d + )
=
t
x
(5.2)
The coast and the ocean side of the model are modeled as closed boundaries
(V=0).
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 2
05-01-2004
Bottom deformation
The input of the bottom deformation is based on the modeling of the 1992
Nicaragua tsunami by Satake (1995). In his investigation Satake sets up a 2D
mathematical model, in which he derives an elevation-subsidence profile for the
1992 Nicaragua event. The profile is derived starting from the seismological data
(seismological moment and focal depth) giving input in a geological model in
order to provide the resulting deformation of the ocean bottom. This bottom
deformation is used as input for a 2D hydraulic model and the results are
compared with the available reported data of the tsunami event namely; tide gauge
recordings at Corinto and Puerto Sandino and run-up data collected along the
Nicaraguan coast. This comparison is used as feedback to adapt the bottom
deformation, but keeping the seismic moment constant (Appendix 2).
By doing this, in the end an elevation-subsidence profile is obtained which is
consistent with the earthquake data on one hand and the wave data (tide gauge
records and run-up data) on the other hand.
The elevation-subsidence profile as derived by Satake (1995) is illustrated in
Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2
The initial bottom deformation as derived by Satake (1995), overlaid on the
bathymetry, the contour interval is 20 cm. A perpendicular on the coast is
constructed to derive the bottom deformation for the 1D model
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 3
The bottom deformation is uniform along the long side of the bottom deformation.
Therefore only one bottom deformation as input for the 1D model has to be
derived. The bottom deformation input is derived along a perpendicular to the
coast, as shown in Figure 5.2. The bottom deformation is simplified by
transforming it to rectangular deformations an uplift of 65cm and a subsidence of
27cm (Figure 5.3). The rectangular deformation has the same surface as the
original profile, resulting in equal volumes of displaced water. This
schematization is used for preliminary calculations. Later on it will be evaluated,
whether a good comparison is given by this profile or not.
Bottom displacement
100
displacement (cm)
80
60
schematised bottom
deformation
40
20
0
-20
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
-40
-60
distance (m)
Figure 5.3
Schematized bottom deformation for the 1D model and the original profile
5.2.2.2
Figure 5.4
Positioning of the bottom deformation, the left side is positioned in
the deepest part of the ocean trench.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 4
05-01-2004
5.2.2.3
Bathymetry
Note that the term foreshore is used for the underwater part of the shore and not for the part of the shore
above the still water line.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 5
As is clearly illustrated by the bathymetry of Pie del Gigante in Figure 5.5 and
Figure 5.6
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
depth (m)
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
distance (m)
160000
continental shelf
ocean trench
Figure 5.5
The bathymetry at Pie Del Gigante, clearly the ocean trench
and the continental shelf can be distinguished.
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
continental shelf
depth (m)
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
distance (m)
70000
foreshore
Figure 5.6
The more shallower parts of the bathymetry at Pie Del Giante, the
Continental Shelf and the foreshore can be distinguished.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 6
05-01-2004
5.2.2.4
Bottom friction
g.n 2
(d + h)1/ 3
(5.3)
with :
- Cf : the non dimensional friction coefficient (-)
- n : Mannings roughness coefficient (m-1/3s),
at first n was chosen 0.02 m-1/3s
- d : water depth (m)
- h : water elevation (m)
There are two tide gauge recordings available, one at Corinto (depth:MSL-10m)
and one at Puerto Sandino (depth:MSL-4 m) (Figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7
Tidal recordings at Corinto and Puerto Sandino.
Due to a mistake at first the value n = 0.02 m-1/3s instead of the suggested value of n = 0.03 m-1/3s
(Bryant, 2001 and Satake, 1995). Later on it will be proven that the resulting differences are minimal.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 7
Figure 5.8
Tidal recording at Corinto after the tidal components
are removed (Satake, 1995).
The tidal recording at Corinto shows an initial water level withdrawal of about 10
cm, followed by a large water elevation showing a peak to through amplitude of
49 cm. The period of the first rising wave is 9.2 minutes. The tidal elevation at
that moment was +80 cm.
The tidal recording at Puerto Sandino shows an initial water level withdrawal of
about 10 cm, followed by a large water elevation causing the tide recorder to go
off scale, the peak to through amplitude is at least 117 cm. The tidal elevation at
this station was MSL+50 cm.
Because the tide gauge at Corinto kept recording during the event, this registration
will be used as a basis for comparison of the computed wave height (Figure 5.8).
5.2.3.2
Run-up heights
Figure 5.9
Maximum reported run-up heights along the
Nicaraguan Coast (Bryant, 2001)
The run-up heights lie mostly between 3 and 8 m MSL, with a maximum of 10.7
m MSL at El Transito.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 8
05-01-2004
Tidal correction
The tidal elevation at the arrival time of the tsunami was MSL+80 cm at Corinto
and +50 cm at Puerto Sandino, no detailed tidal calculations for the coast of
Nicaragua are available. Therefore as a first assumption for a tidal correction
MSL+65 cm is proposed.
This gives run-up heights between 2.35 and 7.35 m SL (sea level), referred to the
momentaneous sea level. The significance of the centimeters is negligible, for
easy comparison the values will be round off to 2.5 and 7.5 m SL.
Corrected for the tide the most run-up heights lie between 2.5 and 7.5 m SL.
In Satake (1995) Figure 5.10 is presented which compiles all the measured run-up
data for the 1992 event. The run-up values are corrected for the tidal component.
Notice that the points lying on one vertical represents different run-up heights at
one coastal location, these differences can be attributed to very local differences in
onshore topography.
Figure 5.10
Reported run-up heights for the 1992 Tsunami.
Most run-up heights lie between 2.5 and 7.5m.
Arrival time
The wave arrived onshore between 40-70 minutes after the rupture.
The first arriving wave was reported as the highest wave.
The relationship between run-up heights and reflected wave heights
The run-up heights can be calculated from the reflected wave heights as follows:
H run up = m.H refl
Hrun-up
m
Hrefl
(5.4)
The multiplification factor m can be estimated taking into account the wave length
and the slope of the coast (Imamura, 1993). Unluckily, the exact formula is not
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 9
given by Imamura (1993) and the original paper whereto he refers is in Japanese.
It is stated to be an empirical formula based on relationship of reflecting wave
heights on a vertical wall and the measured run-up of the same waves on a beach.
For the Nicaraguan coast Imamura (1993) estimates the multiplification factor m
to be 2.
Based on the results of his model Satake (1995) suggests that this factor should be
between 1 and 3. Probably this is a more realistic approach, as is clearly indicated
in Figure 5.10, where for one location already large differences in run-up height
can occur. Clearly illustrating the effect of local onshore topography on the runup.
Bathymetry
The bathymetry in front of Pie del Gigante is shown in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6.
Model calculations
Two waves are presented:
- at MSL10m (same depth as the tide gauge at Corinto)
- reflected wave height (closed boundary at the coast)
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 10
05-01-2004
First Run
3,5
3
Reflected
wave
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
wave at -10m
reflected wave
1
0,5
0
2003
-0,5
2103
2203
-1
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
period
time (s)
Figure 5.11
First calculations, calculated waves at MSL-10m and the
reflected wave on the closed coast boundary (MSL 0m).
reflected wave :
max height : 2.85m expected run-up height 2.85-8.55 m (5.2.3.2, m=1-3)
at time
: 2852.5s = 47.5 min
arrival time : 2670s = 44.6 min
wave at 10m
Defining the period is somewhat ambiguous, because of the 2nd wave peak. The
period is defined as is shown in Figure 5.11.
5.3.1.2
Corinto
For comparison with the tide gauge recordings at Corinto, a calculation will be
made with the bathymetry of Corinto.
Bathymetry
The depth profile in front of Corinto is derived using the sea chart of 1/300.000
also used for the depth profile of Pie del Gigante. Only the profile between 12.8
m and 280 m could be derived from this chart. Nearshore no more detailed
soundings are given and the deeper part of the depth profile lies beyond the
borders of the map.
Therefore for the deeper part the same depth profile is used as for Pie del Gigante.
In 5.3.2.3 a sensitivity analysis will be done to investigate the influence of the
deeper parts.
As for the more shallow parts nearshore, the model will only be used to calculate
the wave at 10 m (fictive location of the tide gauge, the point is linearly
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 11
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
distance (m)
160000
Corinto
0
-2000
-3000
-4000
depth (m)
-1000
-5000
-6000
Figure 5.12
Bathymetry for Corinto compared with the bathymetry
for Pie Del Gigante.
Bathymetry for Corinto (shallow)
Pie Del Gigante
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
Corinto
distance (m)
-100
-150
PDG
depth (m)
-50
-200
-250
Figure 5.13
The Shallower parts of the bathymetry for Corinto compared
with the Bathymetry for Pie Del Gigante.
Model calculations
A calculation is made with the bathymetry for Corinto and compared with the
wave calculated for Pie del Gigante.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 12
05-01-2004
wave at -10m
2
height (m)
1,5
1
PDG
0,5
Corinto
0
2503
2578
2653
2728
2803
2878
2953
PDG
-0,5
-1
time (s)
Figure 5.14
Comparing the calculated waves at Pie del Gigante (PDG)
and Corinto at MSL-10m.
5.3.1.3
Comparison between the calculations for Corinto , Pie Del gigante and the tide
gauge recording at Corinto:
first wave
Peak-to-through
period
arrival
highest wave
Max elevation
remark
Model, -10 m
Pie del Gigante
(reference)
Model, -10 m
Corinto
Tidal recording
Corinto (-10 m)
2.26 m
2.18 m
0.49 m
8.6 min
40 min
first wave
+1.73 m
8.0 min
47 min
first wave
+1.63 m
9.2 min
35-50 min
first wave
+0.39 m
The two calculated waves are quite similar in height (2.18 m 2.25 m) and
period (8.0 min 8.6 min), but the arrival time at Corinto is a bit later (47 min
40 min), probably due to the shallower continental shelf, which slows down
the wave ( c = g .h ).
Therefore comparing the calculated wave at Corinto with the tidal recording at
Corinto gives the same remarks as the comparison between the calculated wave
height at Pie del Gigante and the tide gauge recording: much higher calculated
waves, but the form and the timing is comparable.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 13
Conclusions
- Clearly this doesnt give good correlation with the wave height on the tidal
recording
- The period of the first rising wave is promising: 8.6min and 8.0min9.2min
- The arrival time on shore is acceptable (PDG: 44.6min40-70min)
- Expected run-up heights are also acceptable (PDG: 2.85 - 8.55 m 2.57.5 m, Figure 5.10)
Figure 5.15
Layout of the site of Corinto. The location of the tide gauge is marked.
The expected Hrun-up is calculated using equation (5.4) with Hrefl=2.26m and m ranging from 1 to 3
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 14
05-01-2004
This clearly shows the complex layout at Corinto. The location of the tide gauge
is marked on the map.
Clearly this complex bay will have a serious impact on the wave penetration: the
incoming wave at the bay mount will split up into the different channels. Probably
this will result in lowering of the arriving wave, afterwards complicated
superposition of reflected waves can occur.
As a first approximation it is assumed that the tidal recording at Corinto, gives to
small wave heights for a wave arriving at the coast (due to the complex layout).
But it gives an impression of the form of the first wave: an initial water level
withdrawal, followed by a larger water elevation, with the period of the first rising
wave about 9.2 min.
As this first wave is reported as the highest wave, we will focus on the first wave.
5.3.2.2
Figure 5.16
Position of Corinto relative to the initial bottom deformation
As can be clearly seen in Figure 5.16 Corinto is located in front of the northwestern end of the initial water disturbance, at a distance of 90 km. So also
diffraction can play an important role in the lowering of the wave height at
Corinto.
5.3.2.3
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 15
The sensitivity of the model for variations of the input variables will be tested by
varying:
- the depth of the ocean trench
- the slope of the continental shelf
- the slope of the foreshore
- the length of the bottom deformation
- the amplitude of the bottom deformation
- the bottom friction
- the reflection on the closed coast boundary.
Because the calculated wave at MSL-10m does not differ much for Pie del
Gigante and Corinto and because the total bathymetry profile for Pie del Gigante
is available, the calculations will be carried out with the bathymetry of Pie del
Gigante. The calculations will be compared with the calculations of the first
calculations (5.3.1.1), which will be referred to as the reference model.
I The depth of the ocean trench
Two calculations are made, one with the depth of the ocean trench increased from
MSL-4860 m to 8000 m and another where the depth is decreased to MSL3000
m (Figure 5.17).
Varying the dpth of the ocean trench
shallow trench
reference model
distance (km)
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
deep trench
-4000
-6000
-8000
depth (m)
-2000
-10000
Figure 5.17
Varying the depth of the ocean trench
The calculations compared with the reference model are displayed in the
following figures:
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 16
05-01-2004
waves at -10m
2
shallow
1,5
height (m)
1
reference model
0,5
shallow trench
deep trench
0
2503
2578
2653
2728
2803
2878
2953
-0,5
deep
-1
time (s)
Figure 5.18
The calculated waves at -10m compared with the reference model
reflecting wave
deep
3,5
3
height (m)
2,5
reference model
shallow trench
shallow
1,5
deep trench
1
0,5
0
2503
2603
2703
2803
2903
time (s)
Figure 5.19
The calculated reflecting waves on the coast boundary
compared with the reference model
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
peak-to-through
period
Model,
Dtrench = -8000m
Model,
Dtrench = -3000m
Model (reference)
Dtrench = -4860m
2.91 m
44.5 min
2.76 m
44.7 min
2.85 m
44.6 min
2.31 m
2.19 m
2.26 m
8.6 min
8.6 min
8.6 min
Very large variations in the depth of the ocean trench lead to small variations of
the wave height. Deeper ocean trenches lead to a slightly earlier arrival time of the
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 17
wave on shore then shallower ocean trenches. When one looks at the wave of
MSL10m, especially the peak is retarded. Possibly this can be explained by the
bottom elevation lying primary in the now shallower ocean trench. Therefore the
initial water elevation now lies in a more shallower zone. Causing smaller wave
celerity ( c = g .h ), thus leading to a slightly different wave form.
Possibly the variations in the second wave peak at MSL10m, can be partially
explained by the reflected waves on the coast; a slightly different form and later
arrival could induce a higher superimposed wave.
Conclusion
Very large variations in the depth of the ocean trench, lead to small differences in
the resulting wave. Therefore the impact of inaccuracy of the deeper bathymetry
on the calculations is negligible.
II The slope of the continental shelf
Two calculations are made, one with the steepness of the continental shelf
increased from 1/520 to 1/400 and another where the steepness is decreased to
1/750 (Figure 5.20).
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
height (m)
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
distance (m)
70000
milder (1/750)
Figure 5.20
Varying the slope of the continental shelf.
The calculations compared with the reference model are displayed in the
following figures:
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 18
05-01-2004
reflecting wave
steep
mild
3,5
3
height (m)
2,5
reference model
1
0,5
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
time (s)
Figure 5.21
The calculated waves at -10m compared with the reference model.
reflecting wave
steep
mild
3,5
3
height (m)
2,5
reference model
1
0,5
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
time (s)
Figure 5.22
The calculated reflecting waves on the coast boundary
compared with the reference model.
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
peak-to-through
period
Model,
1/750
Model,
1/400
Model (reference)
1/520
2.85 m
47 min
2.86 m
42.6 min
2.85 m
44.6 min
2.23 m
2.27 m
2.26 m
8.6 min
8.6 min
8.6 min
Variations in the slope of the continental shelf, practically doesnt affect the wave
heights. Also the form of the waves remain practically unchanged.
But the arrival time of the waves is seriously affected: the milder continental slope
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 19
causes the wave to arrive minutes later. This can be explained by the wave
celerity, which is a function of the depth: c = g .h . Milder slopes lead to shallower
depths, which causes the wave to slow down.
Conclusion
Steeper continental slopes cause the wave to arrive earlier ( c = g .h ). But the
slope has practically no influence on the wave height, nor on the wave form.
II The slope of the foreshore
Two calculations are made, one with steepness of the foreshore increased from
1/100 to 1/80 and another where the steepness is decreased from 1/100 to 1/120
(Figure 5.23).
Varyin g th e slop e of th e fore sh o re
0
0
00
00
-1
50
00
20
35
00
00
50
00
65
80
95
d is ta n c e (m )
00
1 /1 2 0
re fe re nc e m o d e l
1 /8 0
-2 0
-4 0
-6 0
h e ig h t
-8 0
Figure 5.23
Varying the slope of the foreshore.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 20
05-01-2004
w a ve a t -10m
2,5
1/80
1/120
he ight (m )
1,5
1/80
0,5
1/120
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
3003
3053
3103
3153
3203
-0,5
-1
tim e (s)
Figure 5.24
The calculated waves at 10m compared with the reference model.
r e fle ctin g w a ve
3,5
1/120
he igh t (m )
2,5
1/80
ref erenc e model
1/80
1,5
1/120
1
0,5
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
3003
3053
3103
3153
3203
tim e (s )
Figure 5.25
The calculate reflecting waves compared with the reference model.
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
peak-to-through
period
Model,
1/80
Model,
1/120
Model (reference)
1/100
2.88 m
44.3 min
2.76 m
46.7 min
2.85 m
44.6 min
2.45 m
2.47 m
2.26 m
7.8 min
8.1 min
8.6 min
A steeper foreshore leads to an earlier arrival of the wave, partially because the
deeper water depths and partially because of a shorter traveling distance (Figure
5.23). The rest of the variations in the wave, are somewhat more complicated. It is
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 21
believed that reflection of the wave partially disturbs the calculations. The
influence of the foreshore is somewhat difficult to distinguish, therefore the
calculations will be redone in 0 with repressing the reflection.
IV The length of the bottom deformation
Two calculations are made, one with length of the bottom deformation increased
with 10% and another where length of the bottom deformation is decreased with
10% . The placement of the bottom deformation with respect to the bathymetry
remains the same (5.2.2.2).
The calculations compared with the reference model are displayed in the
following figures:
waves at -10m
2
L+10%
1,5
height (m)
1
reference model
0,5
L+10%
L-10%
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
-0,5
-1
L-10%
time (s)
Figure 5.26
he calculated waves at -10m compared with the reference model.
reflecting wave
L-10%
2,5
height (m)
2
reference model
1,5
L+10%
L-10%
L+10%
0,5
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
time (s)
Figure 5.27
The calculated reflecting waves on the coast boundary
compared with the reference model.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 22
05-01-2004
Model,
L+10%
Model (reference)
L=58.7 km
2.83 m
45.2 min
2.83 m
44.1 min
2.85 m
44.6 min
peak-to-through
2.26 m
2.12 m
2.26 m
peak-to-through period
127 s
175 s
remarks
415 s
high 2e wave peak
2 negative wave peaks
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 23
w a ve a t -10m
2,5
A+10%
he ight (m )
1,5
A +1 0%
0,5
A -10%
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
A-10%
2905
-0,5
-1
tim e (s)
Figure 5.30
The calculated waves at -10m compared with the reference model
r e fle ct in g w av e
3,5
A+10%
3
h e ig h t (m )
2,5
ref erenc e model
A +10%
1,5
A -10%
A-10%
0,5
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
t im e ( s )
Figure 5.31
The calculated reflected waves on the coast boundary
compared with the reference model.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 24
05-01-2004
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
peak-to-through
period
Model,
A-10%
Model,
A+10%
Model (reference)
A=+66/-27 cm
2.59 m
44.6 min
3.12 m
44.6 min
2.85 m
44.6 min
2.05 m
2.47 m
2.26 m
8.6 min
8.6 min
8.6 min
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 25
wave at -10m
2
Cf=0.01
1,5
height (m)
1
reference model (n=0.02)
n=0.03
0,5
Cf=0.01
Cf=0.003
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
-0,5
-1
time (s)
Figure 5.32
The calculated waves at -10m compared with the reference model.
reflecting wave
Cf=0.01
2,5
height (m)
1,5
Cf=0.01
cf=0.003
0,5
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
time (s)
Figure 5.33
The calculated reflecting waves on the coast boundary compared
with the reference model.
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
peak-to-through
period
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 26
Model,
n=0.03m-1/3s
Model,
Cf =0.003
Model,
Cf=0.01
Model (reference)
-1/3
n=0.02 m s
2.82 m
44.6 min
2.82 m
44.6 min
2.69 m
44.6 min
2.85 m
44.6 min
2.24 m
2.24 m
2.19 m
2.26 m
8.6 min
8.6 min
8.6 min
8.6 min
05-01-2004
Comparison of the calculations with the values n=0.03m-1/3s and Cf=0.003 reveals
no differences. Comparison of these two calculations with the reference
calculation reveals slightly lower wave heights.
The value for tsunami run-up Cf=0.01shows a small wave height reduction, but
practically no effect in the timing. This suggests that the influence of the friction
only becomes important at shallower areas; the shallow part of the bathymetry is
probably to short to significantly slow down the wave, but is sufficient for a small
lowering of the wave height.
Probably if the bathymetry consists of a longer shallower area or when the
tsunami wave arrives on shore, the bottom friction becomes more important.
Although n=0.02m-1/3s, was used during the previous calculations instead of the
suggested value n=0.03m-1/3s, the differences are supposed to be negligible and
the conclusions are believed to remain valid. Nevertheless it is decided for further
calculations, beyond this sensitivity analysis, to use n=0.03m-1/3s instead of
n=0.02m-1/3s, as this is the suggested value in literature.
Conclusion
With this bathymetry the influence of the bottom friction is limited, when using
the values Cf=0.003, n=0.03m-1/3s or n=0.02m-1/3s, no significant differences are
noticed.
VII The reflection on the closed coast boundary
Comparing all the different runs until now with tide gauge reading at Corinto, it is
striking that all these different model calculations have a significant second wave
peak and the tide gauge reading lacks this wave peak.
It is suspected that this second wave peak for the wave at MSL10 m is caused by
the reflected wave superimposed on the arriving wave.
This is investigated by extending the bathymetry at the coast side with a canal of
a constant depth (-10 m) and a length of 20 km to prevent reflection disturbing
the presented wave.
The calculations compared with the reference model are displayed in the
following figure:
The required minimum length of the canal not to disturb the wave height at the beginning of the canal
(d=-10m):
- T = 8.6min, take as an upper limit 15min
c = g.h 10m / s
this gives L=c.T=9000 m
The minimum required length of the canal is L/2=4.5 km, the canal of 20 km is thus more than sufficient.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 27
wave at -10m
2
height (m)
1,5
1
reference model
0,5
0
2503
2553
2603
2653
2703
2753
2803
2853
2903
2953
canal
-0,5
-1
time (s)
Figure 5.34
The calculated waves at -10m compared with the reference model.
wave at -10 m
first through
first peak
peak-to-through
period
remark
Model,
canal d=-10 m
Model
(reference)
Tidal recording
Corinto (-10 m)
-0.29 m
+1.7 m
1.99m
9.1 min
no second wave peak
-0.53 m
+1.73 m
2.26 m
8.6 min
-0.10 m
+0.39 m
0.49 m
9.2 min
The arriving through is decreased by almost half, probably this can be explained
by the absence of the negative reflected wave. Also the second wave peak
decreases significantly, which indicates that this second wave peak shown in the
calculations is partially caused by reflection.
However there is still a second wave peak present. It is believed this is a wave
peak superimposed on the first wave peak. This superimposed wave peak travels
slightly slower than the first wave peak, which is somewhat higher. The velocity
difference starts to become more important in shallower water ( c = g .h , h = water
depth + water elevation).
The combination of a superimposed, slightly slower second wave peak and the
reflection on the closed coast boundary explains some of the peculiar differences
between the calculated waves at 10m. The variations in the second wave peak
and the differences in measured periods, can be explained by these two
phenomena. This implies it is not correct measuring the period as is done until
know (Figure 5.13). The elimination of the second wave peak by letting it
propagate in the canal of 10m proves not to be simple. Because the velocity
difference is very small, the friction in the shallow canal becomes more important
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 28
05-01-2004
and the wave does not retains its form. Therefore it is proposed to keep this
artificial definition of the wave period for comparison of calculated waves.
Comparing the calculations with the recorded profile at Corinto(Figure 5.8), it is
striking that the wave profile more matches the recorded profile, with regard to
the form not for the height. Probably the tide gauge is located in a harbor dock
more or less comparable with our artificial canal. Because of this, the form of the
calculated wave approaches more the tide gauge recording. However comparison
between the calculated period and the period of the recorded wave at Corinto is
difficult because of the 2nd wave peak.
Conclusion
By extending the bathymetry with a canal of -10m and 20 km long, no reflection
disturbs the arriving wave, the arriving through is almost decreased by half and
the second wave peak is decreased significantly. Generally said the wave profile
more matches the recorded profile at Corinto with regard to the form, but not for
the height.
Remark
In 5.3.2.3.II The slope of the foreshore the reflection and the 2nd wave peak
made it impossible to distinguish the influence of the slope of the foreshore. When
redoing these calculations with a model with an extended canal of MSL12.5m
the following waves are become.
w a ve a t -12, 5m (n o re fle ctio n )
1/120
1/80
1,5
he ight (m )
1
ref erenc e model
0,5
1/80
1/120
05
55
05
55
05
55
05
55
29
29
28
28
27
27
26
05
53
03
53
03
53
03
53
03
53
55
26
25
25
24
24
23
23
22
22
21
21
20
20
03
-0,5
-1
ti m e (s)
Figure 5.35
The calculated waves at -12.5 for a varying foreshore slope
compared with the reference model
The only difference between the calculated waves, is the arrival time. The wave
height nor the form are affected by varying the foreshore. The peak-to-through
amplitude is 1.88m for the three calculations. It is concluded that the slope of the
foreshore, does only affect the propagation speed of the wave not the wave itself.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 29
VIII Summary
the depth of the ocean
trench :
the length of the bottom A longer bottom deformation leads to longer waves, but
also the form of the wave is influenced. Due to the shorter
deformation :
travel distances the wave arrives earlier.
the amplitude of the
bottom deformation :
05-01-2004
5.3.2.4
Conclusions
- It is clear that the small wave height of the tide recording is for the better part
explained by the layout of the Corinto bay and by diffraction. The differences
in height caused by using the bathymetry of Corinto or by varying the different
input parameters is very limited.
Because a 1D model is used the influence of the complex lay-out nor of the
diffraction can be involved, therefore the tidal recording at Corinto can not be
used for calibrating the height of the wave. For the calibration of the wave
height another way has to be found.
- The model is able to approach the form of the wave recorded with the tide
gauge, when no reflection occurs. Even with the simplified rectangular bottom
deformation, therefore only calculations will be done with the simplified
bottom deformation.
- However comparison between the calculated period and the period of the
recorded wave at Corinto is difficult. Therefore it is proposed to take the length
of the bottom deformation as the base for the calibrated wave. Then increasing
the measured period with 20%. And in design calculations, varying the
measured period of the wave to take into account the large uncertainty.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 31
wave at -10m
3
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
reflecting wave
0,5
0
1
41
81
121
161
-0,5
-1
time (s)
Figure 5.36
The wave before calibration.
Model,
before calibration
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m
5.3.3.1
2.82 m
44.6 min
peak-to-through
1.97 m
period
9.1 min
Time
The arrival time on shore is acceptable: 44.6 min. Reported arrival time range
from 40 to 70min.
5.3.3.2
Figure 5.37
Tide gauge recording at Corinto.
As can be seen on Figure 5.36 the model approaches the form of the recorded
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 32
05-01-2004
wave: a small leading through followed by a larger water elevation, the peak-tothrough period is in the order of a few minutes. Comparing the tide gauge
recording with the calculations made for Corinto (Figure 5.38) clearly shows the
same wave form.
As stated earlier comparison between the calculated period and the period of the
recorded wave at Corinto is difficult. Therefore it is proposed to take the length of
the bottom deformation as given by Satake (1995) as the base for the calibrated
wave.
tide gauge
recording
Figure 5.38
The wave at Corinto (d=-10m and the reflection is suppressed) and the tide gauge
recording of the 1992 Tsunami.
5.3.3.3
As calibration on the recorded wave height at Corinto is not possible, due to the
complex layout of the Corinto bay and to refraction. It will be tried to calibrate the
height of the model by using the results of Satake (1995) concerning the modeling
of the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami event. Satake (1995) presents a graph which
represents the height of the reflecting wave (on the closed coast boundary) for the
coast of Nicaragua (Figure 5.39).
Figure 5.39
Calculated reflected wave heights of the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami by Satake (1995).
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 33
The locations marked are Bahia del Salinas (BDS), Pie del Gigante (PDG), Puerto
Sandino (PS) and Corinto (C).
The computed tsunami height is presented from north to south. Neglecting local
deviations, a gradual lowering of the height occurs at the north side and south
side, probably this can be explained by diffraction. Notice that Pie del Gigante and
Bahia del Salinas are located at the south side, with clearly lower wave heights
than in the middle.
In the middle, a 100 km wide zone can be distinguished with a nearly constant
reflected wave height a bit lower than 2m. It is decided to take this 2 m as the
calibration height of the model.
By adapting the amplitude of the bottom deformation, the reflected wave height is
calibrated to be 2 m for Pie Del Gigante.
Callibrated wave height
2,5
height (m)
1,5
reflecting wave
1
0,5
0
2503
2578
2653
2728
2803
2878
2953
time (s)
Figure 5.40
Calibrating the reflecting wave height at a height of 2m.
The resulting calibrated waves are presented in Figure 5.41 ; the waves shown are
the reflecting wave and the wave at 10m (with suppressed reflection).
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 34
05-01-2004
callib rated w av e
2.5
reflecting wave
he ight (m)
1.5
wave a t -10m (no reflec ting )
reflecting wave
0.5
0
20 02.5 2102.5 2202 .5 23 02.5 2402.5
-0.5
2505
26 05
2705
2805
29 05
tim e (s)
Figure 5.41
The Calibrated wave at Pie del Gigante.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 35
5.3.4.1
T+20%
height (m)
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
2003
-0,2
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
-0,4
-0,6
time (s)
Figure 5.42
The wave at -10m with an increased wave period of 20%.
Hrefl+20%
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 36
05-01-2004
H+20%
2,5
height (m)
1,5
reflecting wave
0,5
0
2503
2578
2653
2728
2803
2878
2953
time (s)
Figure 5.43
The reflecting wave height on the coast with an increased wave height of 20%.
In order to become a reflected wave height of 2.4m, the amplitude of the bottom
deformation had to be increased with 25%. The height of the uplifting zone
becomes 82.5cm and of the subsidence becomes 33.7cm.
The effect of the increased bottom uplift/subsidence on the period is investigated
in a control calculation.
Effect on the period of the increased wave height
1,6
increased
wave height
1,4
1,2
height (m)
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
2003
-0,2
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
-0,4
-0,6
time (s)
Figure 5.44
The wave at -10m (without reflection) before and after the increase
in wave height.
The increase in wave height causes the wave to arrive slightly earlier, but there
seems to be no effect on the period of the wave. The period remains 11.2min.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 37
5.3.4.3
height (m)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
-0,5
time (s)
Figure 5.45
Design wave for Pie del Gigante
Design wave
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m (no reflection)
2.4 m
43.9 min
peak-to-through
1.59 m
period
11.2 min
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 38
05-01-2004
Figure 5.46
Location of Bahia del Salinas
Bearing in mind that in deeper water (d>-50m) tsunami waves can be treated by
the linear wave theory, a small qualitative analysis can be made:
- Due to the long wavelength, the tsunami wave will go round the cape
(diffraction). However the direct tsunami wave attack will be reduced by this
obstacle.
- The concave form of the coast behind the cape can very well cause focusing of
the tsunami wave, thus increasing the arriving tsunami wave.
This is only a qualitative reflection for a proper quantitative calculation a 2D
model should be used. Unfortunately time is to limited to conduct such a study.
In order to give a first possible comparison between Pie Del Gigante and Bahia
Del Salinas the available 1D model will be used to derive a design tsunami for
Bahia Del Salinas. As bottom deformation the adapted bottom deformation which
led to the design tsunami for Pie Del Gigante, will be used. And as bathymetry the
profile is given along the path shown in Figure 5.46; starting from the deeper
ocean and going to the coast, slightly turning round the cape.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 39
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
d istan ce (m )
160000
180000
Figure 5.47
Bathymetry at Bahia del Salinas.
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
d istan ce (m )
60000
70000
Figure 5.48
The shallower parts of the Bathymetry at Bahia del Salinas
reflecting
wave
2,5
he ight (m )
1,5
0,5
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
-0,5
ti m e (s)
Figure 5.49
The calculated design waves for Bahia del Salinas.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 40
05-01-2004
Design wave
reflecting wave
Max elevation
arrival time
wave at -10 m (no reflection)
2.5 m
45.3 min
peak-to-through
1.72 m
period
9.0 min
5.4.3 Comparison between the design wave at Bahia del Salinas and
Pie del Gigante
Bahia del
Salinas
2,5
height (m)
2
Bahia del Salinas
1,5
1
0,5
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
time (s)
Figure 5.50
Comparison between the reflecting design waves.
C o m p a r iso n b e tw e e n th e w a ve s a t -10 m
1,6
Bahia del
Salinas
1,4
1,2
h e ig h t (m )
1
0,8
0,6
Bah ia de l Salinas
0,4
0,2
0
200 3
-0 ,2
210 3
220 3
230 3
240 3
250 5
260 5
270 5
280 5
290 5
-0 ,4
-0 ,6
ti m e (s)
Figure 5.51
Comparison between the waves at -10 m
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 41
The comparison of the reflecting design waves at Bahia del Salinas and Pie del
Gigante shows a later arrival and a slightly higher wave height at Bahia del
Salinas. Comparing the waves at 10 m, shows a later arrival, but also no second
negative wave peak. The differences between the waves at Pie del Gigante and
Bahia del Salinas probably can be attributed to bathymetry differences which
induce slight differences in wave celerity., leading to individual waves being
superimposed in a different way.
It is believed that the differences between the two sides are so small that for
design calculations it is more appropriate to limit our investigation to one
location. And to vary the height and the period of the wave when looking at the
breakwater stability.
Based on these calculations no large differences in occurring tsunami wave can be
distinguished. This confirms the idea that a 1D bathymetry has only a very limited
influence on the generated waves. It should be kept in mind that for a proper
comparison of the two locations a 2D model is necessary. As differences between
the two locations with regard to reflection is complex, this can only be
investigated with 2D models and is probably very sensitive to the positioning of
the bottom deformation and the length of this bottom deformation.
Nevertheless looking at the calculated reflected wave heights by Satake (1995) in
Figure 5.39, shows that local variations are limited to about half a meter. It is
therefore believed that, for preliminary calculations, the here derived design
waves are sufficient for the preliminary design of a breakwater.
reflecting wave
height (m)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
2003
2103
2203
2303
2403
2505
2605
2705
2805
2905
-0,5
time (s)
Figure 5.52
Design tsunami wave, two waves are presented, the reflecting wave at the closed
coast boundary and the wave at -10m with an open coast boundary.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 42
05-01-2004
Design wave
reflecting wave
Max elevation
2.4 m
arrival time
43.9 min
1.59 m
period
11.2 min
reflecting wave
height (m)
1,5
1
0,5
0
2002,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-0,5
time (s)
Figure 5.53
First calculations with a gridsize dx=6m.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 43
reflecting wave
Max elevation
2.4 m
1.69 m
arrival time
43.9 min
45 min
1.59 m
1.43 m
period
11.2 min
11.2 min
As the design wave is defined with a reflecting wave height of 2.4m, the resulting
design wave for a small gridsize needs to be recalibrated, by adapting the
amplitude of the bottom deformation. In order to become a reflecting wave height
of 2.4m the amplitude of the bottom deformation has to be divided by 0.69, the
height of the uplifting becomes 0.82cm and of the subsidence becomes 0.33cm.
Note that 0.69 is the inverse multiplification factor used for the initial calibration
for the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami (5.33). This means for a smaller gridsize the
bottom deformation as derived out of Satakes model would not have to be
adapted in order to become the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami.
The resulting design wave is shown in Figure 5.54 . The result of the recalibration
is that the wave height at 10m is significantly increased. When the gridsize near
the coast is refined to 3m the reflecting wave height is only slightly lowered
(approximately 3cm). This illustrates that the lowering of the wave height, due to
the refining of the gridsize, is convergent. The difference between a gridsize of
3m and 6m is regarded negligible, therefore the gridsize is kept on dx=6m.
Design wave for Pie del Gigante (dx=6m)
3
reflecting wave
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
time (s)
Figure 5.54
Recallibrated design tsunami wave, near the coast dx=6m. Two waves are
presented, the reflecting wave at the closed coast boundary and the wave at -10m
with an open coast boundary.
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 44
05-01-2004
Design wave
reflecting wave
Max elevation
2.4 m
arrival time
45 min
2.05 m
period
11.2 min
Can this wave arrive at the coast or will it break before it hits the coast? To
investigate this the breaker criterion out of 3.2.5 is checked for the slope of the
Nicaraguan coast (1/100). The wave height H is plotted against the wave period T
(Figure 5.55), for smaller wave periods the wave breaks. This shows that a wave
with a period of 11.2min will break at a wave height of 11.5m. So the tsunami
wave will arrive at the coast unbroken.
not broken
11
9,
5
6,
5
3,
5
broken
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0,
5
(slope 1/100)
Figure 5.55
Breaking criterion of tsunami waves for a slope of the coast of 1/100 .
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 5 - 45
6 Conclusions
Aim of Part 1: Formulate a realistic design tsunami for two harbor locations
At the Pacific Coast of Nicaragua
An overview of the basic tsunami knowledge is given in chapter 1 and 3. The
other chapters of Part 1 are dedicated to deriving a design tsunami.
A statistical approach for defining a design tsunami proves not to be possible.
Therefore, defining the design tsunami is based on the largest tsunami event that
occurred in the Central American region: the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami. Also with
regard to the entire Pacific, the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami was a large event. For
one location along the Middle American Trench, a rough estimation of the return
period is 1 in 1920 years. Taking the spreading into account, the return period for
one location lies between 1360 and 13600 years. This is only a very rough
estimation, but it clearly illustrates that such a large tsunami event is an infrequent
phenomenon for Central America.
The design tsunami is based on the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami. With a 1D
mathematical model, based on the nonlinear shallow water equations, it was tried
to derive the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami to Pie del Gigante. The calibration is for
mainly based on the model of Satake (1995), but tide gauge recordings at Corinto,
the reported arrival times and the reported run-up heights were also taken into
account. The first wave that arrived on shore was reported as the highest wave,
therefore the modeling efforts are focused on the first wave.
A sensitivity analysis of the input parameters shows that the wave is almost
insensitive to large variations of the bathymetry (depths of the ocean trench,
steepness of the continental shelf and the steepness of the foreshore (from 50 to
0m)). Also, friction only plays a limited role, probably due to the large water
depths. The resulting wave is mainly determined by the length and the amplitude
of the bottom deformation.
Based on the calibrated model the design wave for Pie del Gigante is derived: the
reflecting wave height is increased by 20% and the wave period at 10m is also
increased by 20%. Calculations for Bahia del Salinas show only minor differences
between the two locations. Therefore design considerations will be limited to one
location: Pie del Gigante.
In order to accurately represent the rubble mound breakwater, the gridsize near the
coast is refined from dx=500m to dx=6m. The smaller gridsize leads to a larger
influence of the bottom friction in the shallower areas of the foreshore, causing a
significant lower wave to arrive at the coast. This lowering proves to be
convergent, as gridsizes smaller than dx=6m give a negligible lowering.
Therefore the model is recalibrated for a gridsize of dx=6m. The resulting design
wave is presented in Figure 6.1.
05-01-2004
Part 1 - Chapter 6 - 1
reflecting wave
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
time (s)
Figure 6.1
Design wave for Pie del Gigante
Design wave
reflecting wave
Max elevation
2.4 m
arrival time
45 min
2.05 m
period
11.2 min
Part 1 - Chapter 6 - 2
05-01-2004
One part of the paper is dedicated to the stability of a caisson breakwater against
tsunami forces. Laboratory experiments were carried out in order to investigate the
wave pressure resulting from tsunami waves. It was proven that, when unbroken
tsunami waves hit a vertical wall the pressure distribution becomes hydrostatic.
Tanimoto then uses these findings to derive a pressure distribution on the caisson for
tsunami waves. This pressure distribution is used to calculate the stability against
sliding and overturning. The concept of stability calculations is very similar to
Godas design principles for short waves.
Finally he makes calculations with his formula for a known tsunami induced failure
of the Kawaragi breakwater and good correspondence is found
hL
Ps
Figure 7.1
Wave pressure distribution due to a non-breaking tsunami wave, the pressure
distribution is assumed to be hydrostatic.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 1
With * (m) the fictive overtopping height of the tsunami wave, d (m) the depth of
the sill, h (m) is the water depth in front of the breakwater structure. The caisson
width is represented as B (m), hc (m) is the distance from the SWL to the top of the
caisson and h (m) is the distance from the SWL to the bottom of the caisson. The
pressure distribution at the seaside heel of the caisson is presented by p and pu
(kN/m). If a water lowering occurs in the harbor, the water lowering is represented
by hL (m) and the resulting pressure distribution is presented by ps (kN/m).
Proposed formulas:
* = 1.5H
p = pu = 1.1w0 H
(6.1)
ps = w0 hL
1
pu B
2
1
M u = pu B 2
3
(6.2)
U=
with;
Ps = L + ( h ' hL ) ps
2
is
(6.3)
These are then used to calculate the safety factor against sliding and overturning:
sliding: S .F . =
overturning:
(W0 U )
1.2
P + Ps
S .F . =
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 2
W0 xW0 M u
M P + Ps xPs
(6.4)
1.2
(6.5)
05-01-2004
With W0 (kN) the weight of the caisson in the water (i.e. the weight of the caisson
minus the buoyancy), Ps the force due to the lowering of the water level behind the
breakwater and xWo and xPs (m) the respective arm lengths around the heel of the
caisson.
Figure 7.2
Pressure distribution by short period waves on a caisson breakwater as assumed by
Goda.
The fictive elevation height of the wave crest is denoted as * (m). The resulting
pressure distribution on the caisson is sketched in Figure 7.2. The wave pressure
takes the largest intensity p1 (kN/m) at the SWL and decreases linearly towards the
elevation * and towards the bottom of the caisson and the sea bottom, where the
wave pressure is represented as respectively p3 (kN/m) and as p2 (kN/m). The
maximum vertical pressure at the heel of the caisson is represented as pu (kN/m).
The top of the caisson to the SWL is denoted as hc (m) and the distance from the
SWL to the bottom of the caisson is h (m). The depth of the sill is d (m), the depth of
the entire breakwater structure is h (m).
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 3
(6.6)
(6.7)
p3 = 3 p1
in which:
1 = 0.6 + 0.5 ( 2kh / sinh 2kh )
2 = min
{(( h d ) / 3h ) ( H
b
/ d ) , 2d / H max
2
max
(6.8)
(6.9)
S .F . =
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 4
(Wt M u )
MP
1.2
(6.11)
05-01-2004
The main difference between the pressure distributions for a short period wave and an
unbroken tsunami wave is clearly illustrated in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2. An
unbroken tsunami wave induces a hydrostatic pressure distribution on the caisson.
Where for short period waves a pressure peak is assumed in the vicinity of the SWL,
this pressure peak gradually lowers towards the bottom of the caisson. The vertical
pressure on the seaside heel of the caisson is not equal to the horizontal pressure, this
difference is introduced to improve correspondence with model tests. For tsunami
waves a possible extra load has to be taken into account as a lowering of the water
level at the harborside is expected.
An important parameter in the pressure distribution for short period waves is the
wave length. By adapting the design calculations for the preliminary design of the
caisson breakwater at Pie del Gigante for larger wave lengths eventually the pressures
p1, p2, and p3 become equal, i.e. the pressure distribution becomes almost hydrostatic.
Only the vertical pressure at the heel of the caisson pu is still somewhat lower due to
the artificial adaptation in the Goda formulas, this pressure is exactly hydrostatic. In
Table 7.1 the pressures as calculated for the breakwater at Pie del Gigante are
presented and compared with the same calculation using a wave length of 10,000m
instead of 121m (the calculations are included in appendix 7). Comparing these
pressures with the pressures calculated for a tsunami which causes the same crest
elevation * and no water lowering (Table 7.1) it is obvious that the pressures are
almost the same. Therefore it can be concluded that the design formulas for unbroken
tsunami waves presented by Tanimoto are an end form of the Goda design formulas
for short period waves for waves with very long periods.
Comparing the resulting pressures p1 and p for respectively short period waves and
respectively long tsunami waves, it is obvious that for the same crest elevation, an
unbroken tsunami wave gives a larger pressure than a short period wave. This can be
explained by the fact that Goda assumes unbroken short period waves acting on the
caisson. Thus no dynamic wave pulse acts on the caisson. The reflecting wave
induces a pressure p1, which becomes smaller for shorter wave periods. The smaller
the period, the faster the rising and lowering of the reflecting wave, thus the smaller
the resulting wave pressure. Larger wave periods lead to higher pressure peaks p1,
eventually for very large periods p1 p.
*=15.6m
P1
P2
P3
pu
L=121m
81 kN/m
52 kN/m
56 kN/m
54 kN/m
L=10 000 m
119 kN/m
119 kN/m
119 kN/m
116 kN/m
tsunami
116 kN/m
116 kN/m
116 kN/m
116 kN/m
Table 7.1
Pressure calculations with the Goda formulas (L=121 m and L=10 000 m) and with the
Tanimoto formulas (Tsunamis) for the same crest elevation (*=15.6m).
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 5
7.1.3 Comments
The assumption of a hydrostatic load
The assumption of a hydrostatic load due to an unbroken tsunami wave is believed to
be correct as long as the caisson is not overtopped. When overtopping occurs the
pressure distribution on the front of the caisson is no longer hydrostatic, however it is
believed that the hydrostatic load gives an upper limit for the occurring pressure.
The safety factor
Modern calculation standards such as Eurocode make a distinction between acting
and reacting forces. Consequently safety factors are then calculated as follows:
S .F . =
A
R
(6.12)
In the work of Tanimoto (1982) and Goda (1992) this distinction is not made and
safety factors are calculated slightly different. The difference in the resulting safety
factors can be easily illustrated by comparing the safety factor against sliding as
calculated by Tanimoto with the safety factor against sliding as calculated based on
equation 6.12.
S .F . =
(W0 U )
P + Ps
(6.13)
Suppose the safety factor equals 1 (equilibrium of forces), the expression can
easily be rewritten in acting and reacting forces.
1=
(W0 U )
P + Ps
P + Ps + U = W0
1=
W0
=
P + Ps + U
A
R
(6.14)
For equilibrium of forces the safety factor as in equation 6.12 can be easily derived
out of the safety factor as calculated by Tanimoto (equ. 6.13). But when no
equilibrium of forces exists both expressions (equ. 6.13 and equ. 6.14) give a
different safety factor. The difference is usually only in the order of a few percent. In
this study, calculations will be done with the formulas as proposed by Tanimoto
(1982) and Goda (1992). However for the further design it should be considered to
follow the approach as in Eurocode guidelines and to consequently make the
distinction between acting and reacting forces.
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 6
05-01-2004
the coast as an
work on caisson
e.g. the work of
references when
7.3 Conclusion
The Tanimoto design formulas are based on the assumption that unbroken tsunami
waves manifest themselves as a hydrostatic load on a caisson. It is a straightforward
design method similar to Godas design principles for short period waves. It is shown
that the Tanimoto formulas are an end form of the Goda design principles for very
long waves.
It is believed that the assumption of a hydrostatic pressure distribution provides an
upper limit for the load of an unbroken tsunami wave. This is believed to be
sufficient for the preliminary design of a caisson breakwater. Nevertheless for further
design also the stability of the sill against a large head difference and the stability of
the soil should be taken into account. For a final design model tests are required.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 7 - 7
Figure 8.1
Caisson breakwater for Pie del Gigante as designed for short waves.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 8 - 1
1,5
1
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-1
-1,5
tim e (s)
Figure 8.2
The reflecting wave at -19.8m.
Part 2 - Chapter 8 - 2
U
P
Ps
W0
= 202.6 kN/m
= 564.9 kN/m
= 67.1 kn/m
= 3353.7 kN/m
S.F. = 3.0>1.2
S.F. = 3.6>1.2
05-01-2004
= 6.2 m
= 1.20
= 1.32
= 5.2 m
= 1.20
= 1.39
Waves which can trigger failure of the caisson are waves generated by bottom
deformations approximately twice the initial amplitude of +0..82m and 0.33m.
So the breakwater has a sufficient large safety margin to take into account the
uncertainty concerning the design tsunami wave.
8.4 CONCLUSIONS
The caisson breakwater designed for short waves is sufficiently stable with regard
to the design tsunami. The safety factors become too low for much higher
tsunamis, with bottom deformations approximately for the initial amplitude of
+0..82m and 0.33m.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 8 - 3
In the original document US units were used, in the presented summary all units are converted to
SI units, however the figures are used in their original form and still contain the US units. The
following conversion is applicable; 1ft = 0.305m , 1lb = 0.453kg , 1US ton = 907,2 kg
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 1
Setup
Two different barrier concepts were taken into consideration, overtopping
breakwater sections and nonovertopping breakwater sections.
During the model tests the following wave parameters were measured: the
height of overtopping y and the duration of the overtopping t (for both
sections), the tsunami run-up on the seaside slope of the barrier Y (for
nonovertopping sections), the bore height and the steepness of the bore
front S (for both sections).
Due to the uncertainty involved in predicting the shape of the tsunami with a
reasonable degree of accuracy, the design load was schematized by:
-the height y and the duration t of the overtopping (for overtopping sections)
-the maximum run-up Y (for nonovertopping sections)
Results
Overtopping breakwater sections
Three series of model tests were carried out.
In the first series the tested design sections consisted of the existing
breakwater with an armor layer of either 9 or 18 ton at a 1:1 slope added at
the harborside. These armor stones were specially placed with their
longitudinal axis approximately perpendicular to the harborslide slope. A
grout injection and a concrete slab were also added as illustrated in Figure
9.1
Seaside
Harborside
specially placed
armorstones
Figure 9.1
First tested overtopping section
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 2
05-01-2004
It was found that the design heights of the overtopping, which the section
could withstand without damage, were about 1 m and 1.6 m for the 9 ton
and the 18 ton armor stones respectively, with the armor stones specially
placed.
Because the design overtopping height for a crest elevation of + 6 m
MLLW, is about 2 m and armor stones of 18 ton being the largest size that
can be obtained in sufficient quantities from the available quarries, it was
decided to design sections with flatter slopes than 1:1.
In the second series the sections consisted of the existing breakwater with a
slope of quarry run material ranging from 9 kg to 2 ton added at the
harborside and an armor layer of 9 or 18 ton covering the whole structure, as
presented in Figure 9.2. The slope at the harborside was varied from 1:2 to
1:7 with 9 ton armor stones and from 1:2 to 1:3 when 18 ton armor stones
were used. The armor stones were not placed with a special orientation.
Figure 9.2
Overtopping section having different harborside slopes
The maximum heights of overtopping, which would cause no damage to the test
section are presented in Table 9.1. From Table 9.1, the harborside slope and the size
of the armor stone could be selected for the design of a satisfactory section to
withstand the overtopping at a certain location along the barrier.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 3
0.3
1:2.5
0.8
1:3.0
1.4
1:3.5
1.7
1:4.0
1:4.5
2.3
1:5.0
2.5
1:6.0
2.8
1:7.0
2.9
18 ton armor stones
1:2.0
1:2.5
1.2
1:3.0
1.5
Table 9.1
Maximum heights of overtopping for no damage to test section
The 3D model indicated that the design tsunami at some locations alongside
the barrier gave up to 2.7 m overtopping. A slope of 1:6 with 9 ton armor
stones is considered very expensive, a third series of tests were conducted.
A section was proposed with harborside slopes of 1:1.5 and an armor layer
consisting of stones of 27 ton, this is presented in
Figure 9.3. This is the most expensive section of the barrier, as it consists of
armor stone sizes larger than can be provided by the Hilo quarries .
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 4
05-01-2004
Figure 9.3
End view of overtopping of the section with the 27 ton armor stones
During testing, both visual and photographic evidence indicated that failure
of the overtopping sections could be attributed to:
1) high porosity of the barrier
2) undermining of the harborside slope of the barrier
3) the method of placement of armor stone on the harborside slope of the
barrier (randomly placed or perpendicular)
4) the steepness of the harborside of the slope
Nonovertopping breakwater sections
Kamel also sets up experiments for nonovertopping breakwater sections and
investigates whether porous flow induced failure of these sections. The
right scaling rules for the modeling of these porous structures were only
recently derived. Therefore the results out of these experiments, conducted
in the seventies, for non-overtopping sections are considered inaccurate.
Therefore these results will not be discussed.
Summary and conclusions
1.
2.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 5
3.
4.
5.
that side. The larger the height of overtopping, the flatter the slope and
the larger the size of the stone required for the stability of the barrier.
Failure of overtopping sections usually started above the toe of the
barrier due to washing out of some armor stones. This would be
followed by the rolling of armor stones from the downstream side of the
barrier. The longer the duration of overtopping, the greater the damage
to the section.
Efforts to develop an overtopping rubble mound tsunami barrier with a
steep harborside slope were unsuccessful. The required armor stones
were very large and initial failure triggered the failure of the entire
section.
The seaside of the tsunami barrier should be adequately designed to
withstand the effect of design short-period waves.
The use of a rubble mound barrier for the protection of Hilo harbor and
the city of Hilo from future tsunamis proved to be expensive. The great
expense involved in building such a barrier , the uncertainty involved in
predicting the design tsunami, and the catastrophe which usually results
from the failure of protection works made it impractical to employ
barriers as a means of protection of Hilo Harbor from future tsunamis.
Comments
- In the experiments where the slope was varied, no specially placed armor
stones were used, i.e. longitudinal axis approximately perpendicular to
the harborside slope. Although a strong influence can be noticed of the
placement of the stones as can be distinguished by comparison between
the results of the first set of tests (1m and 1.6m for respectively the 10
and 20 ton specially placed armor stones) and the results of the second
set of experiments with no special placement of the armor stones in table
9.1. This clearly shows the positive effect of the special placement on the
allowable overtopping height. An interesting experiment for a further
study is the overtopping on a back slope of accurately placed smooth
concrete armor units. Probably this will strongly attribute to the stability
of the armor layer. However special attention should be paid to the toe of
the backside, because the energy dissipation on the smooth slope is much
less than on a rough slope.
- The purpose of the conducted study is to design a barrier for protection of
the harbor and the city instead of solely designing the breakwater for
surviving a tsunami attack. This could contribute to the assumed high
costs for the construction of this barrier, because extra or stronger design
criteria will have to be taken into account e.g. a minimum crest height
and a harbor entrance reduction, in order to sufficiently reduce the
penetration of the tsunami into the harbor. Maybe the costs for solely
designing the breakwater for a tsunami are lower.
- Scouring behind the breakwater is not taken into account.
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 6
05-01-2004
Figure 9.4
Experimental setup and the recorded overflowing wave pressure
as acting on the surface of the different parts of the structure (back slope 1:1)
Numerous prevention works, most of which are seawalls, but also some
breakwaters, were constructed since the 1960 Chilean tsunami attacked the
Japanese coastal area. The function of these structures is preventing the flooding
of the coastal area. The seawalls fulfil this function by retaining the water, the
breakwater do so by reducing the opening to a harbor or a bay.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 7
Results
The maximum overflowing wave pressure occurs when the overflowing
wave collides on the back of the structure. A relationship between the
maximum overflowing pressure and certain parameters is proposed (based
on the law of conservation of momentum):
pom
V H t
=A m w 0
'
gH d
L t
2
sin 2
gH d'
(8.1)
Based on this formula Mizutani suggests that the important parameters for
the maximum overflowing wave pressure, pom, are the maximum velocity on
the crest, Vm, the water depth on the crest, Hw, the angle of the back slope,
2, and the height of the models Hd. The other parameters in the formula
are the non-dimensional overflowing pressure coefficient, A, a value of
0.003 is recommended. The time for the falling water to touch the bottom
after passing the top is represented as t0 and the duration of the maximum
overflow is represented as t, it is the ratio t/ t0 which influences the
maximum overflowing wave pressure (pom). The symbol L is described as
the length acting of the maximum overflowing wave pressure, what is
exactly meant by this parameter isnt clear, probably a poor translation out
of Japanese is to blame.
The relationship and the data are plotted in Figure 9.5.
Figure 9.5
Maximum overflowing wave pressure
Comments
- The high resulting pressures at the backside of the structure are an
indication for high water velocities on the back slope.
- In the experiments there was no water at the backside, with the proposed
breakwater there will be water at the backside. Can the effect on the
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 8
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 9
Setup
The layout of the breakwater is illustrated in Figure 9.6, Figure 9.7 and
Figure 9.8. As can be seen the opening section is a caisson-type submerged
breakwater with a crest depth of 19 m, built on a rubble mound sill. To
simulate the design tsunami, periodic flow experiments were carried out, as
well as steady flow experiments. For the unsteady flow experiments
tsunamis were schematized to a wave train of five identical waves with
periods of 10 and 20 min in combination with a peak flow velocity of 8.2
m/s and 9.8 m/s. For the steady flow experiments a flow velocity of 8.2 m/s
was used.
Figure 9.6
Front view of the breakwater
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 10
05-01-2004
Figure 9.7
Cross Section of the opening section (submerged breakwater)
Figure 9.8
Top view of the test basin
Results
To investigate the stability of the armor stone, a tsunami current
corresponding to a tsunami with a period of T = 16 min was reproduced in
the test basin. When the armor stone S1 (gradation is illustrated in Figure
9.9) was used pronounced scouring took place, the scouring and
accumulation pattern is reported in Figure 9.9. Overturning and subsidence
of the submerged caisson was observed. In successive experiments the
armor stone S1 was replaced by blocks of 10 and 20 ton. The same scouring
and accumulation patterns were observed, but of course with smaller
quantities of moved stones for heavier blocks.
The pronounced block movement takes place at the opening section at
locations where the average flow velocity close to the bed is high and a
strong eddy patterns are formed.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 11
Figure 9.9
Mound scouring and accumulation in the upper right corner the weight
distribution of the armor stones S1 is presented
Theoretical calculations
Calculations were conducted in order to estimate the damage ratio D for the
10 and 20 ton blocks. The following formulas were used:
the required weight of mound armor material W (kg) as determined by
C.E.R.C
W=
rU d6
48 y 6 g 3 ( r / 0 1) ( cos sin )
3
(8.2)
where Ud is the flow velocity acting on the mound material (In the presented
calculation Ud is taken as 65% of Umax at the center of the opening), r
(kg/m) is the density of the armor stones, 0 (kg/m) is the density of the
(sea)water, is the angle of the slope, y a constant expressing the stability
condition of the armor stones which can be estimated using the damage ratio
D.
the damage ratio D :
D=
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 12
05-01-2004
Umax (m/s)
Weight of
Block (ton)
D
Figure 9.10
Relationship between D and y.
8.2
9.8
10
20
10
20
2%
1%
20%
10%
Table 9.3
Calculated damage ratio D
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 13
9.4 CONCLUSIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Part 2 - Chapter 9 - 14
05-01-2004
Figure 10.1
Schematized tsunami load on a rubble mound breakwater
The stability under overtopping flow can be quantified if one knows the governing
flow velocities of the overtopping water, the stability of the armor stones can then
be calculated with classical stability formulas for stones under flow conditions.
The calculations can be compared with the experimental results of Kamel (1970)
on overtopped breakwater structures.
The failure mechanism under porous flow is a lot harder to quantify. Also
calculating the porous flow through the highly porous rubble mound structure
poses some problems: because of the high porosity of the structure the porous
flow is no longer laminar, but becomes turbulent. The basis of calculating
turbulent flow through a porous structure is given in Barends (1981). Calculations
by hand become more complicated than for laminar flow and at the moment no
numerical models are available.
Because the governing stability criterion is taught to be the overtopping water
flow and because the porous flow poses some difficulties in quantifying and in
linking to armor stone stability, the derived theoretical stability concept will
focus on the stability of the backside armor layer under an overtopping tsunami.
Nevertheless the porous flow through the structure can play an important role in
the stability of the breakwater, therefore in the next stage of the project the porous
flow will also have to be taken into account. In this study the preliminary design
of the rubble mound structure under a tsunami loading; will be done with regard
to the stability under overtopping. It is believed that this is sufficient for a first
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 1
comparison with the caisson breakwater and to decide which of the two structures
is more favorable under a tsunami load.
In this chapter a theoretical stability concept for a rubble mound breakwater will
be set-up. This stability concept will be based on the flow stability of the armor
stones at the backside of the breakwater. The theoretical concept will be compared
with the experimental results of Kamel (1970) for overtopped breakwaters and if
necessary the model will be adapted.
At first a short review will be given of some common available formulas for flow
stability of stones. Afterwards the governing flow velocities for the stability of the
armor layer will be derived.
10.1.1
Izbash
(Schiereck, 2001)
Izbash formulated an empirical formula to describe the stone stability under a
current. This formula can be seen as a first approximation for the stone stability
uc = 1.2 2gd
(10.1)
The critical velocity, uc, which gives a limit for stone immobility is dependent on
the relative density, =(s-w)/w and the stone diameter, d.
There is no influence of depth in this formula; in fact Izbash did not define the
place of the velocity, neither it is very clear how the diameter is defined. Further
in the text the nominal diameter dn will be used.
Sloping bed
For stones on a slope a reduction factor can be applied to the strength. In
Schiereck (2001) a reduction factor, K(//), is presented which is based on the
equilibrium of forces. In the case of a slope in the direction of the flow, the
stability factor becomes:
K ( // ) =
with:
sin( )
sin
K(//)
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 2
(10.2)
:
:
When the slope angle is taken into account, the Izbash formula (10.1) becomes;
uc = K ( // )1.2 2gd
10.1.2
(10.3)
Dutch Formula
(10.4)
with :
A=
K2
C2
C = 18log
(10.5)
6h
dn
(10.6)
in which the nominal diameter, dn, is determined by the relative density, , the
velocity on top of the sill, u0 and a factor A. The value of A is dependent on the
parameters presented in (10.5), in which K is a correction and calibration factor
in the order of 1. To be consistent the Chezy-value, C (m1/2/s), has to be
determined using the above equation, h is the water height on top of the sill. For
the Shields parameter, , a value of 0.04 is used.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 3
Sloping bed
The slope angle can be taken into account in the same way as for the Izbash
formula; by applying the slope reduction factor, K(//) (10.2). The Dutch formula
(10.4) then becomes:
Au02
d n = 2
K ( // )
10.1.3
(10.7)
CERC formula
Hitachi, (1994)
In the paper concerning the design of the breakwater at Kamaishi Bay (Japan)
(9.3) a formula is presented, which was used to calculate the stability of rubble
under a tsunami current. The experiments of Hitachi concern the stability of
rubble on a submerged breakwater at the entrance of the Kamaishi Bay, during a
tsunami induced current entering the bay.
A good similarity between calculations and experiments was found using the
following formula
W=
rU d6
48 y 6 g 3 ( r / 0 1) ( cos sin )
3
(10.8)
where W (kg) is the required weight of the armor material, Ud (m/s) is the flow
velocity acting on the mound material, r (kg/m) is the density of the armor
stones, 0 (kg/m) is the density of the (sea)water, is the angle of the slope, y a
constant expressing the stability condition of the armor stones which can be
estimated using the damage ratio D.
D=
(10.9)
The relationship between the damage ratio D and y is given in Figure 10.2.
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 4
05-01-2004
Figure 10.2
Relationship between the damage ratio (D) and the stability factor (y ).
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 5
Figure 10.3
The height of the overtopping water on the breakwater
An upper limit for the velocity on top of the breakwater is calculated using the
formula of free discharge weir:
u = m gh
(10.10)
The flow velocity u (m/s) on top of the breakwater crest is dependent on the
overtopping tsunami height h (m) and the discharge coefficient m (-). The
discharge coefficient m is chosen 0.9, a typical value for a long discharge weir.
The required nominal diameter Dn and required block weight W are calculated
using:
- the Izbash formula (10.3)
- the Dutch formula, a modified Izbash formula (10.7)
- the CERC formula as used in Hitachi (1994) (10.8)
parameters
r
0
=
=
=
=
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 6
05-01-2004
9 ton
18 ton
h (m)
0,3
0,8
1,4
1,7
2
2,3
2,5
2,8
2,9
u(m/s)
1,54
2,52
3,34
3,68
3,99
4,28
4,46
4,72
4,80
1
1,2
2,82
3,09
1/ 2
1/ 2,5
1,5
3,45
1/ 3
Izbash
5,05
49,54
181,44
253,69
347,41
465,01
541,43
661,17
667,79
W (kg)
Dutch
3,52
34,72
127,39
178,12
243,94
326,56
379,80
464,35
468,79
CERC
4,35
42,69
156,35
218,60
299,36
400,69
466,55
569,72
575,43
Izbash
0,12
0,27
0,41
0,46
0,51
0,56
0,59
0,63
0,64
dn (m)
Dutch
0,11
0,24
0,37
0,41
0,45
0,50
0,53
0,56
0,56
CERC
0,12
0,25
0,39
0,44
0,49
0,54
0,56
0,60
0,60
0,46
0,38
187,03
167,19
131,19
117,34
161,16
144,07
0,42
0,40
0,37
0,36
0,40
0,38
0,32
223,17
156,65
192,30
0,44
0,39
0,42
slope angle(rad)
1/ 2
0,46
1/ 2,5
0,38
1/ 3
0,32
1/ 3,5
0,28
1/ 4
0,24
1/ 4,5
0,22
1/ 5
0,20
1/ 6
0,17
1/ 7
0,14
Table 10.1
Comparison between experimental results by Kamel (1970) and the
calculated values using the velocity on top of the sill.
10.2.1
The calculations with the Izbash and the Dutch formula give nominal diameter,
Dn, in the same order. The Dutch formula systematically gives lower values than
the Izbash formula. The difference can possibly be explained by the influence of
the waterdepth h and the introduction of a stability parameter in the Dutch
formula.
The Dutch formula is in fact based on the Izbash formula, but was calibrated
during intensive experiments conducted for the Deltaworks. Therefore it is
believed that the Dutch formula gives a more accurate estimation of the required
block weight under a certain flow velocity and that the Izbash formula should be
used as a first approximation.
Although the CERC formula is originally intended for stones on channel
revetments, the CERC formula gives nominal diameters Dn in between the Dn
calculated with the Izbash and the Dutch formula. This clearly illustrates why this
formula is used successfully in Japan concerning the stone stability on slopes.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 7
10.2.2
A comparison between the calculated values and the
experimental results
A comparison between the experimental results and the calculated values clearly
reveals a strong dissimilarity. The worst match occurs for very steep slopes and
the best match occurs for more gentle slopes. but still the difference between the
experimental result and the calculated results is more than a factor 13 (an
overtopping height of 2.9 m on a slope of 1/7 requires an armor stone of 9 tons,
where the Izbash formula gives a required block weight of 668 kg).
Possible Reasons
- Are the used formulas wrong?
No, these formulas are commonly used to calculate the stone stability under
flow conditions.
- Is the used flow velocity wrong?
It could be that the maximum velocity on top of the sill is not the normative
failure criterion for the stone stability. Possibly the flow velocity on the
backside of the breakwater is normative.
indications pro
- failure starts above the harborside toe (Kamel, 1970)
- large impact pressure peaks appear at the toe of a seawall, especially
for steep slopes, which is an indication for high water velocities on the
backside slope (Mizutani, 2001)
indications contra
- Experience with closure works indicate that failure starts on top of a
sill, so the flow velocity on top of the sill is normative.
But: The closure dams were submitted to typical tidal differences of 2
to 3 meters. Which leads to a considerable smaller level difference
over the dam than in the case of an overtopping tsunami where,
dependent on the overtopping height, a level difference of 6.5 to 9.5
meters is created (in the experiments of Kamel, 1970).
05-01-2004
10.3.1
Schttrumpf (2001) presents a method for calculating the velocity of a steady flow
on the backside slope of a dike. The steady flow on the slope is governed by the
flow rate and the flow velocity on the crest of the dike. These formulas were
theoretically derived and confirmed by model experiments. The investigations of
Schttrumpf (2001) focus on smooth dike revetments, for rough slopes he advises
the same calculation method, but no model experiments were conducted.
Figure 10.4
Waterflow at the backside of a dike
The velocity on the top vB(0) is calculated using the formula of the free discharge
weir ((10.10)), with as input the thickness of the water layer.
Velocity at the backside
k1hB
kt
.tanh 1
f
2
vB =
f .vB (0)
kt
1+
. tanh 1
hB k1
2
vB (0) +
(10.11)
with
t
k1 =
vB (0)
vB2 (0)
2 sB
+
+
2
2
g sin
g sin g sin
2 fg sin
hB
(10.12)
(10.13)
The velocity vB(sB) (m/s) is the velocity at a distance sB (m) from the crest,
measured along the slope. The thickness of the waterlayer is denoted as hB (m),
is the slope angle and f (-) represents a nondimensional friction coefficient. The
factors t and k1 are defined as is shown in equation (10.12) and (10.13).
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 9
10.3.2
comparing the calculated velocities with the experimental
results by Kamel (1970)
Figure 10.5
An overtopped breakwater structure; the maximum velocity lies
in the vicinity of the water level. h is the height of the overtopping
and 1:x is the slope.
The velocity on the given slopes were calculated for two heights under the crown:
-5m and 6m. This is in the vicinity of the water level. The velocity on top of the
crown was calculated using the formula of the free discharge weir, with as input
the given overtopping (h).
For a first comparison of the calculated velocities at the backside of the
breakwater, the critical velocity for the given stone weights on the corresponding
slopes were calculated using the Izbash formula.
The friction coefficient used was f=0.1 (proposed value for rubble, by
Schttrumpf (2001))
An example calculation is included in Appendix 9.
Warmor
(ton)
slope
overtopping
height
crown 5m
u (m/s)
crown 6m
u (m/s)
Izbash uc
(m/s)
1/2
0,3
3,42
3,43
3,61
2/5
0,8
5,14
5,18
4,50
1/3
1,4
6,26
6,35
5,10
2/7
1,7
6,53
6,63
5,54
1/4
6,76
6,86
5,87
2/9
2,3
6,96
7,07
6,13
1/5
2,5
7,03
7,13
6,33
1/6
2,8
7,05
7,15
6,63
1/7
2,9
6,89
6,98
6,85
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 10
05-01-2004
18
1/2
6,33
6,42
4,05
18
2/5
1,2
6,12
6,2
5,05
18
1/3
1,5
6,44
6,53
5,73
Clearly the match of the critical velocity with the calculated velocities at the
backside is very promising. This is also illustrated in Figure 10.6. The critical
velocity is systematically lower than the calculated velocity, meaning that the
calculated velocity is on the safe side of the calculation.
6,00
4,00
2,00
c alc ulated
veloc ity (5m )
1/
1/
1/
1/
0,00
1/
ve locity (m /s)
8,00
slo p e (-)
Figure 10.6
Calculated velocity 5m under the crown vs. the critical velocity
10.3.3
comparing the required stones with the experimental
results by Kamel (1970)
The results of the velocity calculations are used as an input for stability
calculations in the same way as in 10.2. Calculations are done for velocities (u)
and layer heights (h-5 and h-6) at 5m and 6m under the crest. An example
calculation is included in Appendix 9.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 11
h - 5 ( m)
slo p e
an g le (ra d ) Iz b a sh
W ( kg )
D u tc h
CE R C
Iz b ash
Dn (m )
Dut ch
Dn
C E RC
0,3
3 , 42
0,14
1/ 2
0,46
6 66 8,83
5 13,98
1,3 7
0,5 8
0,8
1,4
5 , 14
6 , 26
0,39
0,75
1/ 2 ,5
1/ 3
0,38
0,32
205 69 ,7 2
313 50 ,8 4
3 06 4,39
6 83 4,20
1,9 9
2,2 9
1,0 6
1,3 8
1,7
2
6 , 53
6 , 76
0,96
1,18
1/ 3 ,5
1/ 4
0,28
0,24
246 30 ,3 1
214 42 ,8 5
6 87 5,66
7 11 7,40
2,1 2
2,0 2
1,3 8
1,4 0
2,3
2,5
6 , 96
7 , 03
1,41
1,59
1/ 4 ,5
1/ 5
0,22
0,20
197 83 ,6 8
172 69 ,3 2
7 46 1,42
7 18 3,62
1,9 7
1,8 8
1,4 2
1,4 0
2,8
2,9
7 , 05
6 , 89
1,88
2,02
1/ 6
1/ 7
0,17
0,14
132 70 ,9 8
9 55 6,55
6 35 1,24
5 03 0,93
1,7 2
1,5 4
1,3 5
1,2 5
1
1,2
6 , 33
6 , 12
0,47
0,6
1/ 2
1/ 2 ,5
0,46
0,38
239 80 ,6 2
101 32 ,6 9
20 663 ,7 4
8 73 1,19
2,1 0
1,5 7
2,0 0
1,5 0
1,5
6 , 44
0,8
1/ 3
0,32
9 40 1,74
8 10 1,34
1,5 3
1,4 6
(tests)
1,91
18 ton
u(m /s)
1,51
9 ton
h (m )
Table 10.2
Stability calculations at 5m under the crest.
h -5 ( m )
slo p e
an g le (ra d ) Iz b a sh
W ( kg )
D u tc h
CE R C
Iz b a sh
Dn ( m )
Du t c h
C ERC
0,3
3 ,43
0,14
1/ 2
0,46
6 78 6,69
5 23, 06
1,3 8
0,5 9
0,8
1,4
5 ,18
6 ,35
0,38
0,74
1/ 2 ,5
1/ 3
0,38
0,32
215 4 9 ,0 5
341 5 4 ,3 1
3 21 0,28
7 44 5,33
2,0 2
2,3 6
1,0 7
1,4 2
1,7
2
6 ,63
6 ,68
0,94
1,16
1/ 3 ,5
1/ 4
0,28
0,24
269 8 1 ,8 6
199 6 4 ,6 3
7 53 2,11
6 62 6,74
2,1 8
1,9 7
1,4 3
1,3 7
2,3
2,5
7 ,07
7 ,13
1,39
1,56
1/ 4 ,5
1/ 5
0,22
0,20
217 3 5 ,4 3
187 9 6 ,6 5
8 19 7,52
7 81 8,96
2,0 3
1,9 3
1,4 7
1,4 4
2,8
2,9
7 ,15
6 ,98
1,85
1,99
1/ 6
1/ 7
0,17
0,14
144 4 1 ,2 4
103 3 0 ,4 3
6 91 1,31
5 43 8,33
1,7 7
1,5 8
1,3 9
1,2 8
1
1,2
6 ,42
6 ,2
0,46
0,59
1/ 2
1/ 2 ,5
0,46
0,38
261 0 0 ,4 7
109 5 3 ,8 4
22 49 0 ,3 8
9 43 8,76
2,1 6
1,6 2
2,0 5
1,5 4
1,5
6 ,53
0,79
1/ 3
0,32
102 1 8 ,1 5
8 80 4,82
1,5 8
1,5 0
Table 10.3
Stability calculations at 5m under the crest.
Stability calculations with the Dutch formula prove not to be possible. Calculation
with these formulas require iteration, but for these input values the iteration
process is not convergent as is shown in Appendix 10. An explanation can be
found in the small water depths (h-5 and h-6) in combination with the large water
velocities, the steep slopes and the large stone diameters. For larger water depths
the formula does lead to solutions. But the situation here exceeds the limits of
validity of the Dutch formula, probably because this formula takes into account
the place of the water velocity.
The other two stability formulas, the Izbash formula (10.3) and the CERC formula
(10.8) do give results. But also the validity of these formulas for the given
circumstances should be questioned. Also the question arises if this flow is
physical possible; these high water velocities in relative small layers on very
rough steep slopes. Can such flows be calculated with the formulas of
Schttrumpf (2001) and what is the effect of the highly porous structure?
Probably the used stability and velocity formulas are on or even beyond the limits
of their application.
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 12
05-01-2004
Dn
(t es ts)
1,91
18 ton
u (m /s)
1,51
9 ton
h (m )
It is therefore believed that the theoretical stability concept as set up can not be
used to give a first design of the backside armor layer of the breakwater. It is
concluded that for design considerations model tests are inevitable. However,
looking at the experimental results of Kamel (1970), one can conclude that the
armor layer has to be much stronger than required for overtopping of short period
waves, the required blocks are in the order of several tons on moderate slopes. For
making a first comparison possible between the caisson breakwater and the rubble
mound breakwater the following simple failure criterion is put forward: failure of
a rubble mound breakwater as designed for short period waves occurs if
overtopping by a tsunami wave occurs.
10.4 CONCLUSIONS
From the conducted literature review it is concluded that:
- The seaside slope of the rubble mound breakwater should be designed for short
period waves, even when a tsunami hits the breakwater as a bore.
- The armor layer at the harborside should be designed to withstand the load of
an overtopping tsunami wave and the porous flow through the breakwater
structure.
The theoretical stability concept that is set up only takes into account the load of
the overtopping water. For a first base of comparison between the rubble mound
breakwater and the caisson breakwater, this is believed to be sufficient.
It is tried to set up a stability concept that can explain the experimental results by
Kamel (1970). The stability of the armor stones on the backside of the structure
can be calculated using classical stability formulas like: the Izbash formula and
the Dutch formula. Also a third formula is presented ; the CERC formula.
Originally intended for the stones on the banks of a canal, but adapted by the
Japanese for stone stability on a sloping bed. At first impression the formula looks
quite useful, but caution is needed. When applying the right governing velocities
the stability of the armor stones can be calculated using these three formulas. At
first the governing velocities are calculated using the formulas of the free
discharge weir. These velocities proved to be an underestimation. Secondly
velocity calculations were carried out with the method presented by Schttrumpf
(2001). These velocities look very promising, however the question arises if the
used velocity and stability formulas are still valid under these extreme
circumstances: high water velocities in combination with the small water depths,
the steep slopes and the large required armor stones? The Dutch formula is clearly
beyond its scope as the iterative process is no longer convergent. The Izbash
formula and the CERC formula do give results, but one can question the physical
validity of the results. Therefore for the rubble mound breakwater a simplified
stability criterion is put forward: failure occurs if the breakwater structure is
overtopped by the tsunami wave. For a more detailed stability criterion further
study is needed and model tests will be inevitable. Special attention should be
paid to the correct modeling of the porous flow through the breakwater structure.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 10 - 13
Figure 11.1
Schematized rubble mound breakwater for Pie del Gigante as designed for short period
waves.
The breakwater profile was slightly adapted: the seaside berm was removed. This
was done to make a correct representation of the structure possible in the
mathematical model. In appendix 11 the original breakwater design is presented.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 11 - 1
2
1,5
1
design wave
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-1
-1,5
time (s)
Figure 11.2
Design wave for the rubble mound breakwater. The maximum water elevation is 3.1 m.
The breakwater crest lies 4.2m above the SWL, so no overtopping occurs
A sensitivity analysis shows that overtopping occurs when the amplitude of the
bottom deformation becomes larger than 1.3 times the original amplitude
(+0.82m/-0.33m). Variation in the length of the bottom deformation also
influences the run-up as shown in (Figure 11.3). For different amplification
factors the resulting wave run-up is presented. The differences are probably
mostly attributed to differences in superpositioning of individual waves. A
maximum run-up occurs for 0.8 times the length of the initial bottom deformation
(40km/27.5km). But overtopping does not occur.
Run-up on the rubble mound breakwater
0.9L
4
3,5
0.6L
1.2L
3
height (m)
0.8L
1L
1.2L
0.4L
2,5
1L
0.9L
0.8L
1,5
0.6L
0.4L
0,5
0
2002,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
time (s)
Figure 11.3
Run-up of the tsunami wave for different lengths of the bottom deformation
L=(40km/27.5km)
Part 2 - Chapter 11 - 2
05-01-2004
11.3 Conclusions
It can be concluded that the rubble mound breakwater as designed for short period
waves, is not overtopped by the design tsunami wave. With regard to the
simplified stability criterion (overtopping = failing) the breakwater can withstand
the design tsunami wave. The structure will only be overtopped by the design
waves with an amplitude larger than 1.3 times the initial bottom deformation
(+0.82cm/-0.33cm). So a large safety margin exists. But this only takes into
account the simplified failure criterion. Porous flow is not taken into account,
maybe porous flow can trigger failure before overtopping occurs. And does the
harborside armor layer indeed fails when overtopping occurs? Because the armor
stones at the harborside are already very large (30 ton), compared to the model
tests of Kamel (1970). On the other hand the slopes are much steeper than in the
experiments of Kamel (1970).
Obviously more study is needed to be able to give a correct design for the rubble
mound breakwater under a tsunami load and model tests will be inevitable.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 11 - 3
12 CONCLUSIONS
Aim of Part 2: Formulate a breakwater design which can withstand the
design tsunami derived in part 1
In the literature study of the caisson breakwater, design formulas for unbroken
tsunami waves are formulated (Tanimoto, 1981). The design formulas are based
on the assumption that unbroken tsunami waves impose a hydrostatic load on
the caisson. The method is similar to Godas design principles for unbroken short
period waves: a pressure distribution on the caisson is used to calculate the
resulting forces on the caisson, based on the resulting forces the safety factors
against sliding and overturning are calculated.
The hydrostatic assumption is believed to be correct as long as no overtopping
occurs. If the tsunami wave overtops the caisson the hydrostatic assumption is
believed to provide an upper limit for the tsunami load. Therefore the design
concept as formulated by Tanimoto (1981) is sufficient for the preliminary design
of the caisson breakwater.
From the literature study concerning rubble mound breakwaters, no ready to use
design formulas can be formulated. However, from the experiments of Kamel
(1970), it can be concluded that the seaside slope of the breakwater should be
designed for short period waves, even when the tsunami hits the breakwater as a
bore. The harborside of the breakwater should be designed on a tsunami load. This
load consists of two components: the flow of the overtopping water on the
harborside and the porous flow through the breakwater structure. Experiments
conducted by Hitachi (1994) show that, due to the long period of the tsunami
wave, the flow under the wave can be characterized by a steady flow and the
stability under a tsunami current can be calculated by stability formulas for stones
under flow conditions. Mizutani (2001) conducts experiments which indicate that
large water velocities occur on the backside of a seawall, when a tsunami wave
overtops the seawall.
A theoretical stability concept is set up which tries to explain the experimental
results of Kamel (1971) concerning overtopping rubble mound breakwaters.
However the question arises if the used velocity and stability formulas are still
valid under these extreme conditions i.e. the high resulting flow velocities in thin
water layers on a steep slope consisting of large armor stones. It is therefore
believed that the theoretical stability concept as set up can not be used to give a
first design of the backside armor layer of the breakwater. It is concluded that for
design considerations model tests are inevitable. However, looking at the
experimental results of Kamel, one can conclude that the armor layer has to be
much stronger than required for overtopping of short period waves. The required
blocks are in the order of several tons on moderate slopes. For making a first
comparison possible between the caisson breakwater and the rubble mound
breakwater the following simple failure criterion is put forward: failure of a
rubble mound breakwater as designed for short period waves occurs if
overtopping by a tsunami wave occurs.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 12 - 1
Following from the design calculations for the caisson breakwater it can be
concluded that the design for short period waves is able to withstand the load
imposed by the design tsunami wave (Figure 12.1).
Design wave for the caisson breakwater
3
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
1
design wave
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-1
-1,5
time (s)
Figure 12.1
Design wave for the caisson breakwater. The positive reflecting wave height is
2.7m.
Failure of the caisson breakwater occurs for a fictive wave with a positive
reflecting wave height Hrefl=6.2m and a water lowering hL=1m or with Hrefl=5.2m
and hL=3m. So clearly the design for short period waves is sufficiently stable for
the design considerations. The waves which can trigger failure of the caisson are
waves generated by bottom deformations approximately 2 times the initial
amplitude of +0.82m and 0.33m. So the breakwater has a sufficient large margin
to take into account the uncertainty concerning the design tsunami wave.
For the design of the rubble mound breakwater the failure criterion was
simplified: failure starts when the tsunami wave overtops the breakwater structure.
The design tsunami wave does not overtop the rubble mound breakwater structure
(Figure 12.2), only for a wave with an initial bottom deformation higher than 1.3
times the original amplitude (+0.82m/-0.33m).
Part 2 - Chapter 12 - 2
05-01-2004
2
1,5
1
design wave
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-1
-1,5
time (s)
Figure 12.2
Design wave for the rubble mound breakwater. The maximum water elevation is 3.1
m. The breakwater crest lies 4.2m above the SWL, so no overtopping occurs
Both breakwater types fulfill the stability conditions against the design tsunami
wave. However, the caisson breakwater has a larger margin than the rubble
mound breakwater. This is important because of the large uncertainty with regard
to the design tsunami wave.
Of course for the rubble mound breakwater only a very simplified failure criterion
is taken: if overtopping occurs the breakwater fails. Maybe porous flow could
initialize failure without overtopping occurring. And if overtopping occurs, is the
backside layer indeed not strong enough to prevent failure? These two questions
can only be answered with further research, and it is believed that model tests are
a required tool for the further study of a rubble mound breakwater.
Therefore it is concluded that the caisson breakwater is preferred above the
rubble mound breakwater. Not only does the caisson breakwater have a larger
margin of safety against the design criterion used, also the stability concept has
a solid basis. Whereas for a correct design of the rubble mound breakwater further
research is needed. This is needed to gain insight in the failure mechanism and to
set up a correct design criterion for the rubble mound breakwater.
05-01-2004
Part 2 - Chapter 12 - 3
Figure 13.1
The two harbor locations at the Nicaraguan Coast, Pie del Gigante and Bahia del
Salinas.
Before a design tsunami can be derived, the necessary insight in tsunami science
is required: what is a tsunami, how can it be described and how can it be
modeled? An extensive literature study was conducted. In chapter 1 and 3 a
summarized overview is given of tsunami science relevant to this study. These
chapters provide a solid base for further research, including the necessary
references. For a full overview, please refer to chapter 1 and 3.
05-01-2004
Chapter 13 - 1
Design tsunami
The design tsunami is based on the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami. With a 1D
mathematical model the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami is derived at Pie del Gigante.
The modeling of the 1992 tsunami is mainly based on the model of Satake (1995),
Chapter 13 - 2
05-01-2004
but also tide gauge recordings at Corinto, the reported arrival times and the
reported run-up heights were taken into account. The first wave that arrived on
shore was reported as the highest wave, therefore the modeling efforts are focused
on the first wave.
The model was set up starting from the initial bottom deformation as derived by
Satake (1995). The height of the reflecting wave on the closed coast boundary was
calibrated on 2m. Looking at the results of Satake (1995), this can be regarded as
an upper limit. Satakes results also confirm what is already expected: due to the
straight coast, local amplification of the wave height is very limited (Figure 13.2).
The calculated wave form is a so called leading depression N wave, with a small
through followed by a large water elevation (Figure 13.3). This corresponds to the
tide gauge recording for Corinto (Figure 13.4). Defining a wave period is not
simple, due to the superimposed second wave peak.
It is clear that the modeling of a tsunami, in this study as well as in publications, is
not very accurate. The accuracy is not in the order of a few centimeters or a
decimeter, but more in the order of a few decimeters.
Figure 13.2
Calculated reflected wave heights of the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami by Satake (1995).
reflecting wave
he ight (m)
1.5
wave at -10m (no refl ecting)
reflecting wave
0.5
0
20 02. 5 2102.5 2202 .5 23 02.5 2402.5
-0.5
2505
26 05
2705
2805
29 05
tim e (s)
Figure 13.3
Calibrated wave at Pie del Gigante. Two waves are presented, the reflecting wave at
the closed coast boundary and the wave at -10m with an open coast boundary.
05-01-2004
Chapter 13 - 3
Figure 13.4
Tide gauge recordings of the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami at Corinto after the tidal
components are removed.
A sensitivity analysis of the input parameters shows that the wave is almost
insensitive for large variations of the bathymetry (depths of the ocean trench,
steepness of the continental shelf and the steepness of the foreshore ( 50 to 0m)).
Also the friction only plays a limited role, probably due to the large water depths.
The resulting wave is mainly determined by the length and the amplitude of the
bottom deformation.
Based on the calibrated model the design wave for Pie del Gigante is determined.
The reflecting wave height and the wave period of the calibrated model are
increased by 20%. The resulting bottom deformation is then used as an input in
the 1D model at Bahia del Salinas. Calculations with the 1D model hardly give
any difference between the two locations. For design considerations, the
calculations will therefore be limited to one location: Pie del Gigante.
In order to accurately represent the rubble mound breakwater, the gridsize near the
coast is refined from dx=500m to dx=6m. The smaller gridsize leads to a larger
influence of the bottom friction, causing a significant lower wave to arrive at the
coast. This lowering proves to be convergent, as gridsizes smaller than dx=6m
give a negligible lowering. Therefore the model is recalibrated for a gridsize of
dx=6m. The resulting design wave is presented in Figure 13.5 .
Design wave for Pie del Gigante (dx=6m)
3
reflecting wave
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
time (s)
Figure 13.5
Design wave for Pie del Gigante
Chapter 13 - 4
05-01-2004
Design wave
reflecting wave
Max elevation
2.4 m
arrival time
45 min
2.05 m
period
11.2 min
Stability Concept for the Caisson and the Rubble Mound Breakwater
In the literature study of the caisson breakwater, design formulas for unbroken
tsunami waves are formulated (Tanimoto, 1981). Based on model experiments
Tanimoto concludes that the tsunami wave load on a caisson manifests itself as a
hydrostatic load. Based on these findings Tanimoto, assumes a pressure
distribution on the caisson. The resulting forces are then used to calculate the
safety factors against sliding and overturning. As an input the reflecting wave
height on a vertical wall is taken. The vertical wall should be positioned at the
breakwater location.
The method is similar to Godas design principles for unbroken short period
waves. It is shown that Tanimotos design formulas for unbroken tsunami waves
05-01-2004
Chapter 13 - 5
are in fact an end form of the Goda design principles for unbroken short period
waves. A tsunami wave imposes a bigger load than a short period wave with the
same crest elevation.
The hydrostatic assumption is believed to be correct as long as no overtopping
occurs. If the tsunami wave overtops the caisson the hydrostatic assumption is
believed to provide an upper limit for the tsunami load. Therefore the design
concept as formulated by Tanimoto (1981) is sufficient for the preliminary design
of the caisson breakwater.
Out of the literature study regarding rubble mound breakwaters, no ready to use
design formulas can be formulated. However from the experiments of Kamel
(1970) it can be concluded that the seaside slope of the breakwater should be
designed for short period waves. Even when the tsunami hits the breakwater as a
bore. The harborside of the breakwater should be designed on a tsunami load. This
load consists of two components: the flow of the overtopping water on the
harborside and the porous flow through the breakwater structure. Experiments
conducted by Hitachi (1994) show that, due to the long period of the tsunami
wave, the flow of the wave can be characterized by a steady flow and the stability
under a tsunami current can be calculated by stability formulas for stones under
flow conditions. Mizutani (2001) conducts experiments which indicate that large
water velocities occur on the backside of a seawall, when a tsunami wave
overtops the seawall.
Based on these findings, a theoretical stability concept is set up. The stability
concept focuses on the stability of the harborside armor layer of a breakwater,
under the flow caused by an overtopping tsunami wave. For a first calculation
porous flow is neglected: quantifying the porous flow through a highly porous
structure is complex and linking to breakwater stability is not easy. Therefore, in
this first assumption the overtopping tsunami flow is considered as the governing
stability factor for the armor layer at the backside of the breakwater structure. In
further research the porous flow should also be taken into account.
A theoretical stability concept is set up that aims to explain the experimental
results of Kamel (1971). Kamel sets up model tests for overtopping tsunami
waves on rubble mound breakwater structures. At first the results are explained in
a similar way as for closure works: the governing flow velocity is calculated by
the formula for the free discharge weir and the stone stability is calculated with
classical stability formulas for stones under flow conditions. This clearly gives an
underestimation of the required stones. Secondly, the velocity on the backside
slope is calculated with the velocity formulas for steady flow on a dike slope as
presented by Schttrumpf (2001). The velocity in the vicinity of the water level is
taken as input for the stability formulas.
However, the question arises if the used velocity and stability formulas are still
valid under these extreme conditions i.e. the high resulting flow velocities in thin
water layers on a steep slope consisting of large armor stones. It is therefore
believed that the theoretical stability concept as set up can not be used for a first
design of the backside armor layer of the breakwater. It is concluded that for
design considerations model tests are required. However, looking at the
experimental results of Kamel, one can conclude that the armor layer has to be
Chapter 13 - 6
05-01-2004
much stronger than required for overtopping of short period waves; the required
blocks are in the order of several tons on moderate slopes. To enable comparison
between the caisson breakwater, and the rubble mound breakwater the following
simple failure criterion is put forward: failure of a rubble mound breakwater as
designed for short period waves occurs if overtopping by a tsunami wave occurs.
Conclusions with regard to the stability concept
- From the literature study design formulas are presented for the caisson
breakwater.
- For the rubble mound breakwater a simplified stability criterion is put forward:
failure occurs if the breakwater structure is overtopped by the tsunami wave. For
a more detailed stability criterion further study is needed and model tests will be
required.
Design Calculations
From the design calculations for the caisson breakwater it can be concluded that
the design for short period waves is able to withstand the load imposed by the
design tsunami wave (Figure 13.6).
Design wave for the caisson breakwater
3
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
1
design wave
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-1
-1,5
time (s)
Figure 13.6
Design wave for the caisson breakwater. The positive reflecting wave height is
2.7m.
Failure of the caisson breakwater occurs for a fictive wave with a positive
reflecting wave height Hrefl=6.2m and a water lowering hL=1m or with Hrefl=5.2m
and hL=3m. This is significantly higher than the design tsunami characteristics
(Hrefl=2.7m and hL=0.4m). So clearly the design for short period waves is
sufficiently stable under the design considerations. The waves, which can trigger
failure of the caisson, are waves generated by bottom deformations approximately
twice the initial amplitude of +0.82m and 0.33m. The breakwater has a
sufficient large margin to take into account the uncertainty concerning the design
tsunami wave.
05-01-2004
Chapter 13 - 7
For the design of the rubble mound breakwater the failure criterion was
simplified: failure starts when the tsunami wave overtops the breakwater structure.
The design tsunami wave does not overtop the rubble mound breakwater structure
(Figure 13.7). Overtopping only takes place for a wave with an initial bottom
deformation higher than 1.3 times the original amplitude (+0.82m/-0.33m).
Design wave run-up on the rubble mound breakwater
3,5
3
2,5
height (m)
2
1,5
1
design wave
0,5
0
2002,5
-0,5
2127,5
2252,5
2377,5
2505
2630
2755
2880
-1
-1,5
time (s)
Figure 13.7
Design wave for the rubble mound breakwater. The maximum water elevation is
3.1m. The breakwater crest lies 4.2m above the SWL, so no overtopping occurs
Both breakwater types fulfill the stability conditions of the design tsunami wave.
However, the caisson breakwater has a larger safety margin than the rubble
mound breakwater. This is important because of the large uncertainty with regard
to the design tsunami wave.
Of course for the rubble mound breakwater only a very simplified failure criterion
is taken: if overtopping occurs the breakwater fails. Maybe porous flow can
initialize failure without overtopping occurring and if overtopping occurs, is the
backside layer indeed not stable enough to prevent failure? These two question
can only be answered with further study, and it is believed that model tests are a
necessary tool for the further study of a rubble mound breakwater. Therefore it is
concluded that the caisson breakwater is preferred upon the rubble mound
breakwater. The caisson breakwater does not only have a larger margin of safety
against the design criterions used, also the stability concept used has a solid basis.
Whereas for a correct design of the rubble mound breakwater further study is
needed. This further study is needed to gain insight in the failure mechanism and
to set up a correct design criterion for the rubble mound breakwater.
Chapter 13 - 8
05-01-2004
05-01-2004
Chapter 13 - 9
14 Recommendations
Concerning the design wave
For a future study it is believed that the 1D approach used in this thesis for deriving
a design tsunami is appropriate. Starting from an initial bottom deformation the
wave is derived to the coast with a mathematical model based on the shallow water
equations. However, local bathymetry can seriously amplify the occurring wave at
one location. Therefore, for further research a 2D model based on the same
principle as the 1D model is required. For the bottom deformation, the same
amplitude and length as in the 1D model should be used, the width should be taken
out of the study of Satake (1995). By setting up the model with a sufficiently fine
grid near the proposed harbor locations (Pie del Gigante and Bahia del Salinas), the
most favorable of the two locations can be determined. The calculations with the
2D model should be carried out for different positions of the bottom deformation
along the Middle American Trench, in order to investigate the effect on the arriving
waves at the two harbor locations. Also a large sensitivity analysis should be
carried out concerning the amplitude and the length of the bottom deformation.
Rubble mound breakwater stability
For further insight in the failure mechanism of the rubble mound breakwater under
a tsunami load, model tests will have to be carried out. Special attention should be
paid to the correct modeling of the porous flow through the breakwater structure.
Two situations have to be investigated:
- the tsunami does not overtop the breakwater structure;
- the tsunami wave overtops the breakwater structure.
For this kind of stability tests an unbroken tsunami load can be modeled as a fast
rising or falling water level.
Effects of a tsunami on harbors
It is hard to predict what will actually happen when a tsunami hits a harbor, but
looking at reports from large tsunami events the following remarks can be given.
Breakwaters will not prevent tsunami waves from entering the harbor, due to the
long wave length. Tsunamis, even small ones, can cause large seiches in harbor
basins which can persist for many hours. These seiches can cause serious damage
to moored boats by rocking them against the quay walls. The risk for the operating
structures of the container terminal can be lowered by building the quay wall at a
sufficient high level above the HHWL. This way, the amount of overtopping will
decrease or no overtopping will occur at all. Less overtopping water leads to
smaller buoyancy forces and smaller velocities, so the damage will be reduced. The
required height of the quay walls should be investigated with a 2D model of the
harbor with the tsunami wave as input. A first estimate, based on the 1D design
wave, is that quay wall with a height of +3.00m HHWL will prevent overtopping.
05-01-2004
Chapter 14 - 1
Appendices:
1. Databank of Tsunamis at the Pacific side of the
Central American Region
2. A Short Introduction to Seismology
3. Mail correspondence concerning the deriving of
tsunami wave characteristics out of tsunami data or
seismic data
4. The 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami
5. Bathymetry
6. Preliminary design of the Caisson Breakwater at Pie
del Gigante
7. Comparing the Tanimoto design formulas for
unbroken tsunami waves with the Goda design
formulas for unbroken short period waves
8. Calculations of the caisson stability under the design
tsunami wave
9. Calculations concerning chapter 10: Theoretical
stability concept for the rubble mound breakwater
10. Iteration problems of the Dutch formula
11. Rubble Mound breakwater for Pie del Gigante
1.
The Historical Tsunami Database for the Pacific, 47 B.C. to present is the joint project of the
IUGG/TC and ICG/ITSU The project was launched in 1997 and the purpose was to improve
the situation with catalogization of historical tsunamis in the Pacific. By means of organizing
them in the form of the database containing the comprehensive historical tsunami catalog in
the Pacific.
This database summarizes the long-term efforts of many research groups and individuals in
collecting, refining and digitizing the tsunami related data and represents the most updated,
revised and homogenous tsunami data set.
The database is accessible at a site of the Tsunami Laboratory of Siberian Division, Russian
Academy of Sciences : http://tsun.sscc.ru/htdbpac
The specially developed data management software allows for a remote user to make data
retrieval by complex criteria and to obtain the resulting list of tsunamigenic events with their
basic source parameters.
2.
Limiting Criteria
The criteria which were used to retrieve the data are listed below.
Location: the vicinity of Central America
0-35 NB
75-125 WL
In the query a region slightly larger than Central America (Guatemala-Panama) is selected.
This to investigate the influence of the bordering regions.
Period: 1900-2002
Cause: no limitations
IUGG/TC: the tsunami commission of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
ICG/ITSU: International Coordination Group for the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific
3.
Legend
Blanks in columns indicate that the value of this parameter is unavailable for this particular
event.
year - year [-47, 1999]
mo - month [1,12]
da - day [1,31]
hr - hour (in GMT) [0,23]
mn - minute [0,59]
sec - second [00.0,59.9]
lat - latitude in ('-' for southern latitude) [-65.00,65.00]
long - longitude ('-' for western longitude) [-80.00, 50.00]
dep - source depth in km [0,999]
Ms - surface-wave magnitude [0,9.9]
Mw - moment magnitude [0,9.9]
Mt - Abe's tsunami magnitude [0,9.9]
Int - tsunami intensity on Soloviev scale [-9.9,9.9]
Hmax - maximum observed or measured wave height in meters [0.01,999.99]
N - total number of available run-up and tide-gauge observations [1,999]
D - damage code
N - nondamaging event
S - slight damage
M - moderate damage
L - large (severe) damage
F - number of reported fatalities due to the event [0,99999]
C - cause of the tsunami
T tectonic
V volcanic
L landslide
M meteorological
S seiches
E explosion
I impact
U unknown
TR - tsunamigenic region code
A-A - Alaska and US Pacific coast (35N - 63N, 167E - 112W)
CAM - Central America (7 N - 35 N, 125 W - 75 W)
SAM - South America (58 S - 7 N, 100 W - 60 W)
NZT - New Zealand and Tonga (57 S - 11 S, 160 E - 166 W)
NGS - New Guinea and Solomon Is. (11 S - 5 N, 130 E - 165 E)
IND Indonesia (11 S - 11N, 92 E - 130 E)
PHI Philippines (5 N - 28 N, 104 E - 134 E)
JAP Japan (21 N - 48 N, 114 E - 156 E)
K-K - Kuril-Kamchatka (40 N - 63 N, 131 E - 167 E)
HAW Hawaii (15 N - 35 N, 171 E - 145 W)
Source Region - source region of the tsunami. Descriptive indication of the tsunami source
area
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
time
1906
1907
1928
1928
1930
1932
1932
1932
1934
1941
1941
1948
1950
1950
1950
1951
1957
1958
1962
1962
1962
1965
1973
1979
1979
1981
1985
1985
1988
1992
1994
1995
1995
1996
1999
1
4
3
6
8
6
6
6
7
12
12
12
10
10
12
8
7
1
3
5
5
8
1
3
12
10
9
9
4
9
1
9
10
2
9
31
15
22
17
31
3
18
22
18
5
6
4
5
23
14
3
28
19
12
11
19
23
30
14
12
25
19
21
30
2
17
14
9
25
12
36
8
17
19
40
36
12
59
36
47
22
9
13
15
24
40
7
40
11
58
46
1
7
59
22
17
37
42
16
30
4
35
8
15
6
4
3
0
10
10
12
1
20
0
16
16
14
0
8
14
11
14
14
19
21
11
7
3
13
1
15
0
12
14
15
3
18
2.7
55.5
33.9
54.1
16.6
9.8
25
15.3
56.8
13.1
1.5
13.5
15
4.6
15.8
49.7
13.5
9.6
31.8
36.6
54.2
17.8
27.5
27.8
3.3
Year Mo Da Hr Mn Sec
date
1
16.7
16.84
16.65
33.9
19.46
19.53
19.09
8.01
8.61
8.5
21.6
10.4
14.3
16.3
13
16.88
0.99
8.09
17.14
16.99
16.17
18.45
17.77
1.6
18.12
18.46
17.83
32.6
11.72
34.16
16.84
19.05
15.93
17.62
Lat
-81.5
-99.2
-96.02
-96.5
-118.6
-104.17
-103.72
-104.41
-82.56
-83.18
-84
-106.7
-85.2
-91.8
-98.2
-87.5
-99.29
-79.48
-82.68
-99.7
-99.69
-95.85
-102.96
-101.23
-79.36
-102
-102.37
-101.62
-117.3
-87.39
-118.57
-98.61
-104.21
-98.1
-101.6
Long
generation point
tsunami data
45
14
29
26
17
25
25
15
2
0
25
71
1
25
32
33
33
60
30
50
100
36
20
19
46
16
10
37
24
24
21
21
18
7.2
6.8
7.2
7.3
6.9
8.6
8.2
7.5
7.8
5.2
8.1
7.8
6.9
7.7
7.5
7
7
7.7
7.1
7.5
7
7.9
7.3
6.8
7.2
7.1
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.3
8.1
7.5
7.7
6.7
7.3
8
7.1
7.5
7.6
7.6
8.1
7.2
8
7.5
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.1
9
7.9
7.8
7.5
8.2
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.3
8.1
8.7
8.7
7.8
7.4
7.9
2.8
-3
-1
2
-3
2.5
-1
-3
-1.1
2.5
-3
1.5
0
1
-0.5
-0.5
-2
1.5
1
-3
-3
1.5
-2
-1
-1
0
1.5
1.5
-3
0
3
1
0.4
0.1
0.4
5
0.1
3
1.2
5
10.7
0.1
0.42
5
0.12
8
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
10
2.6
2.5
6.1
0.7
0.1
10
2
0.1
0.1
5
2
S
S
N
N
S
N
N
N
M
N
M
S
N
M
N
N
M
N
S
N
N
S
N
N
N
S
M
N
N
M
M
S
earthquake data
4, Tsunamis at the Pacific Side of the Central American Region from 1900 to 2002
0
170
0
0
1
0
0
56
5
600
4
30
68
20
1000
T
T
T
T
L
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
M
T
T
T
T
T
U
SAM Columbia-Ecuador:TUMACO
CAM Mexico
CAM MEXICO
CAM MEXICO: NEAR COAST OF GUERRER
CAM S.CALIFORNIA
CAM Central Mexico,Jalisco
CAM Central Mexico, Jalisco
CAM Central Mexico
CAM Costa Rica-Panama
CAM Central America
CAM Costa Rica-Panama
CAM Mexico:MARIA MADRE ISLAND
CAM Nicaragua,Costa Rica-Panama
CAM Guatemala-Nicaragua
CAM Acapulco, S.Mexico
CAM Potosi, Honduras
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
SAM Colombia-Ecuador
CAM Costa Rica-Panama
CAM S.Mexico
CAM S.Mexico
CAM MEXICO
CAM S.Mexico:FARIAS,TECOMAN
CAM S.Mexico:GUERRERO
SAM Colombia-Ecuador
CAM MEXICO
CAM MEXICO: MICHOACAN: MEXICO CI
CAM MEXIC0: SW COAST: MEXICO CIT
CAM San Diego, S. California
CAM Nicaragua
CAM Southern California
SAM Oaxaca, Mexico
CAM Jalisco, Mexico
CAM Oaxaca, Mexico
CAM Guerero, Mexico
C TR Source Region
generation area
5.
Map
The tsunami events for the Pacific side of the Central American region from 1900 to 2002
were plotted on the following map (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 The tsunamis on the Pacific side of the Central Amercan region from 1900 to 2002.
The Earth is formed of several layers that have very different physical and chemical
properties. The outer layer, which averages about 70 kilometers in thickness, consists of about
a dozen large, irregularly shaped plates (Figure 2), on top of the partly molten inner layer.
These plates slide over, under and past each other. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries
where the plates meet.
There are three types of plate boundaries: spreading zones, transform faults, and subduction
zones (Figure 3).
At spreading zones, molten rock rises, pushing two plates apart and adding new material at
their edges. Most spreading zones are found in oceans; for example, the North American and
Eurasian plates are spreading apart along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Spreading zones usually
have earthquakes at shallow depths (within 30 kilometers of the surface).
2
Transform faults are found where plates slide past one another. An example of a transformfault plate boundary is the San Andreas fault, along the coast of California and northwestern
Mexico. Earthquakes at transform faults tend to occur at shallow depths and form fairly
straight linear patterns.
Subduction zones are found where one plate overrides, or subducts, another, pushing it
downward into the mantle where it melts. An example of a subduction-zone plate boundary is
found along Pacific coast of Central America (the Middle American Trench). Subduction
zones are characterized by deep-ocean trenches, shallow to deep earthquakes, and mountain
ranges containing active volcanoes. About 90% of all earthquakes occur in subduction zones
(Bolt, 1995).
Earthquakes can also occur within plates, although plate-boundary earthquakes are much
more common. Less than 5% of all earthquakes occur within plate interiors (Bolt, 1995). As
plates continue to move and plate boundaries change over geologic time, weakened boundary
regions become part of the interiors of the plates. These zones of weakness within the
continents can cause earthquakes in response to stresses that originate at the edges of the plate
or in the deeper crust. For Example the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812 and the 1886
Charleston earthquake occurred within the North American plate.
As stated above earthquakes occur in fracture zones mostly located near plate boundaries.
These fraction zones between two blocks of rock are called faults. During an earthquake the
rock on one side of the fault suddenly slips with respect to the other.
Earthquake fault geometry basically falls apart in three fundamental end members: strike-slip,
thrust-dip and dip-slip faults (Figure 4). Strike-slip faults involve horizontal motion of the
earths crust, while thrust-dip and dip-slip faults induce vertical motion. Most faults show a
combination of horizontal and vertical motion, but usually one of the two is more pronounced.
The movement on a fault deep within the earth can break through to the surface, it is then
called surface rupture. This can lead to spectacular fault scarps in the landscape; for example
a sudden rise of a road or a sudden shift of a fence. However not all earthquakes result in
surface rupture. This is mainly determined by the size of the earthquake, the depth of the
hypocenter and the composition of the rocky layers above the hypocenter.
Seismic waves
When two plate boundaries slip over each other, part of the released elastic energy goes into
wave energy.
These seismic waves spread out from the hypocenter through the earths interior and crust.
When they reach the surface, they cause the ground shaking that is felt during an earthquake.
It is this shaking that is responsible for the bigger part of the earthquake damage.
There are several different kinds of seismic waves, and they all move in different ways. The
two main types of waves are body waves and surface waves. Body waves can travel through
the earth's inner layers, but surface waves can only move along the surface of the planet like
ripples on water. Earthquakes radiate seismic energy as both body and surface waves.
2.1
Body Waves
P Waves
The first kind of body wave is the P wave or primary wave. This is the fastest kind of seismic
wave. The P wave can move through solid rock and fluids, like water or the liquid layers of
the earth. It pushes and pulls the rock, and moves through the rock, just like sound waves
push and pull the air (Figure 5). Sometimes animals can hear the P waves of an earthquake.
Usually we only feel the bump and rattle of these waves.
S Waves
The second type of body wave is the S wave or secondary wave, which is the second wave
you feel in an earthquake. An S wave is slower than a P wave and can only move through
solid rock. This wave moves rock up and down, or side-to-side (Fig. 2.5).
The difference in speed between P and S waves can be used to calculate the distance from the
registration point to the epicenter.
Rayleigh Waves
The other kind of surface wave is the Rayleigh wave, named for John William Strutt, Lord
Rayleigh, who mathematically predicted the existence of this kind of wave in 1885. A
Rayleigh wave rolls along the ground just like a wave rolls across a water surface (Figure 8).
Because it rolls, it moves the ground up and down, and side-to-side in the same direction that
the wave is moving. Most of the shaking felt from an earthquake is due to the Rayleigh wave,
which can be much larger than the other waves.
2.3
An example of a registration of the bottom movements caused by the different seismic waves
is given on the seismographs in Figure 9.
The different seismic waves arrive in a fixed sequence, due to their differences in wave
celerity.
The first waves arriving at one location from the hypocenter are the longitudinal P waves, that
mainly arrive at the surface under a steep angle, producing mainly vertical ground
movements. After a short period the S waves arrive, who produce bottom movements in the
horizontal plane, because they arrive at the surface at a steep angle. Immediately after the S
waves the Love waves arrive, followed by a large train of Raleigh waves. These are the waves
which produce the well known heaving movement of the bottom during earthquakes. The
fading out at the end of an earthquake is a mixture of P-, S-, Love- and Raleigh waves who
propagated at various ways through the complex structure of the interior of the earth.
Figure 9 An example
of the bottom
movement during an
earthquake. Each
earthquake is
reported by three
seismograms, each
corresponding to a
different direction:
East-West (O), NorthSouth (N) and Updown (Z). The
different wave types
can be clearly
distinguished.
Earthquake Scales
The first scientific method introduced for describing the strength of an earthquake was the
magnitude, which is based on the resulting waves recorded on a seismogram. The concept is
that the recorded wave amplitude reflects the earthquake size once the amplitudes are
corrected for the decrease with distance due to geometric spreading and attenuation.
Nowadays seismologists use the moment magnitude as a measure for the size of an
earthquake. The moment magnitude is a scale which is closely connected with the actual
physics of the rupture process.
3.1
Local Magnitude ML
The earliest magnitude scale was introduced by Charles Richter in 1935 for describing
southern Californian earthquakes. It s known as the local magnitude ML, often referred to as
the Richter scale.
3.2
Nowadays seismologists use more refined scales. One of them is the surface wave magnitude
Ms, which can be regarded as a modified Richter scale.
M s = log( A / T ) + 1.66log + 3.3
(2)
Ms : surface wave magnitude (-)
A : amplitude of the signal (mm)
T : dominant wave period (s)
: distance between the source and the seismometer
(km)
The surface wave magnitude is measured using the largest amplitude of the surface waves,
these often are the Raleigh waves.
The Ms -scale is roughly an extended Richter scale for earthquakes at great distances and
gives a good estimate of strong and medium earthquakes. However the Ms -scale cant be
used on deep earthquakes because these dont generate large surface waves. Another
modification for the magnitude scales is needed for this, this goes beyond the scope of this
study and one is referred to specialized literature for instance Bolt, 1995.
As measures of earthquake size, magnitude have two major advantages. First, they are
directly measured from seismograms without sophisticated signal processing. Second, they
yield units of order 1 which are intuitively attractive: magnitude 5 earthquakes are moderate,
magnitude 6 are strong, 7 are major, 8 are great.
However magnitudes have three related limitations. First, they are totally empirical and thus
have no direct connection to the physics of the earthquakes (the 1 and 2 arent even
dimensionally correct). A second difficulty is the variation of the magnitude with the azimuth,
due to the radiation patterns of the waves in the inner of the earth. This can be reduced by
averaging the results.
But most importantly the surface wave magnitude underestimates the true magnitude of low
frequency earthquakes and of very large earthquakes. The Ms -scale only uses the amplitude
of surface waves which have a period about 20 seconds, whereas some earthquakes have
much energy at lower frequencies, so called slow earthquakes. Thus Ms is an underestimation
of the real size of these slow earthquakes. Also as quakes get larger they sent out a greater
portion of their energy in the longer period waves, which tends to saturate the Ms scale. The
saturation begins at around 7.3 and surface wave magnitude never becomes greater than 8.0 to
8.3.
3.3
Moment Magnitude Mw
To cope with the above-mentioned shortcomings a scale was designed which is a true
physical measure for the energy of an earthquake. A magnitude scale was defined based on
the seismic moment Mo of an earthquake. The seismic moment describes the faulting process
itself and considers factors as the area of the fault, the length of the displacement and the
strength of the rock being ruptured.
The seismic moment of an earthquake can be calculated by modeling the earthquake event
using the Harvard fault plane solution, also known as CMT (Centroid-Moment Tensor). The
Harvard solution uses seismologic recordings at different stations around the world and solves
the classic inverse problem in geophysics. This means revealing the location and the rupture
characteristics of the source by means of recordings on distant seismographs. With this
information the seismic moment Mo of an earthquake can be calculated fairly accurate.
(3)
Mo : seismic moment of an earthquake (Nm)
: rigidity around the fault (N/m)
u : average slip (m)
L : fault length (m)
W : fault width (m)
The seismic moment can also be calculated directly out of data gathered during surveys of the
fault region.
The moment magnitude scale is defined as follows:
M w = log M 0 /1.5 10.73
(4)
Mw : moment magnitud (-)
Mo : seismic moment (Nm)
Defining a magnitude related to the seismic moment Mo has some advantages. First of all it
gives a magnitude directly tied to earthquake source processes and it does not saturate.
Second it preserves the simplicity of the magnitude scale by giving values of order one,
moreover Mw is a convenient extension of Ms, when Ms saturates at values higher than about
7.3, this is clearly illustrated in Figure 12
The disadvantage is that the estimation of Mo requires more analysis of seismograms than for
M s.
Nowadays moment magnitude has become the common measure of the magnitude of large
earthquakes.
Figure 12 Relationship between the moment magnitude and the various magnitude scales.
10
Appendix 3:
Original mail
"K.F.M. Cuypers" wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> I am a last year student coastal engineering at the Technical University of Delft (the Netherlands).
> As part of my master thesis I am doing some research on tsunamis.
>
> I have conducted a small study of literature, there is a lot of material available, but there is one question I can not seem to
get an answer on:
> There is a lot of data available about past tsunami events concerning the seismic parameters and tsunami intensity and/or
magnitude, but for coastal engineering purpose one is particularly interested in the wave parameters offshore (wave period
and wave height). Is it possible to derive these parameters out of the seismic or tsunami data or can they be obtained out of
databases?
>
> I would be very thankful if you could give me a hint about this.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
> Kim Cuypers
Replies
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Rabinovich, Alex
K.F.M.Cuypers@student.TUDelft.NL
CherniawskyJ@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca wang@pgc.nrcan.gc.ca kenji.satake@aist.go.jp
02/25/03 07:43 pm
Your question
Dear Kim,
Probably you could not find this information because your question actually is not easy at all!
Certainly there are some empiric relations between parameters of the source and offshore wave heights (Dr. Kenji Satake will
answer to this question better). There is also a simple approximate ratio between the source length (L) and offshore wave period
(T):
T ~ 2L/sqrt(gh),
where h is the mean ocean depth in the source area.
However, you should take into account that near the coast all these parameters will drastically be changed. Topographic resonant
features play the key role in formation wave heights and periods near the coast. You can find more detailed description of this
aspect of the problem in our papers (Rabinovich, JGR, 1997, 102, C6, 12,663-12,676 and Monserrat et al., GRL, 1998, 25, 12,
2197-2200) and in the list of references in these papers.
I can also send you a PDF file of our paper on estimation tsunami wave heights for the coast of Peru (~ 900 kByte) if you are
interested.
Sincerely,
Alexander Rabinovich
Alexander B. Rabinovich
Tsunami Center
Shirshov Institute of Oceanology
Russian Academy of Sciences
Moscow, Russia
From:
To:
CC:
Rabinovich, Alex
K.F.M.Cuypers@student.TUDelft.NL
02/26/03 12:01 am
Date:
Re: Your question
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Kim,
So if you want to define a design wave, it is in a preliminary fase of costal engineering much safer to use a past tsunami event
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Eric L. Geist
K.F.M.Cuypers@student.TUDelft.NL
hjlee@usgs.gov
02/26/03 07:36 pm
Re: Fwd:
2000JB000139.pdf (536KB)
From:
To:
CC:
grilli
K.F.M.Cuypers@student.TUDelft.NL
02/24/03 10:45 pm
Date:
Re:
Subject:
Attachments: grilli.vcf (391 Bytes)
Kim:
Wave parameters at the continental shelf are usually computed using tsunami generation and propagation models. There is no
simple relationship relating seismic parameters to wave parameters, except through pure empiricism, but this will be quite limited
in scope and range.
Check www.tsunamicommunity.org, for instance, for more info on landslide tsunami models.
Stephan Grilli
Stephan Grilli
http://www.oce.uri.edu/~grilli
Distinguished Engineering Professor and Chairman
Department of Ocean Engineering
University of Rhode Island
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lori Dengler
K.F.M.Cuypers@student.TUDelft.NL
02/24/03 11:23 pm
Re: your mail
Tsunami research is still in its early stages and most of the modeling
efforts have focussed on trying to match field data from recent tsunamis
to model results. There is an active US modeling effort in the 5 Pacific
States but no archive of all modeling results.
There are a number of tsunami modeling programs including USC: http://www.usc.edu/dept/tsunamis/
Oregon Geological Institute: http://www.ccalmr.ogi.edu/projects/oregonian/
University of Alaska- Fairbanks
http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/tsunami/index.html
NOAA's TIME Center: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tsunami/
I suggest contacting either Vasily Titov (titov@pmel.noaa.gov) or Frank
Gonzalez (gonzalez@pmel.noaa.gov) at the TIME center to see if they can
help find what you want.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lori Dengler
Department of Geology
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA 95521
voice (707) 826-3115 fax (707) 826-5241
Figure 1 Area affected by the 1992 Nicaraguan tsunami. The run-up bars represent the maximum
reported run-up at one location. The run-up bars are scaled relative to each other.
Earthquake Data
The earthquake had a surface wave magnitude, Ms, of 7.2 and a seismic moment, Mo of 3x1020 Nm.
It had a shallow focal depth of 45 km. Aftershocks occurred along the strike, parallel to the coast of
Nicaragua in a band 100 km wide and 200 km long. The rupture occurred as the result of slow
thrusting along the shallow dipping, subduction interface between the Cocos and Caribean Plates.
The earthquakes moment magnitude, Mw, was 7.7, a value at least half an order greater than the
surface wave magnitude, Ms, 7.2.
The reason for this dissimilarity is the slow rupturing process along the fault. The occurrence of slip
on a plate interface filled with soft subducted sediments caused the rupture process to be slower than
in ordinary subduction-zone thrust earthquakes (Kanamori, 1993).
Tsunami Data
The 1992 Nicaragua earthquake was a tsunami earthquake, meaning it generated tsunamis
disproportionately large for its surface wave magnitude, Ms.
The significant disparity between Ms and Mw (7.2-7.7)is clearly a characteristic for tsunami
earthquakes.
The tsunami magnitude, Mt, was estimated at 7.9 +/- 0.4 (Ide, 1993). Because the Mt scale has not yet
been regressed against Mw for the data set in the eastern Pacific, Mt is estimated using the peak-to
trough amplitudes of the tidal measurements in Hawaii and Japan (Chapter 5: tsunami scales). The
tsunami intensity i was estimated at 2.8.
Run-up data along the Nicaraguan coast are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, run-up heights are
mostly between 3 and 8 m MSL, with a maximum of 10.7 m MSL at El Transito. It should be noted
that Figure 1 represents the maximum reported run-up heights at one location. During the field surveys
of Baptista (1993) and Abe (not available) at one location more than one cross section was measured
(Figure 2). As is clearly illustrated in Figure 2 at one location serious differences in run-up heights can
occur. It is believed that these differences are caused by on land topographic differences at one
location.
Figure 2 The run-up heights for the 1992 Tsunami reported by the field surveys of Abe and Baptista
(Satake, 1995). The run-up heights are corrected for the tidal elevation during the run-up, tidal elevation
was between 0.5m and 1m MSL. Notice that the points lying on one vertical represents run-up heightys
measured at one location.
The tidal recording at Corinto (Fig. 15.2) shows an initial waterlevel withdrawal of about 10 cm,
followed by a large water elevation showing a peak to through amplitude of 49 cm. The period of the
first rising wave is 9.2 minutes. The tidal recording at Puerto Sandino (Figure 2) shows an initial
waterlevel withdrawal of about 10 cm, followed by a large water elevation causing the tide recorder to
go off scale, the peak to through amplitude is at least 117 cm.
The difference between these two measurements is probably caused by the location of the tide gauges
(waterdepth 10 m at Corinto and 4 m at Puerto Sandino) and the local bathymetry.
Other tidal recordings made: at Baltra (1.12 m) and Libertad (0.26 m) in Ecuador, Socorro Island (0.16
m) and Cabo San Lucas (0.13 m) in Mexico and Valparraiso (0.09 m) in Chile, Kesennuma (0.13 m)
in Japan and Hilo (0.12 m) at Hawaii.
Figure 3 Tidal recordings of the 1992 nicaraguan tsunami at Corinto and Puerto Sandino.
This part of the text is based on the work of Imamura (1993) and Satake (1994 and 1995).
Imamura made estimates about the characteristics of the tsunami source based on seismic data (size
and area of the dislocation). A numerical 2D simulation was made with the estimated tsunami source,
the obtained run-up data were compared with the measured run-up data along the Nicaraguan coast.
The measured run-up was 5.6 to 10 times higher than the run-up obtained with the model.
In order to reconcile the discrepancy between seismic data and tsunami data, Satake used various fault
models. He varied the fault length and width, keeping the seismic moment constant by adapting the
average slip and the rigidity.
Comparison of calculated waveforms with tide gauge records of Corinto and Puerto Sandino and the
run-up heights, show best correspondence with a fault width of 40 km and a fault length of 250 km. In
order to correspond with the seismic moment, this tsunami fault model has to have a greater slip than
the seismic fault model as derived by Imamura resulting in bigger bottom deformations as is illustrated
in Figure 3.
where is the rigidity around the fault, u is the average slip, L is the fault length and W is the fault width.
Figure 4 shows the original seismological fault area as estimated by Imamura and the fault area
estimated with the tsunami data by Satake.
Figure 5 shows the vertical displacement according to the seismic fault model and Figure 6 shows the
vertical displacement according to the tsunami fault model.
Appendix 5: Bathymetry
1. Pie del Gigante
The bathymetry is derived out of nautical charts for the Nicaraguan region:
- for the shallow areas (depth 0m to 66m) a chart with a scale of 1/50 000 (DMA, 1981)
- for the deeper parts (depth >-66m) a chart with a scale of 1/300 000 (INETER, 1989)
The depth profile as derived out of the nautical charts is presented in Table 1 and is plotted in
Figure 1 and Figure 2.
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
depth (m)
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
continental shelf
ocean trench
Figure 1 The bathymetry at Pie Del Gigante, clearly the ocean trench
and the continental shelf can be distinguished.
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
continental shelf
depth (m)
10000
20000
30000
distance (m)
40000
-66
-77
-84
-91
-98
-102
-109
-113
-120
-128
-140
-155
-190
-950
-3950
-4860
-4616
-2926
-2926
-2981
-3072
distance (m)
60000
10500
13500
18000
21000
24000
28500
33000
36000
39000
42000
51000
64500
75000
96000
132000
138000
150000
180000
195000
204000
213000
diepte
(m)
0
-10
-20
-40
-66
70000
afstand
(m)
0
500
1000
2750
9000
foreshore
For input in the numerical model the bathymetry points were linearly interpolated.
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
depth M SL (m)
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
d is tan c e (m )
160000
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
depth M SL (m)
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
d is ta n ce (m )
60000
diepte
(m)
0
-10
-20
-29
-47
-55
-82
-87
-90
-91
-98
-109
-137
-150
-155
-210
-228
-3370
-4440
-3584
-2925
-3072
-3050
-3109
-3107
180000
afstand
(m)
0
500
1125
2625
7500
9000
22500
24000
27000
28500
31500
39000
45000
48000
51000
70500
73500
136500
148500
166500
184500
196500
205500
217500
232500
For input in the numerical model the bathymetry points were linearly interpolated.
3.
Corinto
The depth profile in front of Corinto is derived using the sea chart of 1/300.000 (DMA, 1981)
also used for the depth profile of Pie del Gigante. Only the profile between 12.8 m and
283m could be derived from this chart. Nearshore no more detailed soundings are given and
the deeper part of the depth profile lies beyond the borders of the map.
Therefore for the deeper part the same depth profile is used as for Pie del Gigante.As for the
more shallow parts nearshore, the point are lineary interpolated between 12.8m and 0m).
distance (m)
41
81
121
161
201
241
281
-2000
-3000
-4000
depth (m)
-1000
-5000
-6000
10000
20000
distance (m)
30000
0
-50
-100
-150
depth (m)
diepte
(m)
0
-12,8
-27,5
-35
-44
-58
-66
-69
-73
-84
-91
-102
-106
-100
-117
-120
-208
-283
-950
-3950
-4860
-4616
-2926
-2926
-2981
-3072
50000
afstand
(m)
0
1500
4500
9000
12000
16500
19500
22500
25500
30000
33000
39000
42000
45000
51000
54000
57000
72000
96000
132000
138000
150000
180000
195000
204000
213000
-200
-250
Data
The input data is the same as used by HAECON for the preliminary design of the Rubble
Mound breakwater at Pie del Gigante.
The design lifetime of the structure is 50 years.
1.1
Wave Data
Site
depth
water level
tidal difference
wind set-up
tan
= -16.0 m C.D.
= +3.0 m MWL
= 1.6 m
= negligible
= 1/100 (slope of the coast)
Due to the steepness of the coast and the lack of shallow areas in front of the breakwater wind
set-up was believed to be negligible. This was confirmed by wind set-up calculations
performed with CRESS.
1.3
Constants
g
w
c
s
= 9.81 m/s
= 1030 kg/m (density of sea water)
= 2400 kg/m (density of reinforced concrete)
= 1800 kg/m (density of ballast sand)
Design
Design calculations were carried out according to Godas principles (Goda, 1992). Godas
design principles are based on an assumed pressure distribution on the caisson face. He then
uses this pressure distribution to calculate the stability against sliding and overturning of the
caisson.
Calculations were made with the proposed formulas embedded in a spreadsheet and compared
with calculations of the Goda formulas carried out in CRESS.
2.1
2.2
= 10.4 m
= 5.8 m
= 10 s
= 121.8 m
Sill
2.2.1
Sea Side
The sill height and length have to be limited in order to prevent waves from breaking on the
sill and thus generating a large dynamic load on the caisson.
Sill height
For an upper limit of the sill height, Miche breaking limit is used:
H/h > 0.78
with:
H = Hmax =10.4 m
depth = depth at lowest low tide = 18.2 m
determined by model tests. As a first approximation blocks of 20 ton over a length of 5 m are
chosen.
The remaining top of the sill should be covered with an armor layer.
The Dn50 of the armor layer is determined by the formula of Madrigal en Valds:
Hs
h
= (5,8 b 0, 6) N od0,19
hs
Dn50
Hs is the significant wave height. hb/hs is the ratio of the berm depth, hb, and the bottom depth,
hs. Nod is given a value of 2 (acceptable damage).
This leads to a required Dn50 = 0.5 m.
Using rubble of 300-1000 kg in a layer of 1 m, satisfies this condition.
The core of the sill should consist of rubble 80-200 mm, this complies with the geometric
closed filter rules.
2.2.2
Harbor Side
No concrete blocks or armor layer are provided. The core material (80-200 mm) is extended 5
m from the toe of the caisson. The sill is given a slope of 1:2.
2.3
2.3.1
Caisson
Stability against wave action
By trial and error a caisson with the following dimensions was obtained:
H = 21 m
W = 13.5 m
L = 60 m
thickness of the
outer wall = 0.5 m
inner wall = 0.2 m
floor
= 2.5 m
roof
= 3.0 m
81,41 kN/m
p2 =
p3 =
51,63 kN/m
56,14 kN/m
p4 =
59,50 kN/m
pu =
53,84 kN/m
10 s
6.3 m
1.22
1.20
11 s
5.9 m
1.20
1.20
13 s
5.2 m
1.20
1.21
15 s
4.5 m
1.20
1.23
The maximum permissible wave height does decrease, however not dramatically. It is known
that only a small percentage of the waves has a period higher than 10 s. Of which the bigger
part are probably swell waves, with probably a lower Hs than the ordinary wind waves. So
longer waves with smaller heights should not necessarily impose a problem.
When more accurate data on the wave climate is available, this should be investigated
thoroughly, as the wave period, Tm, is regarded as one of the most governing factor in caisson
breakwater design.
2.3.2
Floating Stability
The floating stability of the caisson is important because the caisson is transported floating
from the construction site to the breakwater location.
For insuring the floating stability the metacentre, M, has to lie above the centre of gravity, G,
with a factor of 1.2 (dAngremond, 2001).
This condition is fulfilled:
Fig. 1 Floating stability of the caisson. M: metacentre, G: centre of gravity, B: centre of buoyancy
Note that this is the caisson without a roof, the roof is applied after the caisson is sunk into
place and ballasted.
2.4
Bottom Protection
A bottom protection should be provided. A geotextile under the sill and extended 10m at the
sea side and 5 m at the harbor side is proposed.
2.5
Geotechnical Stability
At this moment the geotechnical data for the site of interest are not yet known. As a first
estimation it is expected that at the Pacific side of Nicaragua the subsoil is not the determining
factor of design. However this should be confirmed by geotechnical investigation.
2.6
Breakwater Dimensions
Appendix 7:
In this appendix the calculations leading to table 7.1 will be presented. Table 7.1 is representd
in Table 1
*=15.6m
P1
P2
P3
pu
L=121m
81 kN/m
52 kN/m
56 kN/m
54 kN/m
L=10 000 m
119 kN/m
119 kN/m
119 kN/m
116 kN/m
Tsunami
116 kN/m
116 kN/m
116 kN/m
116 kN/m
Table 1 Pressure calculations with the Goda formulas (L=121 m and L=10 000 m) and with the
Tanimoto formulas (Tsunamis) for the same crest elevation (*=15.6m) (table 7.1).
The second column L=121m are the calculated pressures on the caisson for the design short
periood waves. The pressures were calculated with the Goda design principles (7.1) for a
wave with a crest elevation of *=15.6m and a wave length L=121m. The calculations are
described in appendix 6. The third column are the pressures on the caisson for a wave with the
same crest elevation of *=15.6m but with a very long wave length, L=10 000m . The
calculations were carried out with the Goda design principles. The fourth column are the
pressures on the caisson as calculated with the formulas of Tanimoto for unbroken tsunami
waves (7.1).
The calculations of the third and the second column are presented below:
1. L=10 000m
calculations with Godas design principles (the formulas are presented in 7.1)
input
Hmax = 10.4m
L
= 10 000m
= 0 (angle of incidence of the wave crest, for = 0 the maximum forces occur on
the caisson)
tan = 1/100 (slope of the coast in front of the breakwater)
water = 1030 kg/m
The dimensions of the caisson breakwater are the same a in appendix 6 Figure 2.
calculations
2 = min
= min
{(( h d ) / 3h ) ( H
b
/ d ) , 2d / H max
2
max
2. Tsunami
calculations with Tanimotos design formulas (the formulas are presented in 7.1)
input
Hrefl = 10.4 m
The dimensions of the caisson breakwater are the same a in appendix 6 Figure 2.
calculations
* = 1.5H = 1.5*10.4 = 15.6m
Input
H
HL
h
Wcaiss
B
water
Calculations
* = 1.5H = 1.5* 2.7 = 4.05m
32.7 16.8
overturning moment around the heel of the caisson
2
1
hc* hc* 1 4 hc* hc*
2
M p = + 1
+
ph '
2 3H h ' 2 9 H h '
2
4.05 4.05 1 4 4.05 4.05
1
2
= + 1
+
30.00*16.8 = 5173.85kNm
2 3*2.7 2.7 2 9 2.7 16.8
uplift force
1
1
U = pu B = 30.00*13.5 = 202.57 kN
2
2
overturning moment around the heel of the caisson
1
1
M u = pu B 2 = 30.00*13.52 = 1823.09kNm
3
3
horizontal wave force due to the water lowering
0.4
Ps = L + ( h ' hL ) ps =
+ (16.8 0.4 ) 4.04 = 67.09kN
2
1
( 2h ' hL ) Bcaiss
2
1
= 5618 10.10 ( 2*16.8 0.4 )13.5 = 3353.73kN
2
W0 = Wcaiss w0
S .F . =
h (m)
0,3
0,8
1,4
1,7
2
2,3
2,5
2,8
2,9
u(m/s)
1,54
2,52
3,34
3,68
3,99
4,28
4,46
4,72
4,80
1
1,2
2,82
3,09
1/ 2
1/ 2,5
1,5
3,45
1/ 3
18 ton
9 ton
Izbash
5,05
49,54
181,44
253,69
347,41
465,01
541,43
661,17
667,79
W (kg)
Dutch
3,52
34,72
127,39
178,12
243,94
326,56
379,80
464,35
468,79
CERC
4,35
42,69
156,35
218,60
299,36
400,69
466,55
569,72
575,43
Izbash
0,12
0,27
0,41
0,46
0,51
0,56
0,59
0,63
0,64
dn (m)
Dutch
0,11
0,24
0,37
0,41
0,45
0,50
0,53
0,56
0,56
CERC
0,12
0,25
0,39
0,44
0,49
0,54
0,56
0,60
0,60
0,46
0,38
187,03
167,19
131,19
117,34
161,16
144,07
0,42
0,40
0,37
0,36
0,40
0,38
0,32
223,17
156,65
192,30
0,44
0,39
0,42
slope angle(rad)
1/ 2
0,46
1/ 2,5
0,38
1/ 3
0,32
1/ 3,5
0,28
1/ 4
0,24
1/ 4,5
0,22
1/ 5
0,20
1/ 6
0,17
1/ 7
0,14
The marked line out of the table above will be calculated as an example calculation.
Input
h
slope
stone
0
m
D
K
= 2.9m
= 1/7
= 45
(angle of repose)
= 2600kg/m
= 1030kg/m
= 0.04 (shields parameters)
=0.9
(discharge coefficient)
= 1% (damage ratio)
=1
(calibration factor for the Dutch formula)
Calculations
Velocity with the formula of the free discharge weir:
u = m gh = 0.9 9.81*2.9 = 4.80m / s
Izbash :
K ( // ) =
uc
1
1
4.80
dn50 =
= 0.64m
=
2g K ( // )1.2 2*1.52*9.81 0.85*1.2
Wn50 = r d n350 = 2600*0.643 = 667.79kg
Dutch formula:
K ( // ) =
C = 18 log
6h
6*2.9
= 18log
= 28.08m1/ 2 / s
dn
0.56
K2
12
=
= 0.032 s 2 / m
C 2 0.04* 28.082
Au02
0.032* 4.802
dn =
=
= 0.56m
K 2 ( // ) 1.52*0.852
A=
CERC formula:
D = 1% y =1.1 (stability factor out of Figure 10.2)
rU d6
W=
3
3
48 y 6 g 3 ( r / 0 1) ( cos sin )
=
1/ 3
W
dn50 = 50
2600
= 575.43kg
1/ 3
575.43
=
2600
= 0.60 m
Input
vB(0)
tan
f
Warmor
(ton)
slope
overtopping
height
crown 5m
u (m/s)
crown 6m
u (m/s)
Izbash uc
(m/s)
1/7
2,9
6,89
6,98
6,85
= 4.80m
= 1/7
= 0.1
= 45
Calculations
Velocity calculations with the formulas of Schttrumpf (2001)
at a height 5m of the crest
after iteration it is found that
vB (0)
vB2 (0)
2 sB
t
+
+
2
2
g sin
g sin g sin
4.80
4.802
2*35.36
+
+
= 4.47 s
2
2
9.81sin 8.3
9.81 sin 8.3 9.81sin 8.3
k1 =
2 fg sin
2*0.1*9.81sin 8.3
=
= 0.59s 1
hB
2.02
k1hB
0.59* 2.02
kt
0.59*4.47
.tanh 1 4.80 +
. tanh
f
0.1
2
2 =
= 6.89m / s
vB =
0.1*
4.80
0.59*
4.47
f .vB (0)
k
t
1+
.tanh 1
1+
.tanh
2.02*0.59
2
hB k1
2
vB (0) +
W
dn50 = 50
2600
1/ 3
9000
=
2600
1/ 3
= 1.51m
18 ton
h - 5 ( m)
slo p e
an g le (ra d ) Iz b a sh
W ( kg )
D u tc h
CE R C
Iz b ash
Dn (m )
Dut ch
Dn
C E RC
0,3
3 , 42
0,14
1/ 2
0,46
6 66 8,83
5 13,98
1,3 7
0,5 8
0,8
1,4
5 , 14
6 , 26
0,39
0,75
1/ 2 ,5
1/ 3
0,38
0,32
205 69 ,7 2
313 50 ,8 4
3 06 4,39
6 83 4,20
1,9 9
2,2 9
1,0 6
1,3 8
1,7
2
6 , 53
6 , 76
0,96
1,18
1/ 3 ,5
1/ 4
0,28
0,24
246 30 ,3 1
214 42 ,8 5
6 87 5,66
7 11 7,40
2,1 2
2,0 2
1,3 8
1,4 0
2,3
2,5
6 , 96
7 , 03
1,41
1,59
1/ 4 ,5
1/ 5
0,22
0,20
197 83 ,6 8
172 69 ,3 2
7 46 1,42
7 18 3,62
1,9 7
1,8 8
1,4 2
1,4 0
2,8
2,9
7 , 05
6 , 89
1,88
2,02
1/ 6
1/ 7
0,17
0,14
132 70 ,9 8
9 55 6,55
6 35 1,24
5 03 0,93
1,7 2
1,5 4
1,3 5
1,2 5
1
1,2
6 , 33
6 , 12
0,47
0,6
1/ 2
1/ 2 ,5
0,46
0,38
239 80 ,6 2
101 32 ,6 9
20 663 ,7 4
8 73 1,19
2,1 0
1,5 7
2,0 0
1,5 0
1,5
6 , 44
0,8
1/ 3
0,32
9 40 1,74
8 10 1,34
1,5 3
1,4 6
(tests)
1,91
Input
stone
0
D
u(m /s)
1,51
9 ton
h (m )
= 45
(angle of repose)
= 2600kg/m
= 1030kg/m
= 1% (damage ratio)
Calculations
The velocity calculations are done in the preceding paragraph
Izbash :
K ( // ) =
uc
1
1
6.89
dn50 =
= 1.54m
=
2g K ( // )1.2 2*1.52*9.81 0.85*1.2
Wn50 = r d n350 = 2600*1.543 = 9556.55kg
CERC formula:
D = 1% y =1.1 (stability factor out of Figure 10.2)
rU d6
W=
3
3
48 y 6 g 3 ( r / 0 1) ( cos sin )
=
3.14* 2600*6.896
48*1.169.813 ( 2600 /1030 1) ( cos8.13 sin 8.13)
3
1/ 3
W
dn50 = 50
2600
= 5030.93kg
1/ 3
5030.93
=
2600
= 1.25m
waterdepth
crown 5m
u (m/s)
1/2
1/7
0,14
1.9
3,42
6,89
1.
2.
Table 1
8000
6000
4000
2000
469
4339
6,17
7,24
153
69,4
36,6
20,9
12,4
7,4
4,26
2,15
0
0,42
Dn-Dn_start (m )
Dn (m )
Figure 1 h=0.14m
5,23
4,41
3,68
3,02
2,44
1,91
1,41
0,93
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0,28
Dn-Dn_start (m )
Dn (m )
Figure 2 h=1m
0,4
0,38
0,36
0,34
2,59
2,41
2,23
2,05
1,88
1,71
1,55
1,39
1,22
1,06
0,32
0,9
Dn-Dn_start (m )
Dn (m )
Figure 3 h=3m
iteration Dutch formula
0,2
0,1
2,01
1,88
1,75
1,63
1,51
1,39
1,26
1,14
-0,2
1,02
-0,1
0,9
0
0,77
Dn-Dn_start (m)
0,3
-0,3
Dn (m )
Figure 4 h=4m
For very small waterdepths, h, the formula can not be iterated (no zero down crossing
occurs).For a waterdepth of h=3m, slowly the graph tends towards zero and for a waterdepth
of h=4 the formula can be iterated, a zero down crossing occurs for Dn=1.44m.
1
0,8
0,6
3,02
2,8
2,59
2,38
2,18
1,98
1,79
1,6
1,41
1,22
0,4
0,2
0
1,03
Dn-Dn_start (m )
Dn (m )
Figure 5 h=1.9m
0,15
0,1
0,05
3,18
3,01
2,85
2,7
2,54
2,39
2,25
2,1
1,96
-0,05
1,82
0
1,68
Dn-Dn_start (m )
0,2
Dn (m )
Figure 6 h=4m
Situations like these with high flow velocities in relatively thin water layers on a steep slope,
lead to such large required stone diameters that the situation exceeds the limits of the validity
of the Dutch formula.
In Figure 1 the breakwater profile as presented in the feasibility study of the Nicaragua dry
canal. For ordinary rubble the following stone weights were put forward W50=60ton and
W50/2=30ton.
Schematised
For numerical calculations of the tsunami wave hitting the breakwater, the cross-section of the
breakwater will be schematised as shown in Figure 2 The berm at the seaside slope is
removed, because of its small length (8.70m) it would require equally small distance steps to
represent this berm in the model. Also because of its small length compared to the tsunami
wave length (8.7m a few kilometres) it is believed that the effect on the behaviour of the
tsunami wave is negligible.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angremond, K.d (2001), Breakwaters and Closure Dams, Delft University Publishers,
Delft.
Abe, K. (1983), A New Scale of Tsunami Magnitude, Mt, in Tsunamis-Their Science and
Engineering, Terra Scientific Publishing Company, Tokyo.
Baptista, A.M., Priest, G.R., Murty, T.S. (1993), Field Survey of the 1992 Nicaragua
Tsunami, in Marine Geodesy, Taylor & Francis, Bristol, vol.16, pp.169-203.
Barends, F.B.J., Hannoura, A.A.A. (1981), Non-Darcy Flow, A State of the Art, in Flow
and transport in porous media; Euromech 143, Delft, spet.1981, Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp.37-51.
Bolt, B.A. (1995), Aardbevingen, Segment, Beek.
Bryant, E. (2001), TSUNAMI: The Underrated Hazard, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Camfield, E. F. (1980), Tsunami Engineering, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Fort Belvair.
Camfield, F. E. (1993), Dynamic response of structures on tsunami attack, in Tsunamis in
the World, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp133-138.
Dudley, C.D. (1998), Tsunami!, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Fernandez, M, Molina, E., Havskov, J., Atakan, K. (2000), Tsunamis and Tsunami
Hazards in Central America, in Natural Hazards, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp91-116.
Goda, Y (1985), Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures, World Scientific,
Singapore.
Goda, 1992, The Design of Upright Breakwaters, in Proceedings of the Short Course on
Design and Reliability of Coastal Structures, Instituto di Idraulica Universita di
Bologna, Bologna.
Hatori, T. (1995), Magnitude scale for the Central American tsunamis, in Tsunamis: 19921994; their generation, dynamics, and hazard, Birkhuser, Basel., pp471-479.
Hitachi, S., Kawada, M., Tsurya, H.,(1994) Experimental studies on tsunami flow and
armorblock stability for the design of a tsunami protection breakwater in
KamaischiBay, in Hydro-Port94 Vol.1, Coastal development institute of
technology, pp765-783.
Ida, K. (1981), Some Remarks on the Occurrence of Tsunamigenic Earthquakes around
the Pacific, in Tsunamis their Science and Engineering, Ida, K., Iwasaki, T., Terra
Scientific Publishing Company, Tokyo, pp61-76.
Imaura, F. et.al. (1993), Estimate of the Tsunami Source of the 1992 Nicaraguan
Earthquake from Tsunami Data, in Geophysical Research Letters, American
Geophysical Union, Washington, vol.20, no.14, pp1515-1518.
Kamel, A. M. (1970), Laboratory study for design of tsunami barrier, in Journal of the
Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division, ASCE, Reston,
pp766-779.
Kanamori, H., Kikuchi, M. (993), The 1992 Nicaraguan Earthquake a Slow Tsunami
Earthquake Associated with Subducted Sediments, in Nature, Macmillan, London,
vol.361, pp714-716.
Kimura, Y., Kondo, H., Kuwabara, S., Kawamori, A., (1996), Improvement of Composite
Breakwater on Solid Bottom against Sever Tsunamis, in Coastal Engineering 1996,
ASCE, Reston, vol.2 pp1707-1720.
Ligteringen, H. (2000), lecture notes on the course Ports and Terminals (CT4330), faculty
of Civil Engineering Technical University Delft, Delft.
Mizutani, S., Imamura, F., (2001), Dynamic wave force of tsunamis acting on a structure,
in ITS proceedings, publ.?, plaats?, pp941-948.
Murty, T. S. (1977), Seismic Sea Waves: TSUNAMIS, Department of Fisheries and the
Environment Fisheries and Marine service, Ottawa.
Satake, K. (1994), Mechanism of the 1992 Nicaragua Tsunami Earthquake, in
Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union, Washington, vol.21,
no.23, pp 2519-2522.
Satake, K. (1995), Linear and Nonlinear Computationsof the 1992 Nicaraguan Earthquake
Tsunami, in Pure and Applied Geophysics, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel, vol.144,
pp. 455-469.
Satake, K. (2002), Tsunamis, in International handbook of Earthquake and Engineering
Seismology, International Association of Seismology & Seismology and Physics of
the Earth's Interior, Committee on Education, and International Association for
Earthquake Engineering, Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp436-451.
Schiereck, G.J. (2001), Introduction to Bed Bank and Shore Protection, Delft University
Publishers, Delft.
Shuto, N (1993), Tsunami intensity and disasters, in Tsunamis in the world, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp197-216.
Soloviev, S.L. (1970), Recurrence of tsunamis in the Pacific, in Tsunamis in the Pacific
Ocean, East-West Center Press, Honolulu, pp.149-164.
Stelling, G., Zijlema, M. (2003), An Accurate and Efficient Finite-difference Algorithm
for Non-hydrostatic Free Surface Flow with Application to Wave Propagation, in the
International Journal for Nummerical methods in Fluids, John Wiley & Sons, Bognor
Regis, vol.43, pp1-23.
Synolaksis, C. (2003), Tsunami and Seiche, in The Earthquake Engineering Handbook,
Chen, W.F., Scawthorn, C, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp.9.1-9.89
Tanimoto, K. (1983), On the hydraulic aspects of tsunami breakwaters in Japan, in
Tsunamis their science and engineering , Terra Scientific Publisching Company,
Tokyo, pp423-435.