ARTICLE IN PRESS

Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Predicting tsunami arrivals: Estimates and policy implications

Dao Hua Zhang a, Tsz Leung Yip a,, Chiu-On Ng b
a
Department of Logistics and Maritime Studies, Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Tsunami is one of a few kinds of natural disasters that leave people some time for escape. This escape
Received 16 September 2008 time, which is essentially the time for the giant wave to propagate from the epicentre to a coast, has to
Received in revised form be estimated without delay upon the occurrence of the incident. With the advancement of water wave
8 December 2008
theories, much work has been done to model the propagation of tsunamis from deep oceans to shallow
Accepted 27 December 2008
water. The authors argue that while much emphasis has been put on the expansion of the high-tech
early warning system and the development of complicated tsunami models, a simple-to-use yet
Keywords: accurate predictive model is still wanting. This paper presents a handy linear wave model, which is
Disaster management capable of estimating the arrival time of a tsunami with very good accuracy, as has been veried by
Tsunami warning
comparison with past incidents. With the availability of such a simple model, even local communities
Water wave
without access to a high-tech warning system can readily estimate the time left for emergency
Tsunami arrival
Contingency plan evacuation.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The most notable earlier tsunami was triggered by the

The word tsunami in Japanese originally means harbour
wave, but the word has come to mean a large and potentially
very powerful series of ocean waves caused by underwater
disturbances, such as an earthquake, volcanic eruption, or land-
slide. Earthquakes or other undersea disruptions cause sudden
vertical changes in the seaoor, which in turn cause a large
volume of water to be displaced from its equilibrium position to a
new position of rise or depression. This change in equilibrium
then moves outwards from the source of origin in the form of a
tsunami.
The Indian Ocean earthquake was an undersea earthquake that
occurred at 00:58:53 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) on December
26, 2004. With a magnitude of between 9.1 and 9.3, it is the
second largest earthquake ever recorded on a seismograph. The
earthquake triggered a series of devastating tsunamis along
the coasts of most landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean. The
tsunamis swept across the Indian Ocean from Thailand to Somalia,
killing more than 225,000 people in 11 countries. The tsunamis
destroyed the shores of Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, South India,
Thailand, and other surrounding countries, and inundating coastal
communities with waves up to 30 m high. It was one of the
deadliest natural disasters in history. Further details about the
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are available on the websites [1,2].
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2766 4631; fax: +852 2330 2704.
E-mail address: lgttly@polyu.edu.hk (T.L. Yip).
powerful earthquake (magnitude of 9.5) off southern Chilean
coast at 3:11 pm Sunday, May 22, 1960 [35]. The earthquake
caused a local uplift of 1 m, and subsidence elsewhere of about
1.6 m of the seaoor. Over the 24 h after the quake, a series of
tsunami waves spread across the Pacic Ocean, taking 2231 lives
and destroying property in such diverse places as Hawaii, Pitcairn
Island, New Guinea, New Zealand, Japan, Okinawa, and the
Philippines. The number of fatalities in Chile was unknown, but
probably ranged between 5000 and 10,000. The total property
damage from the combined effects of the earthquake and tsunami
in Chile was $417 million. The loss of both life and property due to
tsunamis has been immense.
Emergency managers and other ofcials are in urgent need of
operational tools that will provide them with accurate estimation
of tsunami arrival time as guidance for rapid, critical decisions in
which lives and property are at stake. A tsunami warning is the
form of message to inform the public of the imminent danger, and
to allow for immediate actions to be taken by local authorities to
mitigate potentially deadly wave inundation at coastal commu-
nities. The more timely and precise the warnings are, the more
effective actions can local emergency managers take and the more
lives and property can be saved.
The January 21, 2003 Workshop on Far-Field Tsunami Fore-
casting Guidance recommended development and implementa-
tion of the next generation tools to provide far-eld tsunami
forecasting guidance [6]. The collaborative efforts resulted in a
combination of several tsunami forecasting methodologies into
practical forecasting tools to be implemented at the Tsunami

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.011
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
644 D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650
Warning Centers (TWCs). Titov et al. [6] gave a detailed account
on the tsunami forecasting methodology and prototype modelling
tools developed by the Pacic Marine Environmental Laboratory
(PMEL) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
PMEL has developed the methodology of incorporating real-time
data from tsunameters with numerical model estimates to
provide site- and event-specic forecasts for tsunamis in real
time.
Grilli et al. [7] developed a calibrated tsunami source, in terms
of coseismic seaoor displacement and rupture timing along
1200 km of the AndamanSunda trench, and used this source to
build a numerical model of tsunami generation, propagation, and
coastal ooding for the December 26, 2004 event. They simulated
tsunami propagation and coastal impact with a fully nonlinear
and dispersive Boussinesq model (FUNWAVE). The simulated
tsunami arrival times by FUNWAVE were shown to be in good
agreement with the observation.
The aforementioned tsunami forecasting models are sophisti-
cated, but take considerable time to generate results. Time
available for a tsunami warning system to do a forecast is,
however, extremely short. It cannot afford waiting for, say, half a
day before these complicated models may provide some detailed
analyses of the wave dynamics in the oceans. Based on theoretical
models of long waves in shallow water, Segur [8] studied the basic
dynamics of tsunamis, using examples from the December 26,
2004 tsunamis. He suggested the process of tsunami prediction be
split into two parts: the rst part must be done quickly, in
immediate response to a particular earthquake that might
(or might not) generate a tsunami; the second part can be done
in a more careful manner in order to obtain a more accurate
analysis. Segur [8] also pointed out that the principal function of a
tsunami warning system is to predict with fair accuracy how soon
a tsunami will approach a coastal region. It should not be
responsible for modelling how a tsunami would behave in the
waters. If the system is primarily designed for the prediction of
the probable arrival time of a tsunami, the necessary calculations
for this prediction must be very simple so that the results can be
obtained rapidly. This will then serve the purpose of the system
that a warning can be broadcast to alert the public without undue
delay.
In this paper we review the water wave theories and the basic
characteristics of tsunamis. It is found that the linear wave theory
is practically good enough for a quick calculation. The data of the
May 22, 1960 Chilean tsunami in Pacic Ocean, the December 26,
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the June 10, 1996 Andreanov tsunami
in Pacic Ocean, the October 4, 1994 Kuril tsunami in Pacic
Ocean and the November 17, 2003 Rat tsunami in Pacic Ocean
are used for testing the accuracy of the proposed linear wave
theory in predicting tsunami propagation.
2. Characteristics of tsunamis
Tsunamis are extremely long waves with wavelengths in the
order of hundreds of kilometres. In an open sea, a tsunami may be
more than 200 km long from one wave crest to another. Tsunamis
are also characterized by low wave height (decimetres) when
moving through oceanic depths. They are often hard to recognize
when seen in the deep ocean, and are essentially undetectable by
ships at sea. The tsunami waves are fairly permanent and
powerful waves, having the capacity to travel extraordinary
distances without practically diminishing in size or speed. In this
sense they seem to have considerable resemblance to shallow
water nonlinear dispersive waves, particularly solitary waves, a
wave consisting of a single hump of constant speed, which was
rst observed experimentally by Scott Russell (1844) [9]. Because
of the distances involved, the tsunami takes from a few minutes to
several hours to reach the various coastlines.
As tsunamis approach the coastal region, they are affected by
the rapid decrease in water depths, by which the speed is reduced
as the height rapidly increases. Due to the signicant period and
wavelength of tsunamis, they are often seen as a rapidly rising
water level, or a breaking wave bore approaching the shoreline.
The energy of the tsunami waves are evenly distributed through-
out the entire water column. This differentiates tsunamis from the
common wind generated waves, in that wind waves in deepwater
have most of their energy held in the region of the water column
near the free surface. As tsunamis enter the continental shelf and
approach a coast, the abrupt shoaling of water depth causes a
dramatic increase in wave amplitude as the uniformly distributed
wave energy (from top to bottom) is compressed. Very frequently
these waves can be extremely large and devastating, and can have
a tremendous and long-lasting destructive impact on the inicted
areas.
3. Understanding water waves
Water waves occur on the free surface of a body of water, under
the force of gravity. Except for very short waves (with wavelengths
less than a few millimetres), waves on the ocean free surface are
evolved due to the restoring force of gravity.
Much insight into the general behaviour of waves can be
obtained by rst studying two-dimensional, monochromatic,
progressive waves. We consider water moving in a two-dimen-
sional (x, z) domain with a free upper surface at z h+Z(x, t), for a
constant water depth h40, and a at bottom at z 0; see Fig. 1.
As waves pass some xed point in space, the time between
consecutive crests is the wave period T. The speed of the wave, or
its celerity, c (as scientists refer to it), is the distance travelled by a
crest per unit time, or
c l=T (1)
where l is the wavelength. The wave celerity is a function of both
the wavelength (l) and the relative water depth d h/l. Here we
introduce the shallowness parameter d providing a measure of the
dispersive effects. It is useful to classify waves according to the
relative depth in Table 1 (see [10]).
In deepwater (d450), the wave celerity is the function of
wavelength only, waves with different wavelengths travel with
different speeds, long waves travel faster than short waves. When
wavelengths are much longer than the local water depth (do0.05
and with small amplitude), the wave celerity is a function of water
depth only. For xed water depth h, shallow waves irrespective of
the actual wavelength will travel with an approximate speed
given by
p
c gh (2)
z
KFSBC
{ DFSBC
a
(x,t)
h
BBC
x
Fig. 1. Dening sketch for the variables and scales used in the water wave
problem. Keys: KFSBC kinematic free surface boundary condition; DFSBC dy-
namic free surface boundary condition and BBC bottom boundary condition.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650 645

Table 1
Applicability of water wave theories.

Relative depth d h/l Wave type Wave celerity c Wavelength l

p p
do0.05 Shallow water wave gh gh  T
s
   
0.05odo0.5 Intermediate depth wave gl h gT 2 h
tanh 2p tanh 2p
2p l 2p l

r
d40.5 Deepwater wave gl gT 2
2p 2p

where g represents the acceleration due to gravity (equal to
9.81 m/s2 at the ground level), and h is the depth from the bottom
to the top of the water column.
p Thus these very long water waves
have a common speed of gh. Because of this special property, we
call a water wave a long wave if its wavelength is much longer
than the local depth; or equivalently, we call a body of water
shallow water if its depth is much less the wavelength (d h/
l51) of the wave in question. Both terms indicate pthat the
relevant waves all travel with an approximate speed of gh. This
criterion is especially pertinent for tsunamis, which have very
long wavelengths.
In wave modelling, in addition to the shallowness parameter
d h/l, it is also important to consider the amplitude parameter
e a/h, where a is a typical wave amplitude, giving an estimate of
the nonlinear effects. As mentioned above, tsunami waves are
characterized by a long wavelength and low wave height. The
small-amplitude (linear) shallow water waves are obtained from
the governing equations of uid motion under the assumptions
d51, e51, or in limits d-0, e-0. For solitary waves to exist, the
nonlinear and dispersive effects have to be in a proper balance,
i.e., e O(d2)51.
4. The theoretical models of water waves
4.1. Governing equations for water waves
For gravity water waves, water is assumed to be incompres-
sible and inviscid. As in the problem depicted in Fig. 1, the surface
waves induce periodic oscillatory motion in the body of water,
where the horizontal and vertical velocity components are
denoted by u(x, z, t), v(x, z, t), respectively. The governing equations
of the uid motion are Eulers equations (EE), which imply
conservation of linear momentum, and the continuity equation
(CE), which implies conservation of mass. The boundary condi-
tions to be satised on the free surface are kinematic free surface
boundary condition (KFSBC) and dynamic free surface boundary
condition (DFSBC). The KFSBC states that the same particles
always form the free water surface, while the DFSBC states that on
the free surface the pressure is equal to the constant atmospheric
pressure denoted p0. The bottom boundary condition (BBC) at
z 0 is that the rigid bottom is non-penetrative. In summary, the
exact water wave problem is given by the following system of
equations:
ut uux uuz  r1 px EE
where p(x, z, t) denotes the pressure and g is the acceleration due
to gravity.
This set of governing equations and boundary equations are
nonlinear partial differential equations that are difcult to solve in
any general sense. The complication arises because an essential
part of the problem is to locate the boundary domain at the free
surface. The free surface boundary moves with time, and its
(changing) location is determined by solving coupled, nonlinear,
partial differential equation. Zhang and Chwang [11] developed a
nite difference method based on the Euler equations for
computing solitary waves generated by bottom topographies.
The numerical calculations are complicated and time consuming;
therefore, the method is not proper for a quick prediction of
arrival time of tsunami waves.
4.2. Shallow water wave theory
Because of this intrinsic difculty, most advances in the theory
of water waves have come through approximations. Let us here
follow the derivations by Ionescu-Kruse [12]. The water wave
problem (3) is non-dimensionalized using the undisturbed water
depth, h, and a typical wavelength, l, as the vertical and
horizontal length-scales, and a typical amplitude of the surface
wave, a, as the scale for the wave motion. An appropriate choice
p
for the scale of the horizontal p velocity is gh . Then, the
corresponding time scale is l= gh p,
and
the scale for the vertical
component of the velocity is h gh=l. Thus, non-dimensional
variables can be dened as follows:
l
x/lx; z/hz; Z/aZ; t/ p t
gh
p
p gh
u/ ghu; u/h u (4)
l
where to avoid new notation, we have used the same symbols for
the non-dimensional variables x, z, Z, t, u, u, on the right-hand side
of each denition.
The non-dimensional pressure p relative to the hydrostatic
pressure p0+rgh(1z) is dened as
p/p0 rgh1  z rghp (5)
where p0 is the constant atmospheric pressure and r is the
constant density.
Taking into account all the scalings, the water wave problem
(3) reads in non-dimensional variables as follows:

ut uux uuz  r1 pz  g ut uux uuz px

ux uz 0 CE
(3) d2 ut uux uuz pz
u Zt uZx on z h Zx; t KFSBC ux uz 0
p p0 on z h Zx; t DFSBC u Zt uZx and p Z on z 1 Zx; t
u 0 on z 0 BBC u 0 on z 0 (6)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

646 D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650

where we have introduced the amplitude parameter e a/h and If we further assume that the uid motion is irrotational, we
the shallowness parameter d (h/l). The small-amplitude shal- can introduce the velocity potential j by the relation [14]
low water waves (long waves) are obtained in the limits e-0, d-
@j @j
0. We observe that, on z 1+eZ, both u and p are proportional to e u ; u (16)
as e-0. This is consistent with the fact that as e-0 we must have @x @z
n-0 and p-0, and it leads to the following scaling of the non- The linearized free surface boundary conditions on the free
dimensional variables: surface z h+Z are
p/p; u; u/u; u (7) Zt jz ; jt g Z 0 (17)
where we have avoided again introducing new notation.
where g is the acceleration due to gravity. We may further
Further, the parameter d can be removed from the system (6)
linearize the system by applying these conditions on z h rather
(see [13]), this being equivalent to using only h as the length scale
than on z h+Z. After this further linearization, Z can be
of the problem. In order to do this, the non-dimensional variables
eliminated to give
x, t, and u from (4) are replaced by
p p jtt g jz 0; zh (18)
  d
x/ x; t/ t; u/ p u (8)
d d  This condition gives the dispersion relation which can be
expressed as
The problem (6) then becomes
s
 
ut uux uuz px gl h
c tanh 2p (19)
ut uux uuz  pz 2p l
ux u z 0
This dispersion relation has been used in Table 1 for classifying
u Zt uZx and p Z on z 1 Zx; t water waves.
u 0 on z 0 (9)

In the limit e-0 (d2-0), the waves in question are innitely

4.3. The Kortewegde Vries (KdV) equation
long, innitesimally small in amplitude, and the system (9)
becomes linearized shallow water wave equation:
The derivation of the KdV equation is based on four key
ut px 0 assumptions:
pz 0
ux u z 0  long waves (lbh, or shallow water);
u Zt and p Z on z 1  small amplitude (a5h);
u 0 on z 0 (10)  the waves move primarily in one direction;
 the small effects are comparable in size with each other
From the second equation in system (10), we get that pressure p satisfying
does not depend on z. Because p Z(x, t) on z 1, we have  
h a
p Zx; t for any 0pzp1 (11) d 51;  51;  Od2 (20)
l h
Therefore, using the rst equation in (10), we obtain
The small parameter d provides a measure of the dispersive
Z
effects and e gives an estimate of the nonlinear effects. This means
u  Zx x; t dt Fx; z (12)
that for long-wave theory the nonlinear and dispersive effects are
brought into a proper balance.
where F is an arbitrary function. Differentiating (12) with respect
Under the above assumption, in 1895, Korteweg and de Vries
to x and using the third equation in (10), we get, after an
derived what we now call the KdV equation [14],
integration with respect to z,
Z 3 1
u z Zxx x; t dt  Gx; z Gx; 0 (13) Zt Zx ZZx d2 Zxxx 0 (21)
2 6
The KdV equation is a most remarkable nonlinear partial
where Gz(x, z) Fz(x, z) and we have also taken into account the
differential equation in 1+1 (space and time) dimensions. It was
last condition in the system (10). Making z 1 in (13), and taking
rst derived as an evolution equation, governing one-dimensional,
into account that n Zt on z 1, we get after a differentiation
small amplitude, long surface gravity waves propagating in a
with respect to t, that Z has to satisfy the equation
shallow channel of water. It is the simplest equation that we can
Ztt  Zxx 0 (14) envisage, incorporating both nonlinearity and dispersion. The
solution of the KdV equation is a solitary wave
In physical dimensions given in (4), Eq. (14) reads as
"s
  #
Ztt  c2 Zxx (15) 2 3d
Z  sech x  Ut (22)
4
Eq. (15) ispthe
one-dimensional wave equation that has wave
speed c gh. where U is the velocity of the solitary wave
The general solution of this equation is Z(x, t) f(xt)+g(x+t), 
where f and g are arbitrary differentiable functions, which can be

U c 1 (23)
2
determined from given initial data. In other words, Eq. (15)
describes a signal (f) propagating to the right, while
p another signal which is amplitude dependent. Under the assumption of e a/
(g) propagating to the left, both with a speed gh. Neither signal h51, the velocity of a solitary wave
p is approximately equal to the
will change shape as it propagates, at this order. shallow water wave speed c gh.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650
5. Verifying the theory with eld observations
In this section we test the accuracy of the linear shallow water
wave theory when applied to predicting how long it takes for a
tsunami to reach a given coastal region. The December 26, 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami and the May 22, 1960 Chilean tsunami are
chosen for the testing. These tsunamis were triggered by the rst
(Chile) and third (Indonesia) largest earthquakes in 100 years (see
Table 1 in [5]). They are extensively studied and detailed data are
well documented [13,5]. Titov et al. [6] tested the tsunami
forecasting methodology developed by PMEL against three
tsunamis, i.e., the June 10, 1996 Andreanov, October 4, 1994 Kuril
and November 17, 2003 Rat events, that were recorded by both
deep-ocean and coastal gauges [6,15]. The linear shallow water
wave theory is applied to all these events and comparisons are
made with the measured gauge data and the forecast data by the
numerical model of Titov et al. [6] and by a fully dispersive
Boussinesq model FUNWAVE (see Table 2 in [7]).
5.1. The December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
The epicentre of the main earthquake was at 3.3161N, 95.8541E,
approximately 160 km, in the Indian Ocean just north of Simeulue
Island, off the western coast of northern Sumatra, at a depth of
30 km below mean sea level. GPS stations and seismic inversion
models indicate that the rupture propagated approximately
northward from the epicentre, along a 12001300 km segment
of the Andaman/Sunda trench with an average rupture speed of
2.53.0 km/s, causing up to approximately 6 m of bottom
subsidence and 10 m of uplift over a region 100150 km wide
across the subduction area [16].
The earthquake changed the shape of the ocean oor, by raising
the ocean oor to the west of the epicentre, and lowering it to the
east. Measured wave records indicate that horizontal scale of the
piece of seabed raised was about 100 km in the eastwest direction,
and may be 900 km in the northsouth direction. The piece of
lowered seabed had similar scales. In each case, the vertical motion
was a few meters. All of these lengths are crude estimates [8].
According to the satellite observation, the rst two wave fronts
spaced 500800 km apart. These waves reached a maximum height
of 0.6 m in the open ocean, only reaching their full devastating
height when entering the shallow waters of the coast.
The northern regions of the Indonesian island of Sumatra were
hit very quickly, while Sri Lanka and the east coast of India were hit
roughly 90 min to 2 h later. Thailand was also struck about 2 h later
despite being closer to the epicentre, because the tsunami travelled
more slowly in the shallow Andaman Sea off its western coast.
According to many witnesses, the rst seismic sea wave hit the
coast in Phuket, Thailand, at 02:33 GMT, i.e., about 90 min after the
earthquake. At 03:30 GMT, Internet newswire reports of casualties
in Sri Lanka provided Pacic Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) with
the rst indications of the existence of a destructive tsunami. The
tsunami took 7 h to reach the northeast coastline of Somalia, Africa.
According to information available on the web [1], the average
depth of the Indian Ocean is about 3890 m. The average depth of
the Andaman Sea is 870 m. As mentioned above, tsunami waves
resemble solitary waves. A solitary wave is a localized (a large
heap of water above the water level, meaning a wave has only
crest and no trough), bell-shaped wave that travels with
permanent form and velocity in one space direction only.
Theoretically the wavelength of a solitary wave is innite.
Practically, the width of the solitary wave (from front to the tail)
can be a rough estimate of the wavelength.
Let us take the wavelength of the 2004 tsunami to be about
200 km and wave amplitude to be about 1 m. The average water
647
depth of the Indian and Pacic Oceans are approximately 4 and
1 km, respectively. Thus the ratio of ocean depth to wavelength was
h 4
d  102 51 (24)
l 200
for the waves travelling west (in the Indian Ocean) and even
smaller for waves travelling east (in the Andaman Sea), which was
h 1
d  103 51 (25)
l 200
Hence, the Indian Ocean and the Andaman Sea were indeed
shallow water for the 2004 tsunami. Moreover, the initial wave
height of the wave relative to the ocean depth was
a 1
  104 51 (26)
h 4000
for waves travelling west (in the Indian Ocean) and that for waves
travelling east (in the Andaman Sea) was
a 1
  103 51 (27)
h 1000
As expected, the tsunami pwas initially very small, and the
shallow water wave speed gh is applicable.
According to (2), the waveptravelling west (i.e., towards India)
p
had a speed of about c gh 9:81  3890 703:3 km=h,
while the wave travelling
p east (towards Thailand) moved slower,
p
at about c gh 9:81  870 332:6 km=h.
Now we can examine how well the shallow water wave speed
can predict the propagation of the 2004 tsunami in the open
ocean. Let us select two coastal locations in the Indian Ocean, i.e.,
Colombo of Sri Lanka, and Huridiyo of Somalia, and one coastal
location in the Andaman Sea, i.e., Phuket, Thailand. The arrival
times of the tsunami for these three locations were reported by
Pacic Tsunami Warning Center; see the website [17].
To estimate the arrival time of the tsunami wave, we need to
know the distance between the epicentre of the earthquake and
the location where the tsunami hits. Distances between any two
points on the earth surface can be estimated by their coordinates
[18]. A comparison between the estimated time of tsunami
propagation by the shallow water and the arrival time reported
by PTWC are listed in Table 2.
Except for the Phuket case, the overall agreement between
estimative time by shallow water wave speed and the reported time
is very good as shown in Table 2. The predicted arrival time for Phuket
is some 12 min longer than the reported time, where the difference
can be reconciled keeping in mind that the epicentre was in the
Indian Ocean just north of Simeulue Island, off the western coast of
northern Sumatra. Waves initiated at the epicentre propagated rst in
Indian Ocean with a higher speed and then diffracted by the northern
tip of the island of Sumatra, and continuously propagated in the
shallower Andaman Sea with a lower speed. Considering these facts,
it is understandable that why the reported time was somewhat
shorter than the estimated time for Phuket.
The estimated times by the linear wave theory are comparable
with those calculated by a fully nonlinear and dispersive
Boussinesq model (see Table 2 in [7]).
5.2. The May 22, 1960 Pacic Ocean tsunami
The tsunami of the May 22, 1960, was triggered by the rst
largest earthquake in 100 years (see Table 1 in [5]). The epicentre
of the earthquake is at 39.51S, 74.51W, with a focal depth of 33 km.
The individual waves in tsunami wave train had wavelengths of
500800 km and periods of 4080 min. In the open ocean, the
wave height was only 0.4 m. The wave front travelling across the
Pacic Ocean is shown in Fig. 1 of [4]. The arrival time of tsunami
across the Pacic Ocean had been accurately measured at many
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

648 D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650

Table 2
Comparison of observed tsunami arrival time and estimated time by shallow water wave speed for the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

Locations Coordinates Distance to Wave celerity Observed arrival Estimated time (t s/

p
epicentre (s) (km) (c gh) (km/h) time (h) c) (h)

Colombo, Sri Lanka 051560 N, 791580 E 1783.3 703.3 2.5 2.5

Phuket, Thailand 071530 N, 981240 E 580.4 332.6 1.5 1.7
Hurdiyo, Somalia 101340 N, 51150 E 4998.4 703.3 7.1 7.0

Table 3
Comparison of observed tsunami arrival time and estimated time by shallow water wave speed for the May 22, 1960 Pacic Ocean tsunami.

Locations Coordinates Distance to Wave celerity Observed arrival Estimated time (t s/

p
epicentre (s) (km) (c gh) (km/h) time (h) c) (h)

Hanasaki, Japan 431170 N, 1451340 E 16,667.5 737.7 22.6 22.6

Hilo, Hawaii 191430 N, 155150 W 10,611.3 737.7 14.8 14.4
NukuHiva, French Polynesia 81490 S, 1401120 W 7302.2 737.7 10.5 9.9

tide gauges (see Fig. 5.8 in [3]). According to [1], the average depth
of the Pacic Ocean p is
about
p4280 m and then the shallow water
tsunamis have travelled over 10 h or longer before encountering
wave celerity is c gh 9:81  4 280 737:7 km=h.
If the tsunami wavelength, amplitude and the average depth of
the ocean are assumed to be 200 km, 1 and 4000 m, respectively,
the ratios of the scales are given as follows:
h 4
d  102 51
l 200
a 1
  104 51
h 4000
These scaling ratios also indicate that the May 22, 1960
tsunamis are indeed shallow water waves and the linear wave
theory is applicable.
We select two locations in the middle of the Pacic Ocean, i.e.,
Hilo in Hawaii, and Nuku-Hiva in French Polynesia, and one
location at the west boarder of the Pacic Ocean far from the
epicentre, i.e., Hanasaki at east coast of Japan for comparisons of
the tsunami wave arrival time.
The coordinates and the distances of the three locations from
the epicentre are presented in Table 3 together with the data
arrival time and the estimated arrival time by the linear wave
theory.
The comparisons are again very good. Considering that the
estimated average depth of oceans could have 2.5% difference
from different data sources, and the recorded arrival times also
vary depending on how the values were obtained (from tide
gauges or from local reports), the discrepancies between the
observed and estimated arrival times are practically insignicant.
The values of small parameters e and d2 for the tsunamis of
2004 in Indian Ocean and 1960 in Pacic Ocean were roughly
estimated to be eE104 and d2E104, respectively. One can
identify that the small parameters (e and d2) are of the same order
of magnitude. As a consequence, it is possible that a nonlinear
shallow water wave theory where dispersion also plays an
important role has some pertinence. However, Constantin and
Johnson [19] estimated for the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami wave
the small parameters were eE0.02 and dE0.04l, and concluded
that the distance over which the wave would have to travel before
the effects of nonlinearity and dispersion were both signicant
and balanced was de3/2  wavelengthE90,000 km, which is,
however, far greater than the observed distances that the waves
had in fact travelled. It appears that these estimates can vary
widely, and with suitable estimates it is plausible that
10,00020,000 km could be a reasonable range. Therefore, in view
of the fact that both the Indian Ocean 2004 and the Chilean 1960
land masses, it is important to take into account the possible
nonlinear dispersive phenomenon in the course of wave propaga-
tion. This suggests that we should use the shallow water
equations, but for variable depth (which will include beaches
and shorelines).
(28)
5.3. The June 10, 1996 Andreanov, October 4, 1994 Kuril and
November 17, 2003 Rat tsunamis
(29)
The PMEL has developed a practical forecast system that
combines real-time seismic and tsunami data with a forecast
database of pre-computed scenarios [6]. The deep-ocean mea-
surement is used as a primary data source for making tsunami
forecast. A limited number of strategically placed deep-ocean
gauges can provide advanced tsunami observation for a large
portion of the given coastline. Consider Hilo as an example of a
coastal community, even a spare array of existing tsunameters
would, in principle, provide timely tsunami detection from most
sources around the Pacic for Hilo.
The forecast methodology has been tested at Hilo Hawaii for
2003 Rat Island, 1996 Andreanov and 1994 Kuril tsunamis. Model
forecast predictions for the tide gauge at Hilo are compared with
observed data. The comparison demonstrates amplitudes, arrival
time and periods of several rst waves of the tsunami wave train
were forecasted correctly (see Fig. 8 in [6] and Fig. 9 in [15]). All
recorded wave amplitudes of the three tsunami waves at Hilo
gauge were less than 0.3 m, therefore the shallowness parameter d
and the amplitude parameter e would be much smaller than one.
The linear shallow water wave speed is tested for the arrival times
for these three tsunamis at Hilo. The predicted tsunami wave
arrival times are listed in Table 4 along with the measured gauge
data and the data forecasted by PMELs model (from Fig. 8 in [6]
Fig. 9 in [15]). It is seen that the simple methodology of linear
shallow water wave theory can predict the tsunami wave arrival
time accurately and as good as the complex PMELs model.
6. Policy implications
Advantages of tsunami warning systems with linear water
wave theory include: (1) rapid predication of tsunami propaga-
tion, (2) reliable forecast of tsunami arrival time, and (3) no eld
instrument is required.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650
Table 4
Comparison of observed tsunami arrival times and estimated times by shallow water wave speed for three earthquake tsunamis arrived at Hilo (191430 N, 155150 W), Hawaii
Pacic Ocean.
Location of tsunami Coordinates of epicentre
earthquakes
March 17, 2003 Rat, Alaska 51.421N, 177.911E
June 10, 1960 Andreanov 50.61N, 177.71W
October 4, 1994 Kuril 43.961N, 147.41E
There has been an extensive international effort to create a
coordinated and timely tsunami warning and response system.
One of the key warnings is the estimate of the arrival time at
certain locations. The discussion above highlights three key
implications which are discussed below:
(1) It is important to have a rapid prediction. The simple linear
wave theory provides reliable prediction of tsunami arrival
time (see Tables 24). It takes only few minutes to forecast the
possible arrival.
Minimising response time to the disaster is critical for the
recovery. A quick and reliable estimate is feasible without
advanced knowledge of tsunami or sophisticated simulating
system. On the contrary, a simulation-based system requires a
large database of topographical data and relevant information
and takes a lot of computing time.
(2) The more exact prediction may be accomplished by more
accurate, high-resolution bathymetric data. However, as
demonstrated, the water depth data is less critical than the
travelling distance, according to the wave properties of
tsunami.
As the geographical distance is xed, the contingency plan for
tsunami can be developed according to the distance. The
warning and actions to be taken can be developed according
to estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the tsunami, once a
submarine earthquake has been reported. Efforts are then put
to coordinate both public and community services in order to
save lives and property.
(3) As the existing system of water level gauges is used to
measure tides, a parallel system is required to measure
tsunami. With the adoption of linear wave dynamics, the
investment in new instruments purely for tsunami monitor-
ing could be reduced.
Tides are generated by the rotation of astronomical bodies.
Therefore, if the harmonic constants are determined by using
the long-range tide record at the site of interest, future tides
can be predicted. On the other hand, the prediction of
tsunamis generated by submarine earthquakes is rather
difcult; hence the quick detection of such unusual rises in
the sea level is extremely important in order to warn residents
along the coast concerned. The periods of tsunamis fall in the
range of a few minutes to several hours, while tidal harmonics
are 12 and 24 h. To record tsunamis as accurately as possible,
tsunami gauges have been developed, e.g., [20] as tidal gauges
cannot measure tsunamis at a high accuracy.
7. Concluding remarks
In this paper, we have reviewed the basic water wave theories
and looked into the characteristics of tsunami waves. From the
ratios of scales of the two devastating tsunamis in the history, i.e.,
the May 22, 1960 Pacic Ocean tsunami and the December 26,
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, we have conrmed that the tsunami
waves are indeed shallow water waves. Therefore the shallow
649
Distance between Wave celerity Observed and Estimated by linear
p
Hilo and (c gh) (km/h) forecasted by wave theory (t s/c)
epicentre (s) (km) PMELs model (h) (h)
4236.4 737.7 5.7 5.7
3965.0 737.7 5.37 5.37
5918.9 737.7 8.0 8.0
water wave speed is applicable to the tsunami waves. From the
nine testing cases it can be seen that the estimated time to reach
the middle of the oceans and coastal regions is in good agreement
with the reported or recorded arrival times. It requires literally
little time to perform the calculation. Therefore, the linear wave
theory is accurate enough for the purpose of a rapid forecast of
tsunami propagation. It is easy to understand and simple to
calculate. The only data needed for the calculations are the
average depth of the ocean and the distance between the
epicentre and the potentially affected areas. These data can
be obtained readily from various sources worldwide. When an
underwater earthquake or landslide has occurred, an emergency
manager or other ofcials can themselves do a quick calculation to
estimate the probable arrival time of tsunami waves, if any,
consequent to the quake. Such a quick action will enable a
warning to be communicated to the public as early as possible.
Acknowledgements
We are very thankful to the referees for their useful and
constructive comments on the earlier version of this paper. This
research was partially sponsored by the Grant no. A-PD08
Analysis of Port Development in Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
References
[1] /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquakeS.
[2] Pomeroy RS, Ratner BD, Hall SJ, Pimoljinda J, Vivekanandan V. Coping with
disaster: rehabilitating coastal livelihoods and communities. Marine Policy
2006;30(6):78693.
[3] Bryant E. Tsunami: the underrated hazard. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg and
New York: Springer; 2008.
[4] Pickering KT, Soh W, Taira A. Scale of tsunami-generated sedimentary
structures in deep water. Journal of the Geological Society 1991;148(2):2114.
[5] David O. Impacts of the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Eastern Africa. Ocean
and Coastal Management 2006;49(11):87388.
[6] Titov VV, Gonzalez FI, Bernard EN, Eble MC, Mofjeld HO, Newman JC, et al.
Real-time tsunami forecasting: challenges and solutions. Natural Hazards
2005;35(1):4158.
[7] Grilli ST, Ioualalen M, Asavanant J, Shi F, Kirby JT, Watts P. Source constraints
and model simulation of the December 26, 2004, Indian Ocean Tsunami.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering
2007;133(6):41428.
[8] Segur H. Waves in shallow water, with emphasis on the tsunami of 2004. In:
Anjan K, editor. Tsunami and nonlinear waves. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer;
2007.
[9] Remoissenet M. Waves called solitons: concepts and experiments. Berlin:
Springer; 1994.
[10] Sorensen RM. Basic wave mechanics. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2006.
[11] Zhang DH, Chwang AT. Generation of solitary waves by forward- and
backward-step bottom forcing. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2001;432:34150.
[12] Ionescu-Kruse D. Variational derivation of the Cammssa-Holm shallow water
equation. Journal of Nonlinear Mathematical Physics 2007;14(3):31120.
[13] Johnson RS. Camassa-Holm, Kortewegde Vries and related models for water
waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2002;455:6382.
[14] Whitham GB. Linear and nonlinear waves. New York: Wiley; 1999.
[15] Bernard EN, Mofjeld HO, Titov V, Synolakis CE, Gonzalez FI. Tsunami:
scientic frontiers, mitigation, forecasting and policy implications. Philoso-
phical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A 2006;364:
19892007.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

650 D.H. Zhang et al. / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 643650

[16] Ioualalen M, Pelinovsky E, Asavanant J, Lipikorn R, Deschamps A. On the weak
impact of the 26 December Indian Ocean tsunami on the Bangladesh coast.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 2007;7(1):1417.
[17] /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earth-
quakeE-HostS.
[18] /http://www.chemical-ecology.net/java/lat-long.htmS.
[19] Constantin A, Johnson RS. Modelling tsunamis. Journal of Physics A:
Mathematical and General 2006;39(14):L2157.
[20] Cho DO, Whitcomb MA. A review of the ocean science and technology
partnership between US and Korea. Marine Policy 2008;32(3):50213.