Advertisement

Tsunami hazard assessment in the Hudson River Estuary based on dynamic tsunami–tide simulations

  • Michael Shelby
  • Stéphan T. Grilli
  • Annette R. Grilli
Chapter
Part of the Pageoph Topical Volumes book series (PTV)

Abstract

This work is part of a tsunami inundation mapping activity carried out along the US East Coast since 2010, under the auspice of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation program (NTHMP). The US East Coast features two main estuaries with significant tidal forcing, which are bordered by numerous critical facilities (power plants, major harbors,...) as well as densely built low-level areas: Chesapeake Bay and the Hudson River Estuary (HRE). HRE is the object of this work, with specific focus on assessing tsunami hazard in Manhattan, the Hudson and East River areas. In the NTHMP work, inundation maps are computed as envelopes of maximum surface elevation along the coast and inland, by simulating the impact of selected probable maximum tsunamis (PMT) in the Atlantic ocean margin and basin. At present, such simulations assume a static reference level near shore equal to the local mean high water (MHW) level. Here, instead we simulate maximum inundation in the HRE resulting from dynamic interactions between the incident PMTs and a tide, which is calibrated to achieve MHW at its maximum level. To identify conditions leading to maximum tsunami inundation, each PMT is simulated for four different phases of the tide and results are compared to those obtained for a static reference level. We first separately simulate the tide and the three PMTs that were found to be most significant for the HRE. These are caused by: (1) a flank collapse of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano (CVV) in the Canary Islands (with a 80 km3 volume representing the most likely extreme scenario); (2) an M9 coseismic source in the Puerto Rico Trench (PRT); and (3) a large submarine mass failure (SMF) in the Hudson River canyon of parameters similar to the 165 km3 historical Currituck slide, which is used as a local proxy for the maximum possible SMF. Simulations are performed with the nonlinear and dispersive long wave model FUNWAVE-TVD, in a series of nested grids of increasing resolution towards the coast, by one-way coupling. Four levels of nested grids are used, from a 1 arc-min spherical coordinate grid in the deep ocean down to a 39-m Cartesian grid in the HRE. Bottom friction coefficients in the finer grids are calibrated for the tide to achieve the local spatially averaged MHW level at high tide in the HRE. Combined tsunami–tide simulations are then performed for four phases of the tide corresponding to each tsunami arriving at Sandy Hook (NJ): 1.5 h ahead, concurrent with, 1.5 h after, and 3 h after the local high tide. These simulations are forced along the offshore boundary of the third-level grid by linearly superposing time series of surface elevation and horizontal currents of the calibrated tide and each tsunami wave train; this is done in deep enough water for a linear superposition to be accurate. Combined tsunami–tide simulations are then performed with FUNWAVE-TVD in this and the finest nested grids. Results show that, for the 3 PMTs, depending on the tide phase, the dynamic simulations lead to no or to a slightly increased inundation in the HRE (by up to 0.15 m depending on location), and to larger currents than for the simulations over a static level; the CRT SMF proxy tsunami is the PMT leading to maximum inundation in the HRE. For all tide phases, nonlinear interactions between tide and tsunami currents modify the elevation, current, and celerity of tsunami wave trains, mostly in the shallower water areas of the HRE where bottom friction dominates, as compared to a linear superposition of wave elevations and currents. We note that, while dynamic simulations predict a slight increase in inundation, this increase may be on the same order as, or even less than sources of uncertainty in the modeling of tsunami sources, such as their initial water elevation, and in bottom friction and bathymetry used in tsunami grids. Nevertheless, results in this paper provide insight into the magnitude and spatial variability of tsunami propagation and impact in the complex inland waterways surrounding New York City, and of their modification by dynamic tidal effects. We conclude that changes in inundation resulting from the inclusion of a dynamic tide in the specific case of the HRE, although of scientific interest, are not significant for tsunami hazard assessment and that the standard approach of specifying a static reference level equal to MHW is conservative. However, in other estuaries with similarly complex bathymetry/topography and stronger tidal currents, a simplified static approach might not be appropriate.

Keywords

Federal Emergency Management Agency Tsunami Hazard Tsunami Source Tsunami Inundation Tide Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding for this work, provided by Grants #NA14NWS4670041 and #NA15NWS4670029 of the U.S. National Tsunami Hazards Mitigation Program (NTHMP).

Supplementary material

978-3-319-55480-8_17_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (4.3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (MP4 4400 kb)
978-3-319-55480-8_17_MOESM2_ESM.mp4 (9.9 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (MP4 10114 kb)
978-3-319-55480-8_17_MOESM3_ESM.mp4 (5.2 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (MP4 5301 kb)

References

  1. 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(CH03050), doi: 10.1029/2011JC007646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barkan R, ten Brink US, Lin J (2009) Far field tsunami simulations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake: Implication for tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast and the Caribbean. Marine Geology 264(1–2):109–122, doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2008.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dean RG, Dalrymple RA (1991) Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists, Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering, vol 4. Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  4. FEMA (2014) Region II Storm Surge Project - Coastal Terrain Processing Methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, 500 C Street, SW Washington DC, 20472Google Scholar
  5. Geist E, Lynett P, Chaytor J (2009) Hydrodynamic modeling of tsunamis from the Currituck landslide. Marine Geology 264:41–52, doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2008.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gica E, Spillane MC, Titov VV, Chamberlin CD, Newman J (2008) Development of the forecast propagation database for NOAA’s short-term inundation forecast for tsunamis. NOAA tech. memo., National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, OAR PMEL-139Google Scholar
  7. Grilli AR, Grilli ST (2013a) Modeling of tsunami generation, propagation and regional impact along the U.S. East Coast from the Azores Convergence Zone. URL http://personal.egr.uri.edu/grilli//grilli-grilli-cacr-13-04, research Report no. CACR-13-04, 20 pps
  8. Grilli AR, Grilli ST (2013b) Modeling of tsunami generation, propagation and regional impact along the upper U.S East Coast from the Puerto Rico trench. URL http://personal.egr.uri.edu/grilli//grilli-grilli-cacr-13-02
  9. 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. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 133(6):414–428, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE0733-950X)2007133:6(414)
  10. Grilli ST, Taylor ODS, Baxter CDP, Maretzki S (2009) Probabilistic approach for determining submarine landslide tsunami hazard along the upper East Coast of the United States. Marine Geology 264(1–2):74–97, doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2009.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grilli ST, Dubosq S, Pophet N, Pérignon Y, Kirby JT, Shi F (2010) 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. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 10:2109–2125, doi: 10.5194/nhess-2109-2010
  12. Grilli ST, Harris JC, Tajalli-Bakhsh TS, Masterlark TL, Kyriakopoulos C, Kirby JT, Shi F (2013) Numerical simulation of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami based on a new transient FEM co-seismic source: Comparison to far- and near-field observations. Pure and Applied Geophysics 170:1333–1359, doi: 10.1007/s00024-012-0528-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grilli ST, Grilli AR, Tehranirad B, Kirby JT (2015a) Modeling tsunami sources and their propagation in the Atlantic Ocean for coastal tsunami hazard assessment and inundation mapping along the US East Coast. In: Proc. 2015 COPRI Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conf. (Boston, USA. September 9-11, 2015, American Soc. Civil Eng., p 12. URL http://personal.egr.uri.edu/grilli/COPRI15_sgrilli.pdf
  14. Grilli ST, O’Reilly C, Harris JC, Tajalli-Bakhsh T, Tehranirad B, Banihashemi S, Kirby JT, Baxter CD, Eggeling T, Ma G, Shi F (2015b) Modeling of SMF tsunami hazard along the upper US East Coast: Detailed impact around Ocean City, MD. Natural Hazards 76(2):705–746, doi: 10.1007/s11069-014-1522-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ioualalen M, Asavanant J, Kaewbanjak N, Grilli ST, Kirby JT, Watts P (2007) Modeling the 26th December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: Case study of impact in Thailand. J Geophys Res 112:C07,024, doi: 10.1029/2006JC003850
  16. 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 Modelling 62:39–55, doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2012.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kowalik Z, Proshutinsky A (2010) Tsunami-tide interactions: A Cook Inlet case study. Continental Shelf Research 30(6):633–642, doi: 10.1016/j.csr.2009.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kowalik Z, Proshutinsky T, Proshutinsky A (2006) Tide–tsunami interactions. Science of Tsunami Hazards 24(4):242–256Google Scholar
  19. Ma G, Shi F, Kirby JT (2012) Shock-capturing non-hydrostatic model for fully dispersive surface wave processes. Ocean Modelling 4344:22–35, doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakada S, Hayashi M, Koshimura S, Yoneda S, Kobayashi E (2015) Tsunami simulation generated by the greatest earthquake scenario along the Nankai Trough under consideration of tidal currents in a large bay. In: Proc. 25th Intl Ocean and Polar Engng Conf (iSOPE25, Hawaii, HI, June 2015), International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, pp 811–816Google Scholar
  21. NOAA-NGDC (2013) National geophysical data center, U.S. coastal relief mode. URL http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html, retrieved December 2013
  22. Okada Y (1985) Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half space. Bull Seismol Soc America 75(4):1135–1154Google Scholar
  23. 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 Modelling 4344:36–51, doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shi F, Kirby JT, Tehranirad B (2012b) Tsunami benchmark results for spherical coordinate version of FUNWAVE-TVD (version 1.1). Tech. rep., Center for Applied Coastal Research, Univ. of Delaware, research Report no. CACR-12-02Google Scholar
  25. Stammer D, Ray RD, Andersen OB, Arbic BK, Bosch W, Carrere L, Cheng Y, Chinn DS, Dushaw BD, Egbert GD, Erofeeva SY, Fok HS, Green JAM, Griffiths S, King MA, Lapin V, Lemoine FG, Luthcke SB, Lyard F, Morison J, Muller M, Padman L, Richman JG, Shriver JF, Shum CK, Taguchi E, Yi T (2014) Accuracy assessment of global barotropic ocean tide models. Reviews of Geophysics 52(3):243–282, doi: 10.1002/2014RG000450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tajalli-Bakhsh TS, Grilli ST, Grilli AR (2014) Dynamic tide effects on tsunami coastal hazard in large estuaries: Case of the Chesapeake Bay/James River, USA. Tech. rep., Center for Applied Coastal Research, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, URL http://personal.egr.uri.edu/grilli//Tajelli-etal-cacr-15-09.pdf, research Report no. CACR-15-09, 42 pps
  27. 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. Tech. rep., Center for Applied Coastal Research, University of Delaware, research Report No. CACR-11-02Google Scholar
  28. Tehranirad B, Banihashemi S, Kirby JT, Callahan JA, Shi F (2014) Tsunami inundation mapping for Ocean City, MD NGDC DEM. Tech. rep., Center for Applied Coastal Research, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, research Report No. CACR-14-04Google Scholar
  29. Tehranirad B, Harris JC, Grilli AR, Grilli ST, Abadie S, Kirby JT, Shi F (2015) Far-field tsunami hazard in the North Atlantic basin from large scale flank collapses of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano, La Palma. Pure Appl Geophys 172(12):3589–3616. doi: 10.1007/s00024-015-1135-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ten Brink US, Twichell D, Geist E, Chaytor JD, Locat J, Lee H, Buczkowski B, Barkan R, Solow A, Andrews BD, 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. Tech. rep., USGS Administrative report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 300 ppsGoogle Scholar
  31. ten Brink US, Chaytor JD, Geist EL, Brothers DS, Andrews BD (2014) Assessment of tsunami hazard to the US Atlantic margin. Marine Geology 353:31–54, doi: 10.1016/j.margeo.2014.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tolkova E (2013) Tide-tsunami interaction in the Columbia River, as implied by historical data and numerical simulations. Pure and Applied Geophysics 170(6–8):1115–1126, doi: 10.1007/s00024-012-0518-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tolkova E, Tanaka H, Roh M (2015) Tsunami observations in rivers from a perspective of tsunami interaction with tide and riverine flow. Pure and Applied Geophysics 172(3–4):953–968, doi: 10.1007/s00024-014-1017-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. USGS (2010) Estimates of monthly and annual net discharge, in cubic feet per second, of Hudson River at New York, N.Y. (mouth). URL http://ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/dialer_plots/Hudson_R_at_NYC_Freshwater_Discharge.htm, U.S. Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey
  35. Ward SN, Day S (2001) Cumbre Vieja Volcano potential collapse at La Palma, Canary Islands. Geophysical Research Letter 28(17):3397–3400, doi: 10.1029/2001GL013110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wei G, Kirby JT, Grilli ST, Subramanya R (1995) A fully nonlinear Boussinesq model for free surface waves. part i: Highly nonlinear unsteady waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 294:71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yeh H, Tolkova E, Jay D, Talke S, Fritz H (2012) Tsunami hydrodynamics in the Columbia River. J Disaster Res 7(5):604–608. doi: 10.1007/s00024-012-0489-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang YL, Witter RC, Priest GR (2011) Tsunami–tide interaction in 1964 Prince Williams Sound tsunami. Ocean Modelling 40(3–4):246–259. doi: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2011.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Shelby
    • 1
  • Stéphan T. Grilli
    • 1
  • Annette R. Grilli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ocean EngineeringUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA

Personalised recommendations