4.3 Article

Tsunami generation by a rapid entrance of pyroclastic flow into the sea during the 1883 Krakatau eruption, Indonesia

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2011JB008253

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan [19710150]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19710150] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 1883 eruption of Krakatau volcano in Indonesia was one of the most explosive volcanic events in history. It was a marine caldera-forming eruption that resulted in voluminous ignimbrite deposits and huge tsunamis. We have used numerical simulations to investigate three major mechanisms for tsunami generation: caldera collapse, phreatomagmatic explosion, and pyroclastic flow, and have constrained the source parameters. Computed tsunami characteristics for each hypothesis are compared with observations at locations along the coasts of the Sunda Strait, where tsunami data were obtained immediately after the eruption. For the pyroclastic flow hypothesis, two types of two-layer shallow water models, dense- and light-type models, were used under different initial conditions. Pyroclastic flows are erupted from a circular source following a sine function that assumes waning and waxing phases. Caldera collapse was performed using a simple piston-like plunger model, in which collapse duration was assumed to be up to 1 h. The phreatomagmatic explosion hypothesis was examined using simple empirical models for underwater explosions in shallow water, with explosion energy between 10(16) and 10(17) J. The results show that when a pyroclastic flow with a volume of >5 km(3) and an average discharge rate of the order of 10(7) m(3)/s enters the sea, the computed tsunami heights are broadly consistent with historical records in coastal areas, including a tide gauge record at Batavia (now Jakarta). We conclude that a pyroclastic flow entering the sea is the most plausible mechanism of the 1883 Krakatau tsunami.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据