Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thesis Didit Adytia 20106001
Thesis Didit Adytia 20106001
net/publication/303301072
CITATIONS READS
5 520
1 author:
Didit Adytia
Telkom University
72 PUBLICATIONS 235 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Didit Adytia on 18 May 2016.
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in the Institut Teknologi Bandung
By
DIDIT ADYTIA
NIM : 20106001
Program Studi Matematika
DIDIT ADYTIA
NIM : 20106001
In many cases, tsunami waveheights and effects show a high variability along
the coast. One way to study this complexity is to simulate the tsunami above
a certain area by using water wave models. Since a tsunami can be considered
as a shallow water wave, we can choose the well-known Shallow Water Equa-
tions (SWE) as a non-dispersive water wave model for the tsunami. Dispersive
wave means that harmonic waves of smaller wavelength propagate slower than
waves of larger wavelength. For the dispersive wave model, we used the re-
cently derived Variational Boussinesq Model (VBM). In the SWE model the
vertical variations in the layer of fluid is neglected, different from the VBM
where the vertical variations lead to the effect of dispersion. These models are
derived by using variational formulation. Consistently with the way of their
derivations, these models will be solved numerically by using Finite Element
Method (FEM). In FEM, the solutions are approximated by linear combination
of the basis functions. In this thesis, we used linear basis functions. The radi-
ation boundary condition and hard-wall boundary condition are implemented
for both SWE and VBM. To simulate the tsunami, we use the available data
of the bathymetry of Indonesia which is incorporated into our FEM schemes.
The tsunami simulation in the two areas of Indonesia, which are the area in the
south of Pangandaran and the area in the south of Lampung, will be presented
as a result of FEM’s implementation for the SWE and the VBM.
i
ABSTRAK
DIDIT ADYTIA
NIM : 20106001
Pada banyak kasus tsunami, ketinggian dan akibat dari gelombang ini menun-
jukkan variasi yang sangat tinggi di sepanjang garis pantai. Salah satu cara un-
tuk mempelajari masalah ini adalah dengan melakukan simulasi tsunami pada
suatu daerah tertentu dengan menggunakan model gelombang air. Karena
tsunami dapat dianggap sebagai gelombang air dangkal, maka dapat digunakan
persamaan gelombang air dangkal atau Shallow Water Equations (SWE) se-
bagai model non-dispersif. Gelombang yang bersifat dispersif diartikan bahwa
gelombang harmonik yang mempunyai panjang gelombang yang pendek ber-
propagasi lebih lambat dibanding dengan gelombang dengan panjang gelom-
bang lebih besar. Untuk model gelombang dispersif, akan digunakan Varia-
tional Boussinesq Model (VBM). Pada model SWE, variasi pada arah vertikal
diabaikan, berbeda dengan VBM dimana hal tersebut tidak diabaikan sehingga
muncul efek dispersif. Kedua model tersebut diturunkan dengan variational
formulation, konsisten dengan cara penurunannya, model-model tersebut di-
cari solusi numeriknya dengan metode elemen hingga atau Finite Element
Method (FEM). Pada FEM, solusi dihampiri dengan kombinasi linier dari
fungsi basis. Pada tesis ini digunakan fungsi basis linier. Radiation boundary
condition dan Hard-wall boundary condition akan diimplementasikan baik un-
tuk SWE maupun VBM. Untuk melakukan simulasi tsunami, digunakan data
bathymetry Indonesia. Simulasi tsunami pada dua daerah di Indonesia akan
diperlihatkan sebagai implementasi FEM dari SWE dan VBM.
ii
TSUNAMI SIMULATION IN INDONESIA’S AREAS
BASED ON SHALLOW WATER EQUATIONS AND
VARIATIONAL BOUSSINESQ MODEL USING
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
By
DIDIT ADYTIA
NIM : 20106001
Approved
21 June 2008
Supervisor
Dr. Andonowati
GUIDELINES TO USE THE THESIS
iv
For Husin Mas’ud and Yensi Nio
my best parent ever
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My thanks for Dr. Sri Redjeki for her support, nice sharing and discussion
about mathematics. My thanks are also to all staff and researchers in Labmath
Indonesia for their supports and friendship, I really appreciate that. I express
my thanks to graduate students and all staff in Mathematics Department,
Institute Teknologi Bandung, for all friendship. Finally, to my parent, Husin
and Yensi, my brother and sister, Tinton and Ika, my great friend Fara, and
my families, gratitudes always goes to their deep understanding and supports.
Author
vi
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
ABSTRAK ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
Chapter I Preliminary 1
I.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I.2 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
I.4 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
vii
III.2 FEM Implementation for SWE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
III.3 FEM Implementation for VBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
III.4 FEM Implementation for Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . 25
Bibliography 48
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
ix
Figure 4.12 Plot of the splitting of intial bipolar hump using SWE
model at t = 3 minutes. The location of the source is near
9.220 S and 107.320 E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 4.17 Plot of the maximum crest-height near the coast dur-
ing 1 hour simulation using VBM. The below plot denotes the
crosssection in the white line. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 4.19 Plot of the location and the shape of initial wave for
Lampung Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 4.20 Plot of the tsunami simulation for Lampung case by using
SWE model at t = 9 minutes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 4.22 The wave after 18 minutes by using VBM. There is de-
layed and amplified wave above the shallow area. The wave-
height reached to more than 10m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
x
Figure 4.24 Plot of the maximum waveheight during 1 hour simula-
tion by using VBM. At the specific area near the coast in the
south of Sumatra, the wave reached 9.61m. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
xi
Chapter I
Preliminary
I.1 Motivation
In many cases, tsunami waveheights and effects show a high variability along
the coast, as reported on the website of EERI (2005) [9]. The complexity of
tsunami’s behavior near and on the shore is affected by the topography of the
bathymetry underneath the sea.
2
One way to study this complexity is to simulate the tsunami above a certain
area by using water wave models. To do that, we have to choose (or derive) a
good water wave model. Since a tsunami can be considered as a shallow wa-
ter wave, we choose the Shallow Water Equations (SWE) as a non-dispersive
water wave model. Dispersive effect means that harmonic waves with smaller
wavelength propagate slower than waves with larger wavelength. For the dis-
persive water wave model, we used the recently derived Variational Boussinesq
Model (VBM) [1]. In the SWE the vertical variations in the layer of fluid is
neglected, different from the VBM where the vertical variations lead to the
effect of dispersion. These models are derived by using variational principle.
Consistently with the way of their derivations, these models will be solved
numerically by using Finite Element Method (FEM). In FEM, the solutions
are approximated by linear combination of the basis functions. This recently
derived VBM is different from other Boussinesq models. It is derived without
introducing higher order derivatives in the dynamic equation so that we can
use linear basis functions. To simulate the tsunami, we use the actual data of
the bathymetry of Indonesia, which is incorporated into our FEM schemes.
We will simulate the tsunami in two areas of Indonesia which are the area in
the south of Pangandaran and the area in the south of Lampung by using both
the SWE model and the VBM. Both of the results of the simulations will be
showed.
I.3 Objectives
certain areas, specially in Indonesia, using water wave models, we can identify
(or predict) the waveheight near and on the specific shore that we consider.
I.4 Outline
Chapter 3 and 4 are the main parts of this thesis. Chapter 3 contains some
explanation about FEM and its implementation for the SWE and the VBM,
and also for the boundary conditions .
In this chapter, we will describe the basic theory for the derivation of our
water wave models which are the Shallow Water Equations (SWE) and the
Variational Boussinesq Model (VBM) by using variational formulation. The
complete derivation of these models can be read at [1] . We consider a layer of
fluid with free surface and assume water as an idealized fluid, with properties
that are inviscid and incompressible with uniform mass density (ρ = 1). The
flow is assumed to be irrotational. Moreover there is no pressure from the
atmosphere above the fluid layer.
II.1.1 Notation
where
Z Z η
1 2
P(Φ, η) = ∂t Φ + |∇3 Φ| + gz dz dx (2.1)
−h 2
with P is the pressure functional. Minimization of this ”pressure principle”
with respect to (wrt) Φ gives the governing equation for the interior of the fluid
(The Laplace problem), and kinematic boundary condition at the surface and
boundary condition at the bottom. In this case, it is assumed that there is no
friction and no flow though the bottom (impermeable). While minimization
wrt η gives the dynamic free surface condition. This leads to the full 3D surface
wave problem.
R nR η 1
o
where K(Φ, η) := −h 2
|∇3 Φ|2 dz − Φ∂t h dx. The functional P(Φ, η) at
(2.1) can be rewritten as
Z Z η
1 2
P(Φ, η) = ∂t Φ + |∇3 Φ| + gz dz dx
−h 2
Z Z Z Z η
1 2 2
=− φ∂t ηdx−K (φ, η) − g η −h + ∂t Φdz dx
2 −h
Rη R
η
using ∂ Φdz = ∂t
−h t −h
Φdz − φ∂t η − ΦB ∂t h , where ΦB is the Φ at the
bottom. Since we assumed that there is no bottom motion, so ∂t h = 0. Now
6
where H (φ, η) is the Hamiltonian Functional (or the total energy) as follow:
Z
1
H (φ, η) = K (φ, η) + g η 2 − h2 dx (2.4)
2
where the second term in right hand side (RHS) is the potential energy. The
resulting variational principle in (2.3) is known as a canonical action principle.
The Euler-Lagrange equations which are obtained by taking variations with
respect to φ and η in the action principle are given by
∂t η = δφ H (φ, η) (2.5)
∂t φ = −δη H (φ, η)
∂t η = δφ H (φ, η) = δφ K (φ, η)
Now our problem is to determine the functional for the kinetic energy. The
Hamiltonian which contains functional K (given by (2.2)), can not be expressed
explicitly in the basic variables ( η and φ ) . This is the essential problem of
surface wave theory. Most of surface wave models deals with the choice of this
kinetic energy, more pricisely, the approximation for the velocity potential Φ.
Examples of such approximation will be given in the following subsections in
the form of the shallow water and Boussinesq type of approximation.
The Shallow Water Equations are derived with the assumption that the wave-
length of the waves are much larger than the depth of the fluid layer where the
vertical variations are small and would be ignored. This approximation can be
7
applied in the tsunami case since its wavelength reach hundreds of kilometers
above (usually) 4km depth. In this case, there will be no dispersive effect.
Dispersive effect means that harmonic waves of smaller wavelength propagate
slower than waves of larger wavelength, see [2]. This assumption leads to the
idea to approximate the velocity potential at every depth by its value at the
surface, namely Φ (x, z, t) ≈ φ (x, t). With this approximation, the kinetic
energy is approximated with
Z
1
K (φ, η) = (η + h) |∇φ|2 dx (2.7)
2
With the above approximation for kinetic energy, our Luke’s Variational Prin-
ciple in (2.3) turns into
Z Z
1 2 1 2 2
min −∂t ηφ + |∇φ| (η + h) + g η − h dx dt (2.8)
φ,η 2 2
Now, the vanishing of the first variation of (2.8) with respect to variations δφ
in φ results
Z Z
{−∂t ηδφ + (η + h) ∇φ.∇ (δφ)} dx dt = 0, (2.9)
while the vanishing of the first variation of (2.8) with respect to variations δη
in η results
Z Z
1 2
(∂t φ) δη + |∇φ| δη + (gη) δη dx dt = 0. (2.10)
2
and
Z Z
{(∂t φ) δη + (gη) δη} dx dt = 0. (2.12)
8
It can be shown that the Euler-Lagrange of (2.9) and (2.10) are the full SWE.
With kinetic energy given by (2.7), the Hamilton equations in (2.6) can be
written as
Note that (2.13) is the full SWE. Linearization and assuming that there is no
bottom motion (h(x, t) = h(x)), then the equations in (2.13) simplifies to
∂t η = −∇. [h∇φ]
∂t φ = −gη (2.14)
Also it can be shown that (2.14) are the Euler-Lagrange of (2.11) and (2.12).
Since in this thesis we just deal with the simplified SWE, namely, the linearized
SWE and there is no bottom motion, so in the rest of this thesis we will call
the simplied SWE as the SWE.
with additional new function ψ on the surface and the vertical profile function
F (will be explained later). The choice such that F (η) = 0 is taken to assure
such that Φ (z = η) = φ. Since the choice for Φ(x, z, t) is given by (2.15), so the
kinetic energy depends also on ψ : K(φ, η, ψ), and besides the two dynamic
equations, we have an additional equation to be solved, namely δψ K = 0.
9
To get the functional for the kinetic energy, observed that |∇3 Φ|2 = (∇Φ)2 +
(∂z Φ)2 = [∇φ + (∇2 ψ)F ]2 +(ψF ′ )2 , where F ′ denotes derivative wrt z. Instead
of (2.7), the kinetic energy for VBM reads
Z Z η
1 2 ′ 2
K (φ, η) = (∇φ + F ∇ψ) + (F ψ) dz dx,
2 −h
we obtain
Z
1
K (φ, η) = |∇φ|2 (η + h) + 2β∇φ.∇ψ + α |∇ψ|2 + γψ 2 dx. (2.17)
2
With the approximation for the kinetic energy given by (2.17), the vanishing
of the first variation of (2.18) with respect to variations δφ of φ , δη of η, and
δψ of ψ resulting three equations below
Z Z Z
(δφ) ∂t ηdx − [(η + h) ∇φ.∇ (δφ) + β∇ (δφ) .∇ψ] dx dt = 0 (2.19)
Z Z Z
1 2
− (δη) ∂t φdx − gη (δη) − |∇φ| (δη) dx dt = 0 (2.20)
2
Z Z
{(β∇φ) .∇(δψ) + (α∇ψ) .∇(δψ) + γψ (δψ)} dx dt = 0 (2.21)
Now we will show the VBM in the partial differential equations (PDEs) form,
as follow, the variations of the kinetic energy in (2.17) with respect to φ, η,
and ψ, results
∂t η = δφ H (φ, η, ψ)
∂t φ = −δη H (φ, η, ψ) ,
∂t η = δφ K (φ, η, ψ)
∂t φ = −gη − δη K (φ, η, ψ) .
∂t φ = −gη, (2.29)
Now observe that the three equations in (2.25), (2.26), and (2.27) are the
Euler-Lagrange equations from the expression (2.19), (2.20), and (2.21). Also
(2.28) and (2.29) are the Euler-Lagrange equations from the expression (2.22)
and (2.23). In this thesis we will just deal with the linearized VBM, so in the
rest of this thesis we will call the linearized VBM as the VBM.
The three coupled PDEs in (2.27), (2.28), and (2.29) have to be solved together.
We will describe the algorithm for solving these equations. First, we need to
have η and φ at t = 0 (initial conditions), then we calculate α, β, and γ (at
t = 0). These are used for solving the elliptic equation (2.27), so we obtained
ψ at t = 0. This ψ will be used for the time stepping in the dynamic equations.
We get η and φ at the next time step and repeat this algorithm again to obtain
the solutions at each time steps.
The choice for function F (z) is explained thoroughly in [1], we choose a nor-
malized function F (devided by the depth : h), given by
2z z 2
F = + 2, (2.30)
h h
this choice is motivated by the fact that the solution of Φ for linear wave
approximation (small variation in surface elevation and mildly sloping bottom)
is a cosh (z) function. This leads to the idea to choose the function F (z) as
a parabolic profile. The choice for function F can be a function that depend
on surface elevation η, but for the tsunami case we assumed that the depth
is much larger than the surface elevation, so we just choose function F as in
(2.30).
12
First we will derive the RBC for the SWE. We start with the derivation of
RBC for 1D case, then we will extend it to 2D case. Suppose our domain is
an interval (for instance [0, L] ) in the x-axis. We want to place the RBC at
the left side of our domain, namely at x = 0. The idea for deriving the RBC is
that we have to know the general solution in the exterior of our computational
domain (in this case, the solutions at left side of x = 0). For the 1D linear
SWE
∂t η = −∂x [h∂x φ]
∂t φ = −gη
we assume that on the left side of the boundary (at x = 0), the bathymetry
extends at a constant depth h0 towards −∞. Hence the general solution for
outgoing waves at the left exterior can be written down as
p
η(x, t) = F (x +gh0 t)
p
φ(x, t) = G(x + gh0 t)
∂x φ = G ′
p
∂t φ = ghG′
In the HBC, the normal flow through the boundary is assumed to be zero
or U.n = 0, where U is fluid velocity. For SWE, note that we approximate
the velocity potential at each depth by its value at the surface : Φ (x, z, t) ≈
φ (x, t), so the condition for hardwall can be rewritten as ∇φ.n = 0 (since
U = ∇3 Φ and Φ ≈ φ). Same problem appear as in the RBC, we do not have
the HBC for the VBM yet, so we will use the HBC of SWE for implementing
the HBC for the VBM.
Chapter III
Finite Element Method Implementation for
SWE and VBM
There are several ways to so solve PDEs or variational problem by using FEM,
the two common methods are through the variational problem and through a
weak formulation. The first method is to substitute the approximate solutions
into the functional of the problem then minimize it with respect to certain
quantities. In the weak formulation, we substitute the approximate solutions
into the PDEs then multiply it with an arbitrary test function and integrate
it over the problem domain. The second method is known as Ritz-Galerkin
method. In this thesis we will use both of these methods. The first method
is used to implement the interior problem and the second method is used to
implement the boundary problem.
15
To implement FEM for the SWE, we start with describing the essential part
of FEM which is to provide FEM basis functions. After that we devide the
domain into finite number of elements and define polynomial basis functions
on each elements.
First, we discretize the domain into n elements. In this case, the computational
domain is discretized by using a mesh generator to make a triangulation from
the domain. There are many kind of mesh generator (commercial or non-
commercial), but in this thesis, we use the mesh generator from MATLAB
and FEMLAB. FEMLAB’s mesh generator will be used for discretizing the
domain for Indonesia’s bathymetry. An illustration of a discretization of a
domain is given by a the left plot of Figure 3.1.
The mesh generator gives the information of the numbering and the coordi-
nate of every nodes that is generated in the domain. There are two types of
numbering, global and local numbering. Local numbering means the number
of nodes in each element (triangle), which are 1, 2 and 3 (in counterclockwise
direction). This local numbering is important in the calculation in FEM which
will be explained later on. Meanwhile, the global numbering is the numbering
16
of points in the whole domain. These numbering are ilustrated in the right
plot of Figure 3.1.
As we mentioned before, in this thesis, we will use linear basis function for
finite element implementation, denoted as Ti (x). Ilustration for this linear
basis function is given by Figure 3.2. Note that this basis function has a strict
local character, with has a value 1 at one point, namely at point i and zero at
other points.
ai + b i x + c i y
L (x) = (3.1)
2∆
where ∆ is the area of the triangle in which the vertices are given by the three
points (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), (x3 , y3 ), its value is given by
1 x1 y1
1 1
∆ = 1 x2 y2 = [(x2 − x1 ) (y3 − y2 ) − (y2 − y1 ) (x3 − x2 )] (3.2)
2 2
1 x3 y3
There are three unknowns (ai , bi , ci ) in (3.1), so we need three points (x1 , y1 ),
(x2 , y2 ), (x3 , y3 ) to get the expression for L (x). Assuming that L (x1 , y1 ) = 1,
17
1 = ai + b i x 1 + c i y 1
0 = ai + b i x 2 + c i y 2
0 = ai + b i x 3 + c i y 3
ai = x 2 y 3 − x 3 y 2
bi = y2 − y3 (3.3)
c i = x3 − x2 .
so now we have an explisit expression for L (x) per element, and note that the
indexing in the above equation refers to the local numbering.
(3.5)
Note that δφ and δη are arbitrary admissible variations with respect to φ and η.
We can also approximate these variations using the same basis function as δφ =
18
Pn Pn
i=1 v1i Ti (x) and δη = i=1 v2i Ti (x). If we substitute these approximations
into (3.5) then say that the integrals vanish for arbitrary nonzero v1 and v2,
we conclude that
Z ( n
X
! n
X
! )
−∂t ηbk (t) Tk (x) Ti (x) + h (x) ∇ φbk (t) Tk (x) .∇Ti (x) dx = 0
k=1 k=1
(3.6)
Z ( n
X
! n
X
! )
∂t φbk (t) Tk (x) Ti (x) + g ηbk (t) Tk (x) Ti (x) dx = 0
k=1 k=1
(3.7)
which hold for every i. We can rewrite the approximation in (3.6) and (3.7)
in a matrix equations as follow :
−
→
M∂t −
→
η = Gφ
−
→
M∂t φ = −gM−
→
η
or
M 0 −
→
η 0 G −
→
η
∂t = (3.8)
−
→ −
→
0 M φ −gM 0 φ
−
→
where −
→η and φ denote the vectors solution for η and φ, the entry of a matrix
R
M is given by mij = Ω Ti (x) Tj (x) dΩ, and the entry of a matrix G is given by
R
gij = Ω (h (x)) ∇Ti (x) .∇Tj (x) dΩ. To evaluate the entries of these matrices
directly, is rather difficult. Note that we have an unstructured form of triangles
in our domain (see Figure 3.1). This cause the difficulty in calculation when
we calculate integrals of the basis function directly. One way to solve this
problem is to transform any triangles into ’natural’ coordinate where we can
calcute the integrals within these triangles easily. We will call this transformed
triangle in natural coordinate as master triangle, see Figure 3.3.
19
There are three non-zero basis functions over this master triangle, they are
T n1 (ξ, η) = 1 − ξ − η,
T n2 (ξ, η) = ξ,
T n3 (ξ, η) = η (3.9)
The linear transformation from a triangle (x1 , y1 ) , (x2 , y2 ) , and (x3 , y3 ), ar-
ranged in the counter clockwise direction, to the master triangle is
or
1
ξ= [(y3 − y1 ) (x − x1 ) − (x3 − x1 ) (y − y1 )]
2∆
1
η= [− (y2 − y1 ) (x − x1 ) + (x2 − x1 ) (y − y1 )]
2∆
where ∆ is the area of the triangle which is given by (3.2). Now with the
linear transformation of the coordinate, we can calculate the integral of the
basis function by using
Z Z
∂ (x, y)
f (x, y) Ti (x) Tj (x) dx = f (ξ, η) T ni (ξ, η) T nj (ξ,η) | |dξdη
Ωe Ω (∂ξ, η)
(3.10)
for some function f (x, y), where ∂(x,y)
(∂ξ,η)
is known as determinant of the Jaco-
bian matrix.
20
where i and j are the local numbering. By using the linear transformation of
the coordinate in (3.10), we get
(1 + δij )
mij = ∆, with i, j = 1, 2, 3 (3.11)
12
where i and j are the local numbering. The value of gij is given by
" P P #
bi bj + c i c j 1 Xb s x s
X
b y s
X
b
gij = hs as + hs bs + s hs cs (3.12)
4∆2 2 s 6 s
6 s
Similar with FEM implementation for SWE, for the VBM, the variables (φ,η,ψ,α,β,γ,h)
are approximated by linear combinations of basis function Ti (x). Approxima-
tion for φ and η are given by (3.4), and the approximations for ψ, h, α ,β and
γ are
n
X n
X
ψ (x) = ψbs Ts (x) , h (x) = b
hs Ts (x)
s=1 s=1
Xn Xn n
X
α (x) = α
bs Ts (x) , β (x) = βbs Ts (x) , γ (x) = γ
bs Ts (x) (3.13)
s=1 s=1 s=1
We will explain the reason why we choose (3.13) the approximation for α, β
and γ. Note that we have defined α,β,γ in (2.16). Originally, α, β and γ are
functions of x and t (through η and h), but in the tsunami case, we assume
that the depth h is much larger than the elevation η. So we approximate α,β,γ
R0 R0 R0
by β = −h F dz, α = −h F 2 dz, γ = −h (F ′ )2 dz. For the parabolic profile
function (F (z)) is given by (2.30), the values of α,β,γ are given by
8 2 4
α(x) = h(x), β(x) = − h (x) , γ (x) = ,
15 3 3h (x)
n n n
8 Xb 2 Xb 4X 1
α (x) = hs Ts (x) , β (x) = − hs Ts (x) , γ (x) = Ts (x)
15 s=1 3 s=1 3 s=1 b
hs
As we did in the FEM implementation for SWE, we use variational principle for
FEM implementation, so we substitute the approximation for the variables φ,η
and ψ (we keep variables α,β,γ,h in α (x),β (x),γ (x), and h (x) first) into the
linear VBM in integral form in (2.21), (2.22), and (2.23), we get the following
22
integrals
Pn
− (∂t k=1 ηbk (t) Tk (x)) δφ
Z
P
n bk (t) Tk (x) .∇ (δφ) dx = 0
+h (x) ∇ k=1 φ
+β(x)∇ (δφ) .∇ Pn ψb T (x)
k=1 k k
Z ( n
X
!
X n
! )
∂t φbk (t) Tk (x) δη + g ηbk (t) Tk (x) δη dx = 0
k=1 k=1
P
n b
Z
β (x) ∇ φ
k=1 k (t) T k (x) .∇(δψ)
P
n b
+α (x) ∇ k=1 ψk Tk (x) .∇(δψ)
dx = 0 (3.14)
P
n
+γ (x) ψbk Tk (x) (δψ)
k=1
Note that δφ, δη and δψ are arbitrary admissible variations with respect to
φ, η and ψ. We can also approximate these variations using the same basis
P P P
function as δφ = ni=1 v1i Ti (x), δη = ni=1 v2i Ti (x) and δψ = ni=1 v3i Ti (x).
If we substitute these approximations into (3.14) then let that the integrals
vanish for arbitrary nonzero v1, v2 and v3, we conclude that
P
Z
− (∂t nk=1 ηbk (t) Tk (x)) Ti (x)
P
n bk (t) Tk (x) .∇Ti (x)
+h (x) ∇ k=1 φ dx = 0
P
n bk Tk (x)
+β(x)∇Ti (x) .∇ k=1 ψ
(3.15)
Z ( n
X
! n
X
! )
∂t φbk (t) Tk (x) Ti (x) + g ηbk (t) Tk (x) Ti (x) dx = 0
k=1 k=1
(3.16)
P
n b
Z
β (x) ∇ φ
k=1 k (t) Tk (x) .∇Ti (x)
P
n b
+α (x) ∇ k=1 ψk Tk (x) .∇Ti (x)
dx = 0
Pn b
+γ (x) ψk Tk (x) Ti (x)
k=1
(3.17)
23
which hold for every i. We can rewrite the approximations for (3.15), (3.16)
and (3.17) in the system of matrix equations as follow
−
→ −
→
M∂t −
→
η = Gφ + Rψ (3.18)
−
→
M∂t φ = −gM−
→η (3.19)
−
→ −
→
Lψ = Kφ. (3.20)
Note that the system of (3.18) and (3.19) is similar with the system of matrix
equations for SWE(3.8) except for additional term in the first equation (Rψ).
The M and G matrices are given by (3.11) and (3.12), while for assembling
matrix R, for each element, we have a 3 × 3 elementary matrix
Z
rij = β (x) ∇Ti (x) .∇Tj (x) dΩe
Ωe
Z
= Σns=1 βbs Ts (x) ∇Ti (x) .∇Tj (x) dΩe ,with i, j = 1, 2, 3
Ωe
where i and j are the local numbering. By using linear transformation of the
coordinate in (3.9), we get:
" P P #
bi bj + c i c j 1 X b x s
X y s
X
rij = βs as + s βbs bs + s βbs cs
4∆2 2 s 6 s
6 s
where
Z
∆
Ti Tj Tk dΩe = , if i = j = k,
Ωe 10
∆
= , if i = j 6= k,
30
∆
= , if i 6= j 6= k
60
or " P P #
bi bj + c i c j 1Xb x s
X y s
X
kij = βs as + s
βbs bs + s βbs cs
4∆2 2 s 6 s
6 s
−
→ −
→
ψ = L−1 K φ (3.22)
The derivation of the governing equations from the first variation (2.11) and
(2.12) does not give the corresponding boundary condition because the func-
tional that we minimized accounts only for the interior (from Pressure principle
in (2.1)). We need to modify the weak formulation in order to incorporate the
boundary conditions. Therefore, we use the corresponding governing equations
from the weak formulation of (2.14) only for implementing the BC. To have
the weak formulation of (2.14), we multiply the first equation of (2.14) by a
test function and integrate it over a domain, then we do partial integration for
the right hand side term, so we obtain the following equation
Z Z Z
v∂t ηdx = h (x) ∇φ.∇vdx − (vh (x) ∇φ.n) d∂Ω (3.23)
Ω Ω ∂Ω
where v is arbitrary test function. Note that this is essentially the same with
(2.11) without the boundary term (second term at right hand side). Including
the RBC in (2.32) into the last term on the RHS of (3.23) gives
Z Z Z !
vh (x) ∂t φ
v∂t ηdx = h (x) ∇φ.∇vdx − p d∂Ω (3.24)
Ω Ω ∂Ω gh(x)
Note that from (2.12), we have the relation ∂t φ = −gη, so (3.24) is equivalent
with
Z Z Z !
vh (x) gη
v∂t ηdx = h (x) ∇φ.∇vdx + p d∂Ω (3.25)
Ω Ω ∂Ω gh(x)
For FEM implementation for the SWE with RBC, we will use this last equation
instead of (2.11), by setting that test function v = δφ. Now we will only
treat the boundary term, because the rest is the same with (3.8). Note that
the boundaries in a 2D domain are basicallly a curve (or a path), so the
26
For every boundary, we will not discretize the boundary again since the boun-
dary is already discretized by the mesh generator when we generate the finite
element mesh in 2D. We will use the nodes at the boundary as discretized by
the mesh generator. The same like other FEM implementation, we approx-
imate v, η and h in boundary term of (3.25) by linear combination of basis
functions in 1D (3.26), then substitute these approximations into the boun-
dary term. This will gives a matrix called B which is assembled from a 2 × 2
elementary matrix,in which the entries are given by
Z p
√
bij = − g h(x)T 1i (x)T 1j (x) d∂Ω, with i, j = 1, 2
∂Ω
p q
then approximation h(x) = Σni=1 b
hi T 1i (x), gives
√ √ √ √
h1 h2 h1 + h 2
√ 4
+ 12
Bek = − g∆k √ √ √ 12 √
h1 + h2 h1
12 12
+ 4h2
where ek denotes the k-th element in the boundary, ∆k is the length between
two points of the element in the boundary, and h1 and h2 are the depth in
the points of element at the boundary (the indices correspond to the local
numbering, note that the local numbering for 1D case are 1 and 2). With the
presence of the boundary term, our system of matrix equation in (3.8) would
be
−
→
M∂t −
→
η = G φ + B−
→
η
−
→
M∂t φ = −gM−→η
27
or
M 0 −
→
η B G −
→
η
∂t =
−
→ −
→
0 M φ −gM 0 φ
Now we discuss about HBC’s FEM implementation for SWE. Note that we
already show in subsection boundary condition (II. 4) that in order to imple-
ment the HBC, the condition ∇φ.n = 0 has to be satisfied in the boundary
term of (3.23). This condition makes the boundary term in (3.23) vanishes.
With this condition, we will have the system of matrix equation exactly the
same with our system in (3.8). So the HBC’s FEM implementation for SWE
gives the system of matrix equation that we derive based on the variational
principle (2.11), where the that term is not present.
Until now, we do not have a precise radiation boundary condition for VBM.
So for the VBM’s FEM implementation on the boundary conditions, we will
implement it in the same way as we did for the case of the SWE.
Chapter IV
Tsunami Simulation
In this section we will show several simulations of our code that we derived at
the previous chapters. We start with the wave propagation above a flat bottom,
by using SWE and VBM, in order to give an intuition about the evolution of
these waves. After that, we will deal with our main purpose which is the
tsunami simulation above the real bathymetry of Indonesia. We will choose
two areas in Indonesia which have the potential to be hit by a tsunami. They
are the area in the south of Pangandaran coast and the area in the south of
Krakatau volcano.
In this part we will show the water wave simulation above a flat bottom by us-
ing both SWE and VBM. Suppose we have a rectangle domain, and discretized
using mesh generator form MATLAB (pdetoolbox), with size 110km × 110km.
In the four sides of the domain, the RBC is implemented both for the SWE
and VBM. In order to capture the propagation history, we use a tool called
Maximum Temporal Amplitude (MTA) that is introduced in [5]. In this the-
sis we will use the variants of MTA. They are maximal temporal crest-height
(MTC) and minimal temporal through-depth (MTT), also called the maximal
positive and negative amplitude respectively. These are a curve that represent
the maximal and minimal surface elevation at position x as a function of time
We consider an initial wave (a bipolar hump with initial amplitude 1.7m) with
a wavelength Λ = 20km released without a speed above a horizontal bottom
at the depth 1000m. Plot of the initial condition is shown at Figure 4.1, and
the plot of the crosssection at y = 0 is shown at Figure 4.2.
29
1.5
0.5
η [m]
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
−40 −30 −25 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 45
x [km]
Figure 4.3: Plot of the splitting initial bipolar hump above flat bottom using
SWE model at t = 7 min.
Figure 4.4: Plot of SWE simulation above flat bottom when the wave
reached the boundary at t = 12 min. Notice that there is no reflection from
each boundary.
31
Figure 4.5: Plot of the splitting of initial bipolar hump using VBM, notice
the development of dispersive effect.
Figure 4.6: Plot of the VBM simulation when the wave hits the radiation
boundary condition, notice the reflected wave from the left and right
boundary.
32
The resulting evolution for SWE is shown at Figure 4.3. The plot below it
denote the crosssection at y = 0. It illustrates the splitting of the bipolar hump
into every direction. It also can be seen that when the wave hit the boundary,
Figure 4.4, the reflection is rather small. For SWE, this RBC is good enough
for our purposes (tsunami simulations).
The evolution for the VBM is shown at Figure 4.5. In this evolution, it can
be seen clearly the effect of dispersion. Observe that slower wave with smaller
amplitude is propagating behind the wave with the largest amplitude. This
”dispersive tail” appear in our VBM, because we incorporated vertical varia-
tions in the approximation of the velocity potential Φ. In the SWE the waves
run with the same velocity which is square root of gravitational accelleration
times the depth, but in the VBM, the velocity of the waves depend on its
wavelength. The waves with larger wavelength will propagate faster than the
waves with smaller wavelength. Observe again the different between the SWE
and VBM simulations at Figure 4.3 and 4.5, with the presence of this disper-
sive tail in the VBM simulation, it produces a different wave elevation than in
the SWE simulation.
We can see at the VBM’s crossection, the wave that propagate to the right has
the positive wave larger than the SWE. This is caused by ”the exchanging of
amplitude” between the first negative and the successive second positive wave,
the positive wave compensate the decreased negative wave. But for the wave
that propagate to the left the amplitude are smaller than the SWE’s result, this
is expectable, because dispersion will decrease the amplitude. In general, the
presence of dispersive effect will decrease the amplitude, the fact that happen
in the wave that propagate to the right is accidentally because the limitation
of the domain, for the longer domain, the amplitude will decrease. Since we
use the radiation BC of the SWE for the VBM, the result is not so good, it
can be seen in Figure 4.6 that there are reflections from the boundaries.
33
A problem appears when we want to incorporate this square grid data into our
domain (a triangular grid, see Figure 3.1). In this case, we approximate the
n
X
function of depth h (x) by h(x) = b
hi Ti (x), hence we need to know the value
i=1
for b
hi which is given by the value of h at the point xi : b
hi = h(xi ). In this
thesis, we choose to approximate b
hi by the average of the four nearest nodes
from the original data, as ilustrated in Figure 4.8.
34
−7.3
longitude[deg]
−8.3
−9.3
106.2 107.2 108.2 109.2
latitude[deg]
Figure 4.10: Profile of the bathymetry in the south of Java for Pangandaran
case.
35
In this subsection we will describe the main results of this thesis which is the
tsunami simulation in two areas of Indonesia. They are the areas in the south
of Pangandaran and in the south of Lampung (near Krakatau).
Figure 4.11: Plot of the location of earthquake in the south of Java at July
17, 2006. Courtesy : USGS.
36
The location of the souce of the tsunami ilustrated in Figure 4.11 is taken from
USGS. For Pangandaran’s tsunami simulation, we start by using our SWE’s
FEM code, then later we will compare it with the result of VBM’s FEM code.
We consider an initial wave (a bipolar hump with amplitude 2m) with a wave-
length Λ = 40km is generated by a fast bottom excitation of that form. We
assumed that this initial wave profile is released without a speed at the same
location in the historical Pangandaran tsunami. As we described previously,
we will implement the RBC for the ocean and the HBC for the islands. Also
we will use the MTC and MTT curves at the crossection area to analyze the
propagation of the tsunami. The resulting simulations are shown at Figure
4.12 and 4.13. The wave reached the nearest coast line after 18 minutes and
reached the Pangandaran’s coast line after 30 minutes. The profile of the wave
after 1 hour is shown at Figure 4.14, the waveheight reaches to more than 5m in
certain coastline. Notice that the appearance of reflected wave is caused by the
complexity of the bathymetry and also by the HBC at the island. Meanwhile
the RBC at the ocean looks very appropriate (Figure 4.13).
37
Figure 4.12: Plot of the splitting of intial bipolar hump using SWE model at
t = 3 minutes. The location of the source is near 9.220 S and 107.320 E.
Figure 4.13: Plot of the tsunami simulation on Pangandaran case using SWE
model at t = 9 minutes.
38
Figure 4.17: Plot of the maximum crest-height near the coast during 1 hour
simulation using VBM. The below plot denotes the crosssection in the white
line.
the VBM result. Again we can see that our RBC does not perform well with
the VBM code. But the reflections at the boundaries, acceptable since it is
rather small so will not have much contribution for the amplitude amplification
near the coast.
For the second case of tsunami simulation, we choose the area in the south
of Lampung (between Sumatra and Java), we took a new area instead of the
historical tsunami from the Krakatau’s eruption in 1883. The same with the
Pangandaran case, this area also has a potential to generate an earthquake
which results in a tsunami. The location of Lampung’s case is also in the
region of the plate boundary between the Australia plate and Sunda plate
which is seismically active region.
Although there is no historical tsunami generated from this specific area that
we will choose, still, there were many historical tsunami from the surrounded
area near it. As the information from USGS, there were tsunami on June 2,
1994 with magnitude 7.8, killed over 200 people, and on August 20, 1977, a
magnitude 8.3 normal-fault earthquake occured within the Australian plate
about 1200km east-southeast of the earthquake that happen in Pangandaran
in 2006. Also in 2006 Yogyakarta’s earthquake with magnitude 6.3, occured
at shallow depth within overriding Sunda plate. So it not imposible at all that
tsunami can be generated from this Lampung area.
41
Figure 4.18: Plot of approximated bathymetry for Lampung Case. Notice the
shallow area surrounded by deep area in the south of Sumatra.
We start Lampung’s case by using SWE’s FEM code. We took the initial wave
profile the same like in the Pangandaran’s case, but we adjusted its location
so that it is on the top of the mutual boundary of Australian plate and Sunda
plate, see Figure 4.19. As we did before, in this case it is assumed that the
tsunami is caused by a fast bottom excitation so the initial wave profile is
released without a speed. The resulting simulation by using SWE’s FEM is
shown at Figure 4.20 and 4.23.
Figure 4.19: Plot of the location and the shape of initial wave for Lampung
Case.
42
Figure 4.20: Plot of the tsunami simulation for Lampung case by using SWE
model at t = 9 minutes.
Figure 4.21: Plot of tsunami simulation for Lampung case by using VBM.
Notice the appearance of the dispersive tail.
43
Figure 4.22: The wave after 18 minutes by using VBM. There is delayed and
amplified wave above the shallow area. The waveheight reached to more than
10m.
Meanwhile, the resulting simulation for the VBM is shown at Figure 4.21, 4.22
and 4.24. As already mentioned previously, the difference between the VBM’s
simulation and the SWE’s simulation are the appearance of the dispersive tail
that results in different wave amplitudes and also the reflection of the RBC in
VBM’s case. It can be seen that since the initial profile is released, the wave
reached the nearest coast (at Panaitan island, small island in the west side of
Java and Ujung Kulon in Java) after 11 minutes (see Figure 4.20 and 4.16)
and reached the south of Sumatra after 27 minutes for both wave models. For
the SWE model, the maximum waveheight reached 9.47m at the south coast
of Sumatra, and 9.6m for the VBM, see Figure 4.23 and 4.24. Figure 4.23
and 4.24 show the maximum wave amplitudes during 1 hour simulation along
the coast at Sumatra, Java, and other small islands between them.
In the shallower area, the wave will propagate with slower speed, whereas in
contrary, in the deeper area, the wave will have faster speed. Based on this fact,
the topography like in Figure 4.18 supports a phenomena called near-coast
tsunami waveguiding, as introduced in [3,4]. At the top of the waveguide
(above the ridge) where the speed of the wave slower that the surrounding
area, the wave will have an amplification of the waveheight, but outside of
the waveguide (above the two deeper area surrounding the waveguide) the
distorted wave has to adjust with the delayed wave above the waveguide, see
Figure 4.22. Observe that the amplified waveheight reached 13.3m for the
SWE’s simulation and 10.8m for the VBM’s simulation above the waveguide
as shown at the Figure 4.23 and 4.24. Futher studies about this phenomenon
will be investigated in the future.
Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations
V.1 Conclusions
V.2 Recommendations
From the simulation results, it can be seen that the RBC that we incorporated
does not perform well for the VBM, so it needs further study to improve this
type of boundary condition. In order to get more realistic tsunami simulation,
these codes can be improved by adding an appropiate boundary condition
between land and sea. At this thesis the nonlinearity of the SWE and VBM
are not incorporated, but it will be a part of future research.
Bibliography
[1] Van Groesen, E. 2006. Variational Boussinesq Model part 1, Basic equa-
tion in cartesian coordinates. Technical Report of LabMath–Indonesia,LMI-
GeoMath-06/02, ISBN 90-365-2352-4;
http://www.labmath-indonesia.or.id/Reports/Reports.php.
[9] EERI: Distribution of the Tsunami Heights of the 2004 Sumatra Tsunami
in Banda Aceh measured by the Tsunami Survey Team, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, available online at: http://www.eri.u-
tokyo.ac.jp/namegaya/sumatera/surveylog/eindex.htm, EERI Special
Earthquake Report, 2005,The Great Sumatra Earthquake and Indian
Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Oakland, CA, 2005.