the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 06 Jan 2026
Brief communication: Three dimensional modelling of surfacewaves generated by shallow submarine volcanic eruptions
Abstract. This study investigates the generation of surface waves during shallow submarine volcanic eruptions by incorporating a Gaussian heat flux at the seabed to simulate eruption dynamics. Using the three-dimensional ocean flow model PSOM, we analyzed wave generation mechanisms under varying heat flux levels (10,000 W/m2 and 20,000 W/m2) and volcanic depths. Results demonstrate that higher heat flux values and shallower eruption depths produce larger surface waves, corroborating findings from prior research. By modeling the heat flux-driven convection flows, including plume generation and water entrainment, the study highlights the critical role of thermal effects in tsunami formation. The proposed methodology enhances traditional tsunami models by accounting for heat flux impacts on vertical velocity and surface displacement. These findings provide new insights into the hazards posed by shallow submarine eruptions, improving risk assessments for coastal regions.
- Preprint
(698 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 08 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6265', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Jan 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Manish Kanojia, 19 Jan 2026
reply
The author understands and thanks referee 1 for their comments. However, it should be noted that the paper itself mentions we are modelling the surface waves generated by large heatflux introduced by submarine volcano (as in case of recent Tonga volcano which had a lage heat and very small mass eruption). The author here in breef communication just wanted to include the impact of convective flows on the surface displacement.
Regarding the source, Refree have misunderstood the heatflux profile just as a heat profile and not as a source, the idea behind introducing the Gaussian heat flux (continious profile) should be seen as the heat source at the seabed with maximum heatflux at the centre of volcano and it reduces as we move out  as in a typical volcano scenario. The heat flux profile also tells us the radius of volcano and the total vent size till the end of the Gaussian profile. after which haet dies and no volcanic presence is there.
The authors have considered the stratification in the medium and the plots of profile are attached in the paper. Regarding the phase, the authors are unable to include the steam and bubbles as the model falls short on those parameters however the phenomenon of convective flows is something the author wanted to stress on and that is the major contribution as usual mass induced tsunami are based on impulse which is transferred on the surface without taking into account the change in velocities of buoyant flows as the water column move up, the author soley wanted to show that the buoyant flows are sufficient in large eruptive scenarios like tonga 2022 to generate/sisplace surface waves enough.
The model does have. a pressure included in the eruptive scenario. Â
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6265-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Manish Kanojia, 19 Jan 2026
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 39 | 16 | 185 | 14 | 11 |
- HTML: 130
- PDF: 39
- XML: 16
- Total: 185
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The paper aims to model surface waves generated by shallow submarine volcanic eruptions with a prescribed Gaussian heat flux at the seabed using the numerical simulation tool PSOM. However, the way the eruption is presented is not physically appropriate for the problem being studied. A volcanic eruption injects mass, momentum, and pressure into the water column over a short time, whereas a heat flux only produces slow buoyant motion. The manuscript does not explain how the chosen thermal forcing is related to an actual eruption in terms of energy, duration, or strength. Thus, it is not clear why the resulting surface response should be interpreted as tsunami generation. The model predicts very high water temperatures near the source (hundreds of degrees Celsius), but the fluid is treated as a single-phase liquid. At such temperatures, boiling and vapour formation would occur and strongly affect the flow. Since these processes are not included, the simulated plume and the associated surface deformation are not meaningful. Finally, key eruption parameters such as vent size, eruption rate, or duration are not included. The entire source is defined by an arbitrary heat flux, which makes the results difficult to interpret and impossible to relate to real volcanic scenarios.
For these reasons, the physical basis of the model is weak, and the conclusions about tsunami generation are not supported. I recommend rejection.