Tsunami 3juni94 Banyuwangi

Natural Hazards 15: 31–49, 1997. 31c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

The 3 June 1994 Java Tsunami: A Post-EventSurvey of the Coastal Effects

ALESSANDRA MARAMAI1 and STEFANO TINTI21Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica, Rome, Italy2Dipartimento di Fisica, Settore di Geofisica, Universita di Bologna, Italy

(Received: 31 October 1995; in final form: 31 May 1996)

Abstract. The paper is a report of the field campaign undertaken by an international team (Italian,French and Indonesian) a few weeks after the occurrence of a tsunami invading the south-easterncoast of Java (Indonesia) and it complements the results of a concurrent field survey by Asian andUSA researchers. The tsunamigenic earthquake occurred on 3 of June 1994 in the Indian Ocean about200 km south of Java. The tsunami caused severe damage and claimed many victims in some coastalvillages. The main purpose of the survey was to measure the inundation and the runup values aswell as to ascertain the possible morphological changes caused by the wave attacks. Attention wasparticularly focussed on the most affected districts, that is Lumajang, Jember and Banyuwangi inJava, although also the districts of Negera, Tebanan and Denpasar in Bali were examined. The mostsevere damage was observed in the Banyuwangi district, where the villages of Rajekwesi, Pancerand Lampon were almost completely levelled by the violent waves. Most places were hit by threesignificant waves with documented wave height often exceeding 5 m. The maximum runup value(9.50 m) was measured at Rajekwesi, where also the most impressive erosion phenomena could befound. In contrast, only in one place of the neighbouring island of Bali was there a slight tsunami,the rest of the island being practically unaffected.

Key words: field survey, coastal flooding, run-up, tsunami.

1. Introduction

The Indonesian region is characterized by the interaction of at least four majorlithospheric plates (Philippine, India-Australian, Pacific and Eurasian) with sub-duction processes being the dominant feature and the major convergence beingobserved along the Philippine, New Guinea and Java trenches (e.g. Cardwell andIsacks, 1978; Hamilton, 1979). The India-Australian plate is moving northwardrelative to southeastern Asia, subducting beneath the southern Indonesian islandsalong the Java trench and Timor trough (McCaffrey et al., 1985; Papadimitriou andPapazachos, 1994).

The Indonesian region is marked by a relevant seismic activity. Intermediateand deep earthquakes foci are located along the Java trench and Timor trough,defining the position of the subducted lithospheric plates (Figure 1). Shallow focusearthquakes occur all along the Java subduction zone, although most are located inthe Java trench and very few take place in the area between the Timor and the Arutroughs (Figure 1). According to Papadimitriu and Papazachos (1994), along the

32 ALESSANDRA MARAMAI AND STEFANO TINTI

Figure 1. Tectonic map of the Indonesian region with epicenter distribution of shallowmainshocks and aftershocks occurred during the time period 1897–1990 (after Papadimitriouand Papazachos, 1994, modified).

Java trench two seismic sources can be identified: ‘West Java’ and ‘Java Trench’.In the ‘West Java’ source the last two strong events occurred in February 1903 (Ms= 7.3) and in April 1943 (Ms = 7.1), while as to the ‘Java Trench’, the last fourrelevant shocks took place in September 1921 (Ms = 7.3), September 1937 (Ms =7.0), May 1955 (Ms = 6.5) and September 1974 (Ms = 6.3).

On 26 April 1994 an increase in seismic activity was recorded by the Indonesiantelemetered seismic network, managed by the Badan Meteorologi Dan Geofisika(BMG) institute, starting with a shock (mb = 5.9) located in the Indian Ocean, quiteclose to the epicenter of the following 3 June event, but about 250 km deep. Thetsunamigenic event analysed in this paper occurred on 3 June 1994 at 01:17:34local time (corresponding to 2 June at 18:17:34 GMT), and can be attributed tothe ‘Java Trench’ source; the shock (Ms = 7.2) was located in the Indian Ocean(� = 10:477 S, � = 112:835 E) about 200 km south of the Java coast, at a depthof 18 km, and it was felt across Bali and central-eastern Java up to the Sumbawaisland. More than 2000 aftershocks were recorded in the following 10 days, mostwith magnitude mb � 5.0. Epicentral locations of mainshock and aftershocks areshown in Figure 2.

The earthquake excited a large tsunami involving the southeastern coast of Javaand causing severe damage and casualties in several coastal villages. After the event,in order to analyse the tsunami impact along the affected coasts, international teams

THE 3 JUNE 1994 JAVA TSUNAMI: A POST EVENT SURVEY 33

Figure 2. Epicenters of the main shock (star) and aftershocks (circles) from 2 to 12 June (GMT).Notice that each epicenter corresponds to many aftershocks due to location inaccuracies. Javadistricts visited during the survey are also shown.

of experts coming from Asia, Europe and the U.S.A. together with Indonesianssurveyed the coastline to measure the inundation and runup values as well asto study the possible morphological changes. Field work coordination impliedthe partition of the teams in a few different groups with different purposes andobjectives. The authors of this paper took part in the field campaign and present


here the results of their investigations in order to integrate the tsunami descriptionalready made available to the scientific community (Synolakis et al., 1995; Tsujiet al., 1995).

2. Undertaking a Post-Tsunami Field Survey

One of the greatest drawbacks for tsunami research and tsunami hazard reduction isthe lack of experimental data due to a number of concomitant reasons: tsunamis arerare, sometimes taking place in remote areas of the world, experimental networksfor tsunami monitoring and warning cover only a few regions and generally witha very scarce resolution both in space (instruments too far from one another andalmost exclusively concentrated in coastal waters) and time (acquisition samplerate too low, being often calibrated on tidal time scales). Bearing this in mind helpsclarify the importance of collecting data on tsunami occurrence through direct fieldcampaigns in coastal areas invested by tsunamis, this often being the only meansof obtaining significant information on the event. The relevance of performingsurveying trips has recently gained growing recognition in the scientific community,to such a point that it is now taken as a must, and all major tsunamis occurring since1992 have been followed by post-event field campaigns (see, e.g., Abe et al. (1993)and Baptista et al. (1993) for the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami; see Yeh et al. (1993) andTsuji et al. (1995) for the 1992 Flores Island (Indonesia) tsunami; see also Yeh etal. (1995) and Imamura et al. (1995), respectively, for the 1994 Shikotan (Russia)and 1994 Mindoro island (Philippines) tsunamis). Undertaking a post-tsunamifield survey is now considered a very important research task, and just after theJava tsunami analysed here, scientists recognized the need for standardizing fieldprocedures and measurements (see Yeh, 1995; Sigrist and Farreras, 1995) and triedto define suitable recommendations for post-tsunami international surveys. Whatshould be borne in mind is that organizing a post-event survey is an exacting taskposing scientific problems whose solution is often complicated by the circumstancethat affected areas may be remote and highly impervious. Though elucidatingin detail all the difficulties is beyond the scope of this paper, it is nonethelessworthwhile stressing at least two crucial aspects of the undertaking: logistics anddata collection. As to the former point, consider that the campaign should be carriedout as soon as possible after the event occurrence to prevent the physical tsunamimarks being altered, degraded or deleted by natural or anthropic rehabilitationprocesses and to prevent important details related to the event being corruptedor dimmed in the memory of eye witnesses. This implies that a survey team isable to form promptly after learning of the tsunami occurrence, is able to quicklyreach the areas invaded by the tsunami and has the capacity to move rapidly fromsite to site taking measurements and interviewing people. All this can hardly bedone without the contribution and help of a local organization with knowledgeof the local laws, habits, facilities, routes, language, etc. In our case, we receivedinvaluable assistance from the BMG, the Indonesian institute managing the national


seismic network: from its headquarters in Jakarta (Java) and in Denpasar (Bali), itoriented our trip providing our team with precious information (e.g. a report on apreliminary survey – BMG, 1994), helped us to get the necessary authorizations tomove across the affected area, and reinforced our group with assistants (Mr. Madi,Dr. Rivai and Mr. Jumadi) who were indispensable to our research.

Collecting data in the field is a task involving a broad spectrum of differentdirect as well as subsidiary activities, the most notable being (i) interviewingwitnesses, (ii) taking images (pictures or films) to create a documentary basis,and (iii) carrying out measurements of relevant quantities. The first two items arenot dissimilar to what is routinely undertaken after the occurrence of a disaster,such as a large earthquake. Basic techniques of approaching people, of posingquestions, of using correlated questions and cross-checking answers to evidencevagueness, unclearness and contradictions, etc., are the same as those used byseismological teams specializing in macroseismic expeditions to document andascertain earthquake damage and effects: questionnaires of course must be properlysuited to the specific phenomenon and for the investigation purposes. In the case ofa tsunami, very often interviews provide unique information that cannot be obtainedby any other means and are therefore much more than an auxiliary tool: they areessential. As a matter of fact, in the chronical absence of recording instruments,the time evolution of the event can be reconstructed, at least roughly, only througheye-witness accounts: in practice, information in the form of an attacking front(bore-like, wave-like, etc.), the number of attacking waves, the wave breaking lineposition, etc., can only be learned in this way.

As to the measurements, a lot of quantities can be of interest in the case of atsunami of seismic origin. Our group focussed its attention mainly on the hydro-dynamical side, with the purpose of estimating in each site the maximum heightreached by the sea, the maximum flooding penetration, the heights of the big waves,as well as of documenting relevant erosive or depositional processes. The instru-ments we used are an example of a compromise between precision and portability,the former, however, being dependent on the latter: the basic experimental set wasformed by a telescope level to take level sights (and also horizontal distances) inthe range up to about 100 m, a 3 m-long stadia folding rod, a theodolite, a tripod, 20and 50 m long graduate tapes, and a portable GPS to take absolute positions. At agiven site, typically the measuring operation consisted, for example, in taking timeand position first, in identifying the mark of maximum wave height, then in takinga profile from the beach to the mark, and measuring both the sea-mark distanceand altitude. In our field measurements, we always referred to the instantaneoussea level and sea line.

It is to be emphasized that our survey was concurrent with the work performedby other international teams and that our surveying program fitted a more generalsurveying scheme, according to which different groups were accomplishing differ-ent tasks (for example, surveying different areas), though with different approachesand methodologies, and with instruments of different quality. The common work


Figure 3. Tide-gauge records from Banyuwangi (a) and Cilacap (b) stations.


has pointed out the need for a standardization of the measuring procedures, of theterminology and of the objectives. One instance of confusion is the lack of generalagreement on what maximum run-up or maximum inundation height or maximumsea penetration distance do really mean, which of course reflects on the properselection of the appropriate marks and of the measurements. Though this paperdoes not pretend to be a forum for obtaining general consensus of experts, in oursurveying work we have operated according to the following lines. On high coasts,where the sea wave experiences a reflection against the steep coast, the conceptof maximum run-up applies and has been taken as corresponding to the highestpoint reached by the sea along the slope (often well marked by vegetation disrup-tion). On low coasts, where the sea water overtops the coastal high (for example, asand barrier) and penetrates further in lower lands, the concept to apply is that ofmaximum water height: this can be possibly marked by debris left on vegetationor marks on buildings that are found at the top of the coastal high. The maximumpenetration distance is the distance from the sea of the furthest point reached bythe flooding waters: if they happened to be channelled along a river, this distanceshould be measured along the river itself, which means that it is the length of theflooding path travelled by the water.

3. Field Observations

Although the earthquake magnitude was not particularly large, the 3 June tsunamiwas quite violent: it severely involved the southeastern coast of Java, in particularthe Banyuwangi district that was the most heavily affected, as well as the Lumajangand Jember districts, while it only slightly concerned the neighbouring coasts ofBali Island (Figure 2). The authors surveyed more than 200 km of coastline ofthe most damaged districts of Java, and also inspected the western Bali coasts ofthe Negera, Tebanan and Denpasar districts. The tsunami caused the devastationof some villages, and claimed more than 250 victims. Over 1500 buildings weredestroyed and a large number of fishing boats were damaged, sunk or carriedoffshore by the waves. Most of victims were from the Banyuwangi district villagesof Pancer, Rajekwesi and Lampon that were almost razed to the ground.

Only two marigrams are available, from the Banyuwangi and Cilacap tide-gaugestations (Figures 3a and 3b). Cilacap is located in western Java, about 350 km awayfrom the epicentral area. Both records allow the estimation of the arrival time of thetsunami, that is about 2:00 and 2:30 at Banyuwangi and at Cilacap, respectively.The perturbation on the marigram is visible until 4 June. The survey we took partin lasted 10 days, starting on 20 June. All villages surveyed by the authors areshown on the map of Figure 4, where the ranges of the measured maximum runupor maximum water height with no tidal correction applied are also given for eachsite. As can be noted from the available marigrams (see Figure 3), the daily tidalrange in that region is about 1 m.


Figure 4. Measured run-up and water height values (with no tidal corrections) in the surveyedvillages of Java and Bali.

Moving from the NW, the first investigated site is Cape Pelindu, a small fish-ermen village where a fishery created a sort of barrier to the sea water, separatinghouses from the open sea. The fishery defence wall and three typical straw houseswere destroyed. According to eye-witnesses, three big waves followed each other,the third one being the biggest. The measured maximum water height was 3.20 mand the maximum water ingression was about 350 m.

The next village was Puger where no evidence of a tsunami could be observed inthe harbour. But, just a few kilometers westward, in a place called Tambak Getem,the tsunami left visible marks on the beach: the keeper of a fishery reported thathe weakly felt the shock and about 15 minutes later three big waves flooded thebeach, the last penetrating about 300 m in land. The measured maximum waterheight was 5.85 m. Six fishermen who were working in the open sea at the time ofthe tsunami time went missing.

At Watuulo 16 houses were destroyed, three fishermen died and more than 30fishing boats were severely damaged. In a small bay at the end of the village, themost relevant tsunami effects were found and the field measurements were focussed(see Figures 5 and 6). As a consequence of the tsunami impact, the gently slopingbeach was marked by an erosion escarpment that was approximately 1.50 m high.The houses located immediately behind the scarp were heavily affected by thetsunami: on one wall marks of three waves were clearly visible and their heightswere measured. The third wave, the biggest, passed over a roof that collapsed: themaximum water height value was 7.60 m (Figure 7).


Figure 5. Watuulo area: the A–B line represents the topographical section measured on theground. GPS position is marked by an asterisk.

Figure 6. Detail of the A-B section in Figure 5 at Watuulo.

Southward, the surveying team went through a national park in the jungle, withintensive cultivation of coffee plants, cocoa and sugar cane, to reach the site namedSukamade (see the map sketched in Figure 8). Here at a beach called Pantay Peniu


Figure 7. Watuulo: damaged house where marks of three different waves were observed. Thethird wave caused the roof collapse.

(Turtle Beach) turtles used to lay eggs. No buildings were on the beach, except foran aquarium in which more than 200 small turtles were kept. After the tsunaminobody visited the beach before us, so that our group had the chance to observethe ‘undisturbed’ tsunami effects. Vegetation close to the beach line was heavilyaffected, most of the palm trees having been bent or uprooted by the waves. Themouth of a dry river bed favoured the sea water ascent for more than 300 m, and itsbanks experienced an extraordinary erosion (2.70 m. high) by the tsunami waves(Figure 9). The measured maximum water height was 6.25 m and the aquarium,located about 250 m from the sea, was severely damaged.

The village of Rajekwesi (see Figure 8) was one of the villages most heavily hitby the tsunami (33 victims, 14 missing people and more than 60 houses razed to theground), which induced us to undertake a very accurate survey. Three waves wereobserved provoking some very relevant morphological changes, with a remarkablerearrangement of the coastline. Water penetration was more than 250 m in landand the measured maximum runup was 9.50 m. Impressive erosion took place onthe beach where many long-trunked trees that had been completely uprooted wereleft deposited by the water’s return flow (Figure 10). Many houses were built justabove the present tsunami escarpment: all typical straw houses were completelydestroyed and all brick houses suffered severe damage (Figure 11). A river flowingvery close to the village amplified the tsunami effects and the maximum height of


Figure 8. Sukamade and Rajekwesi areas. The A-B, C-D and E-F lines are topographicalsections measured on the ground. GPS positions are shown with asterisks.

Figure 9. Erosion escarpment along the river bed at Pantay Peniu.


Figure 10. Uprooted trees on the Rajekwesi beach.

the erosion escarpment (more than 2 m) was measured just along the river (Figures12 and 13).

Pancer is the village most severely damaged, with 122 victims, 15 missingpersons, 450 houses completely ruined and over 250 heavily damaged (see the mapof Figure 14). Many big boats that were on the sea were carried onto the beach.Three big waves were noted, the second being the biggest with a maximum waterheight of 4.70 m. The maximum water penetration was about 300 m. The presenceof a river was particularly relevant because it represented a preferential way forthe sea’s ascent. Sea water flooded the village with invasion taking place not onlyfrontally but also laterally. On the other hand, a positive role was played by thelines of trees growing along the beach that constituted a natural barrier against thewaves, favouring wave breaking and energy dissipation. All typical straw houseswere destroyed and most of the brick houses suffered severe damage. In one houselocated about 200 m from the seashore the mark left by the sea water was clearlyvisible on the wall 1.35 m from the ground (Figure 15); the relevant damage to thehouse roof was not determined by the water itself, but by the debris carried withby waves.

The village of Pulo Merah is found in a small bay close to Pancer (Figure14). Here, more than in Pancer, the presence of many lines of long-trunked treesbetween the beach and the village acted as a protection, attenuating the impact ofthe waves against the houses. The first of the three waves was the biggest and all


Figure 11. Straw buildings completely razed to the ground at Rajekwesi. Typical damagesufferred by brick houses is also shown.

Figure 12. Detail of the E–F topographical section (in Figure 8) at Rajekwesi.

three came just perpendicularly to the coast, preceded by a strong wind noise. Thephenomenon lasted for about 15 min claiming 8 victims, destroying 20 houses andcarrying landward a large amount of big fish, shells, and stones up to over 250m from the seashore. Heavy blocks of concrete were displaced by the wave force(Figure 16). The maximum water height value was 6 m and the sea water flooded


Figure 13. Particular of the erosion escarpment at Rajekwesi.

Figure 14. Pancer and Pulo Merah areas. The A–B, C–D and C–E lines are topographicalprofiles measured on the ground. Asterisks denote GPS positions.


Figure 15. Pancer: house in which the mark of a very clear water mark was measured.

more than 400 m of land. A relevant erosion was observed on the beach, formingan escarpment that in some place was more than 1.8 m high.

The last site visited in Java was Lampon (Figure 17), another village severelyaffected by the tsunami, with 6 victims and over 40 straw houses razed to the groundup to 500 m away from the sea. Several brick houses, although sited over 250 mfar from the seashore, suffered heavy damage (Figure 18). Sea water penetratedfollowing the bed of a river over 1 km in land. The water height was 8.9 m, but ina small inlet very close to the village a runup value of about 11 m was measuredover a steep beach, clearly due to a wave reflexion effect (Figure 19).

As far as the island of Bali was concerned our team surveyed all the westerncoast until Denpasar, but only at the Soka village could some tsunami evidencebe observed. According to eye-witnesses, the waves came about one hour afterthe shock (only weakly felt by a few people) and the measured maximum runupwas 4.95 m. Fortunately, except for very light damage to some fishing boats, thetsunami did not cause damage or claim victims. No tsunami evidence were foundin all other visited localities along the Bali coast.

4. Conclusions

The 3 June 1994 Java tsunami was quite strong, although the magnitude of thetsunamigenic earthquake was not big enough to justify such a large destruction


Figure 16. Pulo Merah: block of concrete (part of the village aqueduct) displaced on the beach.

and so many victims. The survey carried out after the event helped explain somerelevant aspects concerning the tsunami effects, clarifying the concomitant actionof several causes. First of all, the earthquake occurred during the night and itwas only weakly felt by most of the population, with the consequence that wavesunexpectedly attacked the villages giving people little chance of escaping towardssafer places. The most aggravating factor was the buildings typology: most of thedestroyed houses were built of straw on a thin basic layer of concrete that wasthe only remaining after the disaster. On the contrary, brick houses suffered severedamage only in some villages, while in most cases they resisted the wave impactquite satisfactorily. The geographical position of the villages played an importantrole. In fact, most were sited in small bays and in the proximity of rivers, a positionthat is ideal for a village economy essentially based on fishing by means of lightand agile boats, but unfortunately at the time of the tsunami occurrence the riverschannelled the sea water maximizing the exposition to the attacking front.

Some considerations can be made concerning practical steps to diminish thedestructive effects of a possible future event. In the first place, it appears to beimportant to arrange for an improvement of the typology of buildings, favouring theconstruction of masonry houses, particularly in the vicinity of beaches and rivers.A second important measure for tsunami mitigation could be the reafforestation ofthe coastal strips separating marine villages from the sea, since woods consistingof long-trunked trees (or simply tree lines) proved to have some effect in reducing


Figure 17. Lampon area. The A–B, C–D, E–F and G–H lines are topographical profilesmeasured on the ground. Asterisks denote GPS positions.

tsunami waves. Finally, it is desirable that adequate educational plans regardingnatural disasters, tsunamis included, should be devised and implemented by theproper authorities so that people will know how to behave in case of a tsunami.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Dr Alexandre Bottero both from SOFREAVIA, Jakartaand from the Laboratoire de Detection et de Geophysique (LDG), France, for hiscooperation and assistance in the survey. The authors wish also to thank Dr Rivai,Mr Jumadi and Mr Madi from BMG for their help in the survey as well as Dr Sunarjofrom BMG. The authors are grateful to Prof. Synolakis for his cooperation and forthe permission to use his portable GPS. This work has been partially financed by theEuropean Community under Contract EVCV-CT92-0175 and partially by MURST(the Italian ‘Ministero dell’Universita e Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica’).


Figure 18. Typical damage in a brick house located about 250 m from the sea at Lampon.

Figure 19. Lampon: levelling the ground in the G–H line (in Figure 17). In this place themaximum runup value due to the reflection effect was measured.


References

Abe, K., Abe, K., Tsuji, Y., Imamura, F., Katao, H., Iio, Y., Satake, K., Bourgeois, J., Noguera, E., andEstrada, F.: 1993, Field survey of the Nicaragua earthquake and tsunami of 2 September 1992,Bull. Earth. Res. Inst. Univ. of Tokyo, 68, 23–70 (in Japanese).

Baptista, A. M., Priest, G. R., and Murty, T. S.: 1993, Field survey of the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami,Marine Geodesy 16, 169–203.

BMG - Badan Meteorologi dan Geofisika, 1994, Lamporan Pemantauan Gempa Bumi SehubunganBencana Tsunami, 3 juni 1994 di Kabupaten Banywangi-Java Timur (Report on the earthquakerelated to the 3 June 1994 tsunami, occurred in the Banyuwangi district – East Java); (internalreport) (in Indonesian), Denpasar.

Hamilton W.: 1979, Tectonics in the Indonesian region, U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 1078, 354 pp.McCaffrey, R., Molnar, P., and Roecker, S. W.: 1985, Microearthquake seismicity and fault plane

solutions related to arc-continent collision in the eastern Sunda arc, J. Geophys. Res. 90, 4511–4528.

Imamura, F., Synolakis, C. E., Gica, E., Titov, V., Listanco, E., and Lee, H. J.: 1995, Field survey ofthe 1994 Mindoro Island, Philippines tsunami, Pure Appl. Geophys. 144, 875–890.

Papadimitriou, E. E. and Papazachos, B. C.: 1994, Time dependent seismicity in the Indonesianregion, J. Geophys. Res. 99(B8), 15,387–15,398.

Sigrist, D. and Farreras, S.: 1995, Standards for tsunami surveying, Report of the Int. TsunamiMeasurements Workshop, Eastes Park, CO, U.S.A., June 28–29, 1995, 69–76.

Synolakis, C. E., Imamura, F., Tsuji, Y., Matsutomi, H., Tinti, S., Cook, B., Chandra, Y. P., andUsman, M.: 1995, Damage, conditions of East Java tsunami of 1994 analyzed, EOS, Trans. AGU76, 257, 261–262.

Tsuji, Y., Imamura, F., Matsutomi, H., Synolakis, C. E., Nanang, P. T., Jumadi, Harada S., Han, S.S., Arai, K., and Cook, B.: 1995, Field survey of the East Java earthquake and tsunami of 3 June1994, Pure Appl. Geophys. 144, 839–854.

Tsuji, Y., Matsutomi, H., Imamura, F., Takeo, M., Kawata, Y., Matsuyama, M., Takahashi, T., Sunarjo,and Harjadi, P.: 1995, Damage to coastal villages due to the 1992 Flores Island earthquake tsunami,Pure Appl. Geophys. 144, 481–521.

Yeh, H.: 1995, Tsunami reconnaissance procedures, Rep. Int. Tsunami Measurements Workshop,Eastes Park, CO, U.S.A., June 28–29, 1995, 51–67.

Yeh, H., Imamura, F., Synolakis, C., Tsuji, Y., Liu, P., and Shi, S.: 1993, The Flores Island tsunamis,EOS, Trans. AGU 74, 369, 371–373.

Yeh, H., Titov, V., Gusiakov, V., Pelinovsky, E., Khramushin, V., and Kaistrenko, V.: 1995, The 1994Shikotan earthquake tsunamis, Pure Appl. Geophys. 144, 855–874.

Documents

Tsunami 3juni94 Banyuwangi