This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 06 February 2015, At: 20:03

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International

Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of
Australia
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taje20

Wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia:

Tsunami propagation modelling
a b
A. T. Jones & C. L. Mader
a
Oceanus Consultants , 1401–1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 3Z3, Canada
b
Mader Consulting Co. , 1049 Kamehame Drive, Honolulu, HI, 96825–2860, USA
Published online: 09 May 2007.

To cite this article: A. T. Jones & C. L. Mader (1996) Wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: Tsunami
propagation modelling, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of
Australia, 43:4, 479-483, DOI: 10.1080/08120099608728269

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08120099608728269

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (1996) 43, 479-483

Wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia: tsunami

propagation modelling
A. T. JONES1 AND C. L. MADER2
1
Oceanus Consultants, 1401-1166 Alberni Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3Z3, Canada.
2
Mader Consulting Co., 1049 Kamehame Drive, Honolulu, HI 96825-2860, USA.

Catastrophic wave erosion on the southeastern coast of Australia has been attributed to a Hawaiian tsunami
generated by the Alika 2 debris avalanche approximately 105 000 years ago. We examine the likelihood of a
Hawaiian underwater mega-landslide as the tsunami's source through numerical tsunami propagation modelling,
performed using the SWAN code which solves the non-linear long-wave equations. The tsunami generation and
propagation was modelled using twenty minute ETOPO5 topography for the Pacific Basin. Results for a
hypothetical avalanche in the Hawaiian Islands ten times the volume of the Alika 2 debris avalanche show that
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 20:03 06 February 2015

Hawaii cannot be the source for a 15 m wave on the Australian coast. An asteroid impact in the central Pacific is
examined as an alternative source for the erosional wave. Modelling results indicate that the impact of a 6 km
asteroid could generate significant wave run-up along the southeastern coast of Australia.

Key words: Alika debris avalanche, asteroid impact, Lanai tsunami, modelling, tsunami, wave erosion.

INTRODUCTION the Hawaiian Ridge (Moore et al. 1989). At least 68

Wave trains generated by the submarine mega-landslides
off the island of Hawaii are postulated to have destroyed
Australian coastal barrier dunes 105 000 years ago
(Young & Bryant 1992). The absence of last interglacial
dunes south of Newcastle along the coast of New South
Wales is postulated to be the result of erosion by a
tsunami. Erosional evidence such as clefts, flutes and
sickle troughs in sandstone in addition to removal of
1200 m3 of sandstone from a depression at Tura Head,
New South Wales are interpreted to be the result of a
tsunami. At Haycock Point, 10 km south of Tura Head,
Tertiary sediment capping headlands has been eroded up
to an elevation of 16 m. Tsunami propagation numerical
modelling was undertaken to examine the likelihood of a
Hawaiian source for these erosional features.
Lanai tsunami 105 ka
Moore and Moore (1984) proposed that a giant wave or
set of waves struck the Hawaiian Islands depositing
marine materials at anomalously high elevations. On the
island of Lanai, fragments of corals and molluscs are
reported at 326 m elevation on the southern coast of the
island. Neighbouring islands have an unusual marine fauna
in brecciated deposits at various elevations. Unique gravel
bed forms on Lanai have been interpreted as the result of
the giant wave returning swash (Moore & Moore 1988).
The timing of the wave event is based on 23OTh/234U
dating of coral clasts collected at three sites ranging from
115 m to 155 m elevation (Moore & Moore 1988). The
estimated date of the giant wave event is 105 ka. The
giant wave event has been linked to one or more of the
major submarine landslides discovered off the flanks of
major landslides over 20 km in length have been
described from GLORIA surveys along the Hawaiian
Island chain (Moore et al. 1994). Turbidites from the
mega-landslides have been recently identified from cores
on the outer flank of the Hawaiian Arch almost 340 km
due west of the island of Hawaii (Garcia & Hull 1994).
In these cores the age of the uppermost volcanic sands
layer, based on palaeomagnetic data and biostratigraphy,
is ca 100 ± 20 ka (Garcia & Hull 1994) and is in general
agreement with the estimated occurrence of the Alika 2
debris avalanche (Moore et al. 1989).
The Lanai tsunami has been previously modelled to
determine if the identified submarine slumps and debris
avalanches off Hawaii could generate a 326 m run-up on
the south coast of the island of Lanai (Johnson & Mader
1994). Volumes of the submarine landslide were estimated
from GLORIA sea-floor imaging (see Moore et al. 1989).
Modelling results indicate that only a very large Alika
landslide off the Kona (west) coast of the island of Hawaii
would cause the required -400 m high run-up on Lanai.
For the assumed landslide model, to obtain the necessary
run-up, a volume of 1600 km2, greater than twice the
likely volume of the Alika 2 debris avalanche, is required.
The modelling effort was restricted by several assumptions
including the simplicity of wave generated by the landslide
and the instantaneous nature and size of the disturbance
(see LeBond & Jones 1995 for further discussion).
NUMERICAL MODEL
The modelling was performed using the SWAN code
(Mader 1988) which solves the shallow-water long-wave
equations. The code has been used to study the
 480 A. T. JONES AND C. L. MADER
interaction of tsunami waves with continental slopes,
shelves, bays and harbours such as Hilo harbour. The
SWAN code has been used to study the interaction of
tsunami waves with continental slopes and shelves
(Mader 1974). Comparison with two-dimensional Navier-
Stokes calculations of the same problems showed similar
results except for short-wavelength tsunamis.
The SWAN code was used to model the effects of tides
on the Musi-Upang estuaries, South Sumatra, Indonesia
(Hadi 1985). The computed tide and water discharge
were in good agreement with experimental data. It was
used to model the large waves that were observed to
occur inside Waianae harbour under high surf conditions
(Mader & Lukas 1985). These waves have broken
moorings of boats and sent waves up the boat-loading
ramps into the parking lot. The numerical model was able
to reproduce actual wave measurements.
The SWAN code was used to model the interaction of
waves with a site near the Mauna Lani Resort on the
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 20:03 06 February 2015

South Kohala Coast on the island of Hawaii (Mader

1990a). The calculated results agreed with the results
obtained using the procedures developed and applied for
flood-insurance purposes by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and a determination at the University of
Hawaii of tsunami evacuation zones for the site.
The 1987-88 Alaskan Bight tsunamis were modelled
using the SWAN code (Gonzalez et al. 1990). The deep-
sea pressure gauge measurements for those tsunamis
were described using realistic source models for the
tsunamis. A numerical study of effects of the shallow-
water approximation on tsunami flooding was performed
(Mader 1990b). Calculations using the full Navier-Stokes
model was compared to the SWAN code calculations.
The models gave similar results for periods greater than
500 seconds and slopes greater than 2 per cent.
The formation of tsunami waves from initial sea
surface displacements was studied using the SWAN code,
the incompressible Navier-Stokes model, and the
analytical linear gravity model (Mader et al. 1993a). The
shallow-water model was found to be valid for systems
with initial surface displacements at least ten times wider
than the depth.
The propagation of tsunami waves was also studied
using the SWAN code, the incompressible Navier-Stokes
model, and the analytical linear gravity model (Mader et
al. 1993b). The three models gave similar results if the
wavelength was long in comparison to the depth.
The 1946 and 1964 Hilo tsunamis were caused by
Alaskan earthquakes and the 1960 Hilo tsunami by an
earthquake in Chile. The 1946 and 1960 tsunamis resulted
in extensive flooding of Hilo while the 1964 tsunami
caused limited flooding. The tsunami generation and
propagation to the Hawaiian Islands was modelled using
the SWAN code (Mader & Curtis 1991). The model gave
approximately the observed maximum areas of flooding.
The large amount of flooding from the 7.6 magnitude
1946 Alaskan earthquake and small amount of flooding
from the 8.5 magnitude 1964 Alaskan earthquake was
reproduced by the numerical models. This demonstrated
the large effect of wave directionality and the necessity of
modelling the entire process of tsunami generation,
propagation and flooding for each event.
Figure 1 Location of selected sites for tsunami propagation. 1,
Hawaiian Islands; 2, Australia; 3, New Zealand. Location of
modelled hypothetical asteroid impact in the central Pacific is also
indicated
MODELLING HAWAIIAN TSUNAMI SOURCE
The generation and propagation of a Hawaiian tsunami
were modelled using an ETOPO5 20 minute topographic
grid (555 by 450 cells) for the Pacific basin. The
modelling was performed using the SWAN code (Mader
1988). Figure 1 shows the selected locations for
determining propagating wave characteristics. The
Hawaiian landslide that caused the tsunami was assumed
to be ten times larger in area than the landslide that
occurred off the coast of Hawaii around 105 ka (Moore et
al. 1989). Wave propagation from this source is presented
in Figure 2. The tsunami wave rapidly decays as it
propagates across the Pacific Ocean. Wave characteristics
at selected locations are presented in Table 1. Wave
heights at selected locations are shown in Figure 3. The
wave that arrives at the Australian coast is very small.
While run-up from deep water could double the wave
amplitude, the wave dispersion, which is not considered
in the calculations, would reduce the amplitude by at
least one-half or more depending upon the period of the
initial wave. Run-up is predicated on the geometry of the
receiving basin consisting of shelf slope and morphology
of embayment. However, it is unrealistic to presume that
the run-up would be enhanced by an order of magnitude
by local topographic features. Therefore, the calculated
results are probably upper limits for the run-up wave
amplitude.
MODELLING CENTRAL PACIFIC ASTEROID
IMPACT
Given that the Hawaiian mega-landslide is an unlikely
source for the New South Wales erosional features, we
examined the likelihood of an extraterrestrial impact in
 TSUNAMI PROPAGATION, SE AUSTRALIA 481
500 300
(a)
200
400 -
1 100
E

Wave Heic
0

-100

-200

-300
30
(b)
20
50 100 150 200

Wave Heigh t(m)

Distance (km) 10

0
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 20:03 06 February 2015

Figure 2 Tsunami wave propagation from Hawaiian underwater

landslide source at discrete times.
-10

-20
the central Pacific causing the required run-up in New
South Wales. Over the Pacific Ocean there are, annually, -30
approximately two explosive meteoric impacts in the 30
Earth's atmosphere. Chapman and Morrison (1994) have (C)
calculated that within the next 100 years, the probability 20
of a kilometre-sized object colliding with Earth is 1 in
s Heighit(m)

10 000. With the Pacific Ocean representing 35% of the 10

Earth's surface, the region is a likely candidate to receive
the anticipated colliding boloid. Estimated frequencies of 0
meteorite impacts over the Pacific Ocean for scaled
asteroids are 1 in 10 000 years for 1 km-sized structures,
1 in 100 000 years for a 5 km-diameter structure and 1 in 1 -10

50 million years for an asteroid with a diameter of 20 km. -20

Using a site in the central Pacific (shown in Figure 1),
we calculated the wave propagated by an impact of an -30
asteroid 6 km in diameter. We assume that such an 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
asteroid would produce a water cavity approximately Time (sec x10 4 )
150 km wide and 5 km deep. Initial water-cavity size is
based on similarity scaling parameters for a 10 km-diam- Figure 3 Calculated wave heights for Hawaiian underwater
eter asteroid with an impact velocity of 30 km/s and a landslide source at selected locations: (a) Hawaii, (b) Australia,
density of 5.0 g/cm3 (Ahrens & O'Keefe 1983). A 6 km- (c) New Zealand.
diameter asteroid is about the size of the Shoemaker-
Levy 9 asteroid [J. Hills and J. Solem (Los Alamos
National Laboratory) pers. comm. 1995]. in this case than in the earlier example of the Hawaiian
Wave propagation from the described asteroid impact mega-landslide source. Arrival at the New South Wales
in the central Pacific is presented in Figure 4. The leading coastline is within 8 hours of the impact event. Figure 5
wave bore is separated further from the secondary waves displays the wave heights from the described impact. The

Table 1 Wave characteristics at selected sites for waves propagated from Hawaiian mega-landslide and central Pacific asteroid impact.
Mega-landslide * Asteroid f
Amplitude (m) Period (s) Amplitude (m) Period (s)
Location Depth Lowest Highest Approx. Lowest Highest Very Approx

1. Hawaii 4602 -200 +150 3000 -190 + 190 2000

2. Australia 4530 -1 +1 4000 -20 + 15 8000
3. New Zealand 2191 -4 +4 3000 -20 + 40 1500

* Landslide: 150 km, +1 km, -1 km.

f
Asteroid: 150 km diameter cavity, 5 km deep.
 482 A. T. JONES AND C. L. MADER
500 200

100

•s
1
I

100 150 200

50
Distance (km)

"<1> 0
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 20:03 06 February 2015

Figure 4 Tsunami wave propagation from central Pacific I

asteroid impact source at discrete times.
-50

south coast of Australia is calculated to receive a 15 m

wave, whereas Hawaii would receive a wave approaching -100
200 m. Numerical calculations indicate that an asteroid 100
about the size of the recent Shoemaker-Levy 9 asteroid (c)
could result in large waves required for both the Lanai
and Australian coast. Clearly, smaller asteroids nearer 50
Australia could generate run up of 15 m along the New
South Wales coast.
O)

DISCUSSION
-50
There are several possible sources for the Australian
erosional event. Besides asteroid impacts, tsunamigenic
earthquakes along the subducting Tonga-Kermadec arc -100
and submarine landslides off New Zealand could generate
a source for the southeastern coast of Australia. Seismic Time (secx 10 )
activity along the Tonga-Kermadec Trench could have
generated waves. This stretch of the plate boundaries has Figure 5 Calculated wave heights for central Pacific asteroid
been fairly active in historic times (Soloviev 1970). Recent impact source at selected locations: (a) Hawaii, (b) Australia, (c)
work on seismotectonics in the southern Tasman Sea has New Zealand.
identified hypocentres of strong earthquakes almost
directly south of Tura Point on the New South Wales coast
(Valenzuela & Wysession 1993). However, directional the landslide-based tsunami would not generate a 15 m
indicators of erosion along the southern New South Wales wave along the southeastern coast of Australia.
coast are not consistent with a southern source. Alternatively, an impact from an asteroid in the central
Furthermore, whereas earthquakes partition approximately Pacific could generate a wave along the coast of New
1 to 10% of their energy into water waves (Weigel 1970) South Wales that meets the requirements of the erosional
impact events potentially yield more intense tsunamis due features identified by Young and Bryant (1992). Whether
to larger energies involved in planetary collision. there is further geological evidence supporting an
asteroid impact in the central Pacific within the
Submarine landslides possibly triggered by earth-
timeframe required for the New South Wales erosional
quakes could have also generated waves of sufficient
event remains to be investigated.
energy to cause localised erosion along the New South
Wales coast. However, one should expect to observe
turbidity flows and slumps as well as evidence of tsunami
deposits on the shores of New Zealand, which so far have ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
not been reported.
In conclusion, our numerical analysis of tsunami We thank E. Spassov, K. A. W. Crook and R. W. Young
propagation from a Hawaiian mega-landslide indicate that for their helpful comments.
 TSUNAMI PROPAGATION, SE AUSTRALIA
REFERENCES
AHRENS T. J. & O'KEEFE J. D. 1983. Impact of an asteroid or
comet in the ocean and extinction of terrestrial life. Journal of
Geophysical Research 88, Supplement A799-A806.
CHAPMAN C. R. & MORRISON D. 1994. Impacts on the Earth by
asteroids and comets: assessing the hazard. Nature 367,
33-40.
GARCIA M. O. & HULL D. M. 1994. Turbidites from giant
Hawaiian landslides: results from Ocean Drilling Program
Site 842. Geology 22, 159-162.
GONZALEZ F. J., MADER C. L., EBLE M. C. & BERNARD E. N.
1990. The 1987-88 Alaskan Bight tsunamis: deep ocean data
and model comparisons. International Journal of Natural
Hazards 4, 119-140.
HADI S. 1985. A numerical tidal model of Musi-Upang estuaries.
PhD thesis, University of Hawaii, Hawaii (unpubl).
JOHNSON C. & MADER C. L. 1994. Modeling the 105 ka Lanai
Tsunami. Science of Tsunami Hazards 11, 33-38.
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 20:03 06 February 2015
LEBOND P. H. & JONES A. T. 1995. Underwater landslides are less
effective than abrupt shifts in sea bottom at producing
tsunamis. Science of Tsunami Hazards 13, 25-26.
MADER C. L. 1974. Numerical simulation of tsunamis. Journal of
Physical Oceanography 4, 74-82.
MADER C. L. 1988. Numerical Modeling of Water Waves.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
MADER C. L. 1990a. Modeling tsunami flooding. Proceedings of
the Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology,
PACON90, 112-117.
MADER C. L. 1990b. Numerical Tsunami Flooding Study I.
Science of Tsunami Hazards 8, 67-77.
MADER C. L. & CURTIS G. 1991. Modeling Hilo, Hawaii Tsunami
Inundation. Science of Tsunami Hazards 9, 85-94
483
MADER C. L. & LUKAS S. 1985. Numerical modeling of Waianae
Harbor. Aha Hulikoa Hawaiian Winter Workshop
Proceedings, 315-324.
MADER C. L., MOORE D. W. & CARRIER G. F. 1993a. Numerical
Tsunami Source Study II. Science of Tsunami Hazards 11,
81-92.
MADER C. L., MOORE D. W. & CARRIER G. F. 1993b. Numerical
Tsunami Propagation Study III. Science of Tsunami Hazards
11, 93-106.
MOORE G. W. & MOORE J. G. 1988. Large scale bed forms in
boulder gravel produced by giant waves in Hawaii. Geological
Society of America Special Publication 229, 101-110.
MOORE J. G. & MOORE G. W. 1984. Deposit from a giant wave on
the Island of Lanai, Hawaii. Science 226, 1312-1315.
MOORE J. G., CLAGUE D., HOLCOMB R., LIPMAN P., NORMARK W.
& TORRESAN M. 1989. Prodigious submarine landslides on
the Hawaiian Ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research 94,
17 465-17 484.
MOORE J. G., NORMARK W. R. & HOLCOMB R. T. 1994. Giant
Hawaiian Landslides. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Science 22, 119-144.
SOLOVIEV S. L. 1970. Recurrence of Tsunamis in the Pacific. In
Tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean, pp. 149-163. East-West
Center Press, Hawaii.
VALENZUELA R. W. & WYSESSION M. E. 1993. Intraplate
earthquakes in the southwest Pacific Ocean Basin and the
seismotectonics of the southern Tasman Sea. Geophysical
Research Letters 20, 2467-2470.
WEIGEL R. L. 1970. Tsunamis. In Earthquake Engineering, pp.
253-306. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
YOUNG R. W. & BRYANT E. A. 1992. Catastrophic wave erosion
on the southeastern coast of Australia: impact of the Lanai
tsunamis ca. 105 ka? Geology 20, 199-202.
Received 22 August 1995; accepted 3 January 1996