the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Jun 2023
Nonlinear processes in tsunami simulations for the Peruvian coast with focus on Lima/Callao
Abstract. This investigation addresses the tsunami flooding in Lima and Callao caused by the massive 1746 earthquake (Mw 9.0) along the Peruvian coast. Numerical modelling of the tsunami flooding processes in the nearshore includes strong nonlinear numerical terms. In a comparative analysis of the calculation of the tsunami wave effect, two numerical codes are used, Tsunami-HySEA and TsunAWI, which both solve the shallow water (SW) equations but with different spatial approximations. The comparison primarily evaluates the flow velocity fields in flooded areas. The relative importance of the various parts of the SW equations is determined, focusing on the nonlinear terms. Particular attention is paid to the contribution of momentum advection, bottom friction, and volume conservation. The influence of the nonlinearity on the degree and volume of flooding, flow velocity and small-scale fluctuations is determined. The sensitivity of the solution with respect to the value of the bottom friction parameter is investigated as well.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1437 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1437 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1365', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2023
This paper presents comparative tsunami simulation studies for the Perivian coast, with particular focuses on Lima/Callao coastal areas, by using two tsunami simulation models, Tsunami-HySEA and TsunAWI. Using one of the two tsunami models, i.e. TsunAWI, with four different settings, the authors present detailed analyses on effects/contributions of individual nonlinear terms in the Shallow Water Equations on the estimates of tsunami wave profiles and tsunami hazard parameter estimates, e.g., maximum water surface amplitudes and maximum tsunami speeds (velocity modulus). The paper is fairly well organised and the study provides valuable insights to the understanding of relative importances of individual nonlinear terms in the tsunami governing equations in different regimes of tsunami evolutions. This will benefit tsunami simulation settings and tsunmai model developments.
Some further revisions and improvements are needed before it can be accepted for publication, mainly on two aspects: clarifications on four onlinear experiments and improvements on figure quality.
1. Clarity of experiment design
It is not clear to me how the four nonlinear experiments were designed, especially the fourth one (OBF). From what I understand, the first experiment is to include all the nonlinear terms in the governing equations (FTM) which forms a base model (control) for the study; the second experiment only removes advection terms in the momentum equations; the third expeirments only removes free surface elevation out of the divergence term in the continuity (mass conservation) equation; and then the fourth experiment would be only removing the free surface component out of H in the bottom friction formula. This means as each comparative experiment among experiments 2-4 investigates effects of a single nonlinear term while keeping the other two. This makes perfect sense as it would tell us the effects/contribution of that nonlinear term when comparing its result with FTM outputs. However, the description on the fourth expeirment (OBF) on page 13 seems telling a different story - it only keeps bottom friction term while removing the other two nonlinear terms (i.e. advection term in momentum equations and free surface elevation in the divergence term in the mass equation). Could you please revise section 5 a bit to clearly state how the experiments were designed?2. Figure improvements
- Colour scheme for figure 1 is not ideal, a bit too dark. I recommend to use the same colour scheme as figure 2's for clarity and consistency.
- Figure 2: panel label a) and b) are missing.
- Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure A2, Figure A4: could you please add coastal line contours to assist with data interpretation?3. Appendix
- Figure A4 shows shows large descrepancies in maximum absolute veocities along the section between Tsunami-HySEA and TsunAWI simulations. Could you please provide some comments/discussions on what might be the factors contributing to the differences? For the two upper panel figures, their titles are not quite right. What the colour scale shows are maximum wave amplitudes in water area and maximum flow depth on land; but the figure caption describes this correctly.Regards,
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1365-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1365/egusphere-2023-1365-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1365', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1365/egusphere-2023-1365-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1365/egusphere-2023-1365-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1365', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jul 2023
This paper presents comparative tsunami simulation studies for the Perivian coast, with particular focuses on Lima/Callao coastal areas, by using two tsunami simulation models, Tsunami-HySEA and TsunAWI. Using one of the two tsunami models, i.e. TsunAWI, with four different settings, the authors present detailed analyses on effects/contributions of individual nonlinear terms in the Shallow Water Equations on the estimates of tsunami wave profiles and tsunami hazard parameter estimates, e.g., maximum water surface amplitudes and maximum tsunami speeds (velocity modulus). The paper is fairly well organised and the study provides valuable insights to the understanding of relative importances of individual nonlinear terms in the tsunami governing equations in different regimes of tsunami evolutions. This will benefit tsunami simulation settings and tsunmai model developments.
Some further revisions and improvements are needed before it can be accepted for publication, mainly on two aspects: clarifications on four onlinear experiments and improvements on figure quality.
1. Clarity of experiment design
It is not clear to me how the four nonlinear experiments were designed, especially the fourth one (OBF). From what I understand, the first experiment is to include all the nonlinear terms in the governing equations (FTM) which forms a base model (control) for the study; the second experiment only removes advection terms in the momentum equations; the third expeirments only removes free surface elevation out of the divergence term in the continuity (mass conservation) equation; and then the fourth experiment would be only removing the free surface component out of H in the bottom friction formula. This means as each comparative experiment among experiments 2-4 investigates effects of a single nonlinear term while keeping the other two. This makes perfect sense as it would tell us the effects/contribution of that nonlinear term when comparing its result with FTM outputs. However, the description on the fourth expeirment (OBF) on page 13 seems telling a different story - it only keeps bottom friction term while removing the other two nonlinear terms (i.e. advection term in momentum equations and free surface elevation in the divergence term in the mass equation). Could you please revise section 5 a bit to clearly state how the experiments were designed?2. Figure improvements
- Colour scheme for figure 1 is not ideal, a bit too dark. I recommend to use the same colour scheme as figure 2's for clarity and consistency.
- Figure 2: panel label a) and b) are missing.
- Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure A2, Figure A4: could you please add coastal line contours to assist with data interpretation?3. Appendix
- Figure A4 shows shows large descrepancies in maximum absolute veocities along the section between Tsunami-HySEA and TsunAWI simulations. Could you please provide some comments/discussions on what might be the factors contributing to the differences? For the two upper panel figures, their titles are not quite right. What the colour scale shows are maximum wave amplitudes in water area and maximum flow depth on land; but the figure caption describes this correctly.Regards,
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1365-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1365/egusphere-2023-1365-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1365', Anonymous Referee #2, 09 Nov 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1365/egusphere-2023-1365-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1365/egusphere-2023-1365-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alexey Androsov, 19 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 282 | 96 | 32 | 410 | 23 | 27 |
- HTML: 282
- PDF: 96
- XML: 32
- Total: 410
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 107 | 25 |
| Germany | 2 | 105 | 24 |
| China | 3 | 23 | 5 |
| Spain | 4 | 17 | 4 |
| India | 5 | 17 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 107
Cited
Sven Harig
Natalia Zamora
Kim Knauer
Natalja Rakowsky
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1437 KB) - Metadata XML