ML20151H071

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Overview of Earthquake-Induced Water Waves in Washington & Oregon, Presented at 880412-15 Meeting in Olympia,Wa
ML20151H071
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 04/12/1988
From: Thorsen G
WASHINGTON, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML20151H012 List:
References
NUDOCS 8808010131
Download: ML20151H071 (14)
v • d • e


Text

_ _ _

(

OVERVIEW OF EARTHOUAKE-INDUCED WATER WAVES IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON by GERALD W. THORSEN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, GEOLOGY DIVISION Olympia, Washington 98504 Any overview of earthquake hazards in the Pacific Northwest is handicapped by our brief history. To extend" this history, at least as far as impacts are concerned, we can take advantage of experiences elsewhere. Detailed on-site studies, including eye-witness accounts, provide additional insights regarding events such as are historically unprecedented here. The reader interested in earthquake-induced water waves should review, in addition to the references cited, accounts of the great 1960 Chilean earthquake in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (1963) vol. 53, no. 6.

In reviewing the literature on quake-induced water waves, one soon discovers that there is some disagreement on nomenclature. For example, the spectacular wave that resulted from an earthquake-t'*iggered im . slide into Lituya Bay, Alaska (Miller,1960), has been called a seiche by Steinbrugge (1982) and a tsunami by Wiegel (1970). Such distinctions should be of little concern to the non-specialist. In fact, it seems likely that some of the destructive local water waves from the 1964 Alaska earthquake resulted from complex combinations of tsunami, landslide, and seiche ef fects (McCulloch,1966).

In this overview I have included Irndslide-generated waves in "Inland waters" under the heading "Locally generated tsunami". This is more for the sake of convenience and brevity than anything else. For example, any quake triggered massive collapse of shelf sediments would probably trigger a locally generated coastal tsunami. Speculation on such was considered beyond the scype of this paper.

Tsunamis '

Distant-generated Tsunamis:

Coastal: Vhipple's report, sumarized in Fig.1, emphasizes the vulner- (

aoility of development along the small estuaries just north of Grays Harbor I (Hogan and others, 1964). The rocky bluff areas further north are l essentially invulnerable as well as unpopulated, and development along the j extensive beaches to the south was protected by dunes. A similar d rage pattern was experienced south of the Columbia River. Spaeth and Berkman I point out (192, p.58) that "much of the d eage in Oregon occurreJ away from the ocean front". Homes and businesses along estuary channels, as~well as

(' bridges, were severely d eaged or destroyed in places. Schatz and others (1964) discuss how the size, shape and depth of such estuaries apparently determined whether the tsunamis were propagated upstream or dissipatto.

kD0h 4

. -c .

h% est c a e / Fre >

%,, %, N' a

- s[';e; f victoris/ ,

.Q .

..h*

. . . _ .. .e.  %

p A -

Port Tewmiend Port Ange!es

@v n - . ...- ,

w e y' , ,, ,,

/ 6.3  % c / " "'*-

5 t' J m /

/ '

/

! 2 tc.t'

- " /

s / '

\ ,

1 I o 14.9'

  • c5 3

.h ,

N ',

' '(,.u4see:s m

A t t rett e

) \ C' i '

% \

.I w * \

Rsymcmd aseiis.e t \

,sg- ,us..e 33' o; . c . w. ... i - . e s ~

i n ..i c.. s ven.a# 1\

,, A,y

\ , Alt V 4

/ /

\ u Tiguref. Clocks shew ti=e of 1964 Alaska earthquake and arrival of first tsuna:1 along 'n'ashittsten coast (PST). Explanatien facing page. e

.. _._._____...... _.___ - - _ . . _ . . ~ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . -

(' La Push--Boats and floating dock broken loose, possible shoaling of channel.

Taholah--Crests below street level, no structural damage, loss of some nets and skiffs. ,

Wreck Creek--Debris on highway and bridge, washout of approach fills.

Moclips--Flooding one foot above ocean-front street, south end of town.

Eight buildings damaged by drift logs or moved from foundation.

Extensive damage to bulkheads and fills.

Pacific Beach--0 welling

  • moved from foundation and destroyed, another building damaged.

Joe Creek -Logs and occupied home* slamed into bridge, three pile bents damaged or destroyed, two 20-foot spans lost.

Boone Creek--Debris on road, shoulder washout, dwelling flooded.

(

Copalis Beach--Damage to buildings, mobile homes.  ;

1 Copalis 9,iver -Pile bents of bridge damaged, two bridge spans lost, others damaged.

Oyhut- Debris in yards and streets where dunes breached.

  • (probably same structure part of Joe Ck.; Washington Highway News, v. 11, no. 5, p. 2). ,

Figure t . (continued) Description of tsunatni damage at indicated sites, 1964. Damage reports from Hogan and others (1964), unless otherwise indicated.

l k

l l

1 l

_  :.  :. T l

(s In 1964 development along the extensive accreted beaches between Grays Harbor and the Columbia River was "protected from the tidal wave by....

dunes adjacent to the beach" (Hegan and others, 1964, p. 21). However, since 1964 it has been fairly comen practice to remove these dunes at residential sites for a better view of the ocean (fig. '2.). Pecently, efforts are being made to restore some of these cuts. Rows of hay Dales have been found to have advantages over snow fences in trapping wind-blown  ;

sand. Plans are to plant beach grass when the dune systems have reached '

adequate height.

The 1964 tsunamis have been variously described as coming "with a terrible rush", without "any notification", and sending beach "logs flying around like toothpicks" (Aberdeen World, March 28, 1964, p. 1). At La Push it was described as a "gradual rise in the water level" (Hogan and others, 1964, p. 1). These seeming contradictions may be partially accounted for by the darkness and by the locations of the observers. While I found no accounts of bores developing, it is obvious that strong currents had to be responsible for some of the damage, especially to bridges, reported in 1964  ;

(Hogan and others, 1964, Spaeth and Berkman, 1972). Slow flooding and buoyancy forces alone could not have caused much of the damage described in these accounts.

( -

~,-@MiF.((@57l,@{.5

<0_ . . . ,:

WNf

, . ;  ; m:

ON*U('M.p 1: . gf 1 G .. .-

. k+[,ffN

.. v,.. ~ ;, ..j :,.~-

_ 3... .

n s .

.. g og s-

~

mm =:,- -u g g. &.. W.- _,.

-m.~..

e w a.y( '

two.~ - ..~ .

7._ ;, . ,

.a sQ ~yj,% ?~" **

G ,

. .-' ?. .' w?hh

~

. pty

,,'i. , ', 4 M ,.N.1 y Y 4 ;, . ji f'cLv0 . : .t . . .

pg . _ s.a,7[,- ,- .

& E.,%.1 ' ' C

_.. .~'

n

-g \

V . ,

4

. v :A:r.,'f,

< f #. ' #\!*

e.... .

a,_ ,

>y

\

Figure 2 . Sevthern coast of Washington.

to improve the 'iew of the ocean. Breaches have been cut in dunes l

l

Some feeling for possible currents that night, especially at restrictions, might be gathered by examining normal tidal currents at the entrance to Grays Harbor. A "spring tide" drop of 10 or 11 feet on nearby

ocean beaches can result in ebb currents approaching 5 knots at the
entrance. This is with a high-to-high tidal cycle of about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
Ccmpare this to the 1964 water level drop of about 14 feet (estimated) 1 between tsunami crests 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 28 minutes apart at Pacific Beach, or a

. drop of 11.9 feet between crests 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and 15 minutes apart at Cape Disappointment (Hogan and others, 1964).

! There were few accounts of current scour, and none of structural damage resulting fra such scour along the Washington / Oregon coast. There

, seems little doubt, however, that tsunami-generated currents were

! responsible for the damage reported to Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay oyster

beds even through such intrabay currents would be substantially less than
at harbor entrances.

j In regard to the prediction of frequencies and runups from distantly-1 generated tsunami, Houston and Garcia (1978) discuss the myriad

c mplexities of the problem, including in their deep-ocean and nearshore i numerical models coastline interaction, and tidal statistics. In their i predictions of 100 year and 500 year runups on the west coast of the j continental United States they considered source areas in the Aleutian and 1 Paru-Chile Trenchs. They place considerable emphasis on source 1 orientation, breaking the Alaskan area into 12 segments because tsunami j '

"elevations produced on the west coast are very sensitive to the location

! of a source alon0 the Trench" (p. 25). The results of their findings along the Washington / Oregon coasts are generalized in fig.3 and in another form in Houston (1979).

I A later study by Kowalik and Murty (1984) focuses specifically on the l Shumagin Gap as a tsunami source. They cite research suggesting "the i possibility of occurrence of a major earthquake within the 3humagin Gap in

the next two decades (p. 124*,). Their computations of tsunami energy from . <

]

such an event "shows strong directionality" towards Hawaii. Nevertheless,  !

they calculate that a tsunami would arrive near thte coast of Washington in i j about three hours. Its computed amplitude as a function of time et the f i mouth of the Strait of Juan de Fuca shows a pattern and amplitude similar . i i to that of the arrival of the 1964 Alaska tsunami as it was recorded at the '

! Neah Bay tide gauge. Pruess (1986) discusses the potential impact of a '

~j Shumagin Gap generated tsunami on the city of Aberdeen. j i

j Inland water $J Fig, shows the attenuation of tsunamis generated by the j

{ 1964 Alaska earthquake as they progressed into more protected waters. No

! reports cif damage inside the entrance to either the Strait of Juan de Fuca i

or the mouth of the Colu bia River were found in preparing this paper. It appears likely that few on or near the water noticed the tsunamis, however, 3

they were detected on tide gauges as far inland as Pitt Lake, near

, Vancouver, B.C. cnd Seattle, Washington (Spaeth and Berkman, 1972),.and on i the Columbia as far inland as Yancouver, Washington (Wilson and Toryn, 1 1 1972).

I i

I

. . . . . . . .. ~ . . . . . ...

f i -

)

f  !

( o.t 26 22 18 14 10 6 modif.sg from Mewsten sno Garcia 1978 i

I

)

N .

{ )

o Taholah i

}

8 ,

15 -

I * . . ..  !;

I, a "

- ')

i . -

Ovhut .

t

?

a.w- - Hoquiam

(

e Aberdeen (

' Cesys Harbc! ***

f l

i ' Westport

\

' PA CiflC i

4 i

) '

i f 'I * ' ,

l 4

Raymond

. Willaca lof

. i 1

' /

f f south send j .

1 1 ,sd / OCEAN )  !

' l

{ '4 ' # ' i "

i g} l I

i - WASHINGTON j

g ]

(I

! i

. w ,e...h

, . , . i 4  ; . ...

i 1 19'.

  • i Colymtis Pivt! ,

i t .

Astoria

. 5

}

1

OREGON

! 8  !

46 00

  • Sist 8' t
  • O go so ....  !

l N I o 1o :o 50 tde**:e s I i

-- {

c. , s . .. -

I i

i 1 46'45'- '

gg is 1 ;2 14 it 6 f l(

  1. FIGUR E 3. 100 eae 800 vee ti.+eme eie ei4*e .a teet eme e meen su to.el i

l 4

3 i i

.l; l

i 4 ,

t s '

i

?

[

I

} 26 22 , 18 , 1s , 10 6 modif.ed from nowston eq Care:a.1978

\- 4s'4:,' , i 1

. Manzanita WI l l/l ,

i

, Nena/em say  !

i N  %

N 4

il f

h Titlem00k 84y '

4s'30'.

l ,

Netorts Boy 1,? ** **k 3

1 I

4 4 .

\ i

. i

> l 3

i s', -

OREGON  !

i I i

? '

f Nettuct Say

{

4 4

l L

l

' * . Neskc*in 2 PACIFIC  !

2 i

\

5 1 45'oo', - l j *

' . Uncom City

  • l

! j 1 1 l

! (

4 g I -

octeu

. oene, ser

' i t

l 45'a

  • t 2

i

< /  !

e Newport

  • t' 1

t

' 30 , .

. s. a , . .. .

< i  !

i j . > i

' h af oCCet AlHe 089 [

  1. ( - 1

)

i i

s I J'

i i s'. .

N r

- {

o 10 20 m.... I

!O

i; 20 $c aomw

, ecorca.wate wa-t

?

1 kElOrt9Ce j

44'00 * ..

! I i

f,- w-26 72 18 14 l

)

10 6 f

i F1GVRE 3.' i 100 re500vs., w aam,.;... .p. m v ,. .. ...... te. i '

i 4

4  :

e 1

1

,3 ,

t . . . .a.c.- . .. .: ., . , , , , . . , ,

10 ;

g ,

NEAH BAY, WASHINGTON s >

g , Weeg*t C . { Cr.eaa<m Mee9 Tm

, 30 ,2 ,. i. i. 2o u o 2 . .

10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 to re m see en Pmt4Stecaetem s - at ** '"'

if

( ) VICTORI A, CAW AD A Aq,g Nor.., iee, eve ,

d I

C ' c<w e vees T.n a e e 10 12 is 20 22 0 2 t_s 1.s 1 ' -

FRIDAY HARBOR, WASHINGTON 4 5 r

,# g Pf 93 419d hPv4 t

v 4 s 10 12 14 16 18 2o oe 22 0 2 4 8 s* ,

usa $mt e SEATTLE, WASHINGTON i4 .

2 e

,/ c,w%e u..a t w i

a ie i _2 is se ie to 22 e 2 a e 1

Fl pa ra f Tide sage records on March 27 and 28, 1964 showing tsuna=1- frc= '

the Alaska Good Friday Earthquake. Super 1= posed on the normal tidal f.ac-tuations with a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> period are tsunamic oscillations with a period of about a half an hour. Note time lag and wave attenuation as the tsunami progressed into core inland waters.

i 4

1 r

k I

l l

i Garcia and Houston (1975) modeled 100 and 500-year tsunami runups for i

' ( shorelines of the Straits o' Juan de Fuca and for Puget sound as far south as Tacoma. For this study ; hey used tsunami sources along the Aleutian I

i trench only and used the 1964 Alaska tide gauge record at Neah Bay to calibrate the model. The computed runups, which included astronomical  !

tides, were reported on U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle maps (fig.4 ). I They considered "the simultaneous occurrence of a storm surge and tsunami  ;

.... highly improbable" even for a 500-year event and also did not include i wind waves. In general, they found that: '

"... tsunami waves in Puget Sound had small amplitudes, and runup {

1 values were governed largely by the effect of astronomical tides.

J Therefore, although whves had larger amplitudes at Port Townsend, j Washington, than at Seattle, Washington, the greater tidal range at l j Seattle resulted in larger combined runup values there" (p. 14).

)

In comparing the Straits and Puget Sound with San Francisco and Monteray {

Bay they found that resonance was not so much a factor in Puget Sound as ,

was wave decay "along a narrow body of water".  ;

l I WV i

E9 f . ~~;~id$nbs f ,

  1. 4' , Zd .+ ', 'W  !

g N 4 .

.e.=  %.w l

]

g g

/ /

@h

. 1; i e ry u .

1, f j j

} V; \ ,\ .ld ?I l h

'O il J Figure 4 .

D o7 3 .'\\

Map showing co=puted tsunami runup values for a particular

/t dE  !

{

a storeline segment in Puget Sound.R 10n srmp n eet above mean sea ,

J 1evel "that is equalled or exceede3 with a frequency of once every 100 [

years". Note the elevations of benchmarks. (From Tig. 121, Carcia and l l housten. 1975). i

(

u .

1

i

~

l

l i

i i

( Locally-generated tsunami l

l These tsunami can be generated by abrupt vertical movement of nearby j coastal seafloor, movement such as will also produce tsunami capable of  :

propagating to distant shores. They can also be generated by landslides. l 1

within as well as into the water of sheltered bays and inlets. Thus, they i present at least two additional elements of potential hazard generally not ,

present from tsunami generated at great distance. First, they may reach a  !

j nearby shore within minutes of the triggering earthquake. Second, they can f j impact shorelines that would otherwise be protected from distant tsunami. }

I "Local waves", mostly triggered by ground f ailure, caused more damage and  !

l loss of life during the '64 Alaska quake than all other effects ccmbined. l 1 g

! Coastal: Simply "scaling up" the impacts of the '64 tsunami described

' l earlier uill not describe what to expect in event of a major subduction  :

earthquake along the coast of the Pacific Northwest. Even Houston and r j Garcias 500-3 applicable (year runup predictions (fig. Houston,1987, will not oral (1988 ccmunicatio)ns).

be generally Hebenstreit ) is

! currently addressing this problem, with computer simulations of subduction

) quakes off the coasts of Oregen, Washington, and Vancouver Island. He '

points out that the threat of such a quake "would not only be from ground motions but from tsunami generated by the motion of the sea floor in the ,

i

, outer shelf and slope area (p.550).In his simulations, he is varying source l l areas, fault rupture lengths, and fault displacement. The model used  !

, predicts areas of both uplift and subsidence. He further points out that  ;

1 the model is "not capable of simulating runup on shore" but that "in all  !

cases, given the shallow dip angle (10 degrees)" subsidence will occur on  ;

! land (see also Atwater, this volume).  !

Inland waters: The June 23, 1946 Yancouver Island earthquake triggered i i fIumerous landslides, one of which created a sea wave that drowned a man in  !

l a small boat (Rogers, 1980). This appears to be the only such casualty j reported so f ar in the Pacific Northwest. Timing may aase been all that t

later saved others from a similar death, however. The f!assive quake

  • i

{

triggered (?) land slide into the Tacoma Narrows (Schuster, this volume) l created S-foot waves in an area commonly teeming with fishermen in small r l boats. (The slide occurred at night). Washington's inland marine I  !

shorelines include hundreds of kilometers of bluffs such as the Tacoma t i Narrows. These bluffs ccmonly contain layers of perched water that '

{ triggers landslides and reactivates ancient ones after wet winters (e.g.

1 Spring of 1974). Why did they not produce more potentially wave generating l slides during the 1949 and 1965 earthquakes? One reason may be that both i

quakes were preceded by a "rainy season" of normal or below normal precipi-tation throughout much cf the Puget Lowland (U.S. Dept. of Commerce l

precipitation records).

.1 Massive landslides, most of which were below the waters surface, created ,

the waves causing much of the damage in the '64 Alaska quake. These slides '

l created "backfill waves" as water rushed to fill the void created by the i

down-crop of the head of a slide as well as "far-shore waves" created by '

I(

j displacement of water by the slide toe (McCulloch, 1966). Only one such essentially subaqueous slide has been reported from damaging Puget Sound i

i O l

~_m_ ,.. .___.-,._-_..,.,_,_.-_,,,,-y.m -__~..---__,,,...-._-,..__.,.-,m,__.-_-__.--mm--.-m.-,---

.. 3 .

_ _g l

\

l

( earthquakes. l 4

This was the collapse of a sandspit near Olympia (Murphy and  !

Ulrich,1951). Deltas, among the more likely sites for earthquake-triggered ground failure, have apparently not failed during historic Puget l Sound earthquakes. The .nassive collapse of the Nisqually delta (University

' of Washington Department of Geology, 1970) apparrntly occurred  !

1 prehist.orically. Historic subaqueous slides from the Puyallup delta (Army Corps of Engineers, unpublished) apparently have not been earthquake-triggered. .  ;

)  !

Landslides into reservoirs, lakes, or inlets, especially in mountainous

areas, can also cause destructive water waves. One of the more  ;

spectacular, at Lituya Bay, Alaska, was triggered by an earthquake and is  ;

described in detail by Miller (1960). In the Pacific Northwest most

settings for such waves (areas of high relief near large bodies of water)

, are remote from population centers. Nevertheless, massive landsl. ides into  ;

j such bodies, quake-triggered or not, could create waves capable of 1

overtopping and/or otherwise damaging their impoundments. Three Washington l volcanoes (Mount Baker, Mount Rainier, and Mount St. Helens) have  :

reservoirs within reach of landslides or mudflows. These as well as other i strato-volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest are notoriously unstable (see 3 Schuster, this volume),  :

t i

l j

Murty is currently studying the generation of tsunamis in inland marine e

' waters of the Pacific Northwest f T. S. Murty, written connunication March [

(

7,1988). He is exanining direct generation of water waves by earthquake  ;

j rotion rather than indirect generation such as by quake triggered i itidslides. Murty's computer simulations assume three hypcthetical 1

I  !

ea thquakes of 7.3 magnitude, : %ilar to the June 1946 Vanr.ouver Island i i event. Epicenters were 50lected near Yancouver and Victoria B. C., and

) Seattle, Washington. This work is being done in coopere". ion with l j Hebenstreit's simulations of offshore sudduction quakes, j r

Seiches i

} I i t Seiches, or mass oscillations of enclosed or semienclosed bodies of water may be triggered directly by earthquake vibrations. These seiches l

] are caused by the surface waves of the quake and may occur far from che l 1

epicenter, in such instances their amplitude is dependent on the emplitude .

l j of such waves and their similarity in period to the natural periods of i i

j ostillation of a particular body of water (Houston, 1979). Seiches may  !

also occur when a cery of water is abruptly tilted by the same tectonic  !

1 deformation that cause the 4tcompanying quake. Such seiches accompanied the August,1959 Magnitude 7.1 earthquake near Yellowstone Park. This {

{ shallow (10 12 km) earthquake was accompanied by extensive surface l faulting and ground elevation changes as great as 19 feet (Murphy and  !

} Bra:ee,1964). It caused seiches on Hebgen Lake, in the epicentral area,  :

i  !

l that repeatedly overtopped the impounding earthfill dam (Stermitz, 1964), (

i

( Long period surface waves from a large earthquake can travel great distances. The 1964 Alaska earthquake generated seiches on 15 bodies of l water in Washington State,17 in Oregen, many in the U. S. Gulf states and  ;

i,

)  !

{

^

- l 1

} < '

( others as far away as Australia (McGarr and Yorhis.1968). Most of these

! j were too small to be detected except on sensitive recording water level  ;

gages. The seiches on Lake Union were large enough to cause minor damage  ;

to pleasure craft, houseboats and floats along the shore and jostled two V.  ;

i S. Coast and Geodetic Survey ships (Wilson and Torum, 1972). The 1949 l 1 Queen Charlotte Islands quake generated seiches in Lake Washington and Lake l i Union as well as at least two lakes in Eastern Washington. Bead Lake, '

i north of Newport, and Clear Lake near Cheney, were reported to have had

! "strong wave action ..... pulling boats loose from docks and leaving many fish on beaches" Murphy and Ulrich, 1951, p. 28). Other seiches have been i

reported as long a(go as 1891 when "Lake Washington...was lashed into a 1 4

foam, and the water rolled on to the beach...eight feet above the present  !

state * (Bradford, 1935 p. 142). There no doubt have been others that have

gone unreported. [

Washington's historic damaging earthquakes appare;..ly have not developed significant local long period surface waves or been accompanied ,

by surface faulting. However, Atwater (this volume) suggests that coastal  ;

Washington has been subjected to repeated abrupt vertical displacements,  !

one as recently as 300 years ago. Such motion could be accompanied by both  :

t long period surface waves and surface tilting, both potential initiators of I seiches. In addition, there is a surface fault with 3.5 meters of movement (mostly vertical) about 5 km NE of Cushman Reservoir in the SE Olympic f Peninsula. This fault apparently experienced its major movement about 1240

years ago (Wilson and others, 1979). The foregoing, suggests that some j surface waters in the Northwest, could be subjected to greater seiche l action than previously experienced.  !

i s

References ,

i i

Bradford, D. C.,1935, seismic history of the Puget Sound basin.

seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 25 no. 2, p. 138 153.  ;

t Costello, J. A., H 85, Tsunamis: hazard definition and effects on facilities: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 85 533, 138 p. i Garcia, A. W.; Houston, J. R.,1975, Type 16 flood insurance study Tsunami .

predictions for Monterey and San Francisco Bays and Puget Sound: U.S.

l Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report H-75-17, t i v. I l

Hebenstreit, G. T., 1988 Tsunami threat analysis for the Pacific Northwest: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-16, p. 050 555. l l

Hogan, D. W.; Whipple, W. W.; Lundy, C., 1964, Tsunami of 27 and 28 Marcn  !

1964 State of Washington coastline: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers )

[ Seattle, Wash.) unpublished file report, 29 p. l i

Houston, J. R.,1979, State-of the-art for assessing earthquake ha:ards in  !

(- the United States; Report 15, tsunamis, seiches, and landslide induced (

water waves: U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Paper 5-73-1, 88 p.  !

t

- --- ~- . . . -

~u-Houston, J. R.; Garcia, A. W.,1978, Type 16 flood insurance study--

Tsunami predictions for the west coast of the continental United States: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Tecnnical Report H-78-26, 69 p.

Kowalik Zygmunt; Murty, T. S.,1984, Computation of tsunami amplitudes resulting frcm a predicted major earthquake in the Shumagin seismic gap: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 11, no. 12, p. 1243-1246.

McGaar, Arthur; Vorhis, R. C.,1968, Seismic seiches f rom the March 1964 ~--

Alaska earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 544-E, 43 p.

McCulloch, D. S., 1966, Slide-induced waves, sciching and ground fracturing caused by the earthquake of March 27, 1964 at Kenai Lake, Alaska:

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 543-A, 41 p.

Miller, D. J.,1960. Giant waves in Lituya Bay, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 354-C, p. 51-86.

Murphy, L. M.; Brazee, R. J., 1964, Seismological investigations of the Hebgen Lake earthquake. In The Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of August 17, 1959: U.S. Ge5Togical Survey Prof. Paper 435, p. 13-17.

Murphy, L. M.; Ulrich, F. P., 1951, United States earthquakes 1949: U.S.

Coast and Geodetic Survey Serial 748, 64 p.

Preuss, Jane,1986, Tsunami and flood hazard preparedncss and mitigation program for Aberdeen. In Hays, W. W.; Gori, P. L.,

editors, 1986. '

Proceedings of conference XXXI!!; A workshop on "Earthquake hazards in the Puget Sound, Washington area": U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-253, p. 139-156.

Rogers, G. C.,1980, A documentation of soil failure during the British Columbia earthquake of 23 June 1946. Canadian Geothechnical Journal vol. 17, no. 1, p.122-127.

Schat:, C. E.; Curl, Herbert, Jr.; Burt, W. V., 1964, Tsunaiis on the Oregon coast: The Ore Bin, vol. 26, no.12, p. 231 232.

Spaeth, M. G.; Berkman, S. C., 1972, The tsunamis as recorded at tide stations and the Seismic Sea Wave Warning System. In The great Alaska  !

earthquake of 1964, Oceanography and coastai engine 7 ring: National i Academy of Sciences, p.38-110.

Steinbrugge, K. Y., 1982. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and tsunaii: Skancia Merican Group, N.Y. , 392 p.

Sternity, Frank,1964, Ef fects of the Hebgen Lake earthquake on surface water. In, The Hebgen Lake, Montana earthquake of August 17, 1959: j j

( U.S. GeoTogical Survey Professional Paper 435, p. 139-150.

1 1

(

University of Washington Department of Geological Sciences, (1970), The Nisqually Delta: 88p.

Wiegel, R. L.,1970, Tsunainis. In, Earthquake Engineering, R. L. Wiegel, Editor: Prentice-Hall, N.J. p. 253-306.

Wilson, B. W.; Torum, Alf,1972. Effects of the Tsuna:nis--An engineering study. In The great Alaska earthquake of 1964, Oceanography and coastal ingintering: National Academy of Sciences, p. 361-523.

Wilson, J. R.; Bartholomew, M. J.; Carson, R. J., 1979, Late Quaternary faults and their relationship to tectonism in the Olympic Peninsula, Washington: Gaology, v. 7, no. 5, p. 235-239.

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20151H071&oldid=2967920"