Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 705–746 | Cite as

Modeling of SMF tsunami hazard along the upper US East Coast: detailed impact around Ocean City, MD

  • Stephan T. Grilli
  • Christopher O’Reilly
  • Jeffrey C. Harris
  • Tayebeh Tajalli Bakhsh
  • Babak Tehranirad
  • Saeideh Banihashemi
  • James T. Kirby
  • Christopher D. P. Baxter
  • Tamara Eggeling
  • Gangfeng Ma
  • Fengyan Shi
Original Paper

Abstract

With support from the US National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP), the authors have been developing tsunami inundation maps for the upper US East Coast (USEC), using high-resolution numerical modeling. These maps are envelopes of maximum elevations, velocity, or momentum flux, caused by the probable maximum tsunamis identified in the Atlantic oceanic basin, including from far-field coseismic or volcanic sources, and near-field Submarine mass failures (SMFs); the latter are the object of this work. Despite clear field evidence of past large-scale SMFs within our area of interest, such as the Currituck slide complex, their magnitude, pre-failed geometry, volume, and mode of rupture are poorly known. A screening analysis based on the Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) identified areas for possible tsunamigenic SMF sources along the USEC, indicating an increased level of tsunami hazard north of Virginia, potentially surpassing the inundation generated by a typical 100-year hurricane storm surge in the region, as well as that from the most extreme far-field coseismic sources in the Atlantic; to the south, the MCS indicated that SMF tsunami hazard significantly decreased. Subsequent geotechnical and geological analyses delimited four high-risk areas along the upper USEC where the potential for large tsunamigenic SMFs, identified in the MCS, was realistic on the basis of field data (i.e., sediment nature and volume/availability). In the absence of accurate site-specific field data, following NTHMP’s recommendation, for the purpose of simulating tsunami hazard from SMF PMTs, we parameterized an extreme SMF source in each of the four areas as a so-called Currituck proxy, i.e., a SMF having the same volume, dimensions, and geometry as the historical SMF. In this paper, after briefly describing our state-of-the-art SMF tsunami modeling methodology, in a second part, we parameterize and model the historical Currituck event, including: (1) a new reconstruction of the SMF geometry and kinematics; (2) the simulation of the resulting tsunami source generation; and (3) the propagation of the tsunami source over the shelf to the coastline, in a series of nested grids. A sensitivity analysis to model and grid parameters is performed on this case, to ensure convergence and accuracy of tsunami simulation results. Then, we model in greater detail and discuss the impact of the historical Currituck tsunami event along the nearest coastline where its energy was focused, off of Virginia Beach and Norfolk, as well as near the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay; our results are in qualitative agreement with an earlier modeling study. In a third part, following the same methodology, we model tsunami generation and propagation for SMF Currituck proxy sources sited in the four identified areas of the USEC. Finally, as an illustration of our SMF tsunami hazard assessment work, we present detailed tsunami inundation maps, as well as some other products, for one of the most impacted and vulnerable areas, near and around Ocean City, MD. We find that coastal inundation from near-field SMF tsunamis may be comparable to that caused by the largest far-field sources. Because of their short propagation time and, hence, warning times, SMF tsunamis may pose one of the highest coastal hazards for many highly populated and vulnerable communities along the upper USEC, certainly comparable to that from extreme hurricanes.

Keywords

Tsunami hazard assessment Coastal hazard Submarine mass failure Numerical modeling of long wave propagation Seismic hazard 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP), NOAA, through grant NA10NWS4670010 to the University of Delaware (with subaward to the University of Rhode Island). Additional support at the University of Rhode Island came from grant EAR-09-11499 from the US National Science Foundation, Geophysics Program. Development of the numerical models used in this study was supported by the Office of Naval Research, Littoral Geosciences and Optics program. S. Banihashemi was supported by the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Delaware.

References

  1. Abadie S, Morichon D, Grilli ST, Glockner S (2010) Numerical simulation of waves generated by landslides using a multiple-fluid Navier–Stokes model. Coast Eng 57:779–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abadie S, Harris JC, Grilli ST, Fabre R (2012) Numerical modeling of tsunami waves generated by the flank collapse of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano (La Palma, Canary Islands): tsunami source and near field effects. J Geophys Res 117:C05030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amante C, BW Eakins (2009) ETOPO-1 1 arc-minute global relief model: procedures, data sources and analysis. NOAA Tech. Mem. NESDIS NGDC-24Google Scholar
  4. Barkan R, ten Brick US, Lin J (2009) Far field tsunami simulations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake: implication for tsunami hazard to the US East Coast and the Caribbean. Mar Geol 264:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunn AR, McGregor BA (1980) Morphology of the North Carolina continental slope, Western North Atlantic, shaped by deltaic sedimentation and slumping. Mar Geol 37:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaytor J, ten Brink US, Solow J, Andrews BD (2009) Size distribution of submarine landslides along the U.S. Atlantic Margin. Mar Geol 264:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eggeling T (2012) Analysis of earthquake triggered submarine landslides at four locations along the U.S. east coast. Masters Thesis. University of Rhode IslandGoogle Scholar
  8. Enet F, Grilli ST (2007) Experimental study of tsunami generation by three-dimensional rigid underwater landslides. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 133(6):442–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fine IV, Rabinovich AB, Bornhold BD, Thomson R, Kulikov EA (2005) The Grand Banks landslide-generated tsunami of November 18, 1929: preliminary analysis and numerical modeling. Mar Geol 215:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geist E, Lynett P, Chaytor J (2009) Hydrodynamic modeling of tsunamis from the Currituck landslide. Mar Geol 264:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grilli ST, Watts P (1999) Modeling of waves generated by a moving submerged body. Applications to underwater landslides. Eng Anal Bound Elem 23:645–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grilli ST, Vogelmann S, Watts P (2002) Development of a 3D Numerical Wave Tank for modeling tsunami generation by underwater landslides. Eng Anal Bound Elem 26(4):301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grilli ST, Watts P (2005) Tsunami generation by submarine mass failure, I: modeling, experimental validation, and sensitivity analyses. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 131(6):283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grilli ST, Ioualalen M, Asavanant J, Shi F, Kirby JT, Watts P (2007) Source constraints and model simulation of the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 133:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grilli ST, Taylor O-DS, Baxter CDP, Maretzki S (2009) Probabilistic approach for determining submarine landslide tsunami hazard along the upper East Coast of the United States. Mar Geol 264(1–2):74–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grilli ST, Dias F, Guyenne P, Fochesato C, Enet F (2010a) Progress in fully nonlinear potential flow modeling of 3D extreme ocean waves, Chapt 3. In: Ma QW (ed) Advances in numerical simulation of nonlinear water waves, vol 11 in Series in Advances in Coastal and Ocean Engineering). World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., pp 75–128, ISBN: 978-981-283-649-6Google Scholar
  17. Grilli ST, Dubosq S, Pophet N, Pérignon Y, Kirby JT, Shi F (2010b) Numerical simulation and first-order hazard analysis of large co-seismic tsunamis generated in the Puerto Rico trench: near-field impact on the north shore of Puerto Rico and far-field impact on the US East Coast. Nat Hazard Earth Syst Sci 10:2109–2125. doi: 10.5194/nhess-2109-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grilli ST, Harris J, Tajalli Bakhsh TS (2011) Literature Review of Tsunami Sources Affecting Tsunami Hazard Along the US East Coast. NTHMP Progress report, Res Rept CACR-11-08, Center for Applied Coastal Research, University of Delaware, Newark. http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/papers/grilli-etal-cacr-11-08.pdf
  19. Grilli ST, Harris J, Shi F, Kirby JT, Tajalli Bakhsh TS, Estibals E, Tehranirad B (2013a) Numerical modeling of coastal tsunami dissipation and impact. In: Lynett P, Mc Kee Smith J (eds) Proceedings of 33rd International Coast Engineering Conference (ICCE12, Santander, Spain, July, 2012), World Sci Pub Co Pte LtdGoogle Scholar
  20. Grilli ST, Harris JC, Tajalli Bakhsh TS, Masterlark TL, Kyriakopoulos C, Kirby JT, Shi F (2013b) Numerical simulation of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami based on a new transient FEM co-seismic source: comparison to far- and near-field observations. Pure Appl Geophys 170:1333–1359. doi: 10.1007/s00024-012-0528-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grothe PR, Taylor LA, Eakins BW, Warnken RR, Carignan KS, Lim E, Caldwell RJ, Friday DZ (2010) Digital elevation model of Ocean City, Maryland: procedures, data sources and analysis. NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-37Google Scholar
  22. Harris JC, Grilli ST, Abadie S, Tajalli Bakhsh TS (2012) Near- and far-field tsunami hazard from the potential flank collapse of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano. In: Proceedings of 22nd Offshore Polar Engineering Conference (ISOPE12, Rodos, Greece, June 17-22, 2012), International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, pp 242–249Google Scholar
  23. Ioualalen M, Asavanant JA, Kaewbanjak N, Grilli ST, Kirby JT, Watts P (2007) Modeling of the 26th December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: case study of impact in Thailand. J Geophys Res 112:C07024. doi: 10.1029/2006JC003850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirby JT, Shi F, Tehranirad B, Harris JC, Grilli ST (2013) Dispersive tsunami waves in the ocean: model equations and sensitivity to dispersion and Coriolis effects. Ocean Model 62:39–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krauss T (2011) Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for the United States East Coast. Masters Thesis. University of Rhode Island. http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/nthmp/krause-ms-uri11.pdf
  26. Locat J, Lee H, ten Brink US, Twichell D, Geist E, Sansoucy M (2009) Geomorphology, stability and mobility of the Currituck slide. Mar Geol 264:28–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynett P, Liu PL-F (2002) A numerical study of submarine landslide generated waves and runup. Proc R Soc Lond A458:2885–2910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynett P, Liu PL-F (2005) A numerical study of the run-up generated by three-dimensional landslides. J Geophys Res 110:C03006. doi: 10.1029/2004JC002443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma G, Shi F, Kirby JT (2012) Shock-capturing non-hydrostatic model for fully dispersive surface wave processes. Ocean Model 43–44:22–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ma G, Kirby JT, Shi F (2013) Numerical simulation of tsunami waves generated by deformable submarine landslides. Ocean Model 69:146–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park H, Cox DT, Lynett PJ, Wiebe DM, Shin S (2013) Tsunami inundation modeling in constructed environments: a physical and numerical comparison of free-surface elevation, velocity, and momentum flux. Coast Eng 79:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piper DJW, Cochonat P, Morrison ML (1999) The sequence of events around the epicentre of the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake: initiation of the debris flows and turbidity current inferred from side scan sonar. Sedimentology 46:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prior DP, Doyle EH, Neurauter T (1986) The Currituck Slide, Mid Atlantic continental slope-revisited. Mar Geol 73:25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schnyder JSD, Kirby JT, Shi F, Tehranirad B, Eberli GP, Mulder T, Ducassou E (2013) Potential for tsunami generation along the western Great Bahama Bank by submarine slope failures. Abstract NH41A-1689, AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  35. Shi F, Kirby JT, Harris JC, Geiman JD, Grilli ST (2012) A high-order adaptive time-stepping TVD solver for Boussinesq modeling of breaking waves and coastal inundation. Ocean Model 43–44:36–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tappin DR, Watts P, Grilli ST (2008) The Papua New Guinea tsunami of 1998: anatomy of a catastrophic event. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tehranirad B, Shi F, Kirby JT, Harris JC, Grilli ST (2011) Tsunami benchmark results for fully nonlinear Boussinesq wave model FUNWAVE-TVD, Version 1.0. Research Report No. CACR-11-02, Center for Applied Coastal Research Univ of Delaware, NewarkGoogle Scholar
  38. Tehranirad B, Kirby JT, Ma G, Shi F (2012) Tsunami benchmark results for non-hydrostatic wave model NHWAVE (Version 1.0). Research Report No. CACR-12-03.Center for Applied Coastal Research Univ of Delaware, NewarkGoogle Scholar
  39. ten Brink US, Twichell D, Geist E, Chaytor J, Locat J, Lee H, Buczkowski B, Barkan R, Solow A, Andrews B, Parsons T, Lynett P, Lin J, Sansoucy M (2008) Evaluation of tsunami sources with the potential to impact the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. USGSGoogle Scholar
  40. ten Brink US, Lee HJ, Geist EL, Twichell D (2009a) Assessment of tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast using relationships between submarine landslides and earthquakes. Mar Geol 264:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. ten Brink US, Barkan R, Andrews BD, Chaytor JD (2009b) Size distributions and failure initiation of submarine and subaerial landslides. Earth Planet Sci Lett 287:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Twichell DC, Chaytor JB, ten Brink US, Buczkowski B (2009) Morphology of late quaternary submarine landslides along the U.S. Atlantic Continental Margin. Mar Geol 264:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Watts P, Grilli ST, Kirby JT, Fryer GJ, Tappin DR (2003) Landslide tsunami case studies using a Boussinesq model and a fully nonlinear tsunami generation model. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3:391–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watts P, Grilli ST, Tappin DR, Fryer G (2005) Tsunami generation by submarine mass failure, II: predictive equations and case studies. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 131(6):298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yeh H, Robertson I, Preuss J (2005) Development of design guidelines for structures that serve as tsunami vertical evacuation sites. Open File Rept. 2005-4, Washington Division of Geology and earth ResourcesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan T. Grilli
    • 1
  • Christopher O’Reilly
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jeffrey C. Harris
    • 1
    • 5
  • Tayebeh Tajalli Bakhsh
    • 1
  • Babak Tehranirad
    • 2
  • Saeideh Banihashemi
    • 2
  • James T. Kirby
    • 2
  • Christopher D. P. Baxter
    • 1
  • Tamara Eggeling
    • 1
    • 6
  • Gangfeng Ma
    • 3
  • Fengyan Shi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ocean EngineeringUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Center for Applied Coastal ResearchUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  4. 4.Navatek Ltd.South KingstownUSA
  5. 5.Saint-Venant Laboratory for HydraulicsUniversité Paris-EstChatouFrance
  6. 6.Delta Marine ConsultantsGoudaThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations