Most of the links to simulation results still work.
We need better bathymetry and topography near Japan to better resolve effects near the coast. 500m bathymetry provided by Barry Eakins is posted on the bathymetry wiki page. We are stil working on processing this data into the form we can use, but this is still insufficient resolution for modeling inundation or comparing against near-shore tide gauges.
Any help in obtaining better data would be appreciated.
These are preliminary results obtained with GeoClaw, not yet fully validated.
We will try to make codes available that are used for these simulations in hopes they will be useful to others, but this is on-going work and may have flaws so use at your own risk. If you obtain results that you would like to contribute, or find errors in codes, please contact Randy LeVeque.
For links to documentation and some preprints of recent papers on the algorithms uses, please see the GeoClaw website.
The codes used will appear in the tsunami-benchmarks Subversion repository. You can obtain the current state of many of these codes via
svn checkout http://kingkong.amath.washington.edu/svn/tsunami-benchmarks
subdirectory contains GeoClaw codes, and
contains some general data manipulation tools, currently only some Python
tools adapted from GeoClaw. These need to be cleaned up further.
We are collecting more data, to be posted on the wiki and/or in honshu
Contributions of other tools or data most welcome!
Run times are reported below for some computations, and refer to time on a single processor of either a desktop or MacBook. The more recent ones with -O3 optimization, some of the earlier runs were without optimization and should have run more quickly.
Posted 20 March 2011:
Posted 19 March 2011:
Posted 18 March 2011:
Some new plots (resolution refers to finest grids on AMR level 4):
1-minute vs. 2-minute shortly after quake ... 1-minute vs. 2-minute at DART 21413
4-minute vs. 2-minute shortly after quake ... 4-minute vs. 2-minute at DART 21413
Posted 16 March 2011:
The results look virtually the same. This indicates that the solution is essentially converged. The fact that the simulated tide gauges do not agree exactly with the actual DART data is due to a combination of various factors, such as:
Posted 14 March 2011:
Posted 13 March 2011:
Our first attempt at modeling a tide gauge on the coast of Japan gives curious results. The gauge is at 43.28N 145.57E on the eastern tip of Hokkaido. The Tide gauge record shows the first three waves arising at times that are about double those shown by the GeoClaw gauge. This may be due to lack of resolution of the bathymetry in this region. This Google Earth image shows that the region is very shallow and there is an island in the way of the tsunami that does not show up on the 1-minute bathymetry used. The current GeoClaw results may be totally spurious.
Posted 12 March 2011:
A preliminary comparison of the tsunami generated by by the USGS and UCSB sources listed below.
DART buoy 21413 comparsion
Posted 11 March 2011:
Calculated with USGS source: