Advertisement

Performance Comparison of NAMI DANCE and FLOW-3D® Models in Tsunami Propagation, Inundation and Currents using NTHMP Benchmark Problems

Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Field observations provide valuable data regarding nearshore tsunami impact, yet only in inundation areas where tsunami waves have already flooded. Therefore, tsunami modeling is essential to understand tsunami behavior and prepare for tsunami inundation. It is necessary that all numerical models used in tsunami emergency planning be subject to benchmark tests for validation and verification. This study focuses on two numerical codes, NAMI DANCE and FLOW-3D®, for validation and performance comparison. NAMI DANCE is an in-house tsunami numerical model developed by the Ocean Engineering Research Center of Middle East Technical University, Turkey and Laboratory of Special Research Bureau for Automation of Marine Research, Russia. FLOW-3D® is a general purpose computational fluid dynamics software, which was developed by scientists who pioneered in the design of the Volume-of-Fluid technique. The codes are validated and their performances are compared via analytical, experimental and field benchmark problems, which are documented in the ‘‘Proceedings and Results of the 2011 National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) Model Benchmarking Workshop’’ and the ‘‘Proceedings and Results of the NTHMP 2015 Tsunami Current Modeling Workshop”. The variations between the numerical solutions of these two models are evaluated through statistical error analysis.

Keywords

Tsunami depth-averaged shallow water Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes benchmarking NAMI DANCE FLOW-3D® 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Andrey Zaytsev due to his undeniable contributions to the development of in-house numerical model, NAMI DANCE. The Turkish branch of Flow Science, Inc. is also acknowledged. Finally, the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP), who provided most of the benchmark data, is appreciated. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allan, J. C., Komar, P. D., Ruggiero, P., & Witter, R. (2012). The March 2011 Tohoku tsunami and its impacts along the U.S. West Coast. Journal of Coastal Research, 28(5), 1142–1153.  https://doi.org/10.2112/jcoastres-d-11-00115.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apotsos, A., Buckley, M., Gelfenbaum, G., Jafe, B., & Vatvani, D. (2011). Nearshore tsunami inundation and sediment transport modeling: towards model validation and application. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168(11), 2097–2119.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-011-0291-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barberopoulou, A., Legg, M. R., & Gica, E. (2015). Time evolution of man-made harbor modifications in San Diego: effects on Tsunamis. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 3, 1382–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basu, D., Green, S., Das, K., Janetzke, R. and Stamatakos, J. (2009). Numerical Simulation of Surface Waves Generated by a Subaerial Landslide at Lituya Bay, Alaska. Proceedings of 28th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, M. J., Synolakis, C. E., Harkins, G. S., & Green, D. R. (1995). Laboratory experiments of tsunami run-up on a circular island. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 144(3/4), 569–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung, K. F., Bai, Y., & Yamazaki, Y. (2013). Surges around the Hawaiian Islands from the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 118, 5703–5719.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20413.Google Scholar
  7. Choi, B. H., Dong, C. K., Pelinovsky, E., & Woo, S. B. (2007). Three-dimensional Simulation of Tsunami Run-up Around Conical Island. Coastal Engineering, 54, 618–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, D., T. Tomita, P. Lynett, R.A., Holman. (2008). Tsunami Inundation with Macroroughness in the Constructed Environment. Proceedings of 31st International Conference on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, pp. 1421–1432.Google Scholar
  9. Flow Science. (2002). FLOW-3D User’s Manual.Google Scholar
  10. Hirt, C. W., & Nichols, B. D. (1981). Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries. Journal of Computational Physics, 39, 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horrillo, J., Grilli, S. T., Nicolsky, D., Roeber, V., & Zang, J. (2015). Performance benchmarking Tsunami models for NTHMP’s inundation mapping activities. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 172, 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, K. O., Kim, D. C., Choi, B.-H., Jung, T. K., Yuk, J. H., & Pelinovsky, E. (2015). The role of diffraction effects in extreme run-up inundation at Okushiri Island due to 1993 Tsunami. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 15, 747–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu, P. L.-F. (1994). Model equations for wave propagations from deep to shallow water. (P.-F. Liu, Ed.) Advances in Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 1, 125–158.Google Scholar
  14. Liu, P. L.-F., Yeh, H., & Synolakis, C. E. (2008). Advanced numerical models for simulating Tsunami waves and run-up. Advances in Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 10, 344.Google Scholar
  15. Lynett, P. J., Borrero, J., Son, S., Wilson, R., & Miller, K. (2014). Assessment of the tsunami-induced current hazard. Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 2048–2055.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lynett, P. J., Gately, K., Wilson, R., Montoya, L., Arcas, D., Aytore, B., et al. (2017). Inter-model analysis of Tsunami-induced coastal currents. Ocean Modelling, 114, 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynett, P. J., Wu, T.-R., & Liu, P. L.-F. (2002). Modeling wave run-up with depth-integrated equations. Coastal Engineering, 46(2), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Macias, J., Castro, M. J., Ortega, S., Escalante, C., & Gonzalez-Vida, J. M. (2017). Performance benchmarking of Tsunami-HySEA model for nthmp’s inundation mapping activities. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 174, 3147–3183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matsuyama, M., & Tanaka, H. (2001). An experimental study of the highest run-up height in the 1993 Hokkaidō Nansei-Oki Earthquake Tsunami. Proceedings of ITS, 2001, 879–889.Google Scholar
  20. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. 2012. Proceedings and Results of the 2011 NTHMP Model Benchmarking Workshop. Boulder: U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA/NTHMP; (NOAA Special Report). p. 436.Google Scholar
  21. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program. (2017). Proceedings and Results of the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program 2015 Tsunami Current Modeling Workshop, February 9-10, 2015, Portland, Oregon: compiled by Patrick Lynett and Rick Wilson, p 194.Google Scholar
  22. Necmioglu, O., & Ozel, N. M. (2014). An earthquake source sensitivity analysis for Tsunami propagation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oceanography, 27(2), 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nichols, B.D. and Hirt, C.W. (1975). Methods for Calculating Multi-Dimensional, Transient Free Surface Flows Past Bodies. Proceedings of 1st International Conference Num. Ship Hydrodynamics. Gaithersburg.Google Scholar
  24. Nicolsky, D. J., Suleimani, E. N., & Hansen, R. A. (2011). Validation and verification of a numerical model for Tsunami propagation and run-up. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 168(6), 1199–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. NOAA Center for Tsunami Research: Tsunami Run-up onto a Complex Three-dimensional Beach; Monai Valley. (n.d). Retrieved from: https://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/benchmark/Laboratory/Laboratory_MonaiValley/.
  26. Park, H., Cox, D. T., Lynett, P. J., Wiebe, D. M., & Shin, S. (2013). Tsunami inundation modeling in constructed environments: a physical and numerical comparison of free-surface elevation, velocity, and momentum flux. Coastal Engineering, 79, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patel, V. M., Dholakia, M. B., & Singh, A. P. (2016). Emergency preparedness in the case of Makran Tsunami: a case study on Tsunami risk visualization for the Western Parts of Gujarat, India. Geomatics Natural Hazard and Risk, 7(2), 826–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pelinovsky, E., Kim, D.-C., Kim, K.-O., & Choi, B.-H. (2013). Three-dimensional simulation of extreme run-up heights during the 2004 Indonesian and 2011 Japanese Tsunamis. Vienna: EGU General Assembly.Google Scholar
  29. Rueben, M., Holman, R., Cox, D., Shin, S., Killian, J., & Stanley, J. (2011). Optical measurements of Tsunami inundation through an urban waterfront modeled in a large-scale laboratory basin. Coastal Engineering, 58, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shuto, N. (1991). Numerical simulation of Tsunamis—its present and near future. Natural Hazards, 4, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Synolakis, C. E. (1986). The run-up of long waves. Ph.D. Thesis. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.Google Scholar
  32. Synolakis, C. E., Bernard, E. N., Titov, V. V., Kanoglu, U. & Gonzalez, F. (2007). Standards, criteria, and procedures for NOAA evaluation of Tsunami Numerical Models. 55 p. Seattle, Washington: NOAA OAR Special Report, Contribution No 3053, NOAA/OAR/PMEL.Google Scholar
  33. Synolakis, C. E., Bernard, E. N., Titov, V. V., Kanoglu, U., & Gonzalez, F. I. (2008). Validation and verification of Tsunami numerical models. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 165, 2197–2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tolkova, E. (2014). Land-water boundary treatment for a tsunami model with dimensional splitting. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 171(9), 2289–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Velioglu, D. (2017). Advanced two- and three-dimensional Tsunami models: benchmarking and validation. Ph.D. Thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  36. Velioglu, D., Kian, R., Yalciner, A.C. and Zaytsev, A. (2016). Performance assessment of NAMI DANCE in Tsunami evolution and currents using a benchmark problem. (R. Signell, Ed.) J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 4(3), 49.Google Scholar
  37. Wu, T. (2001). A unified theory for modeling water waves. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 37, 1–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, N.-J., Hsiao, S.-C., Chen, H.-H., & Yang, R.-Y. (2016). The study on solitary waves generated by a piston-type wave maker. Ocean Engineering, 117, 114–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yalciner, A. C., Dogan, P. and Sukru. E. (2005). December 26 2004, Indian Ocean Tsunami Field Survey, North of Sumatra Island. UNESCO.Google Scholar
  40. Yalciner, A. C., Gülkan, P., Dilmen, I., Aytore, B., Ayca, A., Insel, I., et al. (2014). Evaluation of Tsunami scenarios For Western Peloponnese, Greece. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata, 55, 485–500.Google Scholar
  41. Yen, B. C. (1991). Hydraulic resistance in open channels. In B. C. Yen (Ed.), Channel flow resistance: centennial of manning’s formula (pp. 1–135). Highlands Ranch: Water Resource Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Zaitsev, A. I., Kovalev, D. P., Kurkin, A. A., Levin, B. V., Pelinovskii, E. N., Chernov, A. G., et al. (2009). The Tsunami on Sakhalin on August 2, 2007: mareograph evidence and numerical simulation. Tikhookeanskaya Geologiya, 28, 30–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.1212 Computer Science, Department of Civil EngineeringStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations