Abstract
An unstable rock slump, estimated at 5 to 10 × 106 m3, lies perched above the northern shore of Tidal Inlet in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. This landslide mass has the potential to rapidly move into Tidal Inlet and generate large, long-period-impulse tsunami waves. Field and photographic examination revealed that the landslide moved between 1892 and 1919 after the retreat of the Little Ice Age glaciers from Tidal Inlet in 1890. Global positioning system measurements over a 2-year period show that the perched mass is presently moving at 3–4 cm annually indicating the landslide remains unstable. Numerical simulations of landslide-generated waves suggest that in the western arm of Glacier Bay, wave amplitudes would be greatest near the mouth of Tidal Inlet and slightly decrease with water depth according to Green’s law. As a function of time, wave amplitude would be greatest within approximately 40 min of the landslide entering water, with significant wave activity continuing for potentially several hours.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aida I (1969) Numerical experiments for the tsunami propagation—the 1964 Niigata tsunami and the 1968 Tokachi-Oki tsunami. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 47:673–700
Brew DA, Horner RB, Barnes DF (1995) Bedrock-geologic and geophysical research in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: unique opportunities of local to global significance. In: Engstrom DR (ed) Proceedings of the Third Glacier Bay Science Symposium, 1993. National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska, pp 5–14
Carlson PR, Hooge PN, Cochrane GR, Stevenson AJ, Dartnell P, Stone JC (2003) Multibeam bathymetry and selected perspective views of Glacier Bay, Alaska. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4141
Carrier GF, Shaw RP (1970) Response of narrow-mouthed harbors. In: Adams WM (ed) Tsunamis in the Pacific Ocean. East–West Center, Honolulu, pp 377–398
Fritz HM (2006) Physical modeling of landslide generated tsunami. In: Mercado A, Liu PLF (eds) Caribbean tsunami hazard. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 308–324
Fritz HM, Hager WH, Minor HE (2001) Lituya Bay case: rockslide impact and wave run-up. Sci Tsunami Hazards 19:3–22
Geist EL (2002) Complex earthquake rupture and local tsunamis. J Geophys Res 107:ESE 2-1–ESE 2-15
Geist EL, Jakob M, Wieczorek GF, Dartnell P (2003) Preliminary hydrodynamic analysis of landslide-generated waves in Tidal Inlet, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 03-411
Goodwin RG (1988) Holocene glaciolacustrine sedimentation in Muir Inlet and ice advance in Glacier Bay, Alaska, U.S.A. Arct Alp Res 20:55–69
Henry RF, Murty TS (1995) Tsunami amplification due to resonance in Alberni Inlet. In: Tsuchiya Y, Shuto N (eds) Tsunami: progress in prediction, disaster prevention and warning: advances in natural and technological hazards research. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 117–128
Hooge PN, Hooge ER, Dick CA, Solomon EK (2000) Glacier Bay oceanography and the oceanographic analyst GIS extension: CD-ROM set. US Geological Survey, Alaska
Huber A, Hager WH (1997) Forecasting impulse waves in reservoirs. In: Dix-neuvième Congrès des Grands Barrages, Florence, Commission Internationale des Grands Barrages, pp 993–1005
Kowalik Z (2001) Basic relations between tsunamis calculation and their physics. Sci Tsunami Hazards 19:99–116
Larsen CF, Motyka RJ, Freymueller JT, Echelmeyer KA, Ivins ER (2005) Rapid viscoelastic uplift in southeast Alaska caused by post-Little Ice Age glacial retreat. Earth Planet Sci Lett 237:548–560
Liu PLF, Wu TR, Raichlen F, Synolakis CE, Borrero JC (2005) Runup and rundown generated by three-dimensional sliding masses. J Fluid Mech 536:107–144
Lynett P, Liu PLF (2006) Three-dimensional runup due to submerged and subaerial landslides. In: Mercado A, Liu PLF (eds) Caribbean tsunami hazard. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 289–307
Mader CL, Gittings ML (2002) Modeling the 1958 Lituya Bay mega-tsunami. II. Sci Tsunami Hazards 20:241–250
Mann DH (1986) Wisconsin and Holocene glaciation of southeast Alaska. In: Hamilton TD, Reed KM, Thorson RM (eds) Glaciation in Alaska—the geologic record. Alaska Geological Society, Anchorage, pp 237–262
Miller DJ (1954) Cataclysmic flood waves in Lituya Bay, Alaska. Geol Soc Amer Bull 65:1346
Miller DJ (1960) Giant waves in Lituya Bay, Alaska. US Geol Surv Prof Pap 354C:51–83
Miller RD (1975) Surficial geologic map of the Juneau urban area and vicinity, Alaska. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-885, 1:48,000
Molenaar D (1990) Glacier Bay and Juneau Icefield region and the glacierized ranges of Alaska–Northwestern Canada: pictorial Landform Map. Molenaar Landform Maps, Burley, WA
Momoi T (1964) Tsunami in the vicinity of a wave origin [I]. Bull Earthq Res Inst Univ Tokyo 42:133–146
Motyka RJ, Beget JE (1996) Taku Glacier, southeast Alaska, U.S.A.: Late Holocene history of a tidewater glacier. Arct Alp Res 28(1):42–51
Motyka RJ, O’Neel S, Connor C, Echelmeyer KA (2002) 20th Century thinning of Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska, and its relationship to climate, lake calving, and glacier run-off. Glob Planet Change 35(1–2):93–112
Müller L (1964) The rock slide in the Vajont Valley. Felsmech Ingenieurgeol II/3–4:148–212
Müller L (1968) New considerations on the Vaiont slide. Felsmech Ingenieurgeol VI/4:1–91
Plafker G, Thatcher W (1982) Geological and geophysical evaluation of the mechanisms of the great 1899–1900 Yakutat Bay, Alaska, earthquakes. Program and Abstracts, AGU Conference on fault behavior and the earthquake generating process, Snowbird, UT, Oct. 11–15, 1982 (abstract)
Post A, Motyka RJ (1995) Taku and LeConte Glaciers, Alaska. Calving speed control of late Holocene asynchronous advances and retreats. In: Nelson FE (ed) Glaciers and late quaternary environments of Alaska: I, essays in honor of William O. Field. Phys Geogr 16:59–82
Raichlen F, Lee JJ (1992) Oscillation of bays, harbors, and lakes. In: Herbich JB (ed) Handbook of coastal and ocean engineering. Gulf, Houston, TX, pp 1073–1113
Reid HF (1896) Glacier Bay and its glaciers. US Geological Survey 16th Annual Report, Part 1, pp 421–461
Reid RO, Bodine BR (1968) Numerical model for storm surges in Galveston Bay. J Waterw Harb Div 94:33–57
Rogers SR, Mei CC (1978) Nonlinear resonant excitation of a long and narrow bay. J Fluid Mech 88:161–180
Rossman DL (1963) Geology of the eastern part of the Mount Fairweather quadrangle—Glacier Bay, Alaska. US Geol Surv Bull 1121-K:K1–K57
Satake K (2002) Tsunamis. In: Lee WHK, Kanamori H, Jennings PC, Kisslinger C (eds) International handbook of earthquake and engineering seismology, International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior, Part A. Academic, London, p 932
Schmidt RM, Holsapple KA (1982) Estimates of crater size for large-body impacts: gravitational scaling results. In: Silver LT, Schultz PH (eds) Geological implications of impacts of large asteroids and comets on the Earth. Geological Society of America Special Paper 190, Boulder, CO, pp 93–102
Semenza E, Ghirotti M (2000) History of the 1963 Vaiont slide: the importance of geological factors. Bull Eng Geol Environ 59:87–97
Slingerland RL, Voight B (1979) Occurrences, properties, and predictive models of landslide-generated water waves. In: Voight B (ed) Developments in geotechnical engineering 14B: rockslides and avalanches, 2, engineering sites. Elsevier, New York, pp 317–397
Varnes DJ (1978) Slope movement types and processes. In: Schuster RL, Krizek RJ (eds) Landslides—analysis and control: transportation research board special report 176. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp 11–33
Walder JS, Watts P, Sorensen OE, Janssen K (2003) Tsunamis generated by subaerial mass flows. J Geophys Res 108:EPM2-1
Ward SN, Asphaug E (2000) Asteroid impact tsunami: a probabilistic hazard assessment. Icarus 145:64–78
Ward SN, Asphaug E (2002) Impact tsunami—Eltanin. Deep-Sea Res Part 2 49:1073–1079
Acknowledgments
Sandra Zirnheld of the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, and Patricia Craw (Patricia Burns) of the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys assisted us with the initial field examination of the landslide in Tidal Inlet. Ernst Jakob volunteered his time and assisted with the fieldwork. Ellie Boyce and Chris Larsen of the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, worked on the GPS measurements of the landslide with Roman Motyka. Peter Dartnell, USGS, helped merge various bathymetric data sets for the hydrodynamic modeling. David Jones, USGS, prepared and improved the figures in the text. Homa Lee and Jeff Coe, USGS, are acknowledged for their review of the initial version of the paper. More recent review of the paper was improved by a journal reviewer, Doug VanDine and editor, Prof. Uldrich Hungr.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Appendices
Appendix
Resonance of Tidal Inlet: Analytic Approach
The geometry of Tidal Inlet is ideally suited to allow a determination of the modes of natural resonance using analytic expressions. For example, Rogers and Mei (1978) used a rectangular bay geometry with a width 2a and length L (Fig. 9). The resonant modes are determined using the Boussinesq equations at a constant water depth (h) that include the effects on nonlinearity and dispersion:
where η is the water surface displacement, u is the depth-averaged horizontal velocity field, and the small parameter μ is defined by \( \mu ^{2} = {\omega ^{2} h} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\omega ^{2} h} g}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} g \) where ω is frequency and h is water depth. The variables in Eq. 7 have been nondimensionalized with respect to characteristic length and time scales.
The resonant wave numbers (k r) are given by
where l is the nondimensional length of the bay. The entrance impedance of the bay (Z) is defined by Rogers and Mei (1978) as
where 2δ is the nondimensional bay width and γ is Euler’s constant. The aspect ratio of Tidal Inlet is approximately \( \frac{{2\delta }} {l} = \frac{1} {7} \) such that the first two resonant modes are (k r l)1 = 1.272 and (k r l)2 = 4.050. These modes are slightly less than the 1/4 and 3/4 wavelength resonant modes predicted by a simple “quarter-wavelength resonator” (Raichlen and Lee 1992). At resonant antinodes, there is no additional amplification of waves from resonance within the bay (i.e., unit response).
Outside the bay and far from the entrance, nonlinear effects can be ignored. Rogers and Mei (1978) indicated that most bay and harbor resonant problems can be decoupled so that the nonlinear theory is used within the bay and the linear theory is used in the ocean. The radiated wave from the bay, exclusive of incident and reflected waves outside the bay, is given by the following expression (Rogers and Mei 1978):
where r 2 = x 2 + y 0 >> δ, x > 0 (Fig. 9),\( H^{{{\left( 1 \right)}}}_{0} {\left( {kr} \right)} \)is the Bessel function of the third kind (Hankel function), and
where A is the nondimensional amplitude of the incident wave. The wave field from Eq. 11 is shown in Fig. 10.
When considering the effects of resonance on transient waves, Kowalik (2001) also noted that resonant amplification also depends on the duration of the wave train. Short wave trains, relative to bay length, will not last long enough to set up resonance. Resonance in elongated coastal inlets may be more of a concern with longer-period waves from large seismogenic tsunamis (Carrier and Shaw 1970; Henry and Murty 1995).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wieczorek, G.F., Geist, E.L., Motyka, R.J. et al. Hazard assessment of the Tidal Inlet landslide and potential subsequent tsunami, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska. Landslides 4, 205–215 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-007-0084-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-007-0084-1