Tsunami Fragility

Paper:

Tsunami Fragility
– A New Measure to Identify Tsunami Damage –
Shunichi Koshimura∗ , Yuichi Namegaya∗∗ , and Hideaki Yanagisawa∗∗∗
∗ Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University
Aoba 6-6-11-1104, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan
E-mail: koshimura@tsunami2.civil.tohoku.ac.jp
∗∗ Geological Survey of Japan, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

C7, 1-1-1 Higashi, Tsukuba 305-8567, Japan

E-mail: yuichi.namegaya@aist.go.jp
∗∗∗ Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd.

3-3, Higashiueno 3-Chome, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0015, Japan

E-mail: h-yanagi@tepsco.co.jp
[Received June 29, 2009; accepted November 5, 2009]

Abstract. Tsunami fragility (fragility curve, or fragility
function) is a new measure, we propose, for estimat-
ing structural damage and fatalities due to tsunami at-
tack, by integrating satellite remote sensing, field sur-
vey, numerical modeling, and historical data analysis
with geographic information system (GIS). Tsunami
fragility is expressed as the structural damage prob-
ability or fatality ratio related to hydrodynamic fea-
tures of tsunami inundation flow, such as inundation
depth, current velocity and hydrodynamic force. It
expands the capability of estimating potential tsunami
damage in a quantitative manner.
Keywords: fragility curve, tsunami damage estimation,
remote sensing, numerical modeling, historical tsunamis
1. Introduction
In tsunami damage estimation efforts, several empiri-
cal relationships between tsunami hazard and vulnerabil-
ity have been used. Shuto (1993) proposed the tsunami
intensity scale to discuss the structural damage based on
the empirical data from historical tsunamis in Japan, in
terms of the damage and local tsunami height [1], and this
has been widely used in tsunami disaster assessment by
the Japanese government as a measure of tsunami dam-
age. When the local tsunami inundation depth exceeds
2 m, for example, Shuto’s tsunami intensity scale sug-
gests, complete destruction of wooden houses as shown
in Fig. 1. Izuka and Matsutomi (2000) suggested a struc-
tural destruction threshold related to the hydrodynamic
features of tsunami inundation flow throughout the field
surveys and laboratory experiments [2]. And some engi-
neering studies have proposed tsunami design forces on
structures based on the laboratory experiments [3, 4], but
have not suggested the procedures for estimating struc-
tural damage.
Since the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake tsunami
disaster, numerous efforts have been made to identify the
tsunami damage mechanisms by widely deployed post-
tsunami survey teams reporting tsunami height, inunda-
tion zone extent and damage [5–9]. These efforts have led
to new understandings of local aspects of tsunami inunda-
tion flow and damage mechanisms.
However, their findings based on the inspection of lo-
cal aspects of tsunami damage make it difficult to identify
the “vulnerability” in a quantitative manner. The nature
of vulnerability is associated with multitude of uncertain
sources, such as hydrodynamic features of tsunami in-
undation flow, structural characteristics, population, land
use, and any other site conditions. To view tsunami vul-
nerability comprehensively requires humongous amounts
of damage data, whereas post-tsunami survey rarely pro-
vides sufficient data because of limited survey time and
human resources. As Shuto (1993) concluded, degree of
damage may change with these uncertainties and a statis-
tical approach to these uncertainties should be taken.
Herein, we propose Tsunami fragility (fragility curve
or fragility function) as a new measure for estimating
tsunami damage. Tsunami fragility is defined as the struc-
tural damage probability or fatality ratio with particular
regard to the hydrodynamic features of tsunami inunda-
tion flow, such as inundation depth, current velocity and
hydrodynamic force. In principle, the development of
tsunami fragility requires that tsunami hazard informa-
tion and damage data should be used synergistically. We
thus incorporate several approaches to constructing the
tsunami fragility.
In order to obtain tsunami hazard information such as
inundation depth and current velocity, we performed a nu-
merical modeling of tsunami inundation with some model
validations, especially focusing on the 2004 Sumatra-
Andaman earthquake tsunami. In terms of the damage
data including structural damage and fatalities, we use the
recent advances of remote sensing technologies expand-
ing capabilities of detecting spatial extent of tsunami af-

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009 479

Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H.

Tsunami intensity 0 1 2 3 4 5
Tsunami height (m) 1 2 4 8 16 32
Damage : wooden house partly dam- completely destroyed
aged
Damage : masonry house withstand no data completely destroyed
Damage : reinforced concrete completely
building withstand no data destroyed
Damage : fishing boats damage 50 damage completely damaged

Fig. 1. Tsunami intensity scale and damage [1], modified from the original figure.

fected areas and damage on structures. In addition, some
field data and historical documents are used to obtain the
tsunami fragility from historical events.
Throughout the data integration and statistical analysis,
we propose a concept and framework developing tsunami
fragility, and apply it in several approaches according to
available data types from recent and historical events.
2. Developing Tsunami Fragility – Methods
Fragility curves (or fragility functions) have conven-
tionally been developed in performing seismic risk analy-
sis of structural systems to identify structural vulnerability
against strong ground motion using damage data associ-
ated with historical earthquakes and spatial distribution of
observed or simulated seismic responses [10]. And they
have been implemented in estimating structural damage
against potential seismic risks in which various uncertain
sources such as seismic hazard, structural charachteris-
tics, soil-structure interaction are involved [11, 12].
In earthquake engineering studies, the fragility curves
are defined by the following Eq. (1) or (2) ;


ln x − λ
PD (x) = Φ
ξ
 x
 
1 (lnt − λ )2
= √ exp − dt (1)
−∞ 2πξ t 2ξ 2


x−µ
PD (x) = Φ
σ
 x
 
1 (t − µ )2
= √ exp − dt .
−∞ 2πσ 2σ 2
where PD (x) is the damage probability of structures, as a
function of x or ln x such as the maximum ground accel-
eration, velocity, and seismic intensity. Here, PD (x) is ex-
pressed by the standard lognormal or normal cumulative
distribution function Φ[(ln x − λ )/ξ ] or Φ[(x − µ )/σ ],
with two statistical parameters (λ , ξ ) or (µ , σ ), as the
mean of ln x (or x), and the standard deviation respec-
tively.
To develop tsunami fragility, we take a statistical ap-
proach synergistically using remote sensing, numerical
model results, field surveys and historical documents, in
five steps.
1 Damage data acquisition : obtaining damage data
from satellite images, field surveys or historical doc-
uments, e.g. numbers of destroyed or survived struc-
tures with its spatial information.
2 Tsunami hazard estimation : estimating the hydro-
dynamic features of tsunami by numerical modeling,
field surveys and from historical documents.
3 Data assimilation between the damage data and
tsunami hazard information : correlating the dam-
age data and the hydrodynamic features of tsunami
through the GIS analysis.
4 Calculating damage probability : determining the
damage probabilities by counting the number of
damaged or survived structures, for each range of hy-
drodynamic features above.
5 Regression analysis : developing the fragility curves
by regression analysis of discrete sets of damage
probability and hydrodynamic features of tsunami.
In the sections that follow, we apply the above proce-
dure in several approaches to construct tsunami fragility,
according to the data types such as satellite data, numeri-
cal models, field surveys and historical documents.
3. Tsunami Fragility Determined from Satel-
lite Remote Sensing and Numerical Model-
ing
Taking an advantage in satellite remote sensing, we
identify the spatial distribution of structural damage by
(2)
tsunami. The highest spatial resolution of commercial op-
tical satellite imaging is up to 60-70 centimeters (Quick-
Bird owned by DigitalGlobe) or 1 meter (IKONOS op-
erated by GeoEye). Fig. 2 shows the result of visual
interpretation [13] on structural damage by using a set
of pre and post-tsunami (the 2004 tsunami) satellite im-
ages (IKONOS) from Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Through
inspecting a set of pre and post-tsunami satellite images
visually or manually, presence of building roofs can be
interpreted. The advantage of using high-resolution opti-
cal satellite images for damage interpretation is the capa-
bility of understanding structural damage visually and en-
ables us to comprehend its spatial extent in regional scale
where post-tsunami survey hardly get through because of

480 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009

 Tsunami Fragility

(a) ( )
Building/house damage (N=48910)
Destroyed (16474)
Survived (32436)

0 1 2 3 4 5
km

( )

(e)

Inundation depth (m) ( )

0.01 - 1.0
1.01 - 2.0 5.01 - 6.0
2.01 - 3.0 6.01 - 7.0
3.01 - 4.0 7.01 - 8.0
4.01 - 5.0 8.01 - 9.0

0 50 100
m

Building/house damage
Inundation limit Destroyed Survived

Fig. 2. (a) Spatial distribution of structural damage interpreted from the pre and post-tsunami satellite images (IKONOS) [13].
Black dots indicate the interpreted structures as destroyed, and the gray dots as survived. The arrow points the expanded region
shown in the right panels (b) pre-tsunami and (c) post-tsunami satellite images and (d) interpreted damage. (e) The maximum
tsunami inundation depth obtained from the numerical model [14, 15].

Number of
the limitation of survey time and resources. However,
1200
Destroyed
note that no structural types were identified by the inter- Survived
pretation of satellite images. Also, the damage feature 1000
which can be identified from satellite images is only struc-
tural destruction or major structural failure which reveals 800

change of roof’s shape, namely “collapsed” and “major 600

or severe damage.” Accordingly, the interpretation “De-
stroyed” in Fig. 2 means “collapsed” or “major or severe 400
damage,” and “Survived” is either of “moderate,” “minor,”
“slight” and “no” damage. 200

To obtain the tsunami hazard information such as in- 0

undation depth and current velocity, we performed a nu-
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.8

6.7
5.0
5.1
5.3
5.6

8.2

merical modeling of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earth- Inundation depth (< x m)

quake tsunami [14, 15], using high-resolution bathymetry

and topography data. The model results were validated
by the field measurements of post-tsunami survey teams
[6, 7], using Aida’s formula [16] in terms of the reliability
of tsunami numerical model (see ref.[15] for detail).
Damage interpretation shown in Fig. 2(a) is combined
with the numerical model results, e.g. Fig. 2(e), to obtain
the tsunami damage statistics as shown in Fig. 3. Using
GIS, we sampled all of the structures in the tsunami inun-
dation zone and made a table (spread sheet) of structure
ID, damage interpretation (Destroyed or Survived) and
tsunami hydrodynamic features (inundation depth, cur-
rent velocity and hydrodynamic force) spatially equiva-
Fig. 3. Histogram of the numbers of destroyed and survived
structures in terms of inundation depth range. Each inunda-
tion depth range is determined by exploring a range which
includes approximately 1,000 structures.
lent to the position of each structure. After sorting the
table by each level of hydrodynamic features, we deter-
mined the groups of structures to calculate damage proba-
bility so that roughly 1000 structures are involved in each
group. Then we determined the damage probability in
each group according to the range of inundation depth,
current velocity and hydrodynamic force obtained by the

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009 481

Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H.

1.0 Table 1. Statistical parameters of tsunami fragility curves

(Fig. 6) for structural damage. R2 is the coefficient of deter-
0.8 mination obtained through the least-squares fitting.

0.6 Fragility curve µ σ λ ξ R2

PD (a) dmax (m) 2.99 1.12 N/A N/A 0.99
(b) vmax (m/s) N/A N/A 0.80 0.28 0.97
0.4
(c) F (kN/m) N/A N/A 1.47 0.75 0.99

0.2
1.0 1.0



0 2 4 6 8 10 0.8 0.8
dmax
0.6 0.6



Fig. 4. A discrete set of damage probabilities and the me- 0.4 0.4
dian values of inundation depths that were compiled from
sample data. 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
6 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
Least-squares fit  
 

5 1.0


4 0.8
)m( xamd

0.6
3


0.4
2
0.2
1
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
0

-3 -2 -1 0 1
F-1
Fig. 5. An example of the plot on normal probability paper.
numerical model. And as a result of counting the number
of destroyed and survived structures within each inunda-
tion depth range (group), we obtain a relationship between
the damage probability and inundation depth, as a discrete
set of structural damage probabilities and tsunami inunda-
tion depths shown in Fig. 4. Then, we explore this rela-
tionship with the form of fragility curve by performing the
regression analysis.
Taking an analogy of earthquake engineering studies
[10, 11, 17], we assume that the cumulative probability PD
of damage occurrence is given as either Eq. (1) or (2)
with two statistical parameters, (λ , ξ ) or (µ , σ ). Here,
the statistical parameters λ (or µ ) and ξ (or σ ) are ob-
tained by plotting x (or ln x) and the inverse of Φ (Φ−1 )
on normal or lognormal probability paper, and conduct-
ing the least-squares fitting of this plot, as shown in Fig. 5.
Hence, these parameters are obtained by taking the inter-
cept (= λ or µ ) and the angular coefficient (= ξ or σ ) in
Eq. (1) or (2).
Through regression analysis, the parameters are de-
termined as shown in Table 1, to obtain the best fit of
fragility curve with respect to the maximum inundation
depth (measured above the local ground level) dmax (m),
the maximum current velocity vmax (m/s) and the maxi-
482
 
2 3
Fig. 6. Tsunami fragility curves for structural destruction,
in terms of (a) the maximum inundation depth, (b) the max-
imum current velocity and (c) the maximum hydrodynamic
force obtained from the numerical model. The solid lines
are the best-fitted curves of the plot (◦ : the distribution of
damage probabilities) with the parameters in Table 1.
mum hydrodynamic force F acting on a structure per unit
width (kN/m). Here F is defined as the maximum drag
force per unit width of structures;
1
F = CD ρ max{v2 d} × 10−3 . . . . . . . (3)
2
where CD is the drag coefficient (CD = 1.0 for simplic-
ity), ρ water density (= 1, 000 kg/m3 ), v current velocity
(m/s) and d inundation depth (m), and both of v and d are
obtained at each time step of the tsunami inundation mod-
eling. Note that the tsunami fragility with respect to the
inundation depth is given by the standardized normal dis-
tribution function with µ and σ , while those to the current
velocity and hydrodynamic force are by the standardized
lognormal distribution functions with λ and ξ . The selec-
tion of which curve is applied should be made by checking
its fit to the datasets.
Fragility curves shown in Fig. 6 indicate the damage
probabilities of structural destruction equivalent to the hy-
drodynamic features of tsunami inundation flow. Houses
in Banda Aceh, for example, were especially vulnera-
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009
 Tsunami Fragility

     
ble when the local inundation depth exceeded 2 or 3 m,
 





the current velocity exceeded 2.5 m/s or hydrodynamic

load exceeded 5 kN/m. Note that the observed struc-
tural damage at a site might consist of both damage by
tsunami and strong ground motion. Major structure types  
in the tsunami-affected area were low-rise wooden house, 
timber construction, and non-engineered RC construction 
lightly reinforced, and it was reported that the large num- 
ber of the wooden houses survived the earthquake with
minor damage and non-engineered RC structures were
degraded by strong ground motion, then they were de-

 
stroyed by the tsunami [18]. We supposed that the struc-  
tural destruction was likely to be induced by the tsunami
inundation, but many of the structures were degraded by
strong ground motion before the tsunami attack. In this
sense, the proposed tsunami fragility may involve the Fig. 7. Proportion of fatalities in Banda Aceh city [13], cal-
structures with minor damage or degraded seismic per- culated by using reported number of fatality and pre-tsunami
formance. Note also that the tsunami damage on struc- population.
tures were caused by both hydrodynamic force/impact
and the impact of floating debris, i.e. these facts are re- 1.0 1.0
flected on the damage probabilities but not on the nu-  
merical model results (the estimated hydrodynamic fea- 0.8 0.8

tures). Thus, the present tsunami fragility may indicate

 

 

0.6 0.6
overestimation in damage probabilities to the hydrody-
namic features of tsunami inundation flow. Further to be 0.4 0.4

mentioned is that tsunami fragility proposed herein is for

0.2 0.2
assessing the number of damaged (destroyed) structures
by applying tsunami fragility curves to the number of ex- 0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
posed structures against a given hydrodynamic condition
 


 
of tsunami. This is not for a prediction whether a struc-
ture is destroyed or survives under a given probability of
occurrence.
The proposed tsunami fragility curves here was based
on the regression analysis of the relations between the
modeled tsunami hazards and the damage probabilities
that were sampled in each group of approximately 1000
data. How many data should be included in each group (so
called data bin) still needs some discussions in statistical
point of view. Different selection of bin size (the range
to determine the damage probability) may cause differ-
ent result of regression. In addition, we assumed that the
numerical model results represent the features of tsunami
inundation flow in the study area without errors. This is
the issue that should be discussed as statistical analysis of
tsunami fragility curves considering the proper selection
of bin size and uncertainties in the numerical model.
4. Tsunami Fragility for Fatality Estimation
Tsunami fragility for fatality is determined by using the
post-tsunami data in terms of the number of dead, missing
and survivors. Fig. 7 shows the spatial distribution of the
ratio of dead, missing and survivors in each desa (village)
in Banda Aceh city (as of 12 April 2005), normalized by
the pre-tsunami desa population [13]. GIS analysis of
the fatality information and the numerical model results
in Fig. 2(e) yields a fragility curve for tsunami fatalities
as the relationship between the fatality ratio (both dead
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009
Fig. 8. Tsunami fragility curves for fatality in terms of (a)
the inundation depth and (b) inundation height. The solid
line is the best-fitted curve of the plot (◦ : the distribution of
fatality ratio) with Eq. (2).
and missing) and the hydrodynamic features of tsunami.
Based on tsunami fatality data in Fig. 7, the representa-
tive value of local hydrodynamic feature of tsunami inun-
dation or the inundation height is calculated by taking the
median value of modeled inundation depths and inunda-
tion heights within each desa.
Figure 8 shows the tsunami fragility expressed as the
fatality ratio with regard to the representative values of
the maximum inundation depth dmax (measured above the
local ground level) and inundation height hmax (measured
above the pre-tsunami tide level) calculated by taking the
median value of the numerical model results within each
desa as shown in Fig. 7. The fragility curve is determined
by assuming the standardized normal distribution function
of Eq. (2) with the parameters of Table 2 obtained through
the least-squares fitting, where x is the median value of the
inundation depth or inundation height (m) in each desa,
calculated by using of the numerical model results.
Note that the fatality ratio distribution is the result of
the post-tsunami investigation based on the pre-tsunami
registration data [13]. It is highly unknown where the
residents were affected by the tsunami inundation flow,
because it is easily guessed that the residents who were
483
Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H.

 

+


 ,! -/


 : !!  
! "
; 





 $ !"
#

&

'



!


"


> @
 +

Fig. 9. The result of visual interpretation of structural damage in Banda Aceh city and
the points of field measurements. See their original paper [19] for all the points and
areas investigated.

484 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009

 Tsunami Fragility

Table 2. Statistical parameters of tsunami fragility curves Table 3. The damage probabilities and measured tsunami
for fatality (Fig. 8). heights obtained by the visual inspection of satellite images
and field measurements. The area and points A to O are
Fragility curve µ σ R2 equivalent to Fig. 4.
(a) dmax (m) 3.92 1.15 0.62
(b) hmax (m) 5.37 0.76 0.72 Area hmax dmax Destroyed Pre-tsunami Damage
(m) (m) structures structures probability
A 7.0 5.4 40 41 0.98
B 7.1 5.0 51 57 0.89
aware of tsunami arrival have evacuated and tried to sur- C 7.6 4.7 32 45 0.71
vive. In other words, the fragility curve of Fig. 8 does not D 7.1 5.0 72 83 0.87
indicate the human’s survival possibility according to the E 8.2 4.9 46 57 0.81
F 6.6 3.7 51 60 0.85
local hydrodynamic features of tsunami inundation flow. G 4.6 2.5 2 31 0.06
Also, taking median to obtain the representative values of H 4.7 2.1 12 30 0.40
tsunami inundation depth according to each desa reflects I 12.0 – 72 75 0.96
higher variance of the plot compared with that of Fig. 6. J 9.7 7.9 60 61 0.98
K 6.1 3.3 51 56 0.91
For the above reasons, this fragility function should be in- L 6.6 3.8 36 50 0.72
terpreted as a macroscopic measure of tsunami impact, i.e. M 6.8 4.5 38 50 0.76
the occurrence of tsunami fatality significantly increase N 6.5 2.6 14 30 0.47
when the local inundation depth exceeds approximately O 4.8 – 6 31 0.19
2 m and the inundation height 4.5 (m), and almost impos-
sible to survive when the local inundation depth exceeds
1.0 1.0
6 m.  
0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
5. Tsunami Fragility from Satellite Remote


0.4 0.4
Sensing and Field Survey
0.2

 0.2


Developing tsunami fragility may also be viewed using

   

satellite images and post-tsunami surveys. Namegaya and
Tsuji (2006) investigated the structural damage in Banda
Aceh city by the 2004 tsunami, using the visual inspec-
tion of QuickBird pre and post-tsunami satellite images
acquired on June 23, 2004 and December 28, 2004, in
four areas of Banda Aceh city together with the mea-
surements of tsunami inundation depth and height [19].
Fig. 4 is showing their result of visual interpretation of
structural damage in Banda Aceh city and the points of
tsunami measurements. The markers • and ◦ in the figure
denote survived and destroyed (washed-away) structures
interpreted from the satellite images focusing on the pres-
ence of their roofs.
Using field survey results presents difficulties in cor-
relating the tsunami heights at all the points where the
structural damage was inspected. In this case, the dam-
age probability is calculated by counting the number of
survived and destroyed structures within the dashed-line
circles of 100 m diameter (see Fig. 4) and the tsunami in-
undation depth or height is represented by the measured
value at the center of each solid-line circle. Consequently,
the relationships between the damage probabilities and
tsunami heights are obtained at 13 to 15 points in Banda
Aceh city (see Namegaya and Tsuji (2006) for details).
Table 3 is the result obtained at each area equivalent to
Fig. 4. The tsunami fragility curves are determined as
Fig. 10, with statistical parameters of Table 4. Note that
two fragility curves in Fig. 10(a), although very similar,
show differences in approaches of damage data compila-
tion (including number of samples and the inspected area)
and methods to obtain tsunami hazard information.
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009
0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
   
Fig. 10. Tsunami fragility curves for structural destruction,
in terms of (a) the maximum inundation depth and (b) the
maximum inundation height, by using the visual inspection
of satellite images and field measurements. The dashed line
in (a) indicates the fragility curve from Fig. 6(a).
6. Tsunami Fragility from Historical Data
In constructing the tsunami fragility from historical
events, we incorporated the historical tsunami data on
local tsunami damage and height. In Japan, the post-
tsunami surveys would be conducted by many differ-
ent organizations and individuals. After the 1896 Meiji
Sanriku earthquake tsunami, which caused approximately
22,000 casualties, the damage survey efforts were con-
ducted by the central government [20] and an engineer
Soshin Yamana delegated by Iwate prefectural govern-
ment (his report was published by Yamashita (1982) with
comments and interpretations) [21]. Seismological re-
searchers and Japan Meteorological Agency also con-
ducted the survey after the 1933 Showa Sanriku earth-
quake tsunami which caused approximately 3,000 casu-
alties [22, 23].
Hatori (1984) compiled the house damage data from
the historical documents of the 1896 Meiji Sanriku, 1933
Showa Sanriku and the 1960 Chile tsunami events as
listed in Table 5. He defined the structural damage prob-
485
Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H.

Table 4. Statistical parameters for fragility curves (Fig. 10). 1.0

(a)
1.0
(b)

x µ σ R2 0.8 0.8

dmax (m) 3.33 1.25 0.62

0.6 0.6
hmax (m) 6.07 1.36 0.53 PD PD
0.4 0.4

1896 Meiji (Hatori) 1933 Showa (Hatori)

Table 5. Historical tsunami data in Japan used for develop- 0.2 Fragility 0.2 Fragility
ing tsunami fragility. Historical data Historical data
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Data compilation Events Original data Tsunami height (m) Tsunami height (m)
[References] [References] 1.0 1.0
(c) (d)
Hatori (1984) [25] 1896 Meiji-Sanriku [21]
1933 Showa-Sanriku [22] 0.8 0.8
1960 Chile [23]
0.6 0.6
Shuto (1987a, 1993) 1896 Meiji-Sanriku [20, 21, 24, 27–30] PD PD
[1, 26] 0.4 0.4

1960 Chile (Hatori) All (Hatori)

0.2 Fragility 0.2 Fragility
Historical data Historical data
0.0 0.0
ability as Eq. (4) by counting the number of houses in 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Tsunami height (m) Tsunami height (m)
three damage categories ; destroyed/washed-away, mod-
erate and only flooded, in each reported area or settlement 1.0
(e)
1.0
(f)
with tsunami height ; 0.8 0.8

a + b/2
PD = . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) 0.6 0.6
a+b+c PD PD
0.4 0.4 1896 Meiji
where a, b and c is the number of the houses catego- (Shuto)
0.2 1896 Meiji (Shuto) 0.2 Fragility
rized as destroyed/washed-away, moderate damage and Fragility Historical
Historical data data
only flooded, respectively. 0.0 0.0
Shuto (1987a, 1993) also compiled the documents and 0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
Tsunami height (m) Inundation depth (m)
reports from the 1896 Meiij Sanriku tsunami (Table 5),
and determined the damage probability with four damage
Fig. 11. Historical tsunami data of Hatori (1984) and Shuto
categories ; (1987a, 1993), and tsunami fragility curves. (a) 1896 Meiji
a + b + c/2 Sanriku tsunami by Hatori, (b) 1933 Showa Sanriku tsunami
PD = . . . . . . . . . . . (5) by Hatori, (c) 1960 Chile tsunami by Hatori, (d) Three events
a+b+c+d
by Hatori, (e) and (f) 1896 Meiji Sanriku tsunami by Shuto.
where a, b, c and d is the number of the houses cate-
gorized as washed-away, completely destroyed, moderate
damage and only flooded, respectively. To increase the Table 6. Statistical parameters of tsunami fragility curves
reliability of data, he conducted the numerical modeling (Fig. 11). µ , σ for the regression of the historical data (solid
and the additional field survey to determine the reliability line) and µ  , σ  , µ  , σ  for upper and lower limits.
of the documents. Fragility curve µ σ R2 µ σ µ  σ 
Figure 11 plots historical data (damage probability ver- (a) 5.84 3.28 0.30 2.80 1.35 9.00 5.00
sus tsunami height and inundation depth) compiled by (b) 5.09 2.50 0.70 2.90 1.35 7.00 2.50
Hatori (1984) and Shuto (1987a, 1993), and the fragility (c) 4.66 1.09 0.80 N/A N/A N/A N/A
curves (solid lines) obtained by the least-squares fitting (d) 5.97 2.66 0.55 2.80 1.30 10.0 3.60
of Eq. (2). Since the historical data is highly dispersed, (e) 6.05 2.49 0.24 2.00 0.90 10.5 5.00
the dashed lines are also added to indicate the maximum (f) 5.49 1.26 0.36 N/A N/A N/A N/A

and minimum limits by the authors’ interpretation (prob-

ably with less statistical meaning). The statistical param-
eters of fragility curves with the solid and dashed lines
are summarized in Table 6. The high dispersion is proba-
bly caused by numerous uncertain factors in terms of the
reliability of historical data. It is quite unknown, for ex-
ample, how the tsunami heights were measured (datum)
and represented in their reports, e.g. single or multiple
measurements. Accordingly, these fragility curves should
be interpreted as a coarse measure with uncertainty, e.g.
2 m tsunami is equivalent to cause 0-30 % of probability
that a house would be destroyed (Fig. 11(d)). In another
way, by using fragility curves, the magnitude of tsunami
can be speculated from the documented damage, e.g. 30
% of structural damage would be potentially caused by
the tsunami of 2.1-7.4 m height, as shown in Fig. 11(d),
as an empirical relationships between tsunami hazards
and local vulnerability learned from the historical Sanriku
tsunami disasters.
Historical tsunami fragility aims to identify the rela-
tionships among the tsunami hazards, the damage and un-
certain historical documents. For instance, large numbers
of descriptions can be found in historical documents, say-
ing “An abnormal tide reached to the entrance of a shrine

486 Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009


which was X m above the sea level” or “An abnormal
tide penetrated in the village to cause Y houses washed-
away.” To identify the origin or cause of the descriptions
above, the former requires the interpretation of potential
damage equivalent to the reported tsunami height of X m.
Also the latter requires the potential tsunami height equiv-
alent to the reported amount of damage Y .
7. Concluding Remarks
We proposed a new measure called Tsunami fragility
throughout the statistical analysis of tsunami damage data
interpreted from the high-resolution satellite images or
field survey, numerical modeling and historical docu-
ments, to identify the relationship between tsunami haz-
ard and vulnerability. Tsunami fragility is expressed
by the structural damage probability or fatality ratio as
the functions of hydrodynamic features of tsunami, such
as inundation depth, current velocity and hydrodynamic
force. Especially, the integration of satellite remote sens-
ing and numerical modeling leads to a significant knowl-
edge on structural vulnerability against the 2004 Sumatra-
Andaman earthquake tsunami, in Banda Aceh, Indonesia.
We suggest that tsunami fragility is implemented for
an assessment of structural damage and fatalities within
the exposed area against potential tsunami hazard scenar-
ios. Multiplying the number of exposed structures and
populations by the damage probability from the fragility
curves equivalent to the estimated tsunami hazards pro-
vides the quantitative estimation of tsunami damage. It
is still highly speculative, however, to say that the pro-
posed tsunami fragility can become an universal measure
of tsunami impact or damage. As stated in the introduc-
tion, the tsunami damage should be characterized by nu-
merous uncertain factors. In this sense, tsunami fragility
proposed here includes some of uncertainties, but not all.
In other words, they may not be applicable in considering
tsunami vulnerability when changing the areas of inter-
est or considering other tsunami scenarios. Thus, we also
suggest that careful use and interpretations are required
in using proposed tsunami fragility when applying. We
believe that further more precise investigations from the
2004 and other historical events can expand the applica-
bility of tsunami fragility.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported, in part, by the Indus-
trial Technology Research Grant Program in 2008 (Project ID :
08E52010a) from New Energy and Industrial Technology Devel-
opment Organization (NEDO), and the Grant-in-Aid for Scien-
tific Research (Project Number : 19681019) from the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of
Japan.
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009
Tsunami Fragility
References:
[1] N. Shuto, “Tsunami intensity and disasters, Tsunamis in the World,”
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 197-216, 1993.
[2] H. Izuka and H. Matsutomi, “Damage estimation due to tsunami in-
undation flow,” Proceedings of Coastal Engineering, JSCE, Vol.47,
pp. 381-385, 2000 (in Japanese).
[3] R. Asakura, K. Iwase, T. Ikeya, M. Takao, N. Fujii, and M. Omori,
“An experimental study on wave force acting on on-shore structures
due to over flowing tsunamis,” Proceedings of Coastal Engineering,
JSCE, Vol.47, pp. 911-915, 2000 (in Japanese).
[4] H. Yeh, “Design Tsunami Forces for Onshore Structures,” Journal
of Disaster Research, Vol.2, No.6, pp. 531-536, 2007.
[5] J. Borrero, “Field survey of northern Sumatra and Banda Aceh, In-
donesia after the tsunami and earthquake of 26 December 2004,”
Seismological Research Letters, Vol.76, No.3, pp. 309-318, 2005.
[6] H. Matsutomi, T. Sakakiyama, S. Nugroho, and M. Matsuyama,
“Aspects of inundated flow due to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,”
Coastal Engineering Journal, Vol.48, No.2, pp. 167-195, 2006.
[7] Y. Tsuji, Y. Tanioka, H. Matsutomi, Y. Nishimura, T. Kamataki,
Y. Murakami, T. Sakakiyama, A. Moore, G. Gelfenbaum, S.
Nuguroho, B. Waluyo, I. Sukanta, R. Triyono, and Y. Namegaya,
“Damage and height distribution of Sumatra earthquake – Tsunami
of December 26, 2004, in Banda Aceh city and its environs,” Jour-
nal of Disaster Research, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 103-115, 2006.
[8] K. Fujima, Y. Shigihara, T. Tomita, K. Honda, H. Nobuoka, M.
Hanzawa, H. Fujii, H. Otani, S. Orishimo, M. Tatsumi, and S.
Koshimura, “Survey results of the Indian Ocean tsunami in the Mal-
dives,” Coastal Engineering Journal, Vol.48, No.2, pp. 91-97, 2006.
[9] K. Satake, T. T. Aung, Y. Sawai, Y. Okamura, K. S. Win, W. Swe,
C. Swe, T. L. Swe, S. T. Tun, M. M. Soe, T. Z. Oo, and S. H. Zaw,
“Tsunami heights and damage along the Myanmar coast from the
December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake,” Earth, Planets and
Space, Vol.58, pp. 243-252, 2006.
[10] O. Murao and F. Yamazaki, “Development of fragility curves for
buildings based on damage survey data of a local government af-
ter the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake,” Journal of Structural
and Construction Engineering, Vol.527, pp. 189-196, 2000 (in
Japanese).
[11] M. Shinozuka, M. Q. Feng, J. Lee, and T. Naganuma, “Statisti-
cal analysis of fragility curves,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Vol.126, pp. 1224-1231, 2000.
[12] Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Multi-hazard Loss Es-
timation Methodology, HAZUS-MH MR3 (Earthquake Model),”
Technical Manual, pp. 5-35, 2003.
[13] Japan International cooperation Agency (JICA), “The study on the
urgent rehabilitation and reconstruction support program for Aceh
province and affected areas in north Sumatra, Final Report (1),”
Vol.IV : Data book, 2005.
[14] T. Oie, S. Koshimura, H. Yanagisawa, and F. Imamura, “Numerical
modeling of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and damage assessment
in Banda Aceh,” Indonesia, Annual Journal of Coastal Engineering,
JSCE, Vol.53, pp. 221-225, 2006 (in Japanese).
[15] S. Koshimura, T. Oie, H. Yanagisawa, and F. Imamura, “Developing
fragility functions for tsunami damage estimation using numerical
model and post-tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia,” Coastal
Engineering Journal, No.3, pp. 243-273, 2009.
[16] I. Aida, “Reliability of a tsunami source model derived from fault
parameters,” Journal of Physics of the Earth, Vol.26, pp. 57-73,
1978.
[17] K. R. Karim, and F. Yamazaki, “A simplified method of constructing
fragility curves for highway bridges, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics,” Vol.32, pp. 1603-1626, 2003.
[18] M. Saatcioglu, A. Ghobarah, and I. Nistor, “Performance of struc-
tures in Indonesia during the December 2004 great Sumatra earth-
quake and Indian Ocean tsunami,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol.22,
No.3, pp. S295-S319, 2006.
[19] Y. Namegaya and Y. Tsuji, “Distributions of the Swept Away
Houses in Banda Aceh City, Indonesia, due to the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami Estimated by Satellite Images,” Annual Journal
of Coastal Engineering, JSCE, Vol.53, pp. 286-290, 2006 (in
Japanese).
[20] T. Iki, “Field survey of Sanriku tsunami disasters, Bulletin of the
Imperial Earthquake Investigation Committee,” Vol.11, pp. 5-34,
1896 (in Japanese).
[21] F. Yamashita, “Tragic histories of great Sanriku tsunami disasters,”
Seijisha, 413p. 1982 (in Japanese).
[22] Earthquake Research Institute, “Reports on the 3 March, Showa
8 Sanriku tsunami,” Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute,
Tokyo Imperial University, Supplementary Vol.1, 248p., 1934 (in
Japanese).
[23] Japan Meteorological Agency, Sendai Branch, “Report of the 24
May, Showa 35, Chilean earthquake tsunami,” 1961 (in Japanese).
487
Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H.
[24] Iwate Prefectural Government, “Report of the recovery process
from the 1960 Chilean earthquake tsunami disaster,” 251p., 1969
(in Japanese).
[25] T. Hatori, “Damage probability of houses by tsunamis,” Bulletin of
the Earthquake Research Institute, Vol.59, pp. 433-439, 1984 (in
Japanese).
[26] N. Shuto, “Evolution of tsunami disasters,” Tsunami Engineering
Technical Report, Tohoku University, Vol.4, pp. 1-41, 1987a (in
Japanese).
[27] N. Shuto and C. Goto, “Field survey of great Sanriku tsunami
– from Raga, Hiraiga, Shimanokoshi, Omoto and Shimokonari,”
Tsunami Engineering Technical Report, Tohoku University, Vol.2,
pp. 39-45, 1985a (in Japanese).
[28] N. Shuto and C. Goto, “Field survey of great Sanriku tsunami
– from Okkirai,” Tsunami Engineering Technical Report, Tohoku
University, Vol.2, pp. 46-53, 1985b (in Japanese).
[29] F. Imamura, C. Goto, and N. Shuto, “Study on Numerical Tsunami
Forecasting System – Accuracy of numerical models,” Tsunami En-
gineering Technical Report, Tohoku University, Vol.3, pp. 23-87,
1986 (in Japanese).
[30] N. Shuto, J. Sayama, and K. Fujima, “Field survey of great Sanriku
tsunami – from Ofunato,” Tsunami Engineering Technical Report,
Tohoku University, Vol.4, pp. 101-113, 1987b (in Japanese).
Name:
Shunichi Koshimura
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Engi-
neering, Tohoku University
Address:
Aoba 6-6-11-1104, Aramaki, Aoba-Ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan
Brief Career:
2000-2002 JSPS Research Fellow, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
2002-2005 Research Scientist, Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation
Institute
2005- Associate Professor, Tohoku University
Selected Publications:
• S. Koshimura, T. Oie, H. Yanagisawa, and F. Imamura, “Developing
fragility functions for tsunami damage estimation using numerical model
and post-tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia,” Coastal Engineering
Journal, No.3, pp. 243-273, 2009.
• S. Koshimura, Y. Hayashi, K. Munemoto, and F. Imamura, “Effect of the
Emperor seamounts on trans-oceanic propagation of the 2006 Kuril Island
earthquake tsunami,” Geophysical Research letters, Vol.35, L02611,
doi:10.1029/2007GL032129, 24, 2008.
• S. Koshimura, T. Katada, H. O. Mofjeld, and Y. Kawata, “A method for
estimating casualties due to the tsunami inundation flow,” Natural Hazards,
Vol.39, pp. 265-274, 2006.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
• Institute of Social Safety Science
• Japan Associaiton for Earthquake Engineering (JAEE)
• Japan Society for Computational Engineering and Science (JSCES)
• Americal Geophysical Union (AGU)
488
Name:
Yuichi Namegaya
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Geological Sur-
vey of Japan, National Institute of Advanced In-
dustrial Science and Technology
Address:
Site 7, Higashi 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8567, Japan
Brief Career:
2005-2007 JSPS Research Fellow, Earthquake Research Institute, the
University of Tokyo
2007- Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Geological Survey of Japan, National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
Selected Publications:
• Y. Namegaya, Y. Tanioka, K. Abe, K. Satake, K. Hirata, M. Okada, and
A. R. Gusman, “In situ measurements of tide gauge response and
corrections of tsunami waveforms from the Niigataken Chuetsu-oki
earthquake in 2007,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, Vol.166, pp. 97-116,
2009.
• Y. Namegaya and K. Satake, “Tsunami generated by the 2007 Noto
Hanto earthquake,” Earth, Planets and Space, Vol.60, pp. 127-132, 2008.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
• Seismological Society of Japan (SSJ)
• Americal Geophysical Union (AGU)
Name:
Hideki Yanagisawa
Affiliation:
Company Member, Tokyo Electric Power Ser-
vices Company Limited
Address:
Higashi-Ueno 3-3-3, Taito-ku, Tokyo 110-0015, Japan
Brief Career:
2008-2009 Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Graduate School of
Engineering, Tohoku University
2009- Company Member, Tokyo Electric Power Services Company
Limited
Selected Publications:
• H. Yanagisawa, S. Koshimura, K. Goto, T. Miyagi, F. Imamura, A.
Ruangrassamee, and C. Tanavud, “Damage of mangrove forest by the
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami at Pakarang Cape and Namkem, Thailand,”
Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, Vol.18, No.1, pp. 35-42, 2009.
• H. Yanagisawa, S. Koshimura, K. Goto, T. Miyagi, F. Imamura, A.
Ruangrassamee, and C. Tanavud, “The reduction effects of mangrove
forest on a tsunami based on field surveys at Pakarang Cape, Thailand and
numerical analysis, Estuarine,” Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol.81, pp.
27-37, 2009.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
• Japan Society for Mangroves
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.4 No.6, 2009