The Tsunami-HySEA numerical model is validated and verified using NOAA standards and criteria for inundation. The numerical solutions are tested against analytical predictions (BP1, solitary wave on a simple beach), laboratory measurements (BP4, solitary wave on a simple beach; BP6, solitary wave on a conical island; and BP7, runup on Monai Valley beach), and against field observations (BP9, Okushiri island tsunami). In the numerical experiments modeling the propagation and runup of a solitary wave on a canonical beach, numerical results are clearly below the established errors by the NTHMP in their 2011 report. For BP1 the mean errors measured are below 1% in all cases. In the case of BP4 several conclusions can be extracted. For the non-breaking case with H=0.0185 the non-dispersive model produces accurate wave forms with NRMSD errors, in most cases, very close to the dispersive model results. For the breaking wave case with H=0.30 it can be observed that the shape of the (dispersive) wave cannot be well captured by the non-dispersive model, producing large NRMSD errors at the times when the NLSW model tends to produce a shock. Nevertheless, the agreement is still high for times when non-steep profiles are present. Despite this (a dispersive model it is absolutely necessary if we want to accurately reproduce the time evolution of the wave in the breaking case) we have observed that measured runup is accurately reproduced by both models in the two cases studied. On the other hand, the dispersive version of Tsunami-HySEA produces very good results in both the breaking and non-breaking cases. For BP6, dealing with the impact of a solitary wave on a conical island, again non-dispersive and dispersive Tsunami-HySEA models have been used. Wave splitting and colliding is clearly observed. Numerical results are very similar for Case A (A/h=0.045) and Case B (A/h=0.096) for wave shape. Larger differences are evident in Case C (A/h= 0.181), where dispersive model performs better for wave shape, but not for the computed runup. It is noteworthy that the computed maximum runups for Cases A and C are very close for both models but they clearly differ for Case B. Tsunami-HySEA model figures have been compared with figures in NTHMP (2012), performing in general better than the mean when comparing by class of model (dispersive and non-dispersive). BP7, the laboratory experiment dealing with the tsunami runup onto a complex 3D model of the Monai Valley beach, was studied in detail in [12]. A mean value of 7.66% for the NRMSD is obtained for the all three gauges for the times series simulating the first 30 s. The snapshots of the simulation agree well with the experimental frames and, finally, a maximum simulated runup height of 0.0891 is obtained compared with the 0.08958 experimentally measured. BP9 for comparison with Okushiri island tsunami observed data is performed using nested meshes with two level 2 meshes located one in the South of the island, covering Aoane and Hamatsumae areas and the second one to the West containing Monai area. Finally one level 3 refined mesh is located covering the Monai area. Computed runup and arrival times are in good agreement with observations. Water level time series at Iwanai and Esashi tide gauges show large NRMSD and large errors in the maximum amplitude (36% and 41% for ERR) but analogous to the mean of the models in NTHMP (2012) (36% and 43% for ERR). For the maximum runup at 19 regions around Okushiri Island a mean error of 15% is obtained, the same as the mean of models in NTHMP (2012), with 10 regions with errors below 10%. Regions located in areas with refined meshes perform much better than regions located in coarse mesh areas.
