This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Problem B

Page 1 of 31

For office use only T1 ________________ T2 ________________ T3 ________________ T4 ________________

For office use only F1 ________________ F2 ________________ F3 ________________ F4 ________________

2009

12th Annual High School Mathematical Contest in Modeling (HiMCM) Summary Sheet (Please attach a copy of this page to each copy of your Solution Paper.) Team Control Number: 2311 Problem Chosen: B Please type a summary of your results on this page. Please remember not to include the name of your school, advisor, or team members on this page.

In order to best measure the effect of a tsunami on a coastal city, we tested the severity of damage to the infrastructure in several American cities using several factors such as the slope of the city, the density of buildings in the city, the length of coastline, and a likely epicenter for the earthquake. By compiling this data we were able to estimate the devastation of earthquakes that would register 5.0, 7.0, and 9.0 on the Richter Scale based on the number of buildings the tsunami would reach and the mean price of buildings in each city. The first segment of our model measures the wave from the epicenter to cresting. To ascertain this, we gathered relevant data on each city, for example, statistics included the dimensions of epicenter (meaning the depth and distance from shore) and the terrestrial features off the coast. With this, we determined the average energy of the wave leading up to the impact and how the protruding features, like the harbors and islands, would slow the tsunami. The aim of this portion of the model was to find the mass, velocity, amplitude, and kinetic energy of the wave just as it begins to fall on the city, thereby causing the destruction. We developed an equation that uses the provided parameters to find these desired quantities and describes the characteristics of the wave. The second step of our model aimed to measure the destruction a wave would cause once it reached the shore and subsequently broke. This section relied on the first segment’s results in addition to the dimensional size of each city and the demographics of buildings in each city. We determined which buildings would be affected by finding the highest point the wave would climb and figured the number of buildings that were in that swath of land. We derived an equation that outlines the work needed to seriously harm each building, assuming generalizations on the traits of all the buildings. Next, total monetary cost was compiled, stemming from ratio of commercial to residential property and the price differences of each in all the cities. The fiscal cost of tsunamis fluctuated immensely with respect to Richter Scale value and the city. The most damaging example is a 9.0-magnitude tsunami in New York City resulting in $3.98 billion worth of reconstruction and repair. On the other end of the spectrum, a 5.0-magnitude landing in Hilo, Hawaii totals to $21.5 million in infrastructure devastation. The amounts appear daunting in scope, more notably on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts; however, the likelihood of any sized tsunami in these areas is minuscule to insignificant. In summation, our model successfully and precisely estimates the cost of variously sized tsunamis that reach shore in American cities.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 2 of 31

Table of Contents Restatement of the Problem Assumptions with Justifications The Model Part I: Epicenter to Shore Part II: Devastation of Cities Part III: Putting the Pieces Together Part IV: Application of Model to Cities Hilo, HI San Francisco, CA New Orleans, LA Charleston, SC Boston, MA New York, NY Corpus Christi, TX Strengths and Weaknesses Extensions Appendices Appendix A: Equation Derivations Appendix B: Data Appendix C: The Cities Bibliography Article to the Local Newspaper 3 3 5 5 7 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 15 21 26 29 31

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 3 of 31

**Restatement of the Problem
**

Through building a mathematical model, measure the effect of earthquake-generated tsunamis impacting several different coastal cities. Use the following cities for analysis: Hilo, HI; San Francisco, CA; New Orleans, LA; Charleston, SC; New York City, NY; Boston, MA; and Corpus Christi, TX. Using property damage, losses of life, or any other reasonable indicator(s), calculate the devastation caused by tsunamis that vary in magnitude. Write a letter to the editor of one of the cities’ periodicals describing the results.

**Assumptions and Justifications
**

A1. Weather variables, such as wind, precipitation, and air and water temperature, have a negligible effect on the intensity of a tsunami. -The aforementioned factors are very diverse in the given cities and vary drastically from season to season, meaning no unified approach can be applied to them. A2. Water is an ideal fluid, so viscosity is negligible. -We found that this occurs under ideal conditions through our research, and we assume that we are dealing with ideal conditions. A3. The shape of the wave is sinusoidal. -A sinusoidal shape is the model closest to the actual shape of the wave. Also, making the shape sinusoidal makes finding the volume cross-sectional area of the wave less arduous. A4. During a tsunami, there is only one wave that causes damage. -Depending on the location and earthquake, the difference in time and magnitude of multiple waves would create several different cases for the interactions of multiple waves. These extra variables made the math very difficult, so we were forced to eliminate them. A5. 1% of the energy produced from earthquake is transmitted to the tsunami. -This simplifies the problem and is approximately equal for all earthquakes. Most of the energy goes into P and S waves through the earth, heat, sound, and movement of water that doesn't support a tsunami. A6. An earthquake that registers 5.0 on the Richter Scale will produce a wave with an initial amplitude of 1 meter. Each step up on the Richter Scale will increase the amplitude by a factor of 1.32. -Past research has no decisive conclusion on a relationship between earthquake magnitude and wave amplitude, instead the consensus is that a typical base value is 1 meter and each progressive step marginally increases the wave amplitude. A7. While the wave is traveling through deep water, it does not lose any energy. -This is approximately true. The energy lost is mainly through viscosity and air resistance. Because viscosity is negligible and the amplitude is relatively small, both of these factors are negligible. A8. All points on the ring of waves produced by the tsunami have the same energy (up until the waves encounter the shore of the target city). -This allows us to look specifically at the features of the target city and calculate energy without considering

Team #2311 geological figures elsewhere.

Problem B

Page 4 of 31

A9. Before the wave crests, the area in the cross-section of the wave remains constant. -This is approximately true, and assuming so allows us to calculate the effects of changing depth on changing height of the wave. A10. The presence of a harbor reduces the kinetic energy of the incoming wave by 5%. -The shapes of all harbors are very similar. Thus, all harbors will have almost exactly the same effect on the tsunami. This number was developed through research. A11. The presence of barrier islands, breakwaters, or other islands will reduce the kinetic energy of the incoming tsunami according to the equation KE f = KEi

4 W +4

-All obstacles of this sort are the same in that they all inhibit the wave's motion and reduce its kinetic energy as it passes over/around it. This drop is proportional to the width of the obstacle. In addition, all islands of this type are relatively flat and at sea level. A12. The bayous surrounding New Orleans affect the loss of energy of the tsunami 25% as much as an island of the same size. -New Orleans is surrounded by bayous, and the tsunami would have to pass through a bayou in order to get to New Orleans. The bayous would cause some loss of energy because they are not open water, but at the same time, they do have some water, so they would not cause as much of a loss of energy. In addition, the rivers and streams connecting these bayous to New Orleans would transmit the tsunami more easily. This assumption allows us to calculate the energy loss of the tsunami as it travels through the bayous. A13. Once the wave crests, it is no longer a wave; it is a mass of water moving towards the city. -Again, this is nearly true, and assuming so allows us to apply conservation of energy to calculate the damage done by the tsunami. A14. The wave crests completely before encountering shore. -This causes the water to be approximately level when it reaches shore. This allows us to accurately consider the wave cresting and then hitting shore as a level mass of water rather than having to include a complicated expression that explained cresting and destroying and the same time. A15. The land in all of the cities is linearly sloped, except the bayous in New Orleans, which are flat (see assumption 12), and the mountain in San Francisco (Mt. Sutro), which is impassable. -By looking at topographic maps, this is true. The slopes are not exactly linear, but by approximating it as linear, we can greatly simplify the problem. Because the mountain in San Francisco is so high relative to the rest of the city (925ft compared to 52ft) and the mountain is so far inland, no feasible tsunami can pass over the mountain. A16. The distribution of buildings and the population density will be uniform throughout. -Obtaining the block by block layout of several cities would be difficult, time-consuming, and superfluous; and add little to our generalized model.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 5 of 31

A17. All affected buildings in cities under consideration can be considered brittle, thus experiencing minimal deformation before breaking. -Many building materials, such as wood and concrete, are brittle. Brittle materials have a linear stress vs strain curve, which makes modeling collisions between the tsunami and building much simpler. A18. The average building in any city is two stories tall. -The average building height near the coast will not be drastically different for different cities. Assuming constant height allows us to simplify our model and eliminate one variable. A19. All friction, heat, noise loss, and other sources of energy loss as the tsunami advances inland (besides change in gravitational potential energy and building destruction) are negligible. -These diverse causes of energy loss would be very difficult to account for, and because they are relatively small compared to the total energy of the tsunami, they can be ignored.

The Model

From the time the earthquake occurs until after the tsunami has passed, the tsunami acts like two different objects. Before the wave crests, it acts like a wave: a sinusoidal disturbance passing through the water. When it leaves the ocean and moves onto land, it acts like a moving mass of water. Instead of trying to design a model that encompasses both of these facets, we developed a model comprised of two parts: one to deal with how the wave reaches shore, and one to explain how the wave interacts with the land and destroys buildings.

**Part I: Epicenter to Shore
**

Before a tsunami occurs, tension in the Earth’s tectonic plates builds up. The epicenters of earthquakes that cause tsunamis are usually at a site where an oceanic plate is subducting underneath a continental one. Because of friction, the continental plate is compressed and bent backwards. When this tension reaches a critical level, it releases in a very rapid movement, pushing upwards and forwards. The upward part of this movement displaces water. This causes a ripple effect to emanate in a circular ring from the epicenter. (For all of the following equations, see Appendix A for complete derivations) The magnitude of an earthquake can be defined by the Richter Scale: a base ten logarithmic scale. Because the end goal of the model is to calculate the amount of destruction done by a tsunami in a set of given conditions, we want to know the energy of the incoming wave. To find this, we need to know the energy of the initial earthquake. According to our research, the relationship is

3

E = 10 2

R + 4.8

[Equation 1.1]

Where E is energy in Joules and R is the Richter Scale magnitude. In addition, we need to find the initial amplitude of this wave. This is helpful because it allows us to find when the wave will begin cresting. Because the Richter Scale is logarithmic, the desired relationship should be exponential. The lowest magnitude of earthquake that can produce a tsunami is 5.0 on the Richter Scale. In addition, the smallest initial amplitude of a tsunami is 1 meter. The highest recorded magnitude of earthquake that produced a tsunami is approximately 9.0 on the Richter Scale and the initial amplitude was 3 meters.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 6 of 31

Using these two data points, we can derive the relationship

Ai =

[Equation 1.2]

Where Ai is the initial amplitude in meters and R is the Richter Scale magnitude. Finally, the velocity of the created wave is needed because it allows us to calculate the final speed of the wave as it approaches shore. The velocity of this wave is defined as

vi = gdi

[Equation 1.3]

Where vi is the initial velocity in m/s, g is the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2), and di is the initial depth of the water, or the depth of the epicenter. The wave loses no energy as it travels towards the shore, and because the water is so deep, it doesn’t lose any speed either. Once the wave reaches significantly shallow water, the ground forces the wave to slow down. However, the frequency of the wave cannot change, so in order to keep the frequency constant when velocity decreases is to decrease the wavelength as well. This means that the wave bunches up. Because the same amount of water needs to fit in a smaller space, the amplitude of the wave increases significantly. At a certain point, the amplitude will grow so tall relative to the depth of the water that it becomes unstable. At this point, the wave begins to crest. We need to find this point because then we can find the final velocity, depth, and amplitude before the wave crests. The wave becomes unstable once the amplitude is at least .88 times the depth of the water because of Assumption A2. So, if we can find the point when the amplitude is equal to .88 times the depth of the water we can find the cresting depth. We developed a relationship using calculus to relate the cresting depth and amplitude to the initial depth and amplitude. We can solve this for the cresting depth and get

d f = 1.089 3 Ai 2 di

[Equation 1.4]

Where Ai is the initial amplitude and di and df are the initial and cresting depths respectively. Using this, we can also find Af by multiplying by .88. Using equation 1.2, we can find the cresting velocity. Finally, we want to find the energy of the incoming wave. Because Etsunami = 1% x Eearthquake,

3

Etsunami = 10 2

R + 2.8

[Equation 1.5]

However, not all of the energy goes to the specified location. The fraction χ of energy that goes to the location is defined as

χ=

l 2π r

[Equation 1.6]

Where l is the coastal length in meters and r is the distance from the location to the epicenter. Thus, the energy brought to the specific area of the city in the tsunami is

3

Ecity = χ Etsunami = χ10 2

R + 2.8

[Equation 1.7]

Thus, we now have the amplitude, energy, depth, and velocity of the wave when it begins to crest.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 7 of 31

Because the wave will crest and collapse before it reaches the shore, it will level out at the average height of the wave. Using the mean value theorem of integrals, we can find

AV =

1.917 3 Ai 2 d i

π

[Equation 1.8]

Using this, we can calculate the gravitational potential energy of the wave.

PEg =

1.917 ρ lA f λ f g 3 Ai 2 di

π2

[Equation 1.9]

Because the center of mass was at the height of the average value, but now it is at one-half of the average value, so onehalf of its gravitational energy is transformed to kinetic energy. Because of conservation of energy, the wave’s final kinetic energy after it falls is equal to the initial kinetic energy before it fell plus the gravitational potential energy converted to kinetic energy. Thus,

ρ lg λ ( 3 Ai 2 di ) 2 .8433ρ lg ( 3 Ai 2 di ) 2 KE f = + π2 2π

This value can then be used in the second part of the model where devastation is calculated.

[Equation 1.10]

**Part II: Devastation of Cities
**

The second part of our model regards the wave after it hits the shore. Our goal is to calculate the devastation in terms of cost of damage. To do this, we found the total area affected for each city, multiplied by the average number of buildings per area, and multiplied this by the average cost of a building. The latter two items were found through research, thus, this section of our model was mainly concerned with determining the total area of each city affected. Rather than attempt to account for the complex fluid dynamics of a water wave climbing a shore, after the wave crested, we treated it as a single mass and used conservation of energy to find the maximum height. An expression for kinetic energy was found in the previous section of the model. Applying the work-energy theorem,

∑W = ∆E ∑W = PE

f

− KEi

[Equation 2.1]

In this case, the only work done on the tsunami is the work of collisions with buildings and other objects. Using the formula for shear stress,

F ∆x =S• A h

We derived a formula for the work required to destroy a building:

[Equation 2.2]

VU 2 W= 2S

[Equation 2.3]

Team #2311 Problem B Page 8 of 31 Where W is the work required, V is the volume of the building, U is the ultimate strength of the building, and S is the shear modulus.

Initially we used this equation to calculate the work done whenever the tsunami strikes a building. However, we later realized that not every building struck by the tsunami will be completely demolished. To account for this, we multiplied the work done by each building by a factor

v , where v is the velocity of the wave and k is a constant. We chose to v+k

make the work proportional to velocity because we reasoned that the faster the wave travels, the more each object struck will be demolished, and therefore the more work will be done on the wave by each building. The constant k was determined based on data gathered from tsunamis that struck Hilo, Hawaii. We then used this value for work to determine the height at which the kinetic energy is zero, which is the maximum height reached by the wave.

**W = PE f − KEi − VU 2 v • bA = Mgy − KEi 2S v + k
**

[Equation 2.4]

Where b is the number of buildings per square meter and A is the total area affected. Using m as the slope of the bank up which the tsunami climes,

A = ly

1 +1 m2

[Equation 2.5]

Where ℓ is the length of the coastline in meters. Substituting and solving for y,

y=

KEi VU v 1 Mg + • • bl +1 2S v + k m2

2

[Equation 2.6]

y = maximum height reached by wave (m) M = mass of wave (kg) g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s^2) V = average volume of a building (cu. m) U = ultimate strength of average building (Pa) S = shear modulus of building material (Pa) v = velocity of wave (m/s) b = # of buildings per square meter

Team #2311 ℓ = length of coastline (m) m = slope of ground in the city

Problem B

Page 9 of 31

To simplify calculations, we used average values for U, V, and S. U and S were found through research, and the average volume of a building was found for each city. The average volume was calculated by multiplying the percent of buildings that are residential in a city by the average volume of a residential building, and adding the result to the percent of buildings used commercially multiplied by the average volume of a commercial building. These data are all listed in Appendix B. Using equation 2.5, area affected was calculated from y. Multiplying this result by b (buildings/sq. meter) and the average cost of a building for each city (C), the total devastation was found:

Cb • KE0 D=

1 +1 m2

VU 2 v 1 Mg + • • bl +1 2S v + k m2

[Equation 2.7]

**Part III: Putting the Pieces Together
**

Both of these pieces of our model contain a large number of equations. By combining all of the equations in the first part of the model, we obtain equation 1.10. By combining all of the equation in the second part of the model, we find equation 2.7. However, we can consolidate our model even further. Although the equation is very large, we can substitute equation 1.10 (kinetic energy) into equation 2.7 and find one expression for the destruction a tsunami causes a city.

ρ lg λ ( 3 Ai 2 di ) 2 .8433ρ lg ( 3 Ai 2 di ) 2 1 ( + )Cb • +1 2 π 2π m2 D= 2

1 VU v Mg + • • bl +1 2S v + k m2

[Equation 3.1]

**Part IV: Application of Model to Cities
**

For each city under consideration, eight factors were used to calculate devastation: 1. Distance of city from fault line. 2. Depth of fault line. 3. Length of coastline. 4. Features around coast (e.g. harbor/bay, island, bayous, breakwater). 5. Slope of city land. 6. # of commercial and residential buildings in the city. 7. Area of the city 8. Average building cost in the city.

Team #2311 Problem B Page 10 of 31 Factors 1 through 4 are used to determine the mass, velocity, height, and energy of a tsunami wave as it hits the land. Factors 3, 5, 6, and 7 are used to calculate the distance inland the tsunami reaches and the number of buildings affected. Factor 8 is used to calculate the cost of damage. For each city, all data used and figures calculated are presented in Appendix B. Here, the horizontal distance inland reached by the tsunami, the number of buildings affected, and the total cost of damages are given for tsunamis generated by earthquakes of magnitude 5, 7, and 9 on the Richter scale. (See Appendix C for visual representations of each city)

Hilo, HI

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 85.563 161.712 283.961 # of buildings affected 57 108 190 Total cost (millions of $) 21.503 40.640 71.362

Hilo is one of the few cities that regularly experience tsunamis because of its location in the Pacific. Hilo is characterized by a very low population and a high land slope. It is also located on a funnel-shaped bay called the Hilo Bay, which increases its chances of encountering tsunamis. However, due to demographic and topographic eccentricities, Hilo has the lowest devastation out of all the cities we tested with our model.

San Francisco, CA

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 3.929 9.619 23.195 # of buildings affected 51 124 298 Total cost (millions of $) 42.566 104.192 251.236

San Francisco proves difficult to model for several reasons. First is the elevation. Most of the city is fairly flat, with the exception of the central mountains. One of our assumptions is that all cities have constant linear slopes, but a linear model clearly could not account for mountains. Eventually, we decided that because of the mountains' height and distance from the coast, no tsunami wave could feasibly get over the mountain, so we disregarded them in our model. The second difficulty with San Francisco is the San Francisco Bay. The front of the city will be hit normally by a tsunami wave, but a portion of the wave will also curve around into the bay and hit the city from behind. Half of the wave energy will hit the city normally, at full strength, and the other half will be diminished by an assumed value of 5% in accordance with assumption #22. Thus, the average energy of a wave hitting San Francisco is 97.5% of the energy of the wave.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 11 of 31

New Orleans, LA

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 30.763 76.388 188.453 # of buildings affected 1043 2591 6392 Total cost (millions of $) 159.609 396.323 977.752

New Orleans is one of the cities most at risk from tsunami waves, having the greatest number of buildings affected and total cost of damage after New York City. The flatness of the terrain of New Orleans contributes to its vulnerability, as the wave can penetrate farther horizontally into the city without losing kinetic energy by rising vertically. The long coast of New Orleans means that the city has more area exposed to a tsunami. These factors apply to hurricanes as well as tsunamis, and contributed to the massive devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. New Orleans has several unique features that affect the impact of a tsunami. First is a 1 mile wide barrier island. We modeled the affect of barrier islands an breakwaters by multiplying the tsunami's energy by , where w is the width of the barrier and n is a constant, determined from data to be approximately 4. Thus, a tsunami crossing a 1 mile wide barrier island loses 1/5 of its total energy. After the island, tsunamis must traverse about 4 miles of bayous. We estimated the energy lost in crossing the bayous is equal to 25% of the energy lost crossing an equivalent solid barrier island. Thus, for 4 miles of bayous, the tsunami loses of its initial energy, after losing 1/5 of its

its energy from the New Orleans barrier island. Thus, the energy of a tsunami striking New Orleans is energy on the open ocean.

Charleston, SC

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 145.953 262.613 441.690 # of buildings affected 98 175 295 Total cost (millions of $) 25.998 46.778 78.676

The city of Charleston, South Carolina is a sharp departure from its eastern counterparts. It acts as a tsunami-foil in that it has a low building price per unit, low building density, small coastline, and low population density. The combination of these four factors indicates a strong resistance to tsunami damage. Charleston also has a harbor, which changes the energy of the wave to 95% of its original. The possible damage caused by the three levels of tsunamis is minuscule when contrasted with the totals of New York or Boston, amounting to less than a tenth of the cost of reconstruction. Additionally, Charleston has a fairly high land slope so the sparse building distribution will be even less impacted by a tsunami of any magnitude. The above characteristics of Charleston protect it from massive damage, and consequently the death toll as well.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 12 of 31

Boston, MA

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 8.660 21.362 52.113 # of buildings affected 642 1584 3865 Total cost (millions of $) 274.010 675.912 1648.939

The city of Boston, Massachusetts has two identifying traits, in reference to a tsunami's potential effect. The composite price per building is comparatively high to the other cities and, for Boston; this is combined with an exceptionally high ratio of buildings to square meter. What this does is intensify the tsunami's infrastructural damage. Since the buildings are placed closely together and are expensive, the final cost of reconstruction will be increased relative to the other six cities. Boston also has a large population density, which also fuels the tsunami's damage since building loss and death toll will be highly correlated. The numerous islands scattered in Boston's harbor do act as a shield from tsunami and decrease the energy of an oncoming tsunami by about 4/(1.5+4) = 0.73. Like other Eastern Seaboard cities, Boston has a limited history of sea-bound earthquakes, which lessens the potential threat of a tsunami, but existence of a tsunami would cost a radically vast amount of money.

New York, NY

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 24.461 61.227 153.115 # of buildings affected 1165 2916 7293 Total cost (millions of $) 635.927 1591.727 3980.546

New York City, the most populous municipality of the given cities, is similar to Boston in many respects. Both cities have a high building density coupled with a high cost per building. A factor that separates Boston and New York and adds to New York's vulnerability is its immense coastline. Like its New England neighbor, the high density and cost of buildings means that a natural disaster would be very costly to the city, and by extension, increase the death toll. The coastline factor would mean a larger swath of land is affected and hence more buildings are harmed. New York City has a harbor, which dampens the hurricanes energy by 0.95, but no major islands. New York is largely ill-equipped and poorly laid-out for an earthquake-generated tsunami wave. Its large coast exposes it to a larger section of the wave and its building density coupled with its high cost per building further increase the prospective damage of any sized tsunami.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 13 of 31

Corpus Christi, TX

Richter scale value 5 7 9 Horizontal Distance (m) 105.088 260.824 642.964 # of buildings affected 453 1125 2773 Total cost (millions of $) 48.005 119.146 293.711

Corpus Christi, Texas is unique from the other cities in that its land slope is significantly less, meaning it’s flatter than the rest and has a stretch of land that covers the entire coastline. This adds to the steps in our calculations, because we have to use the limiting factor for islands, which is defined as 4/(w+4), where w is the width of the island. The kinetic energy for the wave will be four-fifths of the approaching wave since it passes over 1 mile of land prior to reaching the city. Furthermore, the Corpus Christi Bay will again diminish the wave's kinetic energy by a factor of 0.95. Relative to the other cities, Corpus Christi has a low building per meter ratio and on a building-to-building ratio are noticeably cheaper. This is offset; however, by the low land slope, which adds to the tsunami's destructive power. All in all, Corpus Christi is pretty severely damaged by a tsunami of any magnitude. That said, only one earthquake has ever been recorded to have appreciably affect Corpus Christi, and it was pegged at 3.8 on the Richter Scale, so, in summation, the likelihood of a damaging tsunami is insignificant. This is a bar graph illustrating the differences in devastation for each city:

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 14 of 31

**Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths
**

⇒ Our model is very adaptable. Given any location, we can find the most likely location of the epicenter, the terrain of the city, any protective land features, population density, and average building cost and strength. Using these inputs, we can find the monetary damages from tsunamis of various magnitudes for any location. ⇒ If another measurement of devastation, such as loss of life, amount of commercial property destroyed, proportion of the city that is submerged, etc., then the equation can easily be used to calculate these values. This is because there are many separate intermediate equations in addition to the final equation that can be combined in different ways to yield different measurements. ⇒ Although the equations we derived are cumbersome and a composite of many smaller equations, they are easily adaptable and adjustable. Simple addition of data, or data from a new city, can be straightforwardly entered into the equation to produce new results. ⇒ Our model utilizes very complex aspects of tsunami waves, such as the cresting point, interaction with infrastructure, and the relationship between initial epicenter and final kinetic energy. ⇒ Our data, such as cost of buildings and building density, are significantly individualized, meaning our effects are unique to each city.

Weaknesses

⇒ Our model greatly simplifies some of the extremely complex aspects of a tsunami such as cresting, interaction with obstacles, formation of a wave destruction of buildings, and effects of topography.

⇒ We only base our model off of the most likely epicenter location. Thus, our results pertain to the average case, not the range of possible results.

⇒ Our model makes numerous assumptions concerning constants in our derived equations. Although the constants are reasonable, they are based off of limited data and research.

Extensions

1. We would have liked to further delve into the effects of the bayous around New Orleans (and bayous/estuaries in general) on tsunamis. We assumed its effects we 25% of that of dry land, but this is not actually the case. We would have liked to calculate a more realistic effect. 2. We would have liked to further study the effects of varying topography on tsunamis, rather than assuming the land is uniform. We could have used other models than linear models to describe the land, but the land resembled a linear model. Using non-uniform topography would increase the accuracy of our model.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 15 of 31

3. We would have liked to further investigate the effects of bays, harbors, and protective islands on the strength of the tsunamis. We simply assumed that harbors and bays reduced the energy of the tsunami by 5% and the protective islands reduced the energy of the tsunami by the factor in equation in Assumption A11. 4. We would have liked to take into account the possibility of multiple waves, but it made the problem much more complex, and we did not have enough time to pursue this option. It would have increased the accuracy of our model.

**Appendices Appendix A: Equation Derivations
**

Calculation of the cresting depth (d2) given the initial amplitude and depth

**Because the area under the curve of the cross-section of the wave remains constant,
**

λ1 λ2

∫

0 v1 2f

2

A1 sin(

2π

λ1

x ) dx = ∫ A2 sin(

0 v2 2f

2

2π

λ2

x ) dx 2π f x ) dx v2

λ=

v so, f v= gd so,

∫

0 2f

A1 sin(

2π f x ) dx = v1

∫

0

A2 sin(

gd f 2f

gd i

∫

0

Ai sin(

2π f x ) dx = gd i

∫

0

A f sin(

2π f x ) dx gd f

gd

Ai gd i 2π f Ai gd i 2π f Ai gd i

gd1 f A f gd f 2π f 2π f 2f 2f [ − cos( x )]0 = [ − cos( x )]0 2π f gd i gd f

[1 − cos(π )] = = Af gd f

Af

gd f

2π f

[1 − cos(π )]

πf

π f

gd f gd f Because A2 = .88 d 2 ,

Ai gd i = A f

Ai gd i = .88 d f

Ai 2 gd i = .7744 d f 2 gd f df3 = Ai 2 d i = 1.291 Ai 2 d i .774

d f = 3 1.291 Ai 2 d i = 1.089 3 Ai 2 d i

A1 = Initial amplitude (m) d1 = Initial depth (m)

Team #2311 λ1 = Initial Wavelength(m) A2 = Cresting amplitude (m) d2 = Cresting depth (m) λ2 = Cresting Wavelength(m) f = Frequency (Hz) Calculation of mass of the incoming wave

λ

2

Problem B

Page 16 of 31

m = ρ l ∫ A sin(

0

2π

λ

x)dx

λ Aλ 2π cos( x)]02 2π λ ρ lAλ 2π λ = [1 − cos( )] 2π λ 2 ρ lAλ 2 = 2π ρ lAλ =

= ρ l[−

π

A = Amplitude (m) ρ = Density of Seawater = 1027 kg/m3 λ = Wavelength (m)

l = Shoreline length (m)

Average height of a wave/its height after collapsing

λ

AV =

λ

1

λ

2

∫A

0

2

f

sin(

2π

λ

x ) dx

= =

A λ∫

0

2 2

2

f

sin(

2π

λ

x ) dx

λ λ 2π A f cos( x )]02 λ 2π λ 2 .88 d i 2π λ = [1 − cos( )] 1 2π λ 2

[−

= =

2 2 .9583 3 Ai d i 2 1 2π

1.917 3 Ai 2 d i

π

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 17 of 31

AV = Average value (m) Ai = Initial amplitude (m) di = Initial depth (m) Af = Cresting amplitude (m) λ = Cresting wavelength (m) Calculation of Gravitational Potential Energy Right at Cresting

PE = =

g

= m gh

f

ρ lA f λ π

g

1 .9 1 7

3

3

Ai2 d i Ai2 d i

π π

2

1 .9 1 7 ρ l A f λ f g

Af = Cresting amplitude (m) Ai = Initial amplitude (m) di = Cresting depth ρ = Density of Seawater = 1027 kg/m3 λf = Cresting wavelength (m)

l = Shoreline length (m)

g = Gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s2 Development of the model to connect Richter Scale Magnitude and initial amplitude.

The equation must have A=1 when R=5 and A=3 when R=9. Because the Richter Scale is logrithmic, the desired equation is exponential. A i =m R − n 1 = m5− n n=5 3 = k4 k = 1.3161 Ai = (1.3161) R −5

Ai = Initial Amplitude (m) R = Richter Scale Magnitude

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 18 of 31

Calculation of Kinetic Energy of the wave before it moves inland (PE zero is the AV)

1 KE f = KEi + PElost = KE + PEi 2 ρ lA f λ ( g1.089 3 Ai 2 d i )2 1.917 ρ lA g 3 A 2 d f i i π = + 2 2 2π =

ρ lg λ ( 3 Ai 2 di ) 2 .8433ρ lg ( 3 Ai 2 di ) 2 + 2π π2

Ai = Initial amplitude (m) Af = Cresting amplitude (m) di = Cresting depth (m) ρ = Density of Seawater = 1027 kg/m3 λf = Cresting wavelength (m)

l = Shoreline length (m)

g = Gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s2 Derivation of Equation Relating KEi and Other factors to Destruction

∑W = ∆E ∑W = PE

f

− KEi

At maximum height,

∑W = Mgy − KE

i

By the Pythagorean Theorem and definition of slope,

y2 AreaAffected = l ( y + 2 ) m

2 2 2

AreaAffected = ly

1 +1 m2

The total work is the work required to destroy one building times the buildings per area times the affected area, so

∑W = −Wbly

1 + 1 = Mgy − KEi m2

W is the work the wave exerts on one building, so the work exerted on the wave by the building is -W.

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 19 of 31

Solving for y,

y=

KEi −Wbl 1 +1 m2

To calculate work done when a building is destroyed, we used

F ∆x =S• A h

For brittle substances, breaking occurs at the ultimate strength;

U=

F A

U =S•

∆x h Uh ∆x = S

Using the definition of work,

W = Fd = F ∆x

Substituting,

W = UA

Uh VU 2 = S S

Since V = Ah. This expression would give the work done in the destruction of one building if all of the force were applied at the top, at height = h. When a wave strikes a building, the wave force is distributed over every height from 0 to h, thus, the work done is one half of the work if all force were applied at the top, so

W=

VU 2 2S

This equation gives the work done on a building by the tsunami when the tsunami completely destroys the building. However, when a tsunami collides with a building, the building is not always completely destroyed, instead being partially damaged by the wave's force and partially damaged by the water. The faster the wave travels, the more work it will exert on buildings it collides with, so we modified the work exerted equation by multiplying it by a factor of

v . v+k

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 20 of 31

Using data from the 1960 tsunami in Hilo, Hawaii, we estimated k to be 500 m/s. Substituting this into the equation for y,

y= Mg +

KEi VU v 1 • • bl +1 m2 2S v + k

2

Using our definition of devastation,

D = Cb • AreaAffected

D = Cby

1 +1 m2

Cb • KE0

D= Mg +

1 +1 m2

1 VU 2 v • • bl +1 2S v + k m2

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 21 of 31

Appendix B: Data

Phase 1: Epicenter to Cresting

Shoreline Length (m) Population Density 2 (people/m ) Land Slope (% Land Area Fault Line Distance to % of E @ City 2 (χ) grade) (m ) Depth (m) Fault (m) 14063635 4.4

City

Hilo, HI

5486

0.000289886

3.077

1960

50000

1.746249511

San Francisco, CA 19022.25 0.006688448 New Orleans, LA 70960 Charleston, SC

2.223

12095244 4.7 46775185 2.7 38072825 2.2 78942837 5.9 12543312 4.2 40041216 1.8

200

12500

24.21990139

0.000972205

0.1894

2000

160000

7.058527688

12870

0.000384751

2.051

1650

160000

1.280203655

NY City, NY 53220

0.010594643

0.08463

2370

300000

2.823411075

Boston, MA 35480 Corpus Christi, TX

0.004849829

1.253

2480

320000

1.764631922

30160 SanF. IS ADJUSTED .5 is full, .5 gets .95 of it (harbor)=. 975

0.000692744

0.06629

2000

100000

4.800117138

Team #2311 Phase 2: Cresting to Destruction Richter Scale 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9

Problem B

Page 22 of 31

City Hilo, HI Hilo, HI Hilo, HI San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA New Orleans, LA New Orleans, LA New Orleans, LA Charleston, SC Charleston, SC Charleston, SC NY City, NY NY City, NY NY City, NY Boston, MA Boston, MA Boston, MA Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi, TX

Energy of Initial Cresting Depth Cresting Mass of wave Potential E @ Tsunami (J) Amplitude (m) (m) Amplitude (m) (kg) cresting (J) 19952623150 1 12.51464949 18.04924785 26.03151996 5.848035476 8.434326653 12.16440399 12.5992105 18.17120593 26.20741394 11.8166575 17.04256921 24.57963812 13.33263885 19.22899266 27.7330064 13.5357989 19.52200015 28.15559633 12.5992105 18.17120593 26.20741394 11.01289155 15.88333811 22.90773756 5.146271219 7.422207455 10.70467551 11.08730524 15.99066122 23.06252427 10.3986586 14.9974609 21.63008154 11.73272219 16.92151354 24.40504563 11.91150304 17.17936013 24.77692477 11.08730524 15.99066122 23.06252427 3782599839 264178316.4 7868124735 659930519.8 16366358979 1648539127 2864040123 428050055.8 5957443529

1069290242

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 19952623150 3 1

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 19952623150 3 1

12391981911 2671139989 49590385711 3440167693 1.03152E+11 8593709299 2.14565E+11 21467511501 7911613424 585188616.5 16456819097 1461830150 34231563183 3651724124 41648974887 2730320688 86633358908 6820476321 1.80205E+11 17037887687 28618615117 1847949842 59529118344 4616270239 1.23826E+11 11531671714 21077311627 1462168230 43842574949 3652568665 91196230911 9124297447

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 19952623150 3 1

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 19952623150 3 1

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 19952623150 3 1

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 19952623150 3 1

1.99526E+13 1.732050808 2.00E+16 3

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 23 of 31

City Hilo, HI Hilo, HI Hilo, HI San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA New Orleans, LA New Orleans, LA New Orleans, LA Charleston, SC Charleston, SC Charleston, SC NY City, NY NY City, NY NY City, NY Boston, MA Boston, MA Boston, MA Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi, TX

Richter Scale 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9

Initial Kinetic Energy (J) 2.20583E+11 6.61748E+11 1.98525E+12 78046191173 2.34139E+11 7.02416E+11 2.03799E+12 6.11396E+12 1.83419E+13 4.35635E+11 1.3069E+12 3.92071E+12 2.58752E+12 7.76255E+12 2.32876E+13 1.31278E+12 3.93834E+12 1.1815E+13 9.89945E+11 2.96984E+12 8.90951E+12

Total Kinetic Energy (J) 2.20715E+11 6.62078E+11 1.98607E+12 78260216201 2.34673E+11 7.03751E+11 2.03971E+12 6.11826E+12 1.83526E+13 4.35927E+11 1.30763E+12 3.92254E+12 2.58888E+12 7.76596E+12 2.32962E+13 1.31371E+12 3.94065E+12 1.18208E+13 9.90676E+11 2.97166E+12 8.91407E+12

Velocity (m/s) 11.08010431 13.30650673 15.98027568 7.574247687 9.096193955 10.92395547 11.11747521 13.35138683 16.03417384 10.76668055 12.93010456 15.5282404 11.43648491 13.73449737 16.49426545 11.52328891 13.83874349 16.61945848 11.11747521 13.35138683 16.03417384

Height reached by tsunami (m) 2.632781454 4.975865066 8.737480749 0.087361368 0.213842620 0.515630194 0.058265412 0.144678366 0.356930071 2.993493389 5.386200026 9.059062969 0.020701685 0.051816367 0.129580892 0.108507808 0.267660477 0.652978156 0.069662536 0.172900137 0.426221153

Area covered by 2 tsunami (m ) 469622.194 887569.5573 1558547.472 74773.74433 183030.7126 441334.6686 2182957.254 55420483.244 13372652.191 1878808.498 3380544.757 5685746.477 1301836.3 3258499.4 8148762.325 307275.2765 757968.0112 1849120.796 3169441.179 7866449.374 19391812.95

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 24 of 31

City Hilo, HI Hilo, HI Hilo, HI San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA New Orleans, LA New Orleans, LA New Orleans, LA Charleston, SC Charleston, SC Charleston, SC NY City, NY NY City, NY NY City, NY Boston, MA Boston, MA Boston, MA Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi, TX

Richter Building Density Work to destroy Scale (bldg / sq. m) per building (J) 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 0.000122 0.000122 0.000122 0.000676 0.000676 0.000676 0.000478 0.000478 0.000478 0.0000519 0.0000519 0.0000519 0.000895 0.000895 0.000895 0.00209 0.00209 0.00209 0.000143 0.000143 0.000143 2147165428 2567425913 3067339156 1499705503 1795667505 2148768937 1927601189 2304853811 2753593769 2087919493 2496883777 2983487792 2214682564 2647796919 3162846443 1998180236 2388875038 2853446464 2154032337 2575600011 3077052482

Horizontal Distance Water Travels (m) 85.56325817 161.7115718 283.9610253 3.929886086 9.619551048 23.19524037 30.76315302 76.38773284 188.4530469 145.9528712 262.6133606 441.6900521 24.46140237 61.22694914 153.1146074 8.659840982 21.36157039 52.11318085 105.0875492 260.8238609 642.964479

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 25 of 31

Results:

Richter Number of Buildings Cost per Total Cost of Tsunami Scale Destroyed Building ($) (millions of $) 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 5 7 9 57.29390767 108.283486 190.1427916 50.54705117 123.7287617 298.342236 1043.45357 2590.99099 6392.12775 97.51016104 175.4502729 295.0902421 1165.143489 2916.356963 7293.142281 642.2053278 1584.153143 3864.662464 453.2300886 1124.90226 2773.029251 375309 375309 375309 842108 842108 842108 152962 152962 152962 266617 266617 266617 545793 545793 545793 426671 426671 426671 105917 105917 105917 21.5029192 40.63976684 71.36230098 42.56607616 104.1929801 251.2363837 159.6087445 396.3231639 977.7526445 25.99786661 46.77802541 78.67607509 635.9271601 1591.727216 3980.546005 274.0103894 675.9122058 1648.939398 48.00477129 119.1462727 293.7109392

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 26 of 31

**Appendix C: The Cities
**

Corpus Christi, TX:

Hilo, HI:

Team #2311 San Francisco, CA:

Problem B

Page 27 of 31

New Orleans, LA:

Team #2311 New York City, NY:

Problem B

Page 28 of 31

Boston, MA

Team #2311 Charleston, SC:

Problem B

Page 29 of 31

Bibliography

"Atlantic Ocean Floor Topography Lab." UCLA. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. <http://www.msc.ucla.edu/oceanglobe/pdf/atlantic_topo.pdf>. "The Formation of a Tsunami." Tsunami Institute. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. <http://www.tsunami-alarmsystem.com/en/phenomenon-tsunami/phenomenon-tsunami-formation.html>. Google Maps. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://maps.google.com>. Gulick, Sean. "Tsunamis - Walls of Water." UTexas. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ig.utexas.edu/outreach/cataclysms/tsunamis/overview_010305.pdf>. Hills, Paul. "Materials." PWS Tutorial. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://homepages.which.net/~paul.hills/Materials/MaterialsBody.html>. "How Tsunamis Form as a Result of Earthquakes." Helium. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://www.helium.com/knowledge/231528-how-tsunamis-form-as-a-result-of-earthquakes>. Nelson, Stephen. "Tsunamis." Earth Science Australia. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/tsumami/tsunami.html>.

Team #2311 Problem B Nelson, T.J. "Tsunami Myths." Entropy. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://brneurosci.org/tsunami.html>. "Ocean Waves." Ocean World. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter16/chapter16_01.htm>

Page 30 of 31

Pararas-Carayannis, George. "Chile - The Earthquake and Tsunami of 22 May 1960 in Chile." Disaster Pages of Dr. George PC. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Tsunami1960.html>. "Properties of Common Solid Materials." EFunda. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://www.efunda.com/materials/common_ matl/common_matl.cfm?MatlPhase=Solid&MatlProp=Mechanical>. R.D., Catchings. "San Andreas Fault Geometry at Desert Hot Springs, California, and Its Effects on Earthquake Hazards and Groundwater." Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://www.bssaonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/2190?rss=1>. Robert, Stewart. "Ocean Waves." Introduction to Physical Oceanography. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. <http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter16/chapter16_01.htm>. Smith, Jane. "Wave Breaking on an Opposing Current." US Army Corps of Engineers. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. <http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-iv-17.pdf>. Traphagen, Mitch. "Gulf Earthquake Triggers Comments, Questions." Observer News. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://www.observernews.net/artman/publish/article_001726.shtml>. "Tsunami Formation." MIT. Web. 08 Nov. 2009. <http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2009/teams/5/research.html>. en.wikipedia.org www.city-data.com

Team #2311

Problem B

Page 31 of 31

To the Editors at the Hawaii Tribune-Herald:

November 8, 2009 Written by Team 2311

**The Tsunami Threat in Hilo
**

The city of Hilo is not unfamiliar with tsunamis, and we, through analyzing its past, have calculated myriad traits associated with the potential threat of future tsunamis. Between 1962 and 1985, Hilo witnessed three notable belowsea earthquakes that were recorded to be 4.0, 5.0, and 5.5 on the Richter Scale. None caused major tsunamis, but they did remind Hawaiians of the more extreme example just 2 years prior to that range. That wave was created just off the coast of South America by an 8.5 Richter-value earthquake. The 1960 tsunami left most of the Hawaiian Islands unaffected; in contrast, Hilo incurred waves of up to 35 feet (10.7 meters), 540 demolished buildings, and 61 deaths. To produce a likely tsunami, we centered our research on the three earthquakes between 1962 and 1985. These three earthquakes occurred around 50 km off the shore of Hilo and about 1960 meters below sea-level. Next, we gathered data about the city of Hilo itself. Hilo has a mean percent-grade of 3.077 and a mean elevation of 38 feet (11.6 m). The building density (buildings per sq. meter) is 0.000122 and an average cost of $375,309 per building (that’s a composite of residential and commercial buildings). These facts allow us to calculate the potential loss of infrastructure in Hilo, which would be highly correlated with a death toll. To estimate Hilo’s response to a tsunami, we tested three earthquakes of 5.0, 7.0, and 9.0 Richter Scale units. For a 5.0 earthquake 50 km from Hilo’s coast, a 3,780,000,000 kg wave would hit the shore travelling at 11.1 meters per second. This was would affect the buildings of Hilo 86 meters inland. A 5.0 earthquake-generated tsunami would amount to $21.5 million in damages. As the initial magnitude of the earthquake increases, so will the mass and velocity of the wave and the devastation it causes. For a 7.0 initial Richter value, the wave would accumulate $40.6 million in reconstruction and repair costs, and infrastructure loss from a 9.0 earthquake-tsunami would reach $71.4 million. These numbers are undoubtedly large, and the death toll only adds to the prospective harm. However, under-sea earthquakes are exceedingly rare and a subsequent tsunami is even less so. Tsunamis represent a menacing natural disaster for Hilo, but, as with every climate and region, these disasters are minimally likely.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd