4.7 Article

Source and progression of a submarine landslide and tsunami: The 1964 Great Alaska earthquake at Valdez

Journal

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH
Volume 119, Issue 11, Pages 8502-8516

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2014JB011514

Keywords

1964 Alaska earthquake; landslide tsunamis; bathymetry; seismic reflection imaging; tsunami modeling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Like many subduction zone earthquakes, the deadliest aspects of the 1964 M=9.2 Alaska earthquake were the tsunamis it caused. The worst of these were generated by local submarine landslides induced by the earthquake. These caused high runups, engulfing several coastal towns in Prince William Sound. In this paper, we study one of these cases in detail, the Port Valdez submarine landslide and tsunami. We combine eyewitness reports, preserved film, and careful posttsunami surveys with new geophysical data to inform numerical models for landslide tsunami generation. We review the series of events as recorded at Valdez old town and then determine the corresponding subsurface events that led to the tsunami. We build digital elevation models of part of the pretsunami and posttsunami fjord-head delta. Comparing them reveals a similar to 1500m long region that receded 150m to the east, which we interpret as the primary delta landslide source. Multibeam imagery and high-resolution seismic reflection data identify a similar to 400m wide chute with hummocky deposits at its terminus, which may define the primary slide path. Using these elements we run hydrodynamic models of the landslide-driven tsunamis that match observations of current direction, maximum inundation, and wave height at Valdez old town. We speculate that failure conditions at the delta front may have been influenced by manmade changes in drainage patterns as well as the fast retreat of Valdez and other glaciers during the past century.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available