the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Leveraging Google's Tensor Processing Units for tsunamirisk mitigation planning in the Pacific Northwest and beyond
Ian Madden
Simone Marras
Jenny Suckale
Tsunamirisk mitigation planning has particular importance for communities like those of the Pacific Northwest, where coastlines are extremely dynamic and a seismically active subduction zone looms large. The challenge does not stop here for risk managers: mitigation options have multiplied since communities have realized the viability and benefits of naturebased solutions. To identify suitable mitigation options for their community, risk managers need the ability to rapidly evaluate several different options through fast and accessible tsunami models, but they may lack highperformance computing infrastructure. The goal of this work is to leverage Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), a highperformance hardware device accessible via the Google Cloud framework, to enable the rapid evaluation of different tsunamirisk mitigation strategies available to all communities. We establish a starting point through a numerical solver of the nonlinear shallowwater equations that uses a fifthorder weighted essentially nonoscillatory method with the Lax–Friedrichs flux splitting and a total variation diminishing thirdorder Runge–Kutta method for time discretization. We verify numerical solutions through several analytical solutions and benchmarks, reproduce several findings about one particular tsunamirisk mitigation strategy, and model tsunami runup at Crescent City, California whose topography comes from a highresolution digital elevation model. The direct measurements of the simulation's performance, energy usage, and ease of execution show that our code could be a first step towards a communitybased, userfriendly virtual laboratory that can be run by a minimally trained user on the cloud thanks to the ease of use of the Google Cloud platform.
The coast of the Pacific Northwest, from Cape Mendocino in California to northern Vancouver Island in Canada, as depicted in Fig. 1, is located on the seismically active Cascadia subduction zone (Heaton and Hartzell, 1987; Petersen et al., 2002). Along the 1200 km long Cascadia subduction zone, there have been no large, shallow subduction earthquakes over the approximately 200 years of moderndata monitoring, but large historic earthquakes have left an unambiguous imprint on the coastal stratigraphy (Clague, 1997). Sudden land level change in tidal marshes and lowlying forests provide testimony to 12 earthquakes over the last 6700 years (Witter et al., 2003), including one megathrust event that ruptured the entirety of the current Cascadia subduction zone in 1700 BCE (Nelson et al., 1995; Wang et al., 2013). The event created a massive tsunami that swept across the entire Pacific Ocean, devastating communities as far away as Japan (Satake et al., 1996; Atwater et al., 2011). Current seismichazard models estimate that the probability of another magnitude 9+ earthquake happening within the next 50 years is about 14 % (Petersen et al., 2002).
A magnitude 9+ Cascadia earthquake and tsunami occurring during modern times would devastate many lowlying communities along the Pacific Northwest. A recent assessment suggests that deaths and injuries could exceed tens of thousands and entails economic damages on the order of several billions of dollars for Washington and Oregon State (see, Knudson and Bettinardi, 2013; Gordon, 2012), with potentially severe repercussions for the entire Pacific coast and country as a whole. The tsunami itself would put tens of thousands of people at risk of inundation, and threaten the lowlying coastal communities specifically in the Pacific Northwest with very little warning time for evacuation (Gordon, 2012). But how to confront this risk? Traditionally, the most common approach to reducing tsunami risk is the construction of seawalls, but this hardening of the shoreline comes at a staggering price in terms of the economic construction costs (e.g., 395 km of seawalls in Japan cost USD 12.74 billion) and in terms of longterm negative impact on coastal ecosystems (Peterson and Lowe, 2009; Dugan and Hubbard, 2010; Bulleri and Chapman, 2010) and shoreline stability (Dean and Dalrymple, 2002; Komar, 1998).
A potentially appealing alternative to seawalls are socalled hybrid approaches. Hybrid risk mitigation combines naturebased elements and traditional engineering elements to reduce risk while also providing cobenefits to communities and ecosystems. An example of a hybrid approach to tsunamirisk mitigation is a coastal mitigation park: this is a landscape unit on the shoreline built specifically to protect communities or critical infrastructure and provide vertical evacuation space, in the styles of Fig. 2. Communities across the Pacific Northwest are increasingly considering these naturebased or hybrid options (Freitag et al., 2011), but many important science questions regarding protective benefits and optimal design remain open (Lunghino et al., 2020; Mukherjee et al., 2023). This gap is particularly concerning given that existing models show that a careful design is necessary to avoid potential adverse effects (Lunghino et al., 2020). The design of current mitigation parks, such as the one being built in Constitución, Chile, is not yet underpinned by an indepth quantification of how different design choices affect riskreduction benefits, partly because numerical simulations of tsunami impacts are computationally expensive.
The goal of this paper is to leverage Google's Tensor Process Units (TPUs) for enabling a fast evaluation of different mitigation park designs and
ultimately advancing evidencebased tsunamirisk mitigation planning rooted in quantitative assessments. TPUs are a new class of hardware accelerators
developed by Google with the primary objective of accelerating machine learning computations. They are accessible via the Google Cloud Platform
(Jouppi et al., 2017) and have recently been used for many different applications in computational physics and numerical analysis
(Wang et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2020b, a; Belletti et al., 2020). We build upon and extend an existing implementation
(Hu et al., 2022) to simulate the impact of idealized tsunamis on the coastline. Our implementation of the shallowwater equations includes a
nonlinear advective term not considered in (Hu et al., 2022), within the software framework based on Google's TensorFlow
necessary to
execute code on the TPU. We discretize the new equations using the weighted essentially nonoscillatory (WENO) method (Liu et al., 1994) and a
thirdorder Runge–Kutta scheme in time.
Numerical simulations of tsunamis have contributed to our understanding of and ability to mitigate wave impacts for many decades now, starting from the early work by Isozaki and Unoki (1964) for Tokyo Bay, and Ueno (1960) for the Chilean coast. The ability to capture the rupture mechanism that generates the initial condition for tsunami propagation then enabled the reproduction of many historical tsunamis (Aida, 1969, 1974). Since then, many numerical models have been developed to simulate tsunami generation (Borrero et al., 2004; Pelties et al., 2012; LópezVenegas et al., 2014; Galvez et al., 2014; Ulrich et al., 2019), propagation (Titov et al., 2005; LeVeque et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Allgeyer and Cummins, 2014; Abdolali and Kirby, 2017; Bonev et al., 2018; Abdolali et al., 2019), and inundation (Lynett, 2007; Park et al., 2013; Leschka and Oumeraci, 2014; Chen et al., 2014; Marsooli and Wu, 2014; Maza et al., 2015; Oishi et al., 2015; Prasetyo et al., 2019; Lunghino et al., 2020) by solving different variations of the shallowwater and Navier–Stokes equations.
The list of existing numerical models is long and was recently reviewed by Marras and Mandli (2021) and Horrillo et al. (2015). Some commonly used ones are FUNWAVE (Kennedy et al., 2000; Shi et al., 2012), pCOULWAVE (Lynett et al., 2002; Kim and Lynett, 2011), Delft3D (Roelvink and Van Banning, 1995), GeoCLAW (Berger et al., 2011), NHWAVE (Ma et al., 2012), TsunamiHySEA (Macías et al., 2017, 2020b, a), and FVCOM (Chen et al., 2003, 2014). Our work here relies on wellknown numerical techniques to solve idealized tsunami problems. Its novelty lies in demonstrating the capability and efficiency of TPUs to solve the nonlinear shallowwater equations to model tsunamis.
We intentionally use a hardware infrastructure that is relatively easy to use and accessible without specific training in highperformance computing. For the TPU infrastructure that we use here, comprehensive tutorials using Google Colab are available at https://cloud.google.com/tpu/docs/colabs (last access: 6 June 2023). The TPU may increasingly become a standard hardware on which physicsbased machinelearning algorithms will be built (Rasp et al., 2018; Mao et al., 2020; Wessels et al., 2020; Fauzi and Mizutani, 2020; Liu et al., 2021; Kamiya et al., 2022). Through its relative ease of access and potential for rapid simulation capabilities, cloud computing provides a valuable alternative to higherperformance computing clusters (Behrens et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2010), particularly for communities with limited access to local clusters. By leveraging these benefits of the Google Cloud TPU, we propose our implementation as one step towards a communitybased, userfriendly virtual laboratory that can be run by a minimally trained user on the cloud. The tool, which is freely available on GitHub (tsunamiTPUlab, 2023) under an Apache License, Version 2.0, for collaborative opensource software development, can be modified to include machine learning capabilities and, eventually, extended to coupled models for earthquake generation, inundation, and human interaction.
Numerical approximation
We model tsunami propagation and runup with the 2D nonlinear shallowwater equations in the conservative formulation with a source term in a Cartesian coordinate system. Letting $x=(x,y)$ denote position, we define u(x,t) and v(x,t) as the flow velocities in the x and y directions, respectively. We define h(x,t) as the dynamic water height and b(x) as the imposed bathymetry, meaning that the quantity h+b represents the water surface level. We solve for h, hu, and hv in our implementation. We further place a lower bound h≥ϵ in all cells, meaning no properly “dry” cells are present, and handle cells with water depth h=ϵ (the value of ϵ is problem dependent and on the order of centimeters) using the TPU code provided by Hu et al. (2022). This ensures that no flux arrives from those cells with water height ϵ. While this approach has some important drawbacks (Kärnä et al., 2011), it has been used extensively (Bates and Hervouet, 1999; Bunya et al., 2009; Gourgue et al., 2009; Nikolos and Delis, 2009; Marras et al., 2018) and is sufficient to keep the code stable within the scope of this study. This leads to the following system of equations, a set very similar to that suggested by Xing and Shu (2005):
where g = 9.81m s^{−2} is the acceleration of gravity, and n is the Manning friction coefficient. Note that the lefthand side of our formulation of the shallowwater equations includes the full nonlinear advection terms.
For ease of future notation, we let $\mathit{u}={\left[\begin{array}{ccc}h& hu& hv\end{array}\right]}^{\mathrm{T}}$, and we rewrite the above equations in a vector form, namely,
where F and G are the fluxes in the x and the y directions for the vector u, and S is a source term arising from variations in topography and Manning coefficient.
We implement these shallowwater equations using the finite volume method whereby the halfstep flux and height values are determined through a fifthorder WENO scheme (Liu et al., 1994; Jiang and Shu, 1996). We approximate solutions to cellwise Riemann problems by formulating fluxes using the Lax–Friedrichs method as in LeVeque (2011). We formulate the bed source term as suggested by Xing and Shu (2005) and formulate the friction term explicitly rather than using the implicit process suggested by Xia and Liang (2018). We use a thirdorder, total variation diminishing Runge–Kutta scheme (Shu, 1988) to step the numerical solution forward in time.
We begin the discretization of the equation in continuous variables t, x, and y, using respective step sizes Δt, Δx, and Δy, which indicate the distance between consecutive integral steps in the discrete indices n, i, and j, respectively. We use the fifthorder WENO scheme in the x and y directions, where two values of each quantity h, hu, and hv are determined at each halfstep of x and y. These two values correspond to a positive and negative characteristic, due to the nature of the footprint that is chosen at a given point. In other words, given the conservative form with relevant variable u, u_{i,j} centered on a finite volume cell, we label these outputs of WENO:
From here, we use the Lax–Friedrichs method to approximate flux values that serve as solutions to the Riemann problem; that is, we approximate
where α_{u} is the associated Lax–Friedrichs global maximum characteristic speed. Now, we discretize Eq. (4) explicitly as
Note that in our case we also choose to formulate the source term $\mathit{S}\left({\mathit{u}}_{i,j}^{n}\right)$ explicitly and centered at the grid point. Since we use an entirely explicit formulation, we can rewrite Eq. (7) as a timestepping operator for u^{n+1}, namely, ${\mathit{u}}^{n+\mathrm{1}}=\mathbf{T}\left({\mathit{u}}^{n}\right)$. Because the Runge–Kutta scheme uses multiple stages within each time step, we reassign the output of the T operator to be ${\mathit{u}}^{(n+\mathrm{1})}=\mathbf{T}\left({\mathit{u}}^{n}\right)$, where (n+1) indicates an intermediate full time step forward. This means a full Runge–Kutta step progresses as follows:
The process outlined by Eq. (8) outputs a final u^{n+1} representing a fullstep forward in simulation time.
TPU implementation
To leverage the TPU's several cores, we divide the domain into multiple subdomains and independently compute the numerical solution to the governing equations on each core. While a lot of the computation can take place independently, each subdomain remains dependent on the others via their boundaries and the Lax–Friedrichs global maximum in characteristic speed. We determine global maximum characteristic speed by sharing and reducing the Lax–Friedrichs maximum characteristic speed calculated on each core. We transfer subdomain boundary information with further care by using a halo exchange. The data transfer behavior and computation structure is summarized in Fig. 3.
Our implementation is inspired by Hu et al. (2022), who chose halo exchange as an instrument for the TPU to communicate information across subdomain boundaries in their formulation of the shallowwater equations. In the halo exchange process, we transfer slices of the domain from one core to the others immediately adjacent. While the methodology by Hu et al. (2022) only involved the exchange of a single slice from one core to the other, we transfer several slices in order to take full advantage of the high accuracy and larger footprint of the WENO scheme. These halo exchanges are then performed in every stage of the Runge–Kutta scheme, meaning that they occur multiple times in a single time step.
The initial conditions and results are communicated from the remote program, which resides on the CPU, to the TPU workers by means of
tpu.replicate
which sends TensorFlow
code to each TPU. We refer to Hu et al. (2022) for further details on the TPU
implementation.
We differentiate between model verification and validation in the manner suggested by Carson (2002). Specifically, we check for model and implementation error by quantifying the extent to which numerical solutions compare to correct analytical solutions (Carson, 2002): wet dam break (Sect. 2.1), oscillations in a parabolic bowl (Sect. 2.2), and steadystate flow down a slope with friction (Sect. 2.3). Following this, we validate by checking how well numerical solutions reflect the real system and apply to the context (Carson, 2002). To do this, we compare against an existing numerical benchmark from the Inundation Science and Engineering Cooperative (ISEC, 2004) and results from an investigation of naturebased solutions (Lunghino et al., 2020) in Sect. 2.4, and we consider the propagation of a computed tsunami over the observed topography of Crescent City in Sect. 2.5.
To quantify the accuracy of the solutions, we test our numerical solver against some classical analytical solutions to the shallowwater equations. We assess the model's ability to capture key physical processes relevant to inundation, including steep wave propagation, friction, and topography dependence. We use relative errors in the L_{∞} and L_{2} sense as the metric to determine model accuracy. These are approximated in this paper in the following manner:
where h_{c} is the computed solution at the discretized cells, h_{a} is the analytical solution at the corresponding cells, and Ω denotes the computational domain. We omit the cell sizes that often serve as weights in the L_{2} relative error norm, because all of our cells have the same size. The L_{2} relative error norm indicates the sum total error in water levels throughout the entire domain, while the L_{∞} norm indicates the maximal error in a single cell's water level compared to the actual solution.
We refer interested readers to the Appendix B for the corresponding grid convergence analysis under these relative error norms for the first three analytical cases, and we refer readers to Sect. 3.2 for grid convergence analysis of the tsunami modeling in the context of the Inundation and Science Engineering Cooperative (ISEC) benchmark as well as the Crescent City scenario.
2.1 Wet dam break
The classical onedimensional wet dam break scheme (Stoker, 1957) provides us with an opportunity to test the ability of our code to capture shock propagation and advection. In this case, there is no friction (n=0) and the topography is flat (b(x)=0). The boundaries are set at a constant height with zero flux. We impose the following initial conditions:
where h_{l} and h_{r} are the constant water heights on either side of a shock front x_{0}. We compare our numerical solution for water height against the dynamic analytical solution from Delestre et al. (2013):
A qualitative comparison of the computed and analytical solutions for times t = 0, 2.5, and 9 s is shown in the left plots of Fig. 4. The relative error between the analytical and computed solutions in the infinity and 2norms at a short distance away from the shock front are plotted on the right. We interpret the converging relative error norms to a low magnitude as verification of our implementation to sufficiently capture shock propagation and advection.
2.2 Planar parabolic bowl
The classical onedimensional planar parabolic bowl, originally suggested by Thacker (1981), is an oscillating solution allowing us to test the source term for topography without friction (n=0). We enforce homogeneous Dirichlet conditions in both flux and water height, at a resolution of 1 m. Once again, we take the test directly from Delestre et al. (2013), resulting in the following description of the base topography:
corresponding with the following initial conditions:
This leads to the following dynamic analytical solution for the water height:
where ${x}_{\mathrm{1}}\left(t\right)=\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{2}g{h}_{\mathrm{0}}}t}{a}\right)a+\frac{L}{\mathrm{2}}$. A qualitative comparison of the parabolic bowl solution at the time instances t = 3.5 and t = 12.5 s can be seen on the left of Fig. 5. The analytical and computed solutions appear to correspond to one another well. For a more quantitative analysis, the relative error norms of the solutions are depicted on the right of Fig. 5. We interpret the converging relative error norms to a low magnitude as verification of our implementation to sufficiently capture the source term of the shallowwater equations induced by topography.
2.3 Steady flow down a slope with friction
We do a short test in order to assess the correctness of the discretized friction source term, focusing on a relatively simple flow down a slope with finite friction (n=0.033) as tested by Xia and Liang (2018). The steadystate flow down a slope then becomes
where b_{x} is the slope. In this test, we initialize the problem with a wave height of 0.5 and a slope of $\frac{\mathrm{1}}{\mathrm{20}}$, while allowing the flux to start at zero. This specific example and its convergence towards steady state is shown in Fig. 6. The left plots show the flux at t = 100 s and t = 500 s. We see that the flux rises from zero towards the steadystate flux level. On the right plot, the error norm of the steadystate flux takes some time to reach steady state, but reaches a very low level upon reaching time t=500 s. Because we approach the appropriate steadystate solution and achieve a very small error norm, our implementation is verified in capturing a manning friction law.
2.4 Validation for tsunami simulations
To assess the ability of the code to capture tsunami propagation, we start with a popular numerical benchmark from the ISEC (ISEC, 2004) that represents tsunami runup over an idealized planar beach that provides solutions for tsunami runup at times t = 180, 195, and 220 s. We formulate the initial conditions for water height using Lunghino et al. (2020). The solutions from the benchmark (dashed, orange) are qualitatively compared with the numerical solution produced by our code (solid, purple) in Fig. 7. We take the qualitative agreement as validation of the model's ability to model the runup of a Carrier “Nwave” (Carrier et al., 2003).
Since we are interested in leveraging TPUs for tsunamirisk mitigation planning, we take a look at the ability of our shallowwater equation code to reproduce a few particular results by Lunghino et al. (2020), who investigated the effects of hills on a tsunami running up a planar beach. The tsunami is initialized as Carrier's Nwave (Carrier et al., 2003):
where $\mathit{\eta}=h+z$, ${\widehat{x}}_{\mathrm{1}}=\mathrm{1000}+\mathrm{0.5151125}\mathit{\lambda}$, ${\widehat{x}}_{\mathrm{2}}=\mathrm{1000}+\mathrm{0.2048}\mathit{\lambda}$, ${\widehat{k}}_{\mathrm{1}}=\mathrm{28.416}/{\mathit{\lambda}}^{\mathrm{2}}$, ${\widehat{k}}_{\mathrm{2}}=\mathrm{256}/{\mathit{\lambda}}^{\mathrm{2}}$, a_{1}=A, and ${a}_{\mathrm{2}}=A/\mathrm{3}$. While this is the analytically correct form, the flow origin in the code is not the shoreline, so there are some effective shifts ${\widehat{x}}_{\mathrm{1}}$ and ${\widehat{x}}_{\mathrm{2}}$ that we need to do. An example of the Carrier wave initial conditions and offshore propagation behavior for A = 15 m and λ = 2000 m is shown in Fig. 8. We apply free slip, nopenetration boundary conditions to the four domain boundaries, which means that the component of the boundarynormal component of the velocity vector is zero, whereas its tangential component is unaltered. The shallowwater equation model presented in this study is able to reproduce the wave reflection provided by a hill, consistent with results from Lunghino et al. (2020). Because this simulation is possible by the implementation, other further analysis can be conducted to understand the mitigative benefit of other naturebased solutions.
2.5 Realworld scenario
Past tsunamis impacting the west coast of the United States have caused more damage around the harbor of Crescent City in California than elsewhere along the Pacific coast (Arcas and Uslu, 2010). For this reason, we chose an area of approximately 105 km^{2} around Crescent City to demonstrate the code's ability to capture the impact of an idealized tsunami event for a real location at high resolution. To approximate the actual bathymetry and topography, we use a digital elevation model for this area with uniform grid spacing of 4 m provided by NOAA (NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, 2010; Grothe et al., 2011). For the sake of providing a proof of concept, we initialize the tsunami using the same Carrier's waveform defined above but with the following parameters: A = 10 m, λ = 2000 m, ${\widehat{x}}_{\mathrm{1}}=\mathrm{6000}+\mathrm{0.5151125}\mathit{\lambda}$ m, and ${\widehat{x}}_{\mathrm{2}}=\mathrm{6000}+\mathrm{0.2048}\mathit{\lambda}$ m. The chosen parameters lead to maximum inundation patterns similar to that seen in one modeled extreme scenario from Arcas and Uslu (2010). In Fig. 9, we start with an absence of any nearshore wave (including at t = 50 s) and then a development of a tsunami front that is visible to the shoreline by t = 140 s. That front penetrates the harbor by t = 220 s and is soon followed by the inundation of the coastline as well as reflection of wave energy back to the ocean. We also observe that the mountain range on the upper part of the figure clearly provides a significant protective benefit to the land beyond it.
The protective benefit of the mountain range can be further seen in Fig. 10. This highwater map from a 10 min simulation of runup due to the Carrier Nwave shows the spatial variation of which locations see at least 1 m of inundation under different wave amplitudes. While more work would be necessary to leverage our tsunami software package to connect the inundation by a generated wave to the forcing generated by earthquakes, a risk manager can see how highermagnitude tsunamis may disproportionately affect certain locations over others.
3.1 Number of TPU cores
As noted in the Introduction, in communities where users may not have access to highperformance computing facilities, the cloud TPU platform provides a particularly valuable resource where users can perform largescale computations rapidly. To quantify the potential speedup enabled by TPUs with increasing numbers of cores, we observe the average wallclock time taken in computation for each time step with the exclusion of the first time step. This first time step includes several preprocessing functions, such as reading DEM files into TPU memory, setting up initial conditions, and initializing the TensorFlow workflow. Similarly, we calculate runtime based on the amount of time spent in computation with the exception of this first step, with time which is variable from run to run. As shown in Table 1, the problem size posed by the realistic scenario is sufficient to see rapid improvements in runtime based on the number of cores. We note that our analysis may vary user to user, depending on the TPU version that they are allocated and the number of cores available to them. Our simulations were all conducted with a TPUv2, and we extend our analysis only up to eight TPU cores because, at the time of writing, Google Colab only provides eight cores for free in our region.
3.2 Geophysical problem resolution
Simulating tsunami runup typically requires large domains and sufficiently high resolution to accurately capture tsunami propagation and inundation over complex topography. Therefore, we continue analyzing our Crescent City scenario for both convergence and the average runtime spent for each time step under varying degrees of resolution, shown in Fig. 11 and with numerical results given in Table 2. As is expected, relative error norms fall as we reach higher resolutions and lower cell sizes, which in turn corresponds to increasing runtime spent for each time step. To expand upon the scaling of runtime, we calculate an accessory “efficiency” metric to more specifically understand how runtime scales with the number of elements, calculated by dividing the total number of elements over the average runtime per time step. Higher values for this efficiency metric would be associated with a greater number of computations for grid elements being completed per unit time. We see that this efficiency is maximized for high numbers of elements as expected while the TPU reaches capacity.
We perform the same analysis under varying degrees of resolution using the benchmark from the Inundation Science and Engineering Cooperative (ISEC, 2004) that we previously validated against in Sect. 2.4. We show a qualitative comparison of the tsunami propagation under different resolutions are graphically depicted in Fig. 12 in the top two and bottom left figures. In the bottom right plot of Fig. 12, we see the expected fall in runtime based on coarser resolution (black), and a rise in relative error, an error representing the accumulation of all three time instances for which the ISEC benchmark is defined. We provide an overview of the corresponding values and efficiency metrics in Table 3. Since the total number of elements is smaller for the ISEC benchmark as compared to the Crescent City scenario, we are able to see even lower efficiency as the TPU is even further away from reaching full capacity.
3.3 Comparison with GeoClaw
For comparison purposes, we run GeoClaw (Clawpack Development Team, 2020; Mandli et al., 2016; Berger et al., 2011) using four CPU threads that were allocated for free via Google Colab. Our GeoClaw simulation uses the same DEM file and is computed at an 8 m resolution without mesh refinement. We use an adaptive time step bounded by the Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy condition, and we determine the spatial fluxes using a secondorder, ratelimited Lax–Wendroff scheme. In Fig. 14, we see lower relative error norms as we approach higher resolution in our simulation of our Crescent City scenario. The GeoClaw numerical solution can be compared to our TPU numerical solution in Fig. 13, where the top row includes several instances in time of the TPU numerical solution, and the bottom row depicts the GeoClaw numerical solution at the same instances in time. Although some differences can be seen in inundation by t = 380 s in the rightmost plots, the solutions do generally appear similar over time, lending credibility to the validity of the numerical solution presented in this paper. One particular advantage of our TPUbased code lies in its comparatively rapid simulation. While our TPUbased code completes a 400 s simulation in approximately 2 min of wallclock time, the adaptivetimestepping GeoClaw implementation on the CPU takes approximately 275 min. The TPU sees even more significant speedup when we enforce a fixed time step equal to that of the TPU implementation; that GeoClaw simulation would take over 1300 min.
3.4 Energy utilization
Estimates of energy efficiency of computing operations are becoming increasingly popular, especially in response to progressing climate change (Fuhrer et al., 2018; Fourestey et al., 2014). To get a rough approximation of the comparative efficiency of a Google Cloud TPU over a CPU, we ran the Crescent City tsunami propagation problem at 8 m resolution using GeoClaw on a Google Cloud CPU node and our code on a Google Cloud TPU node. We do not have the information nor access to the physical devices needed to conduct rigorous energy profiles to calculate efficiency as is done by others (e.g., Ge et al., 2010), so we deliver an orderofmagnitude estimate based on the thermal design power of the devices that we are allocated via Google Colab. We only compared resources that are freely available through Colab in order to compare the efficiencies of computing resources that may be accessible to all users.
Based on Table 2, each time step takes an average of about 6.4 × 10^{−3} s on the TPUv2 that we were allocated by Google Colab, corresponding to about 0.32 s per simulated second under our current timestepping regime. The TPUv2 we were assigned contains four chips with a thermal design power of 280 W per chip (Jouppi et al., 2021), meaning that each simulated second then has an energy cost of approximately 0.1 Wh, leading to an approximately 40 Wh energy cost for a 400 simulatedsecond simulation. At a price of 21 cents kWh^{−1} in the USA at the time of writing this article, this simulation has a monetary cost of 0.84 cents.
When we ran GeoClaw for our CPU comparison on energy utilization, we enforced a fixed time step on the GeoClaw package of equal size to that of our TPU (i.e., Δt = 0.02 s) rather than leveraging GeoClaw's adaptive time stepping to have a fair comparison in terms of the approximate number of operations. While the specific processor we were allocated for this CPU comparison is not immediately clear, we deduced from the model name, CPU family, and model number that we were allocated the Intel Xeon E52650 v4 with a base frequency of 2.2 GHz and a thermal design power of 105 W for 12 cores and 24 threads (Intel, 2016). Of this, we were allocated 2 cores/4 threads, and we took full advantage of all threads for our GeoClaw run. Each time step took approximately 4.2 s, corresponding to about 205 runtime seconds per simulated second. If we assume ideal conditions leading to perfectly proportional scaling of computational speed in increasing cores, we would expect that each simulated second would take approximately 34.2 s when the Intel Xeon E52650 v4 was used to full capacity. This means that each simulated second would have an associated energy cost on the order of 1.0 Wh. A 400 modeledsecond simulation would imply a total cost of approximately 400 Wh of energy or a monetary cost of 8.4 cents. With the corresponding TPU energy calculation in mind, our conservative estimate suggests that a CPU simulation has approximately 10 times the energy cost of running an equivalent TPU simulation under the same timestepping conditions.
While these two simulations accomplish the same thing, they have vastly different associated performances. At times, rapid computation and simulations are necessary in the context of risk analysis, and the associated energy costs of such a performant computation is worth estimating. To address this, we push our energy estimate a touch further, providing another orderofmagnitude estimate of what a CPU simulation conducted at TPU performance would be. We extrapolate our previous assumptions further, assuming proportional scaling of computational speed with increasing CPUs and that the thermal design power applies to each CPU within a system independently. Because a simulated second of a fullcapacity Intel Xeon E52650 v4 CPU takes approximately 34.2 s compared to the TPUv2's 0.32 s, over 100 CPUs at full capacity would be needed for similar rapidity in simulation. Following similar logic as done in the previous paragraph, a CPU simulation of equivalent performance would have approximately 1000 times the energy cost of running a TPU simulation when ran under the same timestepping conditions.
Sustainable tsunamirisk mitigation in the Pacific Northwest is a challenging task. Some challenges come from beneath, because previous large subduction zone earthquakes at Cascadia led to 0.5–1 m of coseismic subsidence and the sudden sinking of land during an earthquake (Wang et al., 2013). Strong shaking can also lead to liquefaction (Atwater, 1992; Takada and Atwater, 2004). Other challenges come from the ocean, where sealevel rise (Church and White, 2006; Bindoff et al., 2007) and intensifying winter storms (Graham and Diaz, 2001) have increased wave heights (Ruggiero et al., 2010; Ruggiero, 2013) and accelerated coastal erosion (Ruggiero, 2008). A recent USGS report documented rapid shoreline changes at an average rate of almost 1 m yr^{−1} across 9087 individual transects (Ruggiero et al., 2013), suggesting the possibility that the shoreline might change significantly during the centurylong return period of large earthquakes in Cascadia (Witter et al., 2003).
The picture that emerges is that of a highly dynamic coastline – maybe too dynamic for an entirely static approach. Nature is not only continuing to shape the coastline, but it is also a fundamental component of the region's cultural heritage, identity, and local economy. So, it is maybe not surprising that the Pacific Northwest is a thoughtleader when it comes to designing hybrid approaches to sustainable climate adaptation through the Green Shores program (Dalton et al., 2013) and to vertical tsunami evacuation through Project Safe Haven (Freitag et al., 2011).
Project Safe Haven is a grassroots approach to reducing tsunami risk mostly by providing accessible verticalevacuation options for communities. Many proposed designs entail reinforced berm like the one shown in Fig. 2, intended to dissipate wave energy and provide vertical evacuation space during tsunami inundation. To build confidence in such a solution and its mitigation effects, risk managers must be able to quickly and precisely forecast a tsunami inundation, preferably via a publicly available, centralized modeling infrastructure.
This paper aims to be a first step towards a communitybased infrastructure that will allow local authorities around the world to readily execute tsunami simulations for risk mitigation planning. We aim to provide a proof of concept rather than a complete implementation. As such, we used a very similar base framework used by Hu et al. (2022) of halo exchange in combination with a WENO (Liu et al., 1994; Jiang and Shu, 1996) and Runge–Kutta scheme (Shu, 1988). We choose easily implementable higherorder schemes to maintain high accuracy, necessary for simulating tsunami inundation over the complex topographies that risk managers often deal with in the real world, despite the fact that the large stencils within the current implementation may not be optimal for TPU performance. Future work could consider a convolutionbased implementation of the quadrature of the shallowwater equations to test for maximum performance utilization of the TPUs.
Because our code is specifically an implementation of the shallowwater equations, it is currently unable to model tsunami initiation or any fluid structure interactions that may be desired to accompany analysis of naturebased solutions. Instead, it requires an initial condition for wave heights and fluxes, meaning a full tsunami simulation would require coupling the results of a tsunami initiation model as an input. While our implementation is relatively limited in scope, the model is able to provide a starting point for a more complete software package for communities as they evaluate naturebased options for tsunami mitigation.
We argue that cloud TPUs are preferable to large, heavily parallel simulations on CPUs or GPUs for risk managers across all communities, because the TPUbased simulations we show here do not require access to the large computing clusters hosted by laboratories and universities. These clusters require huge amounts of power to run and are usually only made available to scientists and engineers by means of competitive grants for computing time or by use of the cloud offered by private companies. However, an expert user knowledge of these systems from a scientific computing perspective is necessary to design, run, and interpret model results, and the compute infrastructure itself may not be available to earlywarning centers in many parts of the world. In contrast, our code is available on GitHub and fully implemented in Python; it can be executed through a web browser and visualized through a simple notebook file using Google Colab without the knowledge otherwise required to run large parallel codes on highperformance computing systems. By taking advantage of Google Cloud Platform, we also ensure that a user's power demand is met entirely with renewable energy (Google, 2022). Performance can be enhanced with some knowledge about TPU architectures, but community risk managers do not need this knowledge to run highquality tsunami simulations rapidly for real, physical domains with associated DEMs.
Finally, though not our focus here, we note our approach may also contribute to early tsunami warning. Once triggered, tsunamis move fast; this fact makes it necessary to model and assess their potential for damage ahead of time once they have been detected offshore. For a sufficiently fast early warning and prompt evacuation, the tsunami modeling infrastructure has an important time constraint (Giles et al., 2021) to be considered, and faster than real time (FTRT) simulations are necessary (Behrens et al., 2021; Løvholt et al., 2019). To make FTRT simulations a reality, tsunami models are being rewritten or adapted to run on graphical processing units (GPUs) (Løvholt et al., 2019; Behrens and Dias, 2015; Satria et al., 2012). A TPUbased implementation as proposed here might be another meaningful step in that direction.
We present a first step towards an accessible software package that leverages the powers of cloudbased TPU computing for improving the capabilities of risk managers and communities to mitigate the destructive onshore impacts of tsunamis. We verify and validate our current implementation to ensure that it is capable of simulating inundation from a Carrier Nwave over real topography. These simulations are comparable to that ran by the popular opensource solver GeoClaw (Clawpack Development Team, 2020; Berger et al., 2011) but can be run at higher speeds through Google Colab and requires less expertise in scientific computing. As a result, highquality tsunami simulations are available to remote communities for rapidly evaluating different riskmitigation options including but not limited to naturebased solutions. Future efforts can then be dedicated to better meeting the needs of risk managers with a platform available through the cloud, be that in coupling our shallowwater equations package to earthquake–tsunami generation models or experimenting with different numerical implementations to enable even more rapid simulation of these equations.
Due to the restrictions of the cloud TPU using Google Cloud Storage, a user must leverage Google's buckets to run the notebooks. At the time of
writing this article, eight TPU cores are readily available in North America on Google Colab for free, but Google Cloud Storage buckets are a paid
subscription service (see https://cloud.google.com/tpu/docs/regionszones, last access: 6 June 2023, for information about
specific regions). With a computing project setup on Google Cloud and a corresponding bucket with open permissions (with steps specified in
https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/creatingbuckets, last access: 6 June 2023), users can quickly run any of the example
notebooks or design their own simulation. Any of the example notebooks available on GitHub (with the exclusion of tpu_tsunami.ipynb
, which
contains the full implementation with all of the different scenarios; and Create_Scenarios.ipynb
, which can aid users in generating a custom
DEM file) can be quickly ran by going through the notebook after a few setup steps.

Download the TPUTsunami Repository from https://github.com/smarras79/tsunamiTPUlab/releases/tag/v1.0.0 (last access: 6 June 2023) to your local machine. Create a project on Google Cloud Platform and associate a publicly available bucket with the project.

Modify the
user_constants.py
file to specify thePROJECT_ID
andBUCKET
with the specifics of your Google Cloud project. If you wish to change some simulation constants, modify the beginning of thetpu_simulation_utilities.py
file. 
Navigate to https://colab.research.google.com/ (last access: 6 June 2023) and open the example notebook (or your own notebook) from the TPUTsunami Repository using Colab's “open from GitHub” tool.

Navigate to Runtime > Change runtime type, and verify that the TPU option is chosen as the hardware accelerator.

Upload your
user_constants.py
andtpu_simulation_utilities.py
files to your notebook session using the draganddrop feature under “Files”. Upload any corresponding DEM files to the session as well. 
Specify a function corresponding to an initial condition for your DEM file (or use one example initial condition).

Set initial conditions and boundary conditions as clarified in the bottom of any example notebook run. Set last simulation parameters defining numerical resolution (
resolution
), time step size (dt
), output file times, TPU core configuration (currently only capable of variation ofcy
), and DEM file name on bucket (dem_bucket_filename
). 
Run the simulation.

Analyze results.
In addition to the convergence analysis for the ISEC benchmark posed in Sect. 3.2, we have included some additional results constituting a convergence analysis for two of the other analytical scenarios that are particularly relevant for establishing an appropriate grid resolution.
In Fig. B1, we can see how the wet dam break case converges with higher resolution. This is more concretely specified in Table B1 with specific values. In Fig. B2, we can see improvements in the grid convergence for the planar parabolic bowl problem from Sect. 2.2. We begin to see error convergence at high enough resolution.
Finally, in Fig. B3, we can see how the wet dam break case converges with higher resolution. This is more concretely specified in Table B3 with specific values. In Fig. B3, we can see improvements in the grid convergence for the slope with manning friction problem from Sect. 2.3.
Our work is available as a GitHub release at https://github.com/smarras79/tsunamiTPUlab/releases/tag/v1.0.0 (last access: 12 June 2023) or on archive at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7574655 (Madden et al., 2023).
IM: Methodology, Software, Analysis, and Writing. SM, PI: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing, and Supervision. JS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing, and Supervision.
At least one of the (co)authors is a member of the editorial board of Geoscientific Model Development. The peerreview process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation's Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRFP) awarded to Ian Madden.
This research has been supported by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRFP) awarded to Ian Madden (grant no. DGE2146755).
This paper was edited by Deepak Subramani and reviewed by Ilhan ÖzgenXian and two anonymous referees.
Abdolali, A. and Kirby, J. T.: Role of compressibility on tsunami propagation, J. Geophys. Res.Oceans, 122, 9780–9794, 2017. a
Abdolali, A., Kadri, U., and Kirby, J. T.: Effect of water compressibility, seafloor elasticity, and field gravitational potential on tsunami phase speed, Sci. Rep.UK, 9, 1–8, 2019. a
Aida, I.: Numercal experiments for the tsunami propagation of the 1964 Niigata tsunami and 1968 TokachiOki tsunami, B. Earthq. Res. I. Tokyo, 47, 673–700, 1969. a
Aida, I.: Numerical computational of a tsunami based on a fault origin model of an earthquake, J. Seismol. Soc. Jpn., 27, 141–154, 1974. a
Allgeyer, S. and Cummins, P. R.: Numerical tsunami simulation including elastic loading and seawater density stratification, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 2368–2375, 2014. a
Arcas, D. and Uslu, B.: PMEL Tsunami Forecast Series: Vol. 2. A Tsunami Forecast Model for Crescent City, California, Tech. Rep. 3341, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2010. a, b
Atwater, B. F.: Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2000 years along the Copalis River, southern coastal Washington, J. Geophys. Res.Sol. Ea., 97, 1901–1919, 1992. a
Atwater, B. F., MusumiRokkaku, S., Satake, K., Tsuji, Y., and Yamaguchi, D. K.: The orphan tsunami of 1700: Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in North America, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA, https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1707, 2011. a
Bates, P. D. and Hervouet, J.M.: A new method for moving–boundary hydrodynamic problems in shallow water, P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A Mat., 455, 3107–3128, 1999. a
Behrens, J. and Dias, F.: New computational methods in tsunami science, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 373, 20140382, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0382, 2015. a
Behrens, J., Løvholt, F., Jalayer, F., et al.: Probabilistic tsunami hazard and risk analysis: a review of research gaps, Front. Earth Sci., 9, 628772, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.628772, 2021. a
Behrens, J., Schulz, A., and Simon, K.: Performance Assessment of the Cloud for Prototypical Instant Computing Approaches in Geoscientific Hazard Simulations, Front. Earth Sci., 10, 762768, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.762768, 2022. a
Belletti, F., King, D. Yang, K., Nelet, R., Shafi, Y., and Shen, Y.F.and Anderson, J.: Tensor processing units for financial Monte Carlo, in: Proceedings of the 2020 SIAM Conference on Parallel Processing for Scientific Computing, Seattle, Washington, USA, 12–15 February 2020, 12–23, 2020. a
Berger, M., George, D., LeVeque, R., and Mandli, K.: The GeoClaw software for depthaveraged flows with adaptive refinement, Adv. Water Res., 34, 1195–1206, 2011. a, b, c
Bindoff, N. L., Willebrand, J., Artale, V., Cazenave, A., Gregory, J., Gulev, S., Hanawa, K., Le Quéré, C., Levitus, S., Nojiri, Y., Shum, C. K., Talley, L. D., and Unnikrishnan, A.: Observations: oceanic climate change and sea level, chap. in: Climate change 2007–the physical science basis: Working group I contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA, 2007. a
Bonev, B., Hesthaven, J. S., Giraldo, F. X., and Kopera, M. A.: Discontinuous Galerkin scheme for the spherical shallow water equations with applications to tsunami modeling and prediction, J. Comput. Phys., 362, 425–448, 2018. a
Borrero, J. C., Legg, M. R., and Synolakis, C. E.: Tsunami sources in the southern California bight, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L13211, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020078, 2004. a
Bulleri, F. and Chapman, M.: The introduction of coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in marine environments, J. Appl. Ecol., 47, 26–35, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652664.2009.01751.x, 2010. a
Bunya, S., Kubatko, E. J., Westerink, J. J., and Dawson, C.: A wetting and drying treatment for the Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin solution to the shallow water equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engr., 198, 1548–1562, 2009. a
Carrier, G. F., Wu, T. T., and Yeh, H.: Tsunami runup and drawdown on a plane beach, J. Fluid Mech., 475, 79–99, 2003. a, b
Carson, J.: Model verification and validation, in: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, San Diego, California, USA, 8–11 December 2002, vol. 1, pp. 52–58, https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2002.1172868, 2002. a, b, c
Chen, C., Liu, H., and Beardsley, R. C.: An unstructured grid, finitevolume, three dimensional, primitive equations ocean model: application to coastal ocean and estuaries, J. Atmos. Ocean Techn., 20, 159–186, 2003. a
Chen, C., Lai, Z., Beardsley, R. C., Sasaki, J., Lin, J., Lin, H., Ji, R., and Sun, Y.: The March 11, 2011 Tohoku M9.0 Earthquakeinduced Tsunami and Coastal Inundation along the Japanese Coast: A Model Assessment, Prog. Oceanogr., 123, 84–104, 2014. a, b, c
Church, J. A. and White, N. J.: A 20th century acceleration in global sealevel rise, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024826, 2006. a
Clague, J. J.: Evidence for large earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone, Rev. Geophys, 35, 439–460, 1997. a
Clawpack Development Team: Clawpack software, version 5.7.1, Zenodo [code and data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4025432, 2020. a, b
Dalton, M. M., Mote, P. W., and Snover, A. K.: Climate Change in the Northwest, Island Press, Washington, DC, ISBN 9781610915601, 2013. a
Dean, R. G. and Dalrymple, R. A.: Coastal processes with engineering applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, ISBN 9780511754500, 2002. a
Delestre, O., Lucas, C., Ksinant, P.A., Darboux, F., Laguerre, C., Vo, T.N., James, F., and Cordier, S.: SWASHES: a compilation of shallow water analytic solutions for hydraulic and environmental studies, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fl., 72, 269–300, 2013. a, b
Dugan, J. and Hubbard, D.: Ecological Effects of Coastal Armoring: A Summary of Recent Results for Exposed Sandy Beaches in Southern California, in: Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring, U. S. Geol. Surv. Sci. Invest. Rep., edited by: Shipman, H., Dethier, M., Gelfenbaum, G., Fresh, K., and Dinicola, R., 2010. a
Fauzi, A. and Mizutani, N.: Machine Learning Algorithms for Realtime Tsunami Inundation Forecasting: A Case Study in Nankai Region, Pure Appl. Geophy., 177, 1437–1450, 2020. a
Fourestey, G., Cumming, B., Gilly, L., and Schulthess, T. C.: First Experiences With Validating and Using the Cray Power Management Database Tool, arXiv, arXiv:1408.2657, 2014. a
Freitag, B., Wiser, J., Engstfeld, A., Killebrew, K., Scott, C., Kasprisin, R., DeMarco, T., Vitulli, J., ElAnwar, O., Hochstatter, K., Schelling, J., Nelson, D., Mooney, J., Walker, B., Walsh, T., Biasco, T., Wood, N., González, F., Wilde, T., Fritts, S., Rowlett, D., Nelson, C., Shipman, L., and Miles, G.: Project Safe Haven: Tsunami Vertical Evacuation on the Washington Coast, Pacific County, Tech. rep., University of Washington and Washington Emergency Management Division, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2011. a, b, c
Fuhrer, O., Chadha, T., Hoefler, T., Kwasniewski, G., Lapillonne, X., Leutwyler, D., Lüthi, D., Osuna, C., Schär, C., Schulthess, T. C., and Vogt, H.: Nearglobal climate simulation at 1 km resolution: establishing a performance baseline on 4888 GPUs with COSMO 5.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1665–1681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd1116652018, 2018. a
Galvez, P., Ampuero, J.P., Dalguer, L., S. N., S., and NissenMeyer, T.: Dynamic earthquake rupture modelled with an unstructured 3D spectral element method applied to the 2011 M9 Tohoku earthquake, Geophys. J. Int., 198, 1222–1240, 2014. a
Ge, R., Feng, X., Song, S., Chang, H.C., Li, D., and Cameron, K. W.: PowerPack: Energy Profiling and Analysis of HighPerformance Systems and Applications, IEEE T. Parall. Distr., 21, 658–671, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2009.76, 2010. a
Giles, D., Gopinathan, D., Guillas, S., and Dias, F.: Faster Than Real Time Tsunami Warning with Associated Hazard Uncertainties, Front. Earth Sci., 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.597865, 2021. a
Google: Google Environmental Report 2022, Tech. rep., Google, https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google2022environmentalreport.pdf (last access: 12 June 2023), 2022. a
Gordon, C.: Analytical Baseline Study for the Cascadia Earthquake and Tsunami, Tech. rep., National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, Department of Homeland Security, https://mil.wa.gov/asset/609ebfd1b819f (last access: 12 June 2023), 2012. a, b
Gourgue, O., Comblen, R., Lambrechts, J., Kärnä, T., Legat, V., and Deleersnijder, E.: A fluxlimiting wettingdrying method for finiteelement shallowwater models, with application to the Scheldt estuary, Adv. Water Res., 32, 1726–1739, 2009. a
Graham, N. E. and Diaz, H. F.: Evidence for intensification of North Pacific winter cyclones since 1948, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 82, 1869–1894, 2001. a
Grothe, P. R., Taylor, L. A., Eakins, B. W., Carignan, K. S., Caldwell, R. J., Lim, E., and Friday, D. Z.: Digital elevation models of Crescent City, California : procedures, data sources, and analysis, Tech. rep., National Geophysical Data Center, Marine Geology and Geophysics Division, https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/1188 (last access: 12 June 2023), 2011. a
Heaton, T. H. and Hartzell, S. H.: Earthquake hazards on the Cascadia subduction zone, Science, 236, 162–169, 1987. a
Horrillo, J., Grilli, S., Nicolsky, D., Roeber, V., and Zhang, J.: Performance benchmarking tsunami models for NTHMP's inundation mapping activities, Pure Appl. Geophys., 172, 869–884, 2015. a
Hu, L. R., Pierce, D., Shafi, Y., Boral, A., Anisimov, V., Nevo, S., and Chen, Y.F.: Accelerating physics simulations with tensor processing units: An inundation modeling example, Int. J. High Perform. C., 36, 510–523, https://doi.org/10.1177/10943420221102873, 2022. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Intel: Intel Xeon Processor E5 v4 Product Family Datasheet, Volume One: Electrical, Tech. Rep. 33809, rev. 003US, Intel, Santa Clara, California, USA, 2016. a
ISEC: Benchmark problem 1 tsunami runup onto a plane beach in the third international workshop on longwave runup models, Website, Inundation Science and Engineering Cooperative, http://isec.nacse.org/workshop/2004_cornell/bmark1.html (last access: 12 June 2023), 2004. a, b, c
Isozaki, I. and Unoki, S.: The numerical computation of the tsunami in Tokyo Bay caused by the Chilean earthquake in May, 1960, in: Studies on Oceanography – A Collection of Papers Dedicated to Koji Hidaka, 389–402, 1964. a
Jiang, G.S. and Shu, C.W.: Efficient Implementation of Weighted ENO Schemes, J. Comput. Phys., 126, 202–228, https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1996.0130, 1996. a, b
Jouppi, N. P., Young, C., Patil, N., Patterson, D., Agrawal, G., Bajwa, R., Bates, S., Bhatia, S., Boden, N., and Borchers, A.: Indatacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit, in: ACM/IEEE 44th Ann. Int. Symp. on Comp. Architecture (ISCA), Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 24–28 June 2017, 1–12, 2017. a
Jouppi, N. P., Yoon, D. H., Ashcraft, M., Gottscho, M., Jablin, T. B., Kurian, G., Laudon, J., Li, S., Ma, P., Ma, X., Norrie, T., Patil, N., Prasad, S., Young, C., Zhou, Z., and Patterson, D.: Ten Lessons From Three Generations Shaped Google's TPUv4i: Industrial Product, in: 2021 ACM/IEEE 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), Valencia, Spain, 14–18 June 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/isca52012.2021.00010, 2021. a
Kamiya, M., Igarashi, Y., Okada, M., and Baba, T.: Numerical experiments on tsunami flow depth prediction for clustered areas using regression and machine learning models, Earth Planets Space, 74, 127, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623022016809, 2022. a
Kärnä, T. de Brye, B., Gourgue, O., Lambrechts, J., Comblen, R., Legat, V., and Deleersnijder, E.: A fully implicit wetting–drying method for DGFEM shallow water models, with an application to the Scheldt Estuary, Comp. Method. Appl. M., 200, 509–524, 2011. a
Kennedy, A., Chen, Q., Kirby, J., and Dalrymple, R.: Boussinesq modeling of wave transformation, breaking and runup, part I: 1D, J. Waterw. Port Coast., 126, 39–47, 2000. a
Kim, D. and Lynett, P.: Turbulent mixing and passive scalar transport in shallow flows, Phys. Fluids, 23, 016603, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3531716, 2011. a
Knudson, B. and Bettinardi, A.: Estimated Economic Impact Analysis Due to Failure of the Transportation Infrastructure in the Event of a 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake, State of Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Documents/CascadiaSubductionZoneEarthquakeEconomicImpact.pdf (last access: 12 June 2023), 2013. a
Komar, P.: Beach processes and sedimentation, Prentice Hall, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, ISBN 9780137549382, 1998. a
Leschka, S. and Oumeraci, H.: Solitary waves and bores passing three cylinderseffect of distance and arrangement, Coast. Eng. Proc, 39, 34, https://doi.org/10.9753/icce.v34.structures.39, 2014. a
LeVeque, R., George, D., and Berger, M.: Tsunami modelling with adaptively refined finite volume methods, Acta Numer., 20, 211–289, 2011. a
LeVeque, R. J.: Finite volume methods for hyperbolic problems, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791253, 2011. a
Liu, C. M., Rim, D., Baraldi, R., and LeVeque, R. J.: Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches for Tsunami Forecasting from Sparse Observations, Pure Appl. Geophy., 178, 5129–5153, 2021. a
Liu, X., Osher, S., and Chan, T.: Weighted Essentially Nonoscillatory Schemes, J. Comput. Phys., 115, 200–212, 1994. a, b, c
LópezVenegas, A., Horrillo, J., PampellManis, A., Huérfano, V., and Mercado, A.: Advanced Tsunami Numerical Simulations and Energy Considerations by use of 3D2D coupled Models: The October 11, 1918, Mona Passage Tsunami, Pure App. Geophys., 171, 2863–3174, 2014. a
Løvholt, F., Lorito, S., Macías, J., Volpe, M., Selva, J., and Gibbons, S.: Urgent tsunami computing, in: 2019 IEEE/ACM HPC for Urgent Decision Making (UrgentHPC), Denver, Colorado, USA, 17 November 2019, 45–50, https://doi.org/10.1109/UrgentHPC49580.2019.00011, 2019. a, b
Lu, T., Chen, Y., Hechtman, B., Wang, T., and Anderson, J.: LargeScale Discrete Fourier Transform on TPUs, arXiv [preprint], arXiv:2002.03260, 2020a. a
Lu, T., Marin, T. Zhuo, Y., Chen, Y., and Ma, C.: Accelerating MRI Reconstruction on TPUs, in: 2020 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC), 21–25 September 2020, 1–9, 2020b. a
Lunghino, B., Santiago Tate, A., Mazereeuw, M., Muhari, A., Giraldo, F., Marras, S., and Suckale, J.: The protective benefits of tsunami mitigation parks and ramifications for their strategic design, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 1911857117, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911857117, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Lynett, P., Wu, T., and P. L. F., L.: Modeling wave runup with depthintegrated equations, Coast. Eng., 46, 89–107, 2002. a
Lynett, P. J.: Effect of a shallow water obstruction on long wave runup and overland flow velocity, J. Waterw. Port Coast., 133, 455–462, 2007. a
Ma, G., Shi, F., and Kirby, J.: Shockcapturing nonhydrostatic model for fully dispersive surface wave processes, Ocean Modeling, 43–44, 22–35, 2012. a
Macías, J., Castro, M., Ortega, S., Escalante, C., and GonzálezVida, J.: Performance Benchmarking of TsunamiHySEA Model for NTHMP's Inundation Mapping Activities, Pure Appl. Geophys., 174, 3147–3183, 2017. a
Macías, J., Castro, M., and Escalante, C.: Performance assessment of the TsunamiHySEA model for NTHMP tsunami currents benchmarking. Laboratory data, Coast. Eng., 158, 103667, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2020.103667, 2020a. a
Macías, J., Castro, M., Ortega, S., and GonzálezVida, J.: Performance assessment of TsunamiHySEA model for NTHMP tsunami currents benchmarking. Field cases, Ocean Modelling, 152, 101645, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2020.101645, 2020b. a
Madden, I., Marras, S., and Suckale, J.: tsunamiTPUlab (1.0.0), Zenodo [code and data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7574655, 2023. a
Mandli, K. T., Ahmadia, A. J., Berger, M., Calhoun, D., George, D. L., Hadjimichael, Y., Ketcheson, D. I., Lemoine, G. I., and LeVeque, R. J.: Clawpack: building an open source ecosystem for solving hyperbolic PDEs, PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e68, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerjcs.68, 2016. a
Mao, Z., Jagtap, A. D., and Karniadakis, G. E.: Physicsinformed neural networks for highspeed flows, Comp. Method. Appl. M., 360, 112789, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.112789, 2020. a
Marras, S. and Mandli, K. T.: Modeling and Simulation of Tsunami Impact: A Short Review of Recent Advances and Future Challenges, Geosciences, 11, 5, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11010005, 2021. a
Marras, S., Kopera, M., Constantinescu, E., Suckale, J., and Giraldo, F.: A Residualbased Shock Capturing Scheme for the Continuous/Discontinuous Spectral Element Solution of the 2D Shallow Water Equations, Adv. Water Res., 114, 45–63, 2018. a
Marsooli, R. and Wu, W.: Numerical investigation of wave attenuation by vegetation using a 3D RANS model, Adv. Water Resour., 74, 245–257, 2014. a
Maza, M., Lara, J., and Losada, I.: Tsunami wave interaction with mangrove forests:a 3D numerical approach, Coast. Eng., 98, 33–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.01.002, 2015. a
Mukherjee, A., Cajas, J., Houzeaux, G., Lehmkuhl, O., Suckale, J., and Marras, S.: Forest density is more effective than tree rigidity at reducing the onshore energy flux of tsunamis, Coast. Eng., 182, 104286, 2023. a
Nelson, A. R., Atwater, B. F., Bobrowsky, P. T., Bradley, L.A., Clague, J. J., Carver, G. A., Darienzo, M. E., Grant, W. C., Krueger, H. W., Sparks, R., Stafford Jr., T. W., and Stuiver, M.: Radiocarbon evidence for extensive plateboundary rupture about 300 years ago at the Cascadia subduction zone, Nature, 378, 371–374, 1995. a
Nikolos, I. and Delis, A.: An unstructured nodecentered finite volume scheme for shallow water flows with wet/dry fronts over complex topography, Comp. Method. Appl. M., 198, 3723–3750, 2009. a
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center: Crescent City, California 1/3 arcsecond NAVD 88 Coastal Digital Elevation Model, type: dataset, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, 2010. a
Oishi, Y., Imamura, F., and Sugawara, D.: Nearfield tsunami inundation forecast using the parallel TUNAMIN2 model: Application to the 2011 TohokuOki earthquake combined with source inversions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1083–1091, 2015. a
Park, H., Cox, D. T., Lynett, P. J., Wiebe, D. M., and Shin, S.: Tsunami inundation modeling in constructed environments: A physical and numerical comparison of freesurface elevation, velocity, and momentum flux, Coast. Eng., 79, 9–21, 2013. a
Pelties, C., de la Punte, P., Ampuero, J.P., Brietzke, G., and Käser, M.: Threedimensional dynamic rupture simulation with a highorder discontinuous Galerkin method on unstructured tetrahedral meshes, J. Geophys. Res., 117, 2156–2202, 2012. a
Petersen, M. D., Cramer, C. H., and Frankel, A. D.: Simulations of seismic hazard for the Pacific Northwest of the United States from earthquakes associated with the Cascadia subduction zone, in: Earthquake Processes: Physical Modelling, Numerical Simulation and Data Analysis Part I, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2147–2168, https://doi.org/10.1007/s0002400287285, 2002. a, b
Peterson, M. and Lowe, M.: Implications of Cumulative Impacts to Estuarine and Marine Habitat Quality for Fish and Invertebrate Resources, Rev. Fish. Sci., 17, 505–523, 2009. a
Prasetyo, A., Yasuda, T., Miyashita, T., and Mori, N.: Physical Modeling and Numerical Analysis of Tsunami Inundation in a Coastal City, Front. Built Environ., 5, 46, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00046, 2019. a
Rasp, S., Pritchard, M. S., and Gentine, P.: Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 115, 9684–9689, 2018. a
Roelvink, J. and Van Banning, G.: Design and development of DELFT3D and application to coastal morphodynamics, Oceanographic Lit. Review, 42, 925, 1995. a
Ruggiero, P.: Impacts of climate change on coastal erosion and flood probability in the US Pacific Northwest, in: Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008, Oahu, Hawaii, USA, 13–16 April 2008, 158–169, 2008. a
Ruggiero, P.: Is the intensifying wave climate of the US Pacific Northwest increasing flooding and erosion risk faster than sealevel rise?, J. Waterw. Port Coast., 139, 88–97, 2013. a
Ruggiero, P., Komar, P. D., and Allan, J. C.: Increasing wave heights and extreme value projections: The wave climate of the US Pacific Northwest, Coast. Eng., 57, 539–552, 2010. a
Ruggiero, P., Kratzmann, M. G., Himmelstoss, E. A., Reid, D., Allan, J., and Kaminsky, G.: National assessment of shoreline change: historical shoreline change along the Pacific Northwest coast, Tech. rep., US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA, 2013. a
Satake, K., Shimazaki, K., Tsuji, Y., and Ueda, K.: Time and size of a giant earthquake in Cascadia inferred from Japanese tsunami records of January 1700, Nature, 379, 246–249, 1996. a
Satria, M. T., Huang, B., Hsieh, T.J., Chang, Y.L., and Liang, W.Y.: GPU Acceleration of Tsunami Propagation Model, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl., 5, 1014–1023, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTARS.2012.2199468, 2012. a
Shi, F., Kirby, J., Harris, J., Geiman, J., and Grilli, S.: A highorder adaptive timestepping TVD solver for Boussinesq modeling of breaking waves and coastal inundation, Ocean Model., 43–44, 36–51, 2012. a
Shu, C.W.: TotalVariationDiminishing Time Discretizations, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comp., 9, 1073–1084, https://doi.org/10.1137/0909073, 1988. a, b
Stoker, J. J.: Water Waves, the Mathematical Theory with Applications, Interscience Publishers, New York, New York, USA, 333–341, ISBN13: 9780471570349, 1957. a
Takada, K. and Atwater, B. F.: Evidence for liquefaction identified in peeled slices of Holocene deposits along the lower Columbia River, Washington, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94, 550–575, 2004. a
Thacker, W. C.: Some exact solutions to the nonlinear shallowwater wave equations, J. Fluid Mech., 107, 499, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022112081001882, 1981. a
Titov, V., González, F., Bernard, E., Eble, M. C., Mofjeld, H., Newman, J. C., and Venturato, A.: RealTime Tsunami Forecasting: Challenges and Solutions, Nat. Hazards, 35, 41–58, 2005. a
tsunamiTPUlab: tsunamiTPUlab, Github [code and dataset], https://github.com/smarras79/tsunamiTPUlab/releases/tag/v1.0.0 (last access: 12 June 2023), 2023. a
Ueno, T.: Numerical computations for the Chilean Earthquak Tsunami, Oceanogr. Mag., 17, 87–94, 1960. a
Ulrich, T., Vater, S., Madden, E., Behrens, J., van Dinther, Y., van Zelst, I., Fielding, J., Liang, C., and Gabriel, A.A.: Coupled, PhysicsBased Modeling Reveals Earthquake Displacements are Critical to the 2018 Palu, Sulawesi Tsunami, Pure Appl. Geophys., 176, 4069–4109, 2019. a
Wang, P.L., Engelhart, S. E., Wang, K., Hawkes, A. D., Horton, B. P., Nelson, A. R., and Witter, R. C.: Heterogeneous rupture in the great Cascadia earthquake of 1700 inferred from coastal subsidence estimates, J. Geophys. Res.Sol. Ea., 118, 2460–2473, 2013. a, b
Wang, Q., Ihme, M., Chen, Y.F., and Anderson, J.: A TensorFlow simulation framework for scientific computing of fluid flows on tensor processing units, Comput. Phys. Commun., 274, 108292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108292, 2022. a
Wessels, H., Weißenfels, C., and Wriggers, P.: The neural particle method – An updated Lagrangian physics informed neural network for computational fluid dynamics, Comp. Method. Appl. M., 368, 113127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113127, 2020. a
Witter, R. C., Kelsey, H. M., and HemphillHaley, E.: Great Cascadia earthquakes and tsunamis of the past 6700 years, Coquille River estuary, southern coastal Oregon, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 115, 1289–1306, 2003. a, b
Xia, X. and Liang, Q.: A new efficient implicit scheme for discretising the stiff friction terms in the shallow water equations, Adv. Water Resour., 117, 87–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.05.004, 2018. a, b
Xing, Y. and Shu, C.W.: High order finite difference WENO schemes with the exact conservation property for the shallow water equations, J. Comput. Phys., 208, 206–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2005.02.006, 2005. a, b
Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., and Boutaba, R.: Cloud computing: stateoftheart and research challenges, Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 1, 7–18, https://doi.org/10.1007/s1317401000076, 2010. a
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Model verification and validation
 Performance analysis on TPU
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix A: Running the code
 Appendix B: Grid convergence analysis for wet dam break (Sect. 2.1) and planar parabolic bowl (Sect. 2.2)
 Code and data availability
 Author contributions
 Competing interests
 Disclaimer
 Acknowledgements
 Financial support
 Review statement
 References
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Model verification and validation
 Performance analysis on TPU
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Appendix A: Running the code
 Appendix B: Grid convergence analysis for wet dam break (Sect. 2.1) and planar parabolic bowl (Sect. 2.2)
 Code and data availability
 Author contributions
 Competing interests
 Disclaimer
 Acknowledgements
 Financial support
 Review statement
 References