We examined the quantitative difference in the distribution of tsunami and storm deposits based on numerical simulations of inundation and sediment transport due to tsunami and storm events on the Sendai Plain, Japan. The calculated distance from the shoreline inundated by the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami was smaller than that inundated by storm surges from hypothetical typhoon events. Previous studies have assumed that deposits observed farther inland than the possible inundation limit of storm waves and storm surge were tsunami deposits. However, confirming only the extent of inundation is insufficient to distinguish tsunami and storm deposits, because the inundation limit of storm surges may be farther inland than that of tsunamis in the case of gently sloping coastal topography such as on the Sendai Plain. In other locations, where coastal topography is steep, the maximum inland inundation extent of storm surges may be only several hundred meters, so marine-sourced deposits that are distributed several km inland can be identified as tsunami deposits by default. Over both gentle and steep slopes, another difference between tsunami and storm deposits is the total volume deposited, as flow speed over land during a tsunami is faster than during a storm surge. Therefore, the total deposit volume could also be a useful proxy to differentiate tsunami and storm deposits.
Tsunami boulders deposited along the coast constitute important geological evidence for paleotsunami activity. However, boulders can also be deposited by large storm waves. Although several sedimentological and theoretical methods have been proposed to differentiate tsunami and storm wave affected boulders, no appropriate numerical method exists for their differentiation. Therefore, we developed a new numerical scheme to differentiate tsunami and storm wave boulders for coastal boulders on Ishigaki Island, Japan. In this area, tsunami and storm waves have emplaced numerous boulders on the reef and the coast. By conducting numerical calculations of storm waves in this region, we estimated the size of a storm wave that can explain the maximum clast size distribution of boulders on the reef. Consequently, we showed that a wave with a combination of 8 m in initial wave height and 10 s period can satisfy the above conditions when we assume mean sea level. In contrast to the boulders on the reef, all boulders deposited along the shore are heavier than the calculated possible maximum clast size distribution by the storm wave. Therefore, we confirmed these boulders as being of tsunami origin. Results of previous studies showed that they were most likely deposited or reworked by the 1771 Meiwa tsunami. Then, using the tsunami boulders, we numerically estimated the wave period and amplitude of the 1771 Meiwa tsunami, which should have had a 4–5 min period and 5.6–5.9, 6.3–7.0 m amplitude, respectively. Using the proposed scheme, it is possible to differentiate tsunami and storm wave boulders and estimate the size of past storm waves and tsunami waves, although it is noteworthy that there are exceptions for which the scheme cannot be applied.
Throughout history, large tsunamis have frequently affected the Sanriku area of the Pacific coast of the Tohoku region, Japan, which faces the Japan Trench. Although a few studies have examined paleo-tsunami deposits along the Sanriku coast, additional studies of paleo-earthquakes and tsunamis are needed to improve our knowledge of the timing, recurrence interval, and size of historical and prehistoric tsunamis. At Noda Village, in Iwate Prefecture on the northern Sanriku coast, we found at least four distinct gravelly sand layers based on correlation and chronological data. Sedimentary features such as grain size and thickness suggest that extreme waves from the sea formed these layers. Numerical modeling of storm waves further confirmed that even extremely large storm waves cannot account for the distribution of the gravelly sand layers, suggesting that these deposits are highly likely to have formed by tsunami waves. The numerical method of storm waves can be useful to identify sand layers as tsunami deposits if the deposits are observed far inland or at high elevations. The depositional age of the youngest tsunami deposit is consistent with the AD 869 Jogan earthquake tsunami, a possible predecessor of the AD 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami. If this is the case, then the study site currently defines the possible northern extent of the AD 869 Jogan tsunami deposit, which is an important step in improving the tsunami source model of the AD 869 Jogan tsunami. Our results suggest that four large tsunamis struck the Noda site between 1100 and 2700 cal BP. The local tsunami sizes are comparable to the AD 2011 and AD 1896 Meiji Sanriku tsunamis, considering the landward extent of each tsunami deposit.
Previous geological studies suggest that the maximum inland extent of storm‐induced sand deposits is shorter, but their thickness is larger, than those of tsunami‐induced sand deposits. However, factors that determine the maximum extent and thickness of storm deposits are still uncertain. We conducted numerical simulations of storm surge, waves, and sediment transport during Typhoon Haiyan in order to understand the distribution and sedimentary processes responsible for storm deposits. Numerical results showed that wave‐induced currents slightly offshore were strong, but attenuated rapidly in the inland direction after wave breaking. Therefore, sediments were not transported far inland by waves and storm surge. Consequently, the maximum inland extent of storm deposits was remarkably shorter than the inland extent of inundation. We also revealed that vegetation (roughness coefficient) and typhoon intensity greatly affect the calculation of maximum extent and thickness distribution of storm deposits. As the duration of wave impact on a coast is relatively long during a storm (hours, compared to minutes for a tsunami), sediments are repeatedly supplied by multiple waves. Therefore, storm deposits tend to be thicker than tsunami deposits, and multiple layers can form in the internal sedimentary structure of the deposits. We infer that limitation of the sand deposit to within only a short distance inland from the shoreline and multiple layers found in a deposit can be used as appropriate identification proxies for storm deposits.
Clifftop coastal boulders transported by storm waves or tsunamis have been reported around the world. Although numerical calculation of boulder transport is a strong tool for the identification of tsunami or storm boulders, and for estimation of the wave size emplacing boulders, models which can reasonably solve boulder transport from below a cliff or from a cliff‐edge onto a cliff‐top do not yet exist. In this study, we developed a new numerical formulation for cliff‐top deposition of boulders from the cliff edge or below the cliff, with validation from laboratory tests. We then applied the model using storm and tsunami wave forcing to simulate the observed boulder deposits at the northwest coast of Hachijo Island, Japan. Using the model, the actual distribution of boulders was explained well using a reasonable storm wave height without assumption of anomalously high‐water level by storm surge. Results show that boulder transport from the cliff edge or under the cliff onto the cliff‐top was possible from a tsunami with periods of 5~10 min or storm waves with no storm surge. However, the actual distribution of boulders on the cliff was explained only by storm waves, but not by tsunami. Therefore, the boulders distributed at this site are likely of storm wave origin. Our developed model for the boulder transport calculation can be useful for identifying a boulder's origin and can reasonably calculate cliff‐top deposition of boulders by tsunami and storm waves. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.