You are on page 1of 102

Coastal Vulnerability to

Multiple Inundation Sources
COVERMAR project

Final Outcomes Report

Coastal Inundation.
COVERMAR Project.

C ult ce
oa i p s
M our
S
This Report was prepared for the Sydney Coastal Councils Group

sta le Pro
Incorporated by Dr. Filippo Dall’Osso 1,2,4, Stephen Summerhayes3, Geoff

l V Inu jec
Withycombe3 and Professor Dale Dominey-Howes4.

ul nd t (
ne a CO
1
Australia-Pacific Natural Hazards Research Laboratory, University of New

ra tio VERM
South Wales, Sydney.

bi n AR
2
MEDINGEGNERIA S.r.l, Hydraulic and Coastal Engineering, Italy.

lit
3
Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc.

y
4
Hazards Research Group, School of Geoscience, University of Sydney.

to
This is the final of three reports. The other two reports are:

)
1. Literature Review Report
2. Hazard Assessment Report.
Copies are available from the project webpage
http://www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au/node/106

ISBN 0-9802808-4-2

Copyright and Disclaimer This project is conducted under the Enquiries
Natural Disaster Resilience Program,
©2014 UNSW and the Sydney Sydney Coastal Councils Group
as described in the National Partnership
Coastal Councils Group Inc. Incorporated
Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience
This publication is copyright and, and the NSW Implementation Plan 010/11 www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au
to the extent permitted by law, all rights and is jointly funded by the Australian and info@sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au
are reserved. You may download, New South Wales Governments.
display, print and reproduce the Suggested citation
information for educational or non-
Dall’Osso, F., Summerhayes, S.,
commercial purposes if it is reproduced
Withycombe, G. and Dominey-Howes, D.
exactly, the source is acknowledged,
(2014). Coastal Vulnerability to Multiple
and the copyright and disclaimer
Inundation Sources (COVERMAR) Project –
notices are retained. Acknowledgements Project Outcomes Report prepared
This project is guided by an expert for the Sydney Coastal Councils Group
Important Disclaimer Advisory Committee. Its contributions Inc. pp.100.
have informed and enhanced this Report,
The information contained in this report and are gratefully acknowledged.
comprises general statements based
on scientific research. Such information
may be incomplete or unable to Diana Benardi Red Cross
be used in any specific situation. No Santina Camroux NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure
reliance or actions must therefore be Belinda Davies NSW State Emergency Services
made on that information without
Mark Edwards Geoscience Australia
seeking prior expert professional,
scientific and technical advice. To the Julie Evans Bureau of Meteorology
extent permitted by law, SCCG and Marco Gonella Medingegneria S.r.l. – Italy
UNSW (including their respective staff) Diana Greenslade Bureau of Meteorology
exclude all liability to any person for
Dave Hanslow NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
any consequences, including but not
limited to all losses, damages, costs, Kathleen McInnes CSIRO
expenses and any other compensation, Steve Opper NSW State Emergency Services
arising directly or indirectly from using Karl Sullivan Insurance Council of Australia
this report (in part or in whole) and any
Stefano Tinti University of Bologna – Italy
information or material contained in it.
Ian Turner University of NSW
Phil Watson NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

We also thank the following for their invaluable contributions:
Christopher Moore NOAA (US)
Tariq Maqsood Geoscience Australia
Felix Lipkin CSIRO
02 2014

Executive Summary
Background COVERMAR is Australia’s first multi-hazard tool
Natural hazards such as tsunamis and 1/100 year storm to assess the vulnerability of different building
surges have a low probability of occurrence, but high types and critical infrastructure to extreme marine
intensity and wide spatial distribution. Although these inundation caused by both storm surges and
events are rare, their consequences for vulnerable coastal tsunamis. Scenarios were simulated using state-
communities can be very significant. of-the-art numerical models, under present and
In NSW, the risk of extreme inundation inrelation to such storm predicted future sea level conditions, and tested
surges or tsunamis is very high. Urbanisation and sea level at NSW study sites spanning Botany Bay, Port
rise in the future are expected to further exacerbate this risk. Hacking and Bate Bay. Project outcomes assist
Cascading effects, for example the trigger of a secondary NSW emergency and coastal managers and
hazard such as a chemical spill from a damaged industrial stakeholders. They have been specifically tailored
site, also contribute to risks. Natural hazards cannot be to the needs of agencies and councils.
avoided but their impacts can be mitigated by reducing
the vulnerability (susceptibility to damage) of exposed
communities and assets.

Coastal Vulnerability to Multiple Inundation The project builds on the outputs of the 2009 SCCG study
Sources (COVERMAR) Project A Method for Assessing the Vulnerability of Buildings to
Catastrophic (Tsunami) Marine Flooding (Dall’Osso and
Typically the vulnerability of coastal assets to different
Dominey-Howes, 2009). This earlier project updated a widely
inundation events has been calculated using a variety of
used index-based tool for assessing the vulnerability of
approaches. This makes it difficult for decision makers and
buildings to tsunamis – the Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability
planners to understand and compare the results of different
Model, version 3 (PTVA-3), and applied it to two Sydney case
vulnerability assessments, and it also complicates the
study locations (Manly and Maroubra). COVERMAR has
development of balanced, multi-hazard mitigation strategies.
enhanced the tool by incorporating weighted data drawn
COVERMAR helps to overcome these issues by providing
from the expert opinion of relevant academics worldwide.
NSW emergency and risk managers with a tool capable of
It also developed that project by addressing multiple
comparing the risks posed by multiple hazards, namely both
inundation sources incorporating probabilistic inundation
tsunamis and storm surges. It has developed an innovative,
scenarios, numerically simulated using state-of-the-art
multi-hazard tool for assessing the vulnerability of different
models, and integrating contemporary building
types of buildings (e.g. wood, brick) and critical infrastructure
vulnerability functions.
(including schools, hospitals, power transmission
infrastructure and council buildings) to extreme inundations.
To demonstrate the efficacy of the tool, it was applied to
three case study LGAs adjoining Botany Bay, Georges River
(up to the Como Bridge), Bate Bay and Port Hacking, namely
Botany Bay City and Rockdale City Councils and Sutherland
Shire Council.

Coastal Inundation.
COVERMAR Project. 03

COVERMAR elements and deliverables Consideration of different sea level conditions provided
an understanding of changes in inundation extent with
Key elements and deliverables of the project include the following:
changes in sea level and tide.
Advisory Committee
Thirty nine different inundation scenarios were considered,
Establishment of a project Advisory Committee (AC), which
3 for storm surges and 36 for tsunamis. There were a greater
guided and informed each stage of the project. Membership
number for tsunamis because scenarios considered three
of the AC included scientific experts, stakeholders and
annual probabilities (1/100, 1/1,000 and 1/10,000) for both
representatives from State and Local Government.
high tide and mean sea level at two source locations (New
Literature Review and Report Hebrides and Puysegur). Scenarios were simulated using the
Detailed Literature Review and Report outlining the scientific model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
and legislative background including the nature of storm Administration (NOAA) Centre for Tsunami Research. For storm
surges and tsunamis and their incidence in NSW. Uniquely, surges, scenarios applied a single annual probability – that
as part of the review, NSW regulation, policy and guidelines normally applied for extreme storm events – 1/100. Simulations
in coastal risk management, strategic planning and used the outputs of the numerical modelling undertaken by
emergency management were examined and presented McInnes et al. (2012), as part of the SCCG project entitled
in a comprehensive flow-chart. The manner in which Mapping and Responding to Coastal Inundation.
COVERMAR outputs contributed to relevant instruments,
Exposure estimates and presentation of results
such as the NSW State Storm Sub-Plan and coastal zone
To show the extent of the inundation and enable a count
management plans, were also tabulated.
of exposed buildings and critical infrastructure, numerical
Compatibility with NSW legislation outputs of the model were imported into a GIS system and
Implementing a methodology compatible with existing superimposed upon aerial images and a Digital Elevation
NSW coastal risk management, land use planning Model to generate thematic maps. The number of buildings
and emergency management legislation to facilitate inundated was tabulated and, for each case study area,
the implementation of COVERMAR outcomes and results presented (tables and figures) in relation to inundated
recommendations by coastal, risk and emergency managers. buildings, roads and critical infrastructure.
Case study selection For the most severe storm surge (1/100 yr. + 84 cm sea level)
Selection of case study areas through a multi-criteria analysis the assessment identified that up to 3173 buildings would
comparing the vulnerability of the SCCG’s 15 Member be exposed to inundation. For the worst tsunami event
Councils’ LGAs to extreme inundations. Each Council was (Puysegur, 1/10,000 yr. + high tide + 84 cm sea level), 2623
scored against eight vulnerability selection criteria and buildings would be exposed. This equates to 4083 buildings
a weight applied to each criterion reflecting its relative being exposed to inundation from these two sources. For
importance (as determined by the Advisory Committee). the least severe scenarios, the results would be 248 and
9 buildings respectively for storm surges (Puysegur, 1/100,
Hydrodynamic simulations
current msl) and tsunamis (1/100, current msl).
Hydrodynamic simulation of storm surge and tsunami
scenarios using state-of-the-art numerical models under Survey of building attributes
different initial sea level conditions: As the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure to
1. Current (2010) mean sea level inundation is a function of their physical and engineering
attributes, all 4083 exposed buildings were individually
2. 2050 horizon (current msl +34 cm)
surveyed against 16 different attributes divided into 24 classes
3. 2100 horizon (current msl +84 cm) and 117 subclasses. These results together with relevant
building footprints were entered into a GIS. Infrastructure was
also surveyed against eight infrastructure classes (health,
government, utility, education, transport, recreation and
coastal), comprising 30 different elements.

04

Building vulnerability The vulnerability assessment identified the number of
To assess the vulnerability of buildings (degree of expected buildings that would require replacement and the number
damage), the following work was undertaken: that would be in need of repair. Buildings were considered to
require replacement if repair was uneconomical. For each
1. F or storm surge, two potential damage types were
building type, the construction cost was calculated by using
considered
the total construction cost per building type or, where this was
a) Erosion of the soil substrate undermining building
unavailable, the construction cost per square metre used for
foundations. In this case, vulnerability was assessed
tax depreciation purposes. The construction, demolition and
using storm erosion lines (generated by relevant
replacement costs were calculated for all the 117 different
councils), as recommended by the 2010 NSW
building subclasses. Construction costs for roads and streets
Coastal Risk Management Guide.
were obtained from a relevant industry costs guide.
b) Tidal inundation (i.e. inundation along tidal
Of the 4083 buildings surveyed across the study areas,
waterways). Vulnerability was assessed by
555 buildings were inaccessible and therefore could not
applying 19 contemporary building vulnerability
be assigned to a class. To account for this, we calculated
functions developed by Geoscience Australia
two PML estimates, one that excluded these buildings and
to the corresponding building. The functions were
another which assumed all inaccessible buildings to be the
modified and adapted to match the buildings
most frequent building type in the study area (i.e. residential,
in the study area.
one storey, brick veneer with a raised ground floor).
2. For tsunamis, a combined approach was utilised:
For the most severe storm surge event (1/100 yr. + 84 cm sea
a) Development and utilisation of an improved
level) the economic loss to buildings would total ~$263.3M.
Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability Assessment
For the worst tsunami event (Puysegur, 1/10,000 yr. + high tide
Model (a GIS-based vulnerability assessment tool).
+ 84 cm sea level) economic losses can total up to $728.1M.
The determination of the weights ascribed to
For the least severe scenarios, the results would be $26.2M
building attributes in the PTVA Model was improved
and $3.1M respectively for storm surges (1/100 yr., current
by submitting a questionnaire to all the authors of
msl) and tsunamis (Puysegur, 1/100 yr., current msl).
scientific papers published in the last 10 years in
the field of building vulnerability to tsunamis. Display of geographically referenced information
Authors re-weighted the attributes of the PTVA-3 The vulnerability level of each exposed building was
Model and included information from the 2011 displayed on 66 thematic GIS maps, where building
Japan Tsunami. The improved model was used to vulnerability is represented using a colour-coded scale.
generate vulnerability maps.
Recommendations
b) Applying a set of contemporary building vulnerability Recommendations have been developed to improve hazard
functions developed in Japan after the 2011 assessment and building vulnerability and in relation to
Tohoku Tsunami, adapted to the case study areas coastal risk management, planning and development and
to estimate economic lost to buildings. Damage to emergency management. Future research opportunities are
streets and carparks was assessed by reference to also identified and discussed. Key recommendations and
flow velocity. research opportunities are detailed overleaf.
Economic loss
The economic losses of buildings and critical infrastructure
linked to the selected inundation scenarios across the
three case study areas was then calculated, adopting an
approach widely used in the insurance and re-insurance
industry (Probable Maximum Loss, ‘PML’).

Coastal Inundation.
COVERMAR Project. 05

Results 8. The total economic loss for building impacts caused by
tsunamis and storm surges having an annual probability
Results of the exposure and vulnerability assessment
of occurrence of 1/100 yr. is comparable (against 1/100
demonstrated that:
yr. tsunamis, the number of buildings exposed to 1/100
1. Tsunamis triggered in Puysegur, New Zealand would yr. storm surges is higher but the damage to individual
reach the study area in about 2.5 hours and those buildings is less). However, the PML caused by 1/1,000
originating in the New Hebrides, Vanuatu would and 1/10,000 yr. tsunamis is many times higher than that
take over 4 hours. caused by 1/100 yr. storm surges.
2. Extreme inundations, particularly those caused by 9. Hotspots representing the most exposed and vulnerable
tsunamis, can trigger ‘cascading effects’ (e.g. an locations within the study areas were identified by
inundated industrial site can release pollutants COVERMAR and are listed against each LGA. It also
into the environment). identified an area that may become isolated by most
tsunami and storm surge scenarios and the implications
3. Kingsford Smith Airport and Port Botany would be heavily
for the nature of the buildings in that area.
inundated by the most severe scenarios: storm surge
1/100 yr. + 84 cm sea level and tsunami, Puysegur, Key recommendations
1/10,000 yr. + high tide + 84 cm sea level.
1. Undertake multi-risk assessments for all LGAs along
4. Storm erosion is currently a low threat to the buildings in the NSW coast using the COVERMAR methodology to
the study areas, but it would cause significant damage to understand exposure and vulnerability based upon local
beaches, coastal structures and transport infrastructure. geomorphological and environmental conditions and
local building types.
5. Sea level conditions (e.g. tide level, adjustments for
predicted sea level rise) have a strong influence on the 2. Increase the hazards considered via the COVERMAR
number of buildings and infrastructure inundated by methodology to include other natural hazards such as
both storm surge and tsunamis. extreme rainfall, catchment runoff, landslide and bushfire.
6. The exposure of buildings and infrastructure to 1/100 3. Review of building codes in areas exposed to storm surge
yr. storm surges is significantly higher than the exposure or tsunami.
to all simulated tsunami events (i.e. 1/100 yr, 1/1,000 yr,
4. Emergency plans and planning strategies would be
1/10,000 yr) under the same initial sea level conditions.
enhanced by including the risk of extreme inundations
7. The average economic loss per building (Probable and concomitant potential cascading effects.
Maximum Loss) caused by a 1/100 yr. tsunami is three
5. As tsunamis triggered in Puysegur (New Zealand) would
times higher than that caused by a 1/100 yr. storm
reach the study area in about 2.5 hours there would be
surge. However, if all buildings of the study area had
limited time to evacuate ‘one Km inland, or 10 m above
a raised ground-floor (+30 cm above ground level),
mean sea level’, as recommended by the NSW Tsunami
the total PML would decrease by 44.6% (storm surge)
Emergency Sub Plan (2008). For such events, multi-storey
and 29.6% (tsunami).
buildings identified by COVERMAR as being ‘tsunami-
safe’ could be used for vertical evacuation.
6. During extreme inundations, conventional transport
routes may be damaged or inundated and should
not be considered as an option for evacuation or
the transportation of aid.

06

4. Hazard assessment of submarine slides and their tsunami potential would be particularly useful. Social vulnerability assessments of local communities to compliment and extend engineering focused work. 9. Emergency response plans include special provisions for This report buildings providing critical services during emergencies This report describes the methodology and results of the (e. The risk of tsunamis arising from underwater submarine slides off the continental shelf is unknown but potentially high. although such events have a low probability of occurrence.g.7. development and planning. COVERMAR Project. Local government authorities collaborate with relevant State and Federal government agencies to enhance the quality. 2. case study location. the consequences would be very high and these risks should be addressed in relevant emergency plans. Additional numerical modelling to refine the storm surge inundation assessment by McInnes et al. High quality datasets aid accurate inundation risk assessment. Developing vulnerability models using building vulnerability functions specifically designed for the building stock in the study area. heavily inundated by the most severe tsunami and storm surge scenarios. (2012). 07 . police stations) and buildings particularly vulnerable building and infrastructure vulnerability assessment at a NSW such as education and health facilities. and natural hazard risk assessment. accuracy and coverage of their building inventory databases. It also summarises and draws upon the 8. 10. Research opportunities Project outputs can be further developed by attending to the following: 1. 3. Coastal Inundation. As Kingsford Smith Airport and Port Botany would be outputs of the two previous COVERMAR stages. Relevant emergency management authorities organise engaging public awareness activities for the community to test and prepare community responses to an evacuation order.

2012) 19 HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT 23 IDENTIFICATION OF CASE STUDY AREAS 24 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 25 DATA ACQUISITION 25 GROUND-TRUTHING 33 CONSTRUCTION OF THE GIS DATABASE 33 INUNDATION SCENARIOS 33 DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL 33 HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL IMAGERY 34 BUILDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DATASET: THE GIS VULNERABILITY MAPS 34 STORM SURGE BUILDING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MODEL 34 TSUNAMI BUILDING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MODEL 40 INDEX-BASED METHODS AND VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS 40 THE PTVA-4 MODEL 42 TSUNAMI VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS 43 VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 47 PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS 48 RESULTS 52 EXPOSURE 52 BUILDINGS 52 INFRASTRUCTURE 55 VULNERABILITY 69 PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS 69 DISCUSSION 76 76 EXPOSURE VULNERABILITY AND PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS 77 08 . TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS 13 AIM AND OBJECTIVES 14 SCOPE 14 TARGET AUDIENCE 15 CONTEXT 15 BUILDING UPON PREVIOUS WORK 17 PROJECT DELIVERABLES 19 PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AC) 19 LITERATURE REVIEW REPORT (DALL’OSSO AND DOMINEY-HOWES.

FLOW-CHART OF NSW REGULATION. COVERMAR Project. RECOMMENDATIONS 82 RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND BUILDING VULNERABILITY 82 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 82 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 84 FURTHER RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES 87 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 87 CONCLUSION 88 REFERENCES 90 APPENDIX I. POLICY AND GUIDELINES ON COASTAL AND FLOOD RISK 92 APPENDIX II – VULNERABILITY MAPS 94 APPENDIX III.LIST OF PROJECT OUTCOMES 101 Coastal Inundation. 09 .

3. S UTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA: BUILDINGS PROVIDING CRITICAL SERVICE EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: PUYSEGUR). 26 FIGURE 7. BOTANY BAY COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO STORM SURGE INUNDATION. SUTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO STORM SURGE INUNDATION.NET. 20 FIGURE 6. 62 FIGURE 30. 45 FIGURE 13.). B OTANY BAY COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: NEW HEBRIDES). THE VULNERABILITY OF EACH BUILDING IS CALCULATED USING THE PTVA-3 MODEL AND REPRESENTED USING A COLOUR-CODED SCALE.528) WERE RANDOMLY SELECTED AND GROUND-TRUTHED TO CHECK THE ACCURACY OF THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW DATABASE. R  ESULTS OF THE SURVEY UNDERTAKEN TO RE-WEIGHT THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PTVA-3 MODEL INFLUENCING THE DEGREE OF PROTECTION PROVIDED TO SINGLE BUILDING BY THEIR SURROUNDINGS. 68 10 . 54 FIGURE 18. HTTP://WWW. WHILE GREEN BARS REPRESENT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE NEW WEIGHTS INDICATED BY THE INTERVIEWEES. EARTHQUAKE-GENERATED TSUNAMI: GENERATION. ONE STOREY MASONRY BUILDING FOR VALENCIA ET AL. 2011).ABC. PORT BOTANY: AREA EXPOSED TO STORM SURGE INUNDATION. FRAGILITY CURVES PUBLISHED IN SUPPASRI ET AL. 64 FIGURE 32.AU/NEWS/SPECIALS/JAPAN-QUAKE-2011/. 58 FIGURE 22. B OTANY BAY COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: PUYSEGUR). 55 FIGURE 19.. DATA WAS THEN GROUND-TRUTHED IN THE FIELD. 64 FIGURE 31. THE SELECTED CASE STUDY LOCATIONS: LGAS OF BOTANY BAY CITY AND ROCKDALE CITY COUNCILS AND SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL. TWO NEW ATTRIBUTES WERE ALSO SUGGESTED: ENGINEERED/NOT ENGINEERED BUILDINGS. BUILDING SURVEYS WERE UNDERTAKEN REMOTELY USING GOOGLE STREET VIEW.E. RED BARS REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL PTVA-3 WEIGHTS. N  ORMALIZED MEAN DAMAGE CURVE CALCULATED FOR A SINGLE STOREY TIMBER BUILDING AND CORRESPONDING FRAGILITY CURVES. AND BUILDINGS WITH A RAISED GROUND-FLOOR. 61 FIGURE 25. TSUNAMI VULNERABILITY MAP GENERATED BY DALL’OSSO AND DOMINEY-HOWES (2009). BLUE BARS REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL PTVA-3 WEIGHTS. CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXTREME SEA LEVELS DURING A STORM SURGE (MCINNES ET AL. S UTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA: BUILDINGS PROVIDING CRITICAL SERVICES EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: NEW HEBRIDES). NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN EACH LGA INUNDATED IN THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS GENERATED BY THE NEW HEBRIDES TRENCH. PROPAGATION AND INUNDATION. SYDNEY AIRPORT: AREA EXPOSED TO STORM SURGE INUNDATION.. THE RESULTING CURVES ARE DIFFERENT. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY UNDERTAKEN TO RE-WEIGHT THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE PTVA-3 MODEL INFLUENCING THE STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS TO TSUNAMIS.ABC. 60 FIGURE 23. 4  00 BUILDINGS (ABOUT 10% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS. RESIDENTIAL MASONRY BUILDINGS FOR REESE ET AL. (2012). SYDNEY AIRPORT: AREA EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION. 46 FIGURE 14. LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. 17 FIGURE 4. 16 FIGURE 3. SUTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA: NUMBER OF BUILDINGS PROVIDING CRITICAL SERVICES EXPOSED TO STORM SURGE INUNDATION. ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING TYPE IS DESCRIBED IN A SIMILAR WAY BY THE AUTHORS (I. BATE BAY AND PORT HACKING. 41 FIGURE 9. VISUAL COMPARISON OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY TSUNAMIS AND STORM SURGES.. 47 FIGURE 15.E. 63 FIGURE 27. E  XAMPLE OF FRAGILITY CURVES FOR RESIDENTIAL MASONRY BUILDINGS DEVELOPED IN SAMOA AFTER THE 2009 TSUNAMI (REESE ET AL. 63 FIGURE 26. THE PICTURES WERE BEFORE AND AFTER THE 2011 TUHOKU TSUNAMI (JAPAN) AND THE 2012 SANDY HURRICANE (USA) (HTTP://WWW. 42 FIGURE 10. AFTER THE 2004 IOT (VALENCIA ET AL.NET. THE STUDY AREA COVERS THE COASTAL ZONE OF BOTANY BAY AND GEORGES RIVER (UP TO THE COMO BRIDGE). THE SAME BUILDING IS GROUND-TRUTHED DURING FIELD SURVEYS. 52 FIGURE 16. 60 FIGURE 24. ROCKDALE COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO STORM SURGE INUNDATION. 2011) AND IN BANDA ACEH. (2012). 19 FIGURE 5. 64 FIGURE 28. 54 FIGURE 17. MEAN DAMAGE CURVES FOR BRICK BUILDINGS OBTAINED FROM THE FRAGILITY CURVES PUBLISHED BY SUPPASRI ET AL. R OCKDALE COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: PUYSEGUR). THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS EXTRACTED FROM GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND REPRESENTS A BUILDING IN DOLLS POINT (ROCKDALE). 57 FIGURE 20. M  EAN DAMAGE CURVES FOR TIMBER AND RC BUILDINGS OBTAINED FROM THE FRAGILITY CURVES PUBLISHED BY SUPPASRI ET AL. 2012). 57 FIGURE 21. ON THE LEFT.AU/NEWS/ SPECIALS/HURRICANE-SANDY-BEFORE-AFTER-PHOTOS/) 15 FIGURE 2. R OCKDALE COUNCIL AREA: TOTAL LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: NEW HEBRIDES). 43 FIGURE 11. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN EACH LGA INUNDATED IN THE STORM SURGE SCENARIOS. 33 FIGURE 8. WHILE GREEN BARS REPRESENT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE NEW WEIGHTS INDICATED BY THE INTERVIEWEES. 64 FIGURE 29 S  UTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA: LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: PUYSEGUR). I. THE CURVES EXPRESS THE PROBABILITY OF COLLAPSE AT DIFFERENT TSUNAMI FLOW DEPTHS. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN EACH LGA INUNDATED IN THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS GENERATED BY THE PUYSEGUR TRENCH. S UTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA: LENGTH OF ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION (ORIGINATING: NEW HEBRIDES).. FOR SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL. 2012 FOR 1 STOREY WOOD AND RC BUILDINGS 45 FIGURE 12. INDONESIA.

STORM INUNDATION SCENARIO N. 78 FIGURE 41. P  ML ESTIMATES FOR THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS TRIGGERED IN NEW HEBRIDES. RED COLUMNS REPRESENT AN IMAGINARY STOCK IN WHICH ALL BUILDINGS HAVE A RAISED GROUND FLOOR. WITH SCALES RANGING BETWEEN 1:5. PML OF BUILDINGS FOR EACH STORM SURGE SCENARIO (INCLUDING INACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS) 72 FIGURE 37. 79 FIGURE 43. TSUNAMI VULNERABILITY MAP OF FRAME S6 (SUTHERLAND COUNCIL). 94 FIGURE 45. BLUE COLUMNS REPRESENT THE EXISTING STOCK OF BUILDINGS. P  ML ESTIMATES FOR THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS TRIGGERED IN PUYSEGUR. STORM INUNDATION SCENARIO N. C  OVERAGE OF THE COVERMAR VULNERABILITY MAPS. RED COLUMNS REPRESENT IMAGINARY BUILDINGS WITH A RAISED GROUND FLOOR. TSUNAMI VULNERABILITY MAP OF FRAME S1 (SUTHERLAND COUNCIL). INUNDATION SCENARIO 100 Coastal Inundation. PML OF BUILDINGS FOR EACH TSUNAMI SCENARIO (EXCLUDING INACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS) 73 FIGURE 38. THE OIL PIPELINE ALONG THE PIER IN KURNELL (SUTHERLAND). STORM INUNDATION SCENARIO N. 96 FIGURE 47. 69 FIGURE 35.1. 75 FIGURE 40. FRAMES 1 TO 5 WERE PRINTED IN AN A0 FORMAT. 79 FIGURE 42. 98 FIGURE 49. 95 FIGURE 46. INUNDATION SCENARIO S5 99 FIGURE 50. 97 FIGURE 48. RED COLUMNS REPRESENT AN IMAGINARY STOCK IN WHICH ALL BUILDINGS HAVE A RAISED GROUND FLOOR. STORM SURGE VULNERABILITY MAP OF FRAME S6 (SUTHERLAND COUNCIL).000. PML OF BUILDINGS FOR EACH TSUNAMI SCENARIO (INCLUDING INACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS) 73 FIGURE 39. STORM SURGE VULNERABILITY MAP OF FRAME S1 (SUTHERLAND COUNCIL).2. 68 FIGURE 34. 72 FIGURE 36. FRAMES S1. BLUE COLUMNS REPRESENT THE EXISTING STOCK OF BUILDINGS. COVERMAR Project. C  OVERAGE OF THE COVERMAR VULNERABILITY MAPS. WHILE GREEN FRAMES SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE VULNERABILITY MAPS INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION (APPENDIX II). STORM SURGE VULNERABILITY MAP OF FRAME S7 (SUTHERLAND COUNCIL). PORT BOTANY: AREA EXPOSED TO TSUNAMI INUNDATION. S6 AND S7 ARE DETAIL MAPS (APPENDIX II).000 AND 1:10.FIGURE 33. BLUE COLUMNS REPRESENT THE EXISTING STOCK OF BUILDINGS. P  ML OF BUILDINGS FOR EACH STORM SURGE SCENARIO (INACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS ARE NOT CONSIDERED). 81 FIGURE 44. P  ML ESTIMATES FOR THE STORM SURGES SCENARIOS. INUNDATION SCENARIO S4. TSUNAMI VULNERABILITY MAP OF FRAME S7 (SUTHERLAND COUNCIL).3. PER-COUNCIL PML ESTIMATES FOR DAMAGE TO ROADS. RED FRAMES REPRESENT A0 MAPS (ATTACHED TO THE PRESENT REPORT IN A DIGITAL FORMAT). 11 .

70 TABLE 21. DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR EACH COVERMAR BUILDING TYPE. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS INUNDATED IN EACH TSUNAMI SCENARIO. THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS USED FOR PML CALCULATIONS IS SMALLER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INUNDATED BUILDINGS – THOSE INACCESSIBLE ARE NOT CONSIDERED. 35 TABLE 5. 39 TABLE 6. 55 TABLE 13. 59 TABLE 16. THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS USED FOR PML CALCULATION IS EQUAL TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INUNDATED BUILDINGS – THOSE INACCESSIBLE WERE INCLUDED IN THE PML ESTIMATE. MEAN DAMAGE CURVES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING BUILDING CLASS. THE COVERMAR BUILDING STOCK. THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS USED FOR PML CALCULATION IS EQUAL TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INUNDATED BUILDINGS – THOSE INACCESSIBLE WERE INCLUDED IN THE PML ESTIMATE. 44 TABLE 7. VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS FOR ASSESSING THE DAMAGE FROM TIDAL INUNDATION (STORM SURGE) USED IN COVERMAR. AREA OF SYDNEY AIRPORT AND PORT BOTANY (WITHIN BOTANY BAY LGA ONLY) INUNDATED BY THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS. ‘GRF’+GARAGE AND RAISED GROUND FLOOR. NUMBER OF BUILDINGS INUNDATED IN EACH STORM SURGE SCENARIO. S  UMMARY OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 46 TABLE 8. THE OVERALL ACCURACY OF THE COVERMAR DATASET WAS 94% (EXCLUDING THE 555 INACCESSIBLE BUILDINGS). ONCE COMPLETED. B  UILDING ATTRIBUTES REQUIRED BY THE COVERMAR VULNERABILITY MODELS. 70 TABLE 22. 25 TABLE 3. PML OF BUILDINGS CAUSED BY EACH TSUNAMI SCENARIO. 27 TABLE 4.COM. 56 TABLE 14. FOR THOSE COVERMAR BUILDING TYPES NOT INCLUDED IN THE GA DATASET. LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. P ML OF ALL BUILDINGS CAUSED BY EACH STORM SURGE SCENARIO. 58 TABLE 15. 21 TABLE 2. 73 TABLE 24. THESE ATTRIBUTES WERE COLLECTED REMOTELY USING GOOGLE STREET VIEW (NOVEMBER 2009) AND SCCG HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL IMAGES (2011). INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSED IN EACH OF THE STORM SURGE SCENARIOS IN THE SUTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA. THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS USED FOR PML CALCULATION IS SMALLER THAN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF INUNDATED BUILDINGS AS THOSE INACCESSIBLE ARE NOT CONSIDERED. P ML OF ALL BUILDINGS CAUSED BY EACH TSUNAMI SCENARIO. ‘RF’= RAISED GROUND FLOOR. TSUNAMI DAMAGE SCALE DESCRIPTION. C  ONTRIBUTION OF COVERMAR OUTPUTS TO THE APPLICATION/IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING NSW REGULATION AND GUIDELINES. INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSED TO EACH OF THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS IN THE BOTANY BAY COUNCIL AREA. AREA OF SYDNEY AIRPORT AND PORT BOTANY (WITHIN BOTANY BAY LGA ONLY) INUNDATED BY THE STORM SURGE SCENARIOS. INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSED TO EACH OF THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS IN THE ROCKDALE COUNCIL AREA. A CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE METRE WAS USED (HTTP:// WWW. 73 TABLE 23. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN THE COVERMAR BUILDING TYPES AND THE VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS LISTED IN TABLE 4. 53 TABLE 12. AFTER SUPPASRI ET AL.AU/CONSTRUCTION-COST-TABLE). 49 TABLE 10. ‘GGF’=GROUND FLOOR ENTIRELY USED AS A GARAGE. INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSED TO EACH OF THE STORM SURGE SCENARIOS IN THE ROCKDALE COUNCIL AREA. ‘RF’= RAISED GROUND FLOOR. INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSED TO EACH OF THE TSUNAMI SCENARIOS IN THE SUTHERLAND COUNCIL AREA. ‘G’=GARAGE. 61 TABLE 17. P ML OF BUILDINGS CAUSED BY EACH STORM SURGE SCENARIO. THE CONSTRUCTION COST PER BUILDING UNIT WAS PROVIDED BY GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA. INFRASTRUCTURE CLASSES WHOSE EXPOSURE WAS IDENTIFIED AND MAPPED 47 TABLE 9. 52 TABLE 11. 10% OF THE DATA SET WAS GROUND TRUTHED USING A SYSTEMATIC RANDOM SAMPLING TECHNIQUE.BMTQS. INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSED TO EACH OF THE STORM SURGE SCENARIOS IN BOTANY BAY COUNCIL AREA. ‘GRF’+GARAGE AND RAISED GROUND FLOOR. ‘G’=GARAGE. 67 TABLE 20. 62 TABLE 19. 76 12 . BUILDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT RESULTS. (2012). ‘GGF’=GROUND FLOOR ENTIRELY USED FOR GARAGES. 62 TABLE 18. PML ESTIMATES ($ THOUSANDS) FOR DAMAGE TO ARTERIAL AND LOCAL ROADS FOR EACH TSUNAMI SCENARIO. 74 TABLE 25.

13 .ACRONYMS AHD Australian Height Datum ComMIT Community Model Interface for Tsunamis COVERMAR Coastal Vulnerability to Multiple Inundation Sources DEM Digital Elevation Model ECL East Coast Low GIS Geographic Information System LGA Local Government Area MOST Method of Splitting Tsunamis NCTR NOAA Centre for Tsunami Research NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration PML Probable Maximum Loss PTVA Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability Model RVI Relative Vulnerability Index SCCG Sydney Coastal Councils Group Incorporated Coastal Inundation. COVERMAR Project.

incorporating storm and tsunami hazards. Create knowledge to underpin decision making and planning.e. public transport. and critical buildings including Government storm surge and tsunami scenarios: (e. council offices.g. storm surge. 4. disaster preparedness (including education and evacuation) and recovery and response. d) Hazard risk to NSW from tsunami and storm surge. Surf Life Savers).g.g. c) Building fragility curves. Improve the modelling and risk assessment capacity of local government and emergency services in relation to individual and multiple inundation hazards.AIM AND OBJECTIVES AIM Enhance the capability of local government and State agencies to assess the vulnerability of the built environment to extreme marine inundation caused by storm surges and tsunamis. infrastructure. Assess the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure 2.g. Enhance scientific understanding of single. +34 cm centres). Engage key stakeholders. Police Stations.000 yr tsunamis. 2. 14 . Enhance transferability of coastal risk assessment technology to local government.g. sea level and +97 cm high tide). 3. • 1/100 yr. 7. OBJECTIVES 1. impact and vulnerability. education (e. sports centres. hospitals. SCOPE IN SCOPE 1. occurring under different sea Sydney Water buildings). Review and synthesise published and grey literature • 1/100 yr. health (e. to the selected inundation scenarios in relation to 3. 5. coastal hazards and disasters. allowing a comparison of the risk posed by different types of extreme inundations so as to inform long term risk reduction measures and emergency management strategies. heritage buildings. Generate thematic maps showing the level of vulnerability of single buildings and infrastructure to selected inundation events. utilities (e. theatres. 5. mean inundation.and multi-hazard inundation scenarios. Fire Brigade. 1/1. +34 cm and b) Emergency risk management in NSW pertaining to +84 cm) and with two different tide levels (i. 6. conditions (i. Develop a multi-hazard assessment tool. applied to three local government case study areas in NSW. power transmission.e. Undertake a vulnerability assessment. 2010 mean sea level. 6. medical level conditions (i. Undertake a multi-hazard assessment for the following streets. churches). and education regarding. Improve community resilience to. 4. relating to: originating at two sources (Puysegur Trench and New Hebrides Trench). Develop a multi-hazard tool to assess the vulnerability of buildings and critical infrastructure to extreme marine inundations caused by both storm surges and tsunamis.000 yr and 1/10.e. occurring under different sea level a) Storm surge and tsunami. 2010 mean sea level. schools and kindergartens) and +84 cm) and recreational/heritage (e.

net.net. Tsunamis generated by submarine landslides.abc. 2. In addition.000 buildings are at ‘risk’ from inundation and erosion.au/news/specials/hurricane-sandy-before-after-photos/) Coastal Inundation. Visual comparison of the damage caused by tsunamis and storm surges. More than 200. CONTEXT Storm surges and tsunamis are different physical processes: the former are forced by meteorological drivers and the latter. COVERMAR Project. The report can also assist other stakeholders such as emergency managers and response agencies. However.OUT OF SCOPE 1. the impacts of these events may be similar (Figure 1). The value of building contents (i. BEFORE AFTER STORM SURGE TSUNAMI Figure 1. NSW is susceptible to both storm surges and tsunamis.e. Storm surges and tsunamis cannot be avoided. continued urbanisation as well as predicted future sea level rise can exacerbate exposure. some 20. 4.000 properties are located <1 km from the shoreline and at <3 m above sea level (Chen and McAneny. The consideration of wave run-up in the storm surge inundation scenarios. 3. chattels and other moveable items) in the calculation of economic loss.abc. TARGET AUDIENCE Local government and State agency professional staff involved in the assessment. The pictures were before and after the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami (Japan) and the 2012 Sandy Hurricane (USA) (http://www. 15 . by geologic mechanisms. however impacts can be reduced by mitigating vulnerability. http://www. in most instances. planning and management of coastal and floodplain hazards and who are generally familiar with the concepts and matters outlined in this report.au/news/specials/japan-quake-2011/. Within the Sydney basin. 2006). The consideration of hydraulic processes in the storm surge inundation scenarios.

au/Projects 16 . the study area covers the coastal zone of Botany Bay and Georges River (up to the Como Bridge). Bate Bay and Port Hacking.The vulnerability of coastal assets to different inundation events has been calculated using a variety of approaches rendering it extremely difficult for decision makers and planners to understand and compare the results of different vulnerability assessments. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the tool. The first stage Literature Review Report and second stage Hazard Assessment Report are available on the project webpage: http://www.com. It also complicates the development of balanced. namely tsunamis and storm surges. For Sutherland Shire Council. The selected case study locations: LGAs of Botany Bay City and Rockdale City Councils and Sutherland Shire Council. This report represents the third and final stage of the project. it was applied to three case study LGAs within the Sydney Metropolitan Area. multi-hazard mitigation strategies. COVERMAR helps to overcome these difficulties by providing NSW emergency and risk managers with a tool capable of comparing the risks posed by multiple hazards. Figure 2.sydneycoastalcouncils. namely Botany Bay City and Rockdale City Councils and Sutherland Shire Council (Figure 2).

17 . foundation type. 2003.g. 1200 and 300 and land use planning strategies. Tarbotton et al. Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes recommendations for long-term tsunami risk management (2009) identified and mapped respectively.au/ They assessed the vulnerability to tsunamis of these buildings Project/Vulnerability _of_Buildings_Tsunami_Flooding Figure 3. 2009). robustly and sensitively determined..BUILDING UPON PREVIOUS WORK A Method for Assessing the Vulnerability of Buildings Catastrophic (Tsunami) Marine Flooding’ (Dall’Osso and to Catastrophic (Tsunami) Marine Flooding Dominey-Howes. Tsunami vulnerability map generated by Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes (2009). material of Vulnerability assessment – Manly and Maroubra using the PTVA-3 Model. This research. version 3 construction. The model calculates a Relative Vulnerability Index (RVI) the world’s most widely used index-based method for assessing for each building within an expected inundation zone as a the vulnerability of buildings to tsunamis (Tarbotton et al. the PTVA Model is 2012). viewed online: http://www. To date. Project outputs may be buildings that would be inundated by a 5 m tsunami wave. Dall’Osso et al. building types to potential tsunami threats (Papathoma and the differences between different building structures can be Dominey-Howes.com. and the like). Papathoma Tsunami Vulnerability Assessment Model.. Coastal Inundation. also funded under the Natural Disaster Resilience Program. The advantage of index-based The PTVA-3 model is an index-based computer tool offering a methods is that since they incorporate many idealised structural GIS-based approach to estimating the vulnerability of different attributes in the calculation of the total vulnerability of a building. version 3) and applied it to a ‘Method for Assessing the Vulnerability of Buildings to the oceanic Sydney beaches of Manly and Maroubra to evaluate the impact of a hypothetical tsunami on buildings.sydneycoastalcouncils. COVERMAR Project. function of its attributes (e.. number of storeys. 2012). 2009a. generating a set of thematic building vulnerability maps (see for example Figure 3) and provided In Manly and Maroubra. In 2009. Dall’Osso based vulnerability assessment tool (the Papathoma Tsunami and Dominey-Howes undertook a project which developed Vulnerability Assessment Model. developed a GIS- This project contributes to existing research. The vulnerability of each building is calculated using the PTVA-3 Model and represented using a colour-coded scale. surroundings and expected tsunami flow-depth.

of tsunamis and storm surges with the same annual probability of occurrence. 2013). elevation less than 7m AHD was assumed to be equally inundated by a flat. surge with a higher initial sea level can inundate a different expanse of area. assessing and comparing the impacts • Focused on vulnerability to tsunamis. • Improved the PTVA-3 Model by including weights assigned • Assignment of weights through a multi-criteria analysis based on under a multi-criteria analysis. • Probabilistic assessment of tsunami and storm surge hazards. infrastructure linked to the selected inundation scenarios. • Consideration of different sea level conditions.THE COVERMAR CONTRIBUTION The 2009 project identified a number of areas where outputs could be enhanced. 2009 • Multi-hazard approach.000 damaged buildings. the flow-depth.. functions for tsunamis and storm surges. The use of vulnerability functions offers important advantages over index-based methods PTVA Model. or the flow velocity) to the expected response of a particular building type. • Methodology is compatible with NSW coastal risk management. Sea level rise and tide variations are included in the selected tsunami and storm • A single initial sea level condition. The fragility functions adopted include: (a) tsunami functions developed after the 2011 Japan tsunami by Suppasri et al. and (b) flood functions developed by Geoscience Australia for typical Australian buildings (Maqsood et al. This information is of utmost importance to local councils and coastal risk managers. (2012). • These matters were not considered. • Implemented insights from contemporary building vulnerability • Tsunami vulnerability functions were not considered. • Calculated the economic losses of buildings and critical • Economic losses were not considered.g. the construction material is more important than the building preservation condition). contribution of different building engineering attributes to the final building vulnerability index as a weighted sum. because it allows a comparison between different hazard types. This facilitates the implementation of COVERMAR outcomes and recommendations by local councils and coastal risk and emergency managers. COVERMAR re-weighted the building vulnerability attributes based on the judgments of leading scientists in the field. corresponding to the 2009 mean surge scenarios. 18 . who surveyed over 252.e. and also accounted for new knowledge generated after the 2011 Japan tsunami. • Hydrodynamic simulation of inundation scenarios using state-of. • Static bathtub-filling method. COVERMAR addresses those areas and the enhancements undertaken are detailed below: COVERMAR DALL’OSSO AND DOMINEY-HOWES. These are continuous curves that associate the intensity of the inundation (i. land use planning and emergency management legislation. This is important as the same tsunami or storm sea level. static water level. Weights are a valuable contribution to the model because different building attributes differentially influence the final building vulnerability (e. The PTVA model calculates the the judgment of a restricted number of experts. All • Deterministic approach which concentrated on the tsunami ‘worst inundation scenarios that were analysed were associated with case scenario’ (probabilistic estimates were unavailable). Any area with a topographic the-art numerical models. the annual probability of occurrence. high tide conditions. adopting the approach used in the insurance and re-insurance industry (Probable Maximum Loss).

19 . caused by a combination of high tide. When storm surges are associated with a high- tide. 2010). Figure 4. Input from relevant experts throughout the project ensured that the project benefitted from considerable intellectual capital – drawing upon extensive experience and qualifications.. The term vulnerability refers to the characteristics of an asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard (UN ISDR. 2013) Published and grey literature in the following areas were investigated. 1994). 2009).e. A hazard is a potentially damaging natural phenomenon defined by its intensity. The AC was established at the project’s inception through a process which first identified the skill set necessary to meet the project aim and objectives and then cross-referenced this skill set against experts from international. risk prevention and mitigation. b) Extreme inundations in NSW: storm surges and tsunamis Storm surges are the temporary increase. Coastal Inundation. 2012).PROJECT DELIVERABLES COVERMAR delivered the following: PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AC) The creation and facilitation of an AC of relevant experts was a key output. Federal. hazard and vulnerability in the context of natural disasters Despite the high number of definitions that can be found in the literature. evaluated and synthesised to provide context and background information on: a) The definition of risk. subscribing to a comprehensive terms of reference. the combined water level is known as a ‘storm tide’ (Helmann et al. low barometric pressure. COVERMAR Project. The Committee was able to retain and engage key stakeholders and ensured the project outputs were of the highest quality. State and local organisations involved in coastal hazards. The AC was instrumental in guiding and informing all stages of the project and value adding outputs.. probability of occurrence and spatial distribution (Coburn et al. Contributions to extreme sea levels during a storm surge (McInnes et al. During a storm tide. in the height of the sea due to extreme meteorological conditions (low atmospheric pressure and/or strong winds) (IPCC. • A temporary increase of water level due to the action of waves on top of the still water level (wave run-up). the concept of risk as a function of ‘hazard’ and ‘vulnerability’ is accepted and widely used. wind and wave set-up (i. LITERATURE REVIEW REPORT (DALL’OSSO AND DOMINEY-HOWES. at a particular locality. 2012). the increased water level along the shore has two main contributors: • A rise of the ‘still water’ level. the piling-up of water on the coastline due to the dissipation of wind and wave energy). These experts were then invited to join the AC.

As a tsunami approaches the coast. the still water level along the NSW coastal fringe may increase up to about 2 m (without considering the contribution of tide). Each class is discussed in detail in the COVERMAR Literature Review Report. and wave run-up can reach 3–6 m (NSW Government. Project outputs inform. This ‘wave train’ may have wavelengths in excess of 100 km and periods of minutes to over an hour. policy and guidelines on coastal and flood risk In NSW regulation and policy on coastal hazards is divided into three main classes: 1.htm). NSW standards. such as New South Wales.gov. The flow-chart has been updated to include the amendments introduced by the 2012 NSW Coastal Reforms (www. 2. Appendix I includes a flow- chart summarising the relationships between these classes. Figure 5. tsunami waves can exceed 30 m in height. Further. In eastern Australia. or volcanic activity  (NOAA. landslides. 2007). c) NSW regulation. During East Coast Lows. Strategic Planning and Development Assessment.nsw. 20 . many of the matters addressed in the legislation and policy instruments (Table 1).environment. Earthquake-generated tsunami: generation. When reaching the shore. at the local and State level. Reported geological evidence however. propagation and inundation. Emergency Management and Response. suggests that megatsunamis many times larger than the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (IOT) may have occurred repeatedly during the Holocene (the last 10. 2001). with the latter typically developing in middle-latitude regions.au/coasts/stage1coastreforms. Tsunamis are a series of ocean waves generated by sudden displacements in the sea floor. On the coast of NSW. Coastal and Floodplain Risk Management. and among the individual legislative instruments within each class. 2006). 1990). storm surges are normally associated with tropical cyclones or East Coast Lows (ECLs). 2012) (Figure 5). 3. depending on the generation mechanism (IOC.000 years) (Bryant and Nott. guidelines and regulations were examined to ensure that the COVERMAR methodology was consistent. after the publication of the Literature Review Report. tide-gauge records show that historically only small tsunamis have affected the region (Dominey- Howes. its velocity decreases (with the decrease in water depth) and the wave amplitude increases (an effect of the energy conservation principle).

Paragraph 3. ambulance stations.3 outlines that a CZMP may address other risks [such as tsunamis] to public safety or built assets or the environment in the coastal zone if actions are proposed by council or a public authority to reduce these risks.1. COAST GUIDE) The COVERMAR approach is consistent with the Guidelines for Preparing CZMPs (OEH 2013). b) scenarios (under different sea level conditions).1).2. COVERMAR Project.5). The minimum requirements for coastal risks advised in the CZMP Guidelines do not include tsunamis in the list of those coastal hazards that must be considered when preparing a CZMP. c) the projected climate change impacts on risks from coastal hazards. such as those included in the Building Code of Australia (Section 3. However. The COVERMAR GIS database. 21 . (Section 3. c) the location. assess evacuation plans and undertake actions to minimise risk to life and reduce property damage (Section 3. including their vulnerability to inundation. particularly the requirements ACT (1979) for coastal zone management plans.2.g. NSW STATE d) the degree of vulnerability of inundated buildings and those that could suffer structural damage due STORM to coastal erosion. police stations. which includes detailed data on coastal topography.Table 1.1). The maps also support NSW SES by contributing on an opportunity basis to building codes related to reducing the impacts of storm phenomena on buildings.2. NSW are suitable for use as visual aids for education activities that NSW SES may undertake to raise public EMERGENCY awareness of tsunami risk (Section 3.9.1.6. COASTAL The COVERMAR methodology enables a more detailed consideration of storm surge and tsunami inundation PROTECTION than the minimum requirements advocated in the Coastal Protection Act 1979 NSW. b) the expected maximum water depth. Section 3. etc. c) the expected maximum water depth.2). nursing homes. tsunami exposure and vulnerability maps show which buildings would safely resist the SUB-PLAN selected scenarios and which would be suitable for vertical evacuation (Section 3.2. NSW STATE The information that is stored and organised within the COVERMAR GIS database (that can be utilised by FLOOD the SES intelligence system) includes: SUB-PLAN a) a high resolution digital elevation model (showing topographic elevations across the study area). public transport. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT b) the expected maximum inundation depth for the selected storm scenarios. COVERMAR outputs. The COVERMAR vulnerability maps also include information on the ‘type’ and the ‘use’ of every building exposed to tsunamis.2. Paragraph 3. COVERMAR tsunami exposure and vulnerability maps show: a) the extension of the inundation for the selected tsunami scenario (under different sea level conditions). COVERMAR informs on: a) coastal processes within the plan’s area. c) the vulnerability of single buildings or infrastructure that would be inundated. Paragraph 3. can readily be used to develop/update the tsunami intelligence system. This information can easily be incorporated into the existing tsunami emergency plans and the tsunami intelligence system (see the NSW Tsunami Emergency Sub-Plan). COVERMAR identifies tsunami-safe areas and buildings suitable for vertical evacuation. expected tsunami inundation depth and engineering attributes of single buildings and infrastructure.1 – Paragraph 3. Paragraph 3. shape. This high-resolution information will contribute to the updating/improving of existing tsunami emergency and evacuation plans. orientation and main engineering characteristics of existing building and critical infrastructure. COVERMAR produced exposure maps that show the extent of inundation in the selected case PLANS scenarios. including for example health services buildings (hospitals. in addition to their physical attributes and vulnerability.2). including maps and tsunami simulation outputs (e.11). In terms of tsunami risk reduction measures. and the like (Paragraph 5. NSW* NSW COASTAL RISK MANAGEMENT The COVERMAR methodology for assessing building vulnerability to storm surges follows the 2010 Coast COASTAL RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE (2010 Guide.6.6.). Contribution of COVERMAR outputs to the application/implementation of existing NSW regulation and guidelines. Coastal Inundation. or at a level of detail sufficient to inform decision- making. The COVERMAR methodology addresses the minimum assessment criteria required for addressing coastal COASTAL ZONE inundation and tidal inundation components of coastal hazard definition studies (Section 3.1). This assists NSW SES identify and protect the essential resources required to respond to the impacts of tsunami. TSUNAMI Most importantly. wave propagation/inundation).11. SUB-PLAN These maps will assist NSW SES identify critical areas. b) the nature and extent of risks to public safety and built assets from coastal hazards. as specifically recommended by the CZMP Guidelines. In estuary areas. COVERMAR exposure and vulnerability maps will provide NSW SES with information to assist the updating of flood emergency plans and in developing/updating of the related flood intelligence system (Paragraph 4. MANAGEMENT In addition. strategic utilities.2). REFERENCE COVERMAR CONTRIBUTION COVERMAR storm surge exposure and vulnerability maps show: a) the extent of the inundation for the selected storm.

com. As a consequence. a relatively small volume of information about their impact on buildings is available. Project outputs will assist the application of each of the six Sea Level Rise Coastal Planning Principles. The COVERMAR methodology is consistent with the 2010 NSW Coastal Planning Guidelines. building A is more/less vulnerable than building B). the COVERMAR approach is consistent with the 2010 Flood Guide. Table 1. MANAGEMENT PLANS SEPP 71 requires local councils to consider the impact of coastal hazards when preparing LEPs or assessing SEPP 71 – development in coastal zones. d) Methods to assess the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure to storm surges Storm surges can damage coastal assets in two main ways: 1. e) Methods to assess the vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure to tsunamis Available methods include either index-based methods (e. which can undermine the foundations of the first row of buildings on the coast. that can be used to support any ASSESSMENT GUIDELINE: education and dissemination activity to advise the public of coastal risks to ensure that informed land ADAPTING TO use planning and development decision making can occur (Principle 2). Coastal erosion. Ministerial Direction 2.2 UNDER SECTION By reason of the GIS approach. PLANNING b) generates self-explanatory exposure and vulnerability maps.g. Vulnerability to coastal erosion is assessed by calculating the erosion lines and mapping the zones of reduced foundation capacity. These are mathematical models (curves) associating the expected percentage of damage to a building in response to different inundation depths. COVERMAR: COASTAL a) assesses and evaluates specific coastal risks (Principle 1). the Coastal Design Guidelines PROTECTION (2003) and the Coast Manual. Index-based methods are relative. Specifically. REFERENCE COVERMAR CONTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT NSW FLOOD RISK FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT GUIDE (2010 COVERMAR addresses the risk of river flood where this is due to storm surges causing tidal inundation along river FLOOD GUIDE) estuaries. as indicated in the 2010 NSW Coastal Risk Management Guide.au/node/106 22 . COVERMAR outputs (vulnerability and exposure maps.2.sydneycoastalcouncils. GIS database) 117 OF THE provide new geographic information that can be readily incorporated into strategic planning and PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT EP&A ACT development assessment. Inundation scenarios and FLOODPLAIN are based upon the predicted extent of a flood with an annual probability of 1/100. d) provides recommendations for appropriate management responses and adaptation strategies (Principle 6).g. but more accurate in capturing the differences between different building types.g. the PTVA Model) or tsunami vulnerability functions. 2. In this regard.2 (Coastal Protection) under Section 117 requires LEPs COASTAL applying to the coastal zone to be consistent with the NSW Coastal Policy. Contribution of COVERMAR outputs to the application/implementation of existing NSW regulation and guidelines. building A will suffer 70% damage if struck by a 2 m-deep tsunami flow). SEA LEVEL RISE c) supports coastal planners’ decisions about land use intensification/reduction (Principles 3 and 4) and (2010) helps them minimise exposure to coastal risks (Principle 5). Vulnerability to overtopping is estimated using flood vulnerability functions for different building types. existing vulnerability functions for tsunamis possess a high degree of variability. The full version of the Literature Review Report is available online at the SCCG project page: http://www. whereas vulnerability functions provide absolute estimates of the expected damage (e. superseded by the CZMP Guidelines 2010 and more recently the CZMP Guidelines (OEH 2013). Due to the low frequency of tsunamis worldwide. DIRECTION 2. and tidal inundation (inundation along tidal waterways). Further. the COVERMAR approach is consistent with all NSW Policy and Regulations mentioned in Direction 2. Index- based methods provide a relative assessment of the vulnerability of every building (e. Overtopping of coastal dunes and seawalls. COVERMAR used an approach combining index-based methods and vulnerability functions.

• Inundation by extending the tsunami nearshore and onshore. Engineers Australia. resulting in a total increase of +6 cm by 2010 (McInnes et al.nsw.HAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT The Hazard Assessment report undertaken in Stage 2 of the project describes the methodology employed to select and simulate the COVERMAR inundation scenarios (tsunamis and storm surges) addressing: a) The multi-criteria analysis undertaken by the COVERMAR Advisory Committee to select the most suitable case study locations. occurring under the three sea level conditions above. MOST numerically simulates earthquake- generated tsunamis using a stepwise approach: • Deformation of the ocean floor caused by an earthquake. The probability of occurrence was calculated based on the work of Burbidge et al. (2012). COVERMAR Project..au/coasts/stage1coastreforms. the three sea level conditions. and applied as ‘testing points’ rather than proposed as benchmarks for specific time horizons.. McInnes et al. (2012) used data from a previous storm (tide. These ‘reforms’ transferred to local government the responsibility of selecting appropriate sea level projections. The NSW sea level benchmarks were withdrawn in late 2012 as part of the Stage 1 NSW Coastal Reforms (www. with vertical accuracy of 0. we used the outputs of the numerical modelling undertaken by McInnes et al. Accordingly. as part of the SCCG project entitled Mapping and Responding to Coastal Inundation. the selected case study Councils had not formally adopted new sea level rise benchmarks. d) Results of the simulations in form of GIS inundation maps. the former NSW sea level benchmarks were used for illustrative purposes of the multi-hazard tool.25 m to show the extent of the inundation and enable a count of exposed buildings and infrastructure. 2012). mean sea level. and high tide vs. The numerical modelling was undertaken using a combination of two hydrodynamic models (GCOM 2D and SWAN) to obtain the maximum water level alongshore. that is +40 cm for 2050 and +90 cm for 2100 (above the 1990 mean sea level). 23 . The storm surge inundation scenarios used the usual return time considered for extreme storm events (1/100 yr. c) The numerical models used to simulate the selected scenarios. accessed through the online platform ComMIT (Community Model Interface for Tsunamis) (Titov et al.gov. Coastal Inundation. A modified bathtub-filling approach propagated the water level inland to generate the inundation layers. Numerical modelling outputs were imported into a GIS system as vector layers and superimposed upon aerial images and a Digital Elevation Model provided by SCCG.000). For tsunamis. • Propagation of the tsunami across the ocean using nonlinear shallow water wave equations. 2012). b) The selected inundation scenarios.. This data was also extrapolated to a 1/100 year event (controlling for tide phasing and wind stress). The selected tsunami scenarios were simulated using the model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Centre for Tsunami Research (MOST – Method for Splitting Tsunamis).htm).000 and 1/10. For the storm surge scenarios. three annual probabilities (1/100. 1/1. Specifically. storm surge and wave setup using still water levels at Fort Denison) which corresponded to a 1/1 year event. This equated to a sea level increase of + 34cm for 2050 and + 84 cm for 2100. Storm surge and tsunami events were simulated under three different initial sea level conditions with respect to the 1990 sea level. we utilised 2010 sea level as the current condition and adopted the former NSW sea level rise benchmarks (DECCW 2009). At the time of writing this report. environment. 2011). (2008). we selected 36 probabilistic scenarios which combined two sources (North and South East of the study area). We adjusted the sea level increases for a 2010 current condition by subtracting 6 cm based on the assumption of a mean sea level rise of 3 mm/year occurring between 1990 and 2010.

However. h) Conclusion. • are within a discrete physiographic unit. We presented the results of the vulnerability assessment at the 2013 NSW Coastal Conference (Dall’Osso et al. tsunamis would produce flow velocities exceeding 15 m/sec. we generated two thematic maps – one showing the maximum flow velocity reached during the inundation and one showing the maximum water level (a total of 72 maps).. For each tsunami scenario. e) Estimates of PML. 2013). a 1/100 yr. 2009). Port Hacking and Bate Bay). e) Discussion and conclusion. The methodology and the results of the vulnerability assessment process are described below. f) Discussion. Flow velocity is relevant because it is likely to influence the extent of damage to built and natural assets. The vulnerability assessment process includes the following elements: a) Survey of the buildings and infrastructure exposed to the selected inundation scenarios. Botany Bay and Rockdale City Councils and Sutherland Shire Council were selected through this process as the case study locations because they: • are significantly vulnerable to inundation (Botany Bay. Results were similar across all three annual probabilities of occurrence. Further.  24 . c) Description of the storm surge and the tsunami vulnerability models. storm surge event would inundate an area larger than or equal to a tsunami occurring with the same initial sea level. d) Results of the vulnerability assessment for buildings and infrastructure: the GIS vulnerability maps. the tsunamis triggered by earthquakes in Puysegur (New Zealand) would reach the study area in only 2h30m. a velocity greater than that reported for storm surge of up to 4 m/sec (Oey and Wang. b) Construction and description of the GIS. • possessed the requisite input data. The short evacuation lead times have implications for emergency management. We then compared these outputs against similar maps showing the storm surge inundation extent. IDENTIFICATION OF CASE STUDY AREAS The COVERMAR tool developed was then applied to three case study areas selected through a multi-criteria analysis comparing the exposure of the SCCG’s 15 Member Councils’ LGAs to extreme inundations. Results showed that for each of the three Sydney study areas. g) Recommendations for long-term risk reduction strategies.

%*.5FFGH.".Building Use Government Google Street View Utility Use and Size Recreational Heritage Number of residential or 2. Building Row 1 .'11"&'1+.<!=>?->. 3..-%&)'#.(+. ! Surveys were undertaken remotely using Google Street View and high resolution aerial images provided by SCCG.3@%&'##.. The overall accuracy Barriers to was the COVERMAR dataset the 94%building by coastal (excluding the 555 inaccessible buildings). Accordingly.+..7")#8)$9.listed in Table 2. D%P1#"8)$9.A'. Building attributes required by the COVERMAR vulnerability models.(")#8)$9. These parksattributes were collected remotely using Google Street View (November and marinas 2009) and SCCG High Resolution Aerial images (2011). Building Material/Style Brick veneer Google Street View Full brick Reinforced concrete 4.. 25 .I)9:.>%.*%1:$)2"%6. Google Street 0'*'. namely the amount of time required C*&%%*.'$8.C. while aerial images were taken in 2011.*:%. Seawall Degree of protection provided (2011) and Google to the building by sea walls Street View 16.".%*..56. Number of Storeys 1. 3 . original PTVA model. Past inundation events have demonstrated that rigid multi-storey buildings with steel or reinforced concrete (RC) structures perform much better than single storey timber or brick veneer structures..QQQ. Ground Floor Type Non raised GF Long footprint L-shaped footprint SCCG Aerial Imagery 8.. These attributes are. Ground -Floor(GF) GF averagely open (average Hydrodynamics number of windows and Google Street View openings) GF moderately open (many Building structure windows./38%#. " *:%8. 555 were not visible on Google Street View A'.B. A similar /'9%.&%/3*%#+.<!=>?->. The COVEMAR Hazard Assessment Report undertook a first-order estimate of the number of buildings that would be flooded by each inundation scenario.'**&)("*%.%. Naturalof technique. or .'. Brick Wall Height of brick walls around Google Street View the building ! ! Coastal Inundation. 2.. the structural features of characteristic buildings in the study areas are the main input required by building vulnerability models. acquisition of data on large numbers of buildings and overcomes a significant &%2")&%8.13##%1*%8.3N.!)%A. 2 .)$9. 10% Degree of the of protection data set wasprovided ground truthed SCCGusing a systematic Aerial Imagery random sampling 13.. COVERMAR Project.)*)3$ system offering. ! Our survey approach permits the rapid 4'(#%.. we conducted a visual survey to determine the attributes required by the building !"#$%&'()#)*+.3#"*)3$.<$1%.VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT DATA ACQUISITION The vulnerability of a building to inundation is a function of its physical and engineering attributes.8'*'.4:%. 4 or more than 5 (2011) SCCG Aerial Imagery 15. (2013). The street level ! images were recorded by Google between November and December 2009.%.3N.*:%.. criticism of the B339#%.)$'11%.JF method was adopted by M. Preservation Condition Averagely preserved Google Street View Well preserved Basement Google Street View 10.)$9.*%/'*)1. large glass doors) GF completely open (columns and windows. A total of 4083 buildings were surveyed.&'$83/.6./%$* vulnerability models utilised. Once completed. Movable Objects movable objects are SCCG Aerial Imagery concentrated such as car (2011) Table 2. View is an online '12"). in the field.'**&)("*%.*:%. georeferenced images of single building units within a chosen area (Figure 6). Maqsood et al.4:%. Foundations Footings Google Street View Deep pile GF completely closed (no windows) GF moderately closed (a few windows) 6. Garage Garage Google Street View No garage Proximity to areas where large 12. Shape and Orientation Rectangular footprint (2011) Square footprint Round footprint Badly preserved 9.@"#$%&'()#)*+.DE3@%/(%&.. 4 or more than 5 Google Street View Slab on ground 5. Basement No basement 11.GOM accessible .A%&%. 9&3"$8..D5FJJH6.13/K#%*%8L. )(#%. no walls) Raised GF Google Street View 7. For each building. Most of these buildings were located in proximity to the water along Georges River and Port Hacking.) for field surveys. Number of units commercial units within the Google Street View building Fibro Wood 3.H 6.*:%.*&Of the 4083 buildings surveyed.'/K#)$9. (2011) dunes and vegetation Building Surroundings st nd rd th SCCG Aerial Imagery 14. ! ATTRIBUTE CLASS ATTRIBUTE TYPE ATTRIBUTE OPTIONS SURVEY TECHNIQUE Residential Commercial Health 1.8'*'.-.

4 or more than 5 Google Street View ! Slab on ground Google Street View 5. Round footprint &%2")&%8.&'$83/.-.'**&)("*%.'.-%&)'#. This allowed us to allocate one code per building.3#"*)3$. GF averagely open (average Hydrodynamics number of windows and Google Street View openings) GF moderately open (many !"#$%&'()#)*+.7")#8)$9. 3.'11"&'1+.*&" *:%8.".. Buildingof 2.6. building attributes numbers 3 and 4 of Table 2 are ! automatically determined by Table 3.JF Averagely preserved M.3N.I)9:. Shape and Orientation Rectangular footprint (2011) Square footprint Round footprint Badly preserved 9. Preservation Condition Averagely preserved Google Street View Well preserved Basement Google Street View 10. provided protection Aerial Imageryin the field then ground-truthed (2011) and Google to the building by sea walls Street View Height of brick walls around In orderto optimise the time dedicated toWall 16..'$8.13/K#%*%8L.@"#$%&'()#)*+.)(#%...)$9. no walls) Raised GF Google Street View 7./%$* . ! "# ! 26 . Number Row units 1 . Brick collecting the building attributes listed in Table 2.A'. Google Street View 9&3"$8.%*. Ground Floor Type Google Street View 0'*'. For each class.GOM.) 9. '12").8'*'. Basement D%P1#"8)$9.56. ! which represent the totality of building types in the study area (Table 3). no walls) ! Raised GF 7.*%/'*)1. Well preserved A'.13##%1*%8. large glass doors) GF completely open (columns and windows.*:%. Garage Garage Google Street View ATTRIBUTE CLASS ATTRIBUTE TYPE ATTRIBUTE No garage OPTIONS SURVEY TECHNIQUE Proximity Residential to areas where large 12.B. 16. Google Street View 10.Google the building we generated Street View 24 different building classes. 2 . Badly preserved B339#%.)*)3$ . 2 .D5FJJH6.>%.&%/3*%#+. Seawall Degree of protection provided Fibro (2011) and Google to the building by sea walls Wood Street View 3.8'*'. Foundations Footings Deep pile GF completely closed (no windows) GF moderately closed (a few windows) 6. 3 .<$1%. 4 or more than 5the (2011) commercial units within Google Street View building SCCG Aerial Imagery 15.DE3@%/(%&. Movable Objects movable objects are SCCG Aerial Imagery concentrated such as car (2011) parks and marinas Degree of protection provided SCCG Aerial Imagery 13.%*. Building surveys were undertaken 15.<!=>?->.C*&%%*. Non raised GF Long footprint ! L-shaped footprint SCCG Aerial Imagery 8. Ground -Floor(GF) ! Hydrodynamics "# ! GF averagely open (average number of windows and Google Street View openings) GF moderately open (many Building structure windows.5FFGH..%. Basement No basement ! 11. Movable Objects movable Commercial objects are SCCG Aerial Imagery concentrated Health such as car (2011) 1.4:%.*%1:$)2"%6. Preservation Condition /'9%.)$'11%. Building Row 1 ..Building Use parks and marinas Government Google Street View Utility Degree of protection provided Use and Size SCCG Aerial Imagery 13. Ground Floor Type Non raised GF Long footprint L-shaped footprint SCCG Aerial Imagery 8.C.(+.(")#8)$9. 2...".QQQ.. 4 or more than 5 (2011) Figure 6. Garage Garage Google Street View No garage Proximity to areas where large 12.'**&)("*%. 3 .*:%. Natural Barriers to the building by coastal (2011) dunes and vegetation Building Surroundings st nd rd th SCCG Aerial Imagery 14. Seawall remotely using Google Degree of Street Data was SCCG View. Shape and Orientation Rectangular footprint ! Square footprint (2011) 4'(#%.. Number of Storeys 1. representing the corresponding class. Building structure windows..+.3N. Basement No basement 11.)$9.3@%&'##..*:%.'/K#)$9.%. Natural Barriers Recreational to the building by coastal (2011) Heritage dunes and vegetation Building Surroundings Number st nd rd ofth residential or SCCG Aerial Imagery 14.. . large glass doors) GF completely open (columns and windows.!)%A.A%&%.<!=>?->.*:%.H 6.Building Material/Style Brick Wall Brick veneer Height of brick walls around GoogleGoogle Street Street View View Full brick the building Reinforced concrete ! 4.4:%. The remaining attributes may vary within the same building class and were surveyed building-by-building./38%#.

27 . CODE EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION 1 1 storey. brick veneer 4 2 storeys. The COVERMAR building stock.Table 3. brick veneer Coastal Inundation. COVERMAR Project. timber frame and fibro boards 2 1 storey. timber frame boards 3 1 storey.

CODE EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION 2 storeys. modern style. reinforced full 8 bricks or reinforced concrete 28 . brick. brick infills 7 3 storeys. modern construction. old construction 1 storey. single leaf reinforced walls. slab on grade 2 storeys. 5 modern construction. 6 reinforced concrete frame.

COVERMAR Project. old construction 10 4 storeys.CODE EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION 9 1 storey. double brick. modern construction Coastal Inundation. double brick 12 3 storeys. brick 11 2 storeys. old style. reinforced concrete. 29 .

old construction. CODE EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION 13 3 storeys. first floor in wood 30 . ground floor in brick veneer. timber frame and boards 15 2 storeys. full brick. brick construction. attached building 16 2 storeys. large footprint 14 2 storeys.

modern construction. COVERMAR Project. modern construction. timber frame and fibro boards 4 storeys. 18 reinforced concrete and full brick 19 2 storeys.CODE EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION 17 2 storeys. ground floor brick veneer. 31 . first floor in fibro More than 5 storeys. 20 reinforced concrete and full brick Coastal Inundation.

22 showroom. showroom). steel. precast concrete. CODE EXAMPLE DESCRIPTION Industrial (factory. old construction (brick) Industrial (factory. steel. wood) Industrial (factory. old construction (brick. offices upstairs). showroom). reinforced brick) Industrial (factory. warehouse. 2 storeys. warehouse. 23 1 storey. new construction (concrete. showroom). 21 1 storey. new 24 construction (concrete. 2 storeys. precast concrete) 32 . warehouse. corrugated iron. warehouse.

The image on the right is extracted from Google Street View and represents a building in Dolls Point (Rockdale). The database includes the following elements: Inundation Scenarios Outputs of the numerical modelling of each of the 39 inundation scenarios (as described in the COVERMAR Hazard Assessment Report) are included in the GIS as raster layers. We examined 400 buildings selected randomly (~10% of the total number of buildings surveyed. Digital Elevation Model The Digital Elevation Model is included in the GIS as a raster layer. CONSTRUCTION OF THE GIS DATABASE The COVERMAR input data and outputs were organised and stored in a GIS (Geographic information System) database.528) to verify that they corresponded with images from Google Street View (Figure 7). i. Figure 7. Results showed that 24 buildings of the 400 examined (i.GROUND-TRUTHING The Google Street View dataset was ground-truthed to ensure its accuracy. 33 . For each of the 36 tsunami scenarios. 3. i. COVERMAR Project.e. two raster layers have been generated.528) were randomly selected and ground-truthed to check the accuracy of the Google Street View database. 400 buildings (about 10% of the total number of accessible buildings. including the maximum inundation depth and the maximum flow velocity.e. the same building is ground-truthed during field surveys. hence only one layer per scenario including the maximum flow depth was included in the GIS. On the left. For storm surge. The accuracy of Google Street View database within the study area was therefore extrapolated to 94%. flow velocities are not available. Coastal Inundation. 3. This is the model utilised in the numerical modelling of the selected inundation scenarios. The DEM basic parameters are: Spatial Resolution: 10 m Vertical Accuracy: <25 cm Horizontal Datum: GDA94 Vertical Datum: AHD For further details about the DEM. 6%) differed from those extracted from the Google Earth database.e. refer to the COVERMAR Hazard Assessment Report.

This occurring through tidal waterways. Building and Infrastructure Dataset: the GIS Vulnerability Maps All buildings exposed to the selected inundation scenarios were included in the GIS as a vectorial layer of polygons. considers both these damage mechanisms. streets.e. This happens primarily to the first row of Flow velocity is assumed to be proportional to flow depth. Nadal et al. FCM13. This is described in the COVERMAR Literature Review Report and is the case for functions FCM12. a parameter of the inundation used to seawalls) being breached or overtopped. as well as the vulnerability level and economic loss associated with each inundation scenario. Similarly. approach is similar to most flood vulnerability curves applied The storm surge vulnerability assessment model we adopted in similar studies (Dale et al. 2004. The curves were generated using a mixed empirical and subjective approach combing expert judgment and 34 . This is calculated for different building types. storm surges can damage buildings in two ways: observations of the actual damage caused to different building types by historical floods. multi-storey buildings) the the SCCG. Polygons represent the building footprint and contain all the building attributes listed in Table 2. STORM SURGE BUILDING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MODEL In NSW.. To adjust for erosion lines. bridges. 2013). each function storm erosion lines were generated through coastal hazard was applied to the most similar COVERMAR building type studies undertaken by local councils and made available by (Table 5). 1. Building polygons are plotted using a colour coded scale. Buildings and The vulnerability functions adopted to assess the damage streets exposed to erosion were identified through storm from tidal inundation are shown in Table 4. By eroding the soil substrate and undermining building foundations. under 2010 and future sea level conditions. the Geoscience Australia building stock. which were modified by: Risk Management Guide.. coastal structures. representing the level of vulnerability. dividing the Damage Index of the GA building by the and tidal inundation was assessed using flood vulnerability number of storeys of the COVERMAR building type. and the risk is higher and thus not directly considered by the model. Through inundation caused by coastal dunes (or parameter (i. FCM14. FCM15 and it is consistent with the guidelines in the 2010 NSW Coastal FCM16. These curves are an option for assessing the vulnerability of buildings to storm surge in NSW as they consider some of the building types typically found in NSW. The demand 2. identifying the most similar one-storey construction type in completely destroyed. This damage to buildings is estimated through a ‘Damage type of damage is less likely to occur within Botany Bay.e. The methodology used to obtain the erosion lines functions by Geoscience Australia required modification. buildings along oceanic beaches.High Resolution Aerial Imagery Aerial images taken in 2011 with a spatial resolution of 50 cm are included in the GIS dataset. In some instances (i. seawalls and marinas in most of the study area were manually digitised. replace). All buildings and infrastructure located beyond the storm erosion lines are assumed to be 1. whereas the 1479 buildings that fell within the LGAs of Rockdale and Botany Bay City Councils had to be manually digitised using the SCCG aerial images as a reference.. The damage caused by overtopping of coastal defences 2. 2010). functions provided by Geoscience Australia (Maqsood et al. Index’ (DI). or flooding estimate its intensity) is the maximum inundation depth. Building footprints within Sutherland Shire were provided by Sutherland Shire Council. car parks. The any differences in building characteristics. The DI represents the ratio (cost to repair/cost to as beaches are partially protected from wave action. and for different values of the demand parameter. The expected where coastal dunes have been removed or altered.

lightweight cladding. 35 . timber upper floor. no integral garage Coastal Inundation. FCM6 timber upper floor. timber upper floor. Two storey. lightweight cladding.slab onon slab grade lower floor FCM5 covering only part of the plan area. Two storey. no integral garage 2 storeys. FCM4 lightweight upper floor cladding. COVERMAR Project. raised FCM1 timber floor.raised raised timber lower floor. Two storey. integral garage on the lower floor 2 storeys.Table 4. lightweight upper floor cladding. Vulnerability functions for assessing the damage from tidal inundation (storm surge) used in COVERMAR. GA code Description Photo Vulnerability Curve 1Onestorey raised storey. FCM3 timber upper floor. integral garage 2 storeys. slab on slab on grade bottom floor. no integral garage 2 storeys. slab on slab on grade bottom floor. Two storey.

no integral garage 1Onestorey. GA code Description Photo Vulnerability Curve One 1 storey. no integral garage 36 . no integral garage 1One storey. storey. slabslab on on FCM7 grade floor.raised raised timber floor. no integral garage 1Onestorey. storey. storey. cavity FCM10 masonry construction. masonry veneer construction.raised raised FCM11 timber floor. storey. masonry FCM9 veneer construction. cavity masonry construction. integral garage One 1 storey. slabslab on on FCM8 grade floor. storey. slabslab on on grade floor. masonry veneer construction.

COVERMAR Project. (created by modern construction. storeys. by adapting modern construction function FCM10) FCM15 (created by ) COVERMAR 2 storey. by adapting reinforced concrete function and full brick. brick veneer function FCM8 FCM16 (created by 2 storey.leaf by adapting modern construction. COVERMAR reinforced concrete by adapting and full brick function FCM10) FCM13 (created by 4 storeys.GA code Description Photo Vulnerability Curve FCM12 More than 5 storeys.reinforced reinforced COVERMAR concrete frame. brick veneer by adapting 2 storeys. single leaf COVERMAR 2 storeys. 37 . FCM10) FCM14 (created by 33 storey. single reinforced walls. modern COVERMAR construction. function slab on grade FCM10) Coastal Inundation.

two storeys 2 storeys ACSF4 Showroom / 2 storeys Office. 1one storey. no basement Mixed use: ACSF3 retail / residential. two storeys GA code Description Photo Vulnerability Curve Industrial. ACSF6 one storey 1 storey ! 38 . GA code Description Photo Vulnerability Curve Victorian residential ACFS1A terrace. storeys. storey. 2two storey. no basement Victorian residential ACSF2A terrace.

ACFS6 rf AFCS1A rf ACFS6 Coastal Inundation. FCM1A . Associations between the COVERMAR building types and the vulnerability functions listed in Table 4. FCM13 rf FCM16 rf FCM13 6 g FCM16 g FCM13 18 grf FCM16 grf FCM13 ggf FCM16 ggf FCM13 . COVERMAR Project. FCM16 . 39 . FCM15 . FCM6 rf FCM16 rf FCM6 g FCM16 g FCM6 5 17 grf FCM16 grf FCM6 ggf FCM16 ggf FCM5 . FCM16 . COVERMAR COVERMAR building type building type Storm Surge Storm Surge CLASS SUBCLASS Class CLASS SUBCLASS Class . FCM6 rf FCM1A rf FCM6 g FCM1A 14 g FCM6 2 grf FCM1A grf FCM6 ggr FCM1A ggf FCM5 . ‘ggf’=ground floor entirely used for garages. ACSF3 rf FCM9 rf ACSF3 3 g FCM7 15 g ACSF3 grf FCM7 grf ACSF3 ggf FCM7 ggf ACSF3 . FCM12 rf FCM10 rf FCM12 8 g FCM10 g FCM12 20 grf FCM10 grf FCM12 ggf FCM10 ggf FCM12 . FCM8 . ‘g’=garage. FCM1A . FCM3 rf FCM15 rf FCM3 g FCM15 g FCM4 4 16 grf FCM15 grf FCM4 ggf FCM15 ggf FCM4 . ACFS2A rf FCM1A rf ACFS2A 1 g FCM1A g ACFS2A 13 grf FCM1A grf ACFS2A ggf FCM1A ggf ACFS2A . AFCS1A . ‘grf’+garage and raised ground floor. FCM10 . FCM14 . ‘rf’= raised ground floor.Table 5. FCM3 rf FCM14 rf FCM3 7 g FCM14 g FCM4 19 grf FCM14 grf FCM4 ggf FCM14 ggf FCM4 .

foundation type. ggf FCM16 ggf FCM13 ..  The PTVA Model which is the most accurate tool for of the ground floor and the like (IOC UNESCO. (2009a. 2010). A similar approach was proposed by Omira et al. the only available 2. FCM13 . ACFS6 rf AFCS1A rf ACFS6 9 g AFCS1A 21 g ACFS6 grf AFCS1A grf ACFS6 ggf AFCS1A ggf ACFS6 . ACFS2A . and summarised Islands. 2011). ACFS6 rf ACFS2A rf ACFS6 g ACFS2A g ACFS6 11 23 grf ACFS2A grf ACFS6 ggf ACFS2A ggf ACFS6 . The differences between the PTVA Model and tsunami foundation type).  A set of vulnerability functions for typical Japanese building vulnerability model for tsunamis was the PTVA Model buildings derived from the 2011 tsunami (Suppasri et (Papathoma and Dominey-Howes. of the model: the PTVA-4 Model. making an assessment of vulnerability on available. construction material. FCM14 . 40 . of the model showed it to be accurate in assessing the relative vulnerability of buildings to tsunamis (Tarbotton et al. including structural elements. AFCS1A . characteristics (e.g. The use of vulnerability functions was necessary index method constructed on a GIS platform that calculates to estimate the PML associated with the COVERMAR a vulnerability score for a building based on main structural tsunami scenarios. This model is an al. FCM10 . FCM14 . COVERMAR developed a new improved version a building-by-building a complicated exercise. ACFS6 rf FCM14 rf ACFS6 g FCM14 g ACFS6 12 24 grf FCM14 grf ACFS6 ggf FCM14 ggf ACFS6 TSUNAMI BUILDING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT MODEL INDEX-BASED METHODS AND VULNERABILITY FUNCTIONS COVERMAR utilises a combined approach based on two The capability of a building to withstand the impact of a standard international methods: tsunami depends on a variety of factors. After the 2004 IOT. 2003). 2012). (2009). b) and validated in the Aeolian COVERMAR Literature Review Report. These assessing the relative vulnerability of buildings to tsunamis factors or ‘attributes’ may coexist in numerous possible forms in countries where no specific vulnerability functions are and combinations. Italy (Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes. FCM3 rf FCM14 rf FCM3 7 g FCM14 g FCM4 19 grf FCM14 grf FCM4 ggf FCM14 ggf FCM4 . construction material. Validation in the next section.. the model was refined vulnerability functions are discussed in detail in the by Dall’Osso et al. number of storeys.. the design 1. FCM12 rf FCM10 rf FCM12 8 g FCM10 g FCM12 20 grf FCM10 grf FCM12 ggf FCM10 ggf FCM12 . ACFS4 rf FCM13 rf ACFS4 g FCM13 g ACFS4 10 22 grf FCM13 grf ACFS4 ggf FCM13 ggf ACFS4 . Before the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (IOT). 2012).

whose damage-state can be achieved via the use of vulnerability functions.e. Coastal Inundation.e. 2011. Example of fragility curves for residential masonry buildings developed in Samoa after the 2009 tsunami (Reese et al.e.e. Indonesia.g. 2007. To calculate economic loss vulnerability functions are more suitable. based on observations after the actual tsunami). Gardi et al. 2012). 2010.. residential masonry buildings for Reese et al. masonry building developed in Samoa may differ significantly flow velocity and kinetic energy have also been considered from that of a masonry building in Indonesia (Figure 8). 15 studies have proposed tsunami vulnerability the existing curves hard to compare and difficult to apply in functions for buildings. 2009. these methods provide only a relative assessment of vulnerability (i. COVERMAR Project. building A is more/less vulnerable than building B). methods are relative. equation is solved for various tsunami loads) (Dias. no tsunami vulnerability functions if a building will collapse (or will be heavily damaged) were available before the 2004 IOT. the others adopted a probabilistic approach estimating the differences between different building structures can be conditional probability that a given building type will reach robustly determined. 2011.. assuming that this is the example.e. Figure 8. Index-based methods are still useful in areas where no vulnerability curves are available.). after the 2004 IOT (Valencia et al. Vulnerability curves offer the advantage of providing Although this approach is widely used for other hazards quantitative damage models.. Suppasri. 41 . Valencia et al. in the case of empirical approaches. By way of the tsunami demand parameter. index-based or exceed a specific damage state (Koshimura et al. However. floods)... 2011). stand-alone meaning and can only be used to compare Suppasri et al. one storey masonry building for Valencia et al.. the resulting curves are different. Koshimura and Imamurra. the curve of a main driver of building damage. the tsunami (i... index-based methods cannot be used to estimate economic losses. Yapa and These are continuous curves that associate the intensity of Peiris. 2011).. 2011) and in Banda Aceh. (Koshimura et al. For instance. so the final vulnerability scores have no Reese et al. which can be used to predict (i. However. in some instances. However. The curves express the probability of collapse at different tsunami flow depths. using the ratio ‘cost to repair/cost to they incorporate many idealised structural attributes in replace’) (Reese et al. Nadal et al. but some studies employed analytical techniques (i. the tsunami ‘demand parameter’) to the expected response of a particular building type. earthquakes. survey Tsunami vulnerability functions have been developed using a techniques or statistical analyses adopted by researchers variety of techniques. Most of these curves are empirical different buildings within a study location. Some described the building damage (Schultz et al. 2010). referred A non-relative approach for assessing building vulnerability to a theoretical building prototype. On the other hand. 2009.e. Although the building type is described in a similar way by the authors (i. when struck by a given tsunami flow.. the variety of techniques employed and assumptions made renders To date.. which limits their utility. 2011) whilst the calculation of the total vulnerability of a building. as they do not provide an estimate of the absolute damage that a building may incur. 2009). (i.The advantage of index-based methods is that since deterministically (e.. This may be due to different building standards. Most have adopted flow depth as locations distant from where they were developed.

We then formulated new weights for the model by taking the mathematical mean of weights obtained in the survey (Forman and Peniwati 1998). the relative vulnerability of buildings was calculated through a weighted sum of the contributions made by different building attributes (e. building material. Results of the survey undertaken to re-weight the attributes of the PTVA-3 Model influencing the structural vulnerability of buildings to tsunamis. it was suggested that the model could be improved by increasing the expert input in the determination of the weights attributed to building attributes. and buildings with a raised ground-floor. Survey results are shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Weights were obtained through a multi-criteria analysis undertaken by Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes (2009). The questionnaire also allowed comments to be made on the model and permitted additional attributes to be suggested.The PTVA-4 Model In the previous PTVA Model (V3). We asked each author to re-weight the attributes of the PTVA-3 Model and to incorporate information from the 2011 Japan Tsunami. To deal with this issue. These new weights were incorporated into the PTVA and used to calculate the relative vulnerability of buildings in COVERMAR.g. After publication. while green bars represent the average value of the new weights indicated by the interviewees. we submitted a questionnaire to all the authors of scientific papers published in the last 10 years in the field of building vulnerability to tsunamis. foundation type). Figure 9. 42 . number of storeys. Blue bars represent the original PTVA-3 weights. Two new attributes were also suggested: engineered/not engineered buildings.

no previously published vulnerability function considered it. 3.000 damaged structures. are the only functions available for buildings with construction standards similar to Australia. 2010). In order to obtain the mean damage that the building is expected to incur. Although the number of storeys is an important attribute influencing the vulnerability of buildings to tsunamis. 2007. these were not well-matched to the building types in the COVERMAR inventory.. The functions developed by Suppasri et al (2012) are probabilistic fragility curves. Tsunami Vulnerability Functions We adopted the vulnerability functions developed by Suppasri et al. (2012) after the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami (Japan). however.Figure 10. COVERMAR Project. 2. include fragility curves for buildings having different construction materials and different numbers of storeys. Coastal Inundation. This is the highest number of buildings ever considered to create tsunami vulnerability functions. we adapted Suppasri’s probabilistic curves to produce Mean Damage Curves. Red bars represent the original PTVA-3 weights. It should be noted that some purpose-built mean-damage curves are available for tsunamis (Reese et al. while green bars represent the average value of the new weights indicated by the interviewees. These functions: 1. collapse) in response to different tsunami flow depths. 43 .. These describe the probability that a building will reach or exceed a given damage state (for example. are statistically robust as they were generated using a database of over 250. Results of the survey undertaken to re-weight the attributes of the PTVA-3 Model influencing the degree of protection provided to single building by their surroundings. Valencia et al.

Consistent The   complete    𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀normalised   complete   𝑥𝑥 =ddestruction)   with other  corresponds   to   the   probability   of   damage   at   the  𝑖𝑖  damage   where  𝑃𝑃corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   estruction)   𝑃𝑃!mean   !studies. determined   )   lower ! The from   acase   set   of  Pfiragility   corresponds curves   for   a obability  (𝑝𝑝   g iven   of reaching f lood   d epth   ( 𝑥𝑥):   ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   or where   exceeding where   with   with    c  orresponds   𝑃𝑃the 𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛     d   d amage   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   describes   t amage   !  corresponds   he   !!probability   𝑖𝑖 to   l l evels   evels    damage  level  (𝐷𝐷 damage the   a a to   the   probability   s:   From   a   set   of   fragility   curves   containing  𝑛𝑛  damage   levels.   ! the 𝑥𝑥  dlamage   t equation:   =o  !tthe   evels.       𝑥𝑥 =   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($)     52   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 =   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($)   52         𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($)       The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al. possibly minor flooding.   et  bae  l.!Can be used after moderate repair ! ! complete   curves   represent   destruction)   the  sproportion   D3 ustained  by  of   a  bdamage   Major damage uilding.  as  it         amage   with  𝑛𝑛  d   amage  levels  as:   ratio  to  between  the   bsetween   ratio   tate   b!etween   i.   tm hese   ean-­‐damage   were   not  cw urves   ell-­‐matched   are  available   to   the   for   tsunamis   building   (Reese   types   in    et  CaOVERMAR   It  sIt   hould   should   bIt   the     e    bnsNumerical   hould   e   oted   the   noted   et   al.   as  shown   concrete   able   using    six     different   damage   levels   for       constructed   of   timber.   be  noted   Valencia   Valencia   that  eest  ome   al.     u sing  u sing   t he   t he   f ollowing   f ollowing   e e quation:   quation:   !!! !         𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 =!!!! 𝑃𝑃    ! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) !! ∗ 𝑖𝑖   Numerical  calculation  and  notation     where  𝑃𝑃!  corresponds   to   the   probability   Mean  damage   where  𝑃𝑃!  corresponds   to   the   probability   of   !!! ! ! of   damage   damage     at   the  𝑖𝑖 !!  damage   level.   dsamage   tate.   with   destruction)   sustained   the   𝑛𝑛  pdrobability   damage   o   amage  levels   sThe   he   ustained   ratio   s:   in   damage   state   i. (CDF).𝑑𝑑 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐷𝐷 sdamage   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 ustained   ! 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥)𝑥𝑥 sustained   we 𝑛𝑛assumed = ∗ 𝑖𝑖  𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 =curves   by  𝑥𝑥a𝑃𝑃  !b= b𝑛𝑛y  a  b𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑖  damage level.   from   level.  the   For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.   a  bwuilding:   e  assumed  damage   ! The   The   normalised   The   normalised   normalised  mean   mean   of  tdamage   mean   tdamage   curves   at   damage   bcurves   𝑖𝑖represent   curves   !! represent   represent   the   f  the  r  proportion   proportion   the   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) proportion   of   of   damage   𝑝𝑝! .   uilding. ratio  between  by  a  btuilding.  Each  damage  level     𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) age  state.  the    corresponds   building   type   type     deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML.   available   fragility   levels.    2saet   aurves     so 010).   We  state.  the   c urves.   damage   studies.   2010).  Each  damage  level   corresponds   (D1   (D1   ttype   to  ato   o   escriptive    dD6). Loss       𝑥𝑥 =   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($)    𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 D5 Collapse The   normalised   complete  d mean   damage   estruction)   curves  brepresent   sustained   y  a  building. Non-repairable or great cost to retrofit.   𝑃𝑃   𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑 =     (D1   (D1   f brick..   2007.   t hese   w ere  w tere   hese  n ot   n ot   w well-­‐matched   ere   w not   well-­‐matched   ell-­‐matched   t o   t o   he   t he   b b tuilding   uilding   o   the   t btuilding   ypes   ypes   in   in  types   in   the  the   COVERMAR   COVERMAR   the       COVERMAR   Numerical   i nventory.   the   mean   damage   (𝑀𝑀 determined from a corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   set corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   fragility !"#!! !   with  𝑛𝑛  damage  levels  as:   𝑃𝑃!! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷!! 𝑥𝑥) =   𝑝𝑝!! −  𝑝𝑝!!! 𝑝𝑝! 𝑑𝑑 ≥curves 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) =with be  calculated   using  the  f𝑛𝑛ollowing   Φ 𝑃𝑃n !damage 𝑑𝑑 ! =    𝐷𝐷         𝑥𝑥) = levels   𝑝𝑝 − as: 𝑖𝑖 !!𝑖𝑖 !!  damage  level  fragility  curve.    damage   the   .  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   constructed   of   timber.   alencia   the  COVERMAR   e Vcaealencia   t   alculation   inventory.  probabilistic       ! fragility   curves   ! into   constructed   constructed   of   timber.   D6 brick.  the   𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀   a  value     to   𝑥𝑥 to  =a  (v1𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   1 !   between  0  and  1:   ! 𝑃𝑃ab!t  etween   𝑑𝑑 =iven   𝐷𝐷!0f𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖  1:   ! !!! ! From   a   set   of   fragility     c  urves   containing    damage   curves   levels.  𝑃𝑃  damage   !  is   determined   level. levels concrete       for each concrete   !using     using   six   different   six   different   building ! type damage  ! levels   for   damage  (D1 tolevels   D6).   mean = 𝑝𝑝    𝑖𝑖    = steel   D6).   010)..   cost   other   w     e   sw eplacing   tudies.   A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝   calculation  and  notation   i  nventory.  as  it   level.  Each  damage  level   o   a For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the   deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML. of  at  damage   s at   tate   as i .   al..   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 cost   C  onsistent   building.  the   𝑃𝑃 t  he   ics  ost   dcetermined   ost  of  tro he   rcepairing   f  𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 epairing   ost  f𝑥𝑥rom   of  a= rnd   epairing   aa   nd    tshe   et   the   f  acfnd   coost   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) of  tro ost   ragility   he   eplacing   f  rceplacing   cost   urves   o  f  ar  eplacing   bauilding:    building:   a  building:   g  with   𝑛𝑛  damage   levels       i.2…n-­‐1   (𝑥𝑥) = 𝑝𝑝! 𝑑𝑑 ≥ 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥)describes   = describes   Φ tdescribes   he  t    he    p    robability       probability   the   porobability   o   eing   f   being   in  odif  n   bdeing   amage   in   dsamage   tate   .   be  noted   V alencia   t hat   a set of fragilityFrom   From   e From   t   a l.   (CDF)..   𝑥𝑥)𝐷𝐷=!  𝑥𝑥)  !𝐷𝐷 !! 𝑥𝑥) =!!! 𝑝𝑝! = − w  𝑝𝑝 −    𝑝𝑝 hich     𝑝𝑝!!                      f    or     𝑝𝑝   !!!! i s   d                    f  or   for   efined      for   𝑖𝑖 = 𝑖𝑖 = = 𝑛𝑛   b y   𝑛𝑛  1.  that   et   asl.   (D1   D6). Can mean  damage  curves  were  normalised  to  a  value  between   0  and  1:   after minor floor and wall clean-up! 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑D1   =  𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) ∗  𝑖𝑖   Minor damage !!! be52   used 52   immediately 52   𝑛𝑛   !!! 1 The   normalised   mean   D2 damage   curves   Moderate represent   damage the   proportion   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀1 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖  Slight of   damage damage   (with   to non-structural respect   to   components.. !!! Can be used after a complete repair and retrofitting.  Consistent  with  other  studies.  as  it    𝑝𝑝  damage  level  fragility  curve.a(2012).  C(with   onsistent   respect   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑛𝑛 with  o 𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   to  ther  Heavy studies.   𝑥𝑥 o= level.   to   steel   asWe   and   reinforced   transformed   concrete   these   using   probabilistic   six   different   fragility   damage   curves   levels   for   into   level corresponds toThe  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al.  as  it   epairing   The   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($)  C𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) wonsistent   with   ith   lower   other   and   other   wstudies.  Each  damage  level   6)..  Each  damage  level     v alue   ! b etween   0   a nd   1 :   52   52   in   alised  to  aDamage  value  between   corresponds   corresponds   0(D  and   corresponds   to  a  descriptive   1to   a  ddescriptive   damage   amage   state.  p 2urpose-­‐built   010).    𝑝𝑝i𝑃𝑃 s!tate    is   dietermined   𝑃𝑃!      i      s            d      fetermined   .   some   purpose-­‐built   urpose-­‐built     2010).   d etermined   !! 𝑖𝑖 !!  damage    damage  level  fragility  curve.   Valencia   be   that   COVERMAR   that   007.  which  is  defined  by   !   ! ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the  𝑖𝑖 !! ! where   the  constants   the  constants   A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 Φ  corresponds   for  a  given  flood  depth  (𝑥𝑥):   𝜇𝜇!!  and  t𝜎𝜎o  !!  t–he   𝜇𝜇  and   𝑝𝑝 (𝑥𝑥) 𝜎𝜎 𝑝𝑝 (𝑥𝑥)  the    –=  the   𝑝𝑝= lognormal   log-­‐mean   𝑝𝑝l𝑝𝑝𝑑𝑑og-­‐mean   ! (𝑥𝑥) !≥ 𝑑𝑑 𝐷𝐷 =! 𝐷𝐷 ≥ 𝑝𝑝𝑥𝑥) and  variance   cumulative   a𝑥𝑥) !! 𝑑𝑑 nd   =≥Φ = variance  𝐷𝐷Φ !"#!! ! 𝑥𝑥)  !"#!! ! of  !the   distribution   =!o  Φ f        t  he   !"#!! fragility   f!unction              f!ragility   curves.   COVERMAR   however..   escriptive   We   to  We   damage   D6).   ( CDF).   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   𝑃𝑃!  corresponds  𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 to  𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 𝑥𝑥probability   = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝑃𝑃!𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑!== 𝑑𝑑 𝐷𝐷 = ! 𝐷𝐷 𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥) !! 𝑑𝑑 ∗   𝑖𝑖  =∗at   𝑥𝑥) 𝐷𝐷! the   𝑖𝑖   𝑥𝑥) ∗𝑖𝑖 !!𝑖𝑖  𝑖𝑖  damage    damage  level  fragility  curve.   steel   and   reinforced   concrete   using   six   d constructed   of   timber.   a   set   of   flower   The   ragility  case   curves   𝑝𝑝! .  the   Consistent   proportion   of  other   with   damage stu of functionality (system collapse).       which  is  defined  by     for  a  given  flood  depth  (𝑥𝑥):       and  variance     !"#!! ! where     Mean   the   Mean   c damage  𝜇𝜇!  and  𝜎𝜎 !  –  the  log-­‐mean   onstants   d Φ  corresponds   amage   to   𝑝𝑝 (𝑥𝑥) = 𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑 ≥ 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) = Φ the  lcognormal               cumulative   distribution   o f   t he   f ragility   function   c urves.   ean-­‐damage   owever.  𝑃𝑃! a  curves s:  determined     𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 =     in   damage   Thesfragility tate   is        The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al..  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   from   ain     set   of   fragility   etcal.  T    able  6. into   for   into   ! Each damage each   constructed   timber. Can be used after major to   e quate   t o  t he   r atio   b etween   by  a  building.   steel   and   reinforced   concrete   using   six   different .   The   lower   case  𝑝𝑝! .   2010).   at   the  𝑖𝑖 !!  damage   level.  that   noted   Valencia   some  ept  urpose-­‐built   Valencia   inventory. steel and reinforced published constructed         constructed   concrete Suppasri of   timber.             !! Numerical  calculation  and  notation     A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the  𝑖𝑖  damage  level  (𝐷𝐷! )   )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   𝑖𝑖  damage  level  (𝐷𝐷   !! ! )         for    for  aa    ggiven   A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 iven   Numerical  calculation  and  notation   flood  depth  (𝑥𝑥):   f lood   d epth   ( 𝑥𝑥):   ! ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   𝑖𝑖 !!  damage  level  (𝐷𝐷! )   Numerical   Numerical   calculation   caalculation   and   and  notation   Numerical   cfor  alculation   fnd   notation   dnepth   otation   ! Numerical calculation       Numerical   A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 aand  given   notation   calculation  and  notation   lood   (𝑥𝑥):   𝑝𝑝! (𝑥𝑥) = 𝑝𝑝! 𝑑𝑑 !≥ 𝑝𝑝! (𝑥𝑥) = 𝑝𝑝! 𝑑𝑑 ≥ 𝐷𝐷!! 𝑥𝑥) = Φ!"#!! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) = Φ !"#!! !"#!! ! ! !!!                         𝑖𝑖 !!  damage  level  (𝐷𝐷! )   for  a  given  flood  depth  (𝑥𝑥):   𝑝𝑝 (𝑥𝑥) = 𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑 ≥ 𝐷𝐷  𝑥𝑥) = Φ !        damage      damage  level  (𝐷𝐷 A fragility curve describes A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 where     Φ   cA  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 )  of  reaching  or  exceeding the probability (Pi ) of reaching orresponds   t o   t he   l ! ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   ognormal   𝑝𝑝 (𝑥𝑥) = c ! !or 𝑝𝑝umulative   )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   𝑑𝑑 exceeding ≥ !   𝐷𝐷 d𝑥𝑥) istribution   = Φ the !"#!! !! ! ! 𝑖𝑖 ! 𝑖𝑖  damage  level  (𝐷𝐷 function   !! 𝑖𝑖 !!  damage  level  (𝐷𝐷 level! )               (CDF).2…n-­‐1   saet    𝑛𝑛   et   f   foragility   where  Φ  corresponds     with  twith   o  t𝑛𝑛he   !! with    damage    d𝑛𝑛amage   lognormal   𝑛𝑛 levels     d amage   levels   cumulative     be  calculated  using  the  following  equation:   l as:  as:   distribution  evels   a s:   𝑃𝑃 ! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑 = f unction   𝑃𝑃!!! 𝑥𝑥) 𝑃𝑃! 𝐷𝐷𝑑𝑑! = 𝑑𝑑 = ( CDF).   brick.2…n-­‐1   the   ormal   constants   cumulative   𝜇𝜇!  and     𝜎𝜎 !    –  the  log-­‐mean   distribution   f  unction       (aCDF).for   We!!!transformed these probabilistic fragility 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) =   𝑝𝑝! −  𝑝𝑝!!!                f  or   𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑 =   𝑖𝑖 = 1.              curves.   the ratio we  (with   we   assumed   assumed   between respect  damage   dthe to   amage  cost of repairing and !! to   The   e quate   normalised   t o   t he   r atio   b etween   t he   c ost   o f   r epairing   a nd   t he   c ost   o f   r eplacing   a   b uilding:   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   complete   destruction)  to  the  rmean   atio  sbustained   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   damage   bthe  y  curves   ac  bost   !!! uilding.       𝑥𝑥) = !   𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 !     𝑝𝑝!              for  𝑖𝑖 = 𝑛𝑛    mean  and  variance  of  the  fragility   𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝑑𝑑 𝐷𝐷= For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.       ! c an   b e   c alculated   u sing   t he   f ollowing   e quation:   the   ).   shown   as  Tin   in   sable  hown   Table   6.  𝑝𝑝! .   a 2 l..  fragility   curves   fragility   curves   into   curves   into   into   Table 6.  the     𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 !!! !𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   !!!   curves   𝑛𝑛 1 0 !!! ! !  ollowing  equation:   mean   mean   damage   mean   damage     The     dcamage   urves   normalised   where  𝑃𝑃  corresponds   to   the   probability    of   damage   at   the  𝑖𝑖  damage were   wcere   ! urves   normalised   were  ntormalised   normalised   mean   damage   o  ato    vaalue   ! 1 1!curves    v𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 alue   ! bto  𝑥𝑥baetween   etween    v=alue   1represent   𝑛𝑛 ! !!! b  aetween   0nd   𝑃𝑃  a! nd  1𝑑𝑑:   = 1:  0𝐷𝐷  a!nd   the   proportion   of   damage   (with   respect   to   𝑥𝑥) 1∗:  𝑖𝑖   !! The normalised mean The   damage normalised   curves mean   represent damage   the curves   proportion represent   !!! ofthe   damage proportion   (with of  respectdamage   to (with   complete respect   destruction) to   !! sustained ! by a building. curvew levels.  𝑃𝑃𝑖𝑖  is    damage  level  f !!! to   equate   !!! etween   f  repairing   he   the cost !!! of   replacing     a to    complete     building: equate  to   he  r  atio  between   dtestruction)   sustained   the  bcy  ost   determined   fro a  bouilding.   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) or  𝑖𝑖 = 𝑛𝑛   and   We   damage curves reinforced   We   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) transformed   transformed   ! concrete   these   which! are more these   using   probabilistic   probabilistic   six   different   ! useful ! fragility   damage   fragility   for!!!! curves   levels   curves   assessing PML.   2007.   f  repairing   Consistent   and  the  wcost   ith  other   f  replacing   studies.   otation   t hhese   owever.   2007.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al..   the   mean   damage   (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   at   a   given   flood      some  purpose-­‐built      level  can  bm ! It  should  From et   al.   to the probability where Pi correspondsdescribes   A  fragility  curve  describes  the  probability  (𝑝𝑝 to the probability ! the   probability   ! )  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   of damage of   being   in   at damage   the 𝑖𝑖 sdamage tate    damage  level  (𝐷𝐷   i.2…n-­‐1 The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al..   wae    bauilding:  (with   respect   ssumed   damage  to   !! describes   the   probability   of   being   in   damage   state   i.   != represent   uilding.   et  V  aNumerical   l.       damage   damage   levels   levels   for  for   each   each   building   each   building   For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building. only foundation remains.   vailable  f purpose-­‐built   however.  𝑃𝑃!at   !!damage    is  the   determined   𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 !!  damage  level  fragility  curve. The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al.       which  is  defined  by      ! the    where   c onstants   Φ   c orresponds   𝜇𝜇 !   a nd   ! 𝜎𝜎 ! t! o   the  ! lognormal     –   t he   l og-­‐mean   a c nd   umulative   v ariance   !! o d!f   istribution   t he   f ragility   ! f unction   c urves.   t   al.   owever. requires constructed   of   timber.   he   b 𝑑𝑑m= ean   !uilding   ! damage ean   dt𝐷𝐷 he   amage   t !d (Reese   (MD) at a given flood level can be calculated ypes  𝑥𝑥)mean   amage   ∗ i𝑖𝑖   (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   n   d(amage  𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   at   a  t  g(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   aiven     given   falood   t   aflood     given   flood   pose-­‐built   m ean-­‐damage   using the following level   c equation: a   vailable   f or   t ( Reese   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 ! 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   ! ! the  constants   𝜇𝜇  and  𝜎𝜎  –  the  log-­‐mean  and  variance  of  the  fragility  curves.  which  is  d! efined  by   ( ! )  ) for a! )  given flood depth (x): for  for   a  gaiven    given   for   flood   f a   lood   g where  Φ  corresponds   iven   d d epth   f epth   lood   ( 𝑥𝑥):   ( d 𝑥𝑥):   epth   ( 𝑥𝑥):   ! to  the  lognormal  cumulative  distribution  function  (CDF).   Consistent   𝑥𝑥 = 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) 𝑝𝑝!  damage  level  fragility  curve.    6   .  we  assumed  damage   t he   c ost   o f   r epairing   a nd   t he   c ost   o f   repair r eplacing   a   b uilding:   ! !!! ! 𝑛𝑛  e  cost  of  repairing  and  the  cost  of  replacing  a  building:   D4 Complete   damage 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) Heavy damage to several walls and some columns. T able   6 .   𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) =   𝑝𝑝 −  𝑝𝑝            for  𝑖𝑖 = 1.  Each  damage  level   each   building   corresponds   t o   damage a   o  atype   ttimber.  a2l.  as  it   𝑖𝑖 !! !!  damage    damage  level  fragility  curve.   the   mean   damage   (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   at   a   given   flood               log-­‐mean   nd   a c nd   v v ariance   ontaining   ariance   and   o 𝑛𝑛 v  td f   ariance   o he   f   amage   t he   f f ragility   olevels.   brick.   tcase   he   ith   studies. Non-repairable.  Each  damage  level   escriptive   (D1   to   state. urves   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($)   brick.   We   transformed   these   probabilistic   fragility   curves   into   different   to  equate     to  the  ratio  between  the  cost  of  repairing  and  the  cost  of  replacing  a  b damage   levels   corresponds   to  a  descriptive  damage  state.   From   a   set   of   fragility   curves   containing  𝑛𝑛  damage   levels.2…n-­‐1     sfo rom   f  afragility     set   ocf  urves   fcragility   urves   curves   level  can   f   b amage   s𝑃𝑃 tate   𝑑𝑑 i= !s   𝑥𝑥) d etermined   = from   or   𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖f𝑖𝑖= rom   =a1. shown   in  Table   mean   d amage   c urves   w ere   n he  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.  the   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!! For the purposes of estimating the economic loss 𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥) associated with          𝑛𝑛   for  𝑖𝑖 = the mean damage curves were Mean  damage   mean     between damage  curves   𝑃𝑃!w𝑃𝑃𝑑𝑑ere   For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.   𝑑𝑑 𝐷𝐷 𝑛𝑛damage =! 𝐷𝐷 C!!onsistent   𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥) 𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥) Consistent   ∗the   𝑖𝑖  =∗ 𝑖𝑖   𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) toproportion   equate with   ∗ 𝑖𝑖  other   with  other   toof   studies.  case  cin𝑝𝑝 damage state i.2…n-­‐1   𝑖𝑖 = 1.  noted   be   2007.     curves containing et   f  re   fohragility   afragility   f  aowever.   transformed   damage   transformed   state.     d  descriptive   𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) =   𝑝𝑝              f  or  𝑖𝑖 = 𝑛𝑛   deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML.   steel   and  sreinforced   tate.       t   l.  the   levels.  as  it   1.2…n-­‐1   1.   these   cwurves   ome   are  waell-­‐match ere   not   2        010).  (2012)  describe  the  dam 44 The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al.   𝑃𝑃 𝑖𝑖 !!it𝑖𝑖  damage   !! describes at   !   i s   the  𝑖𝑖 level.  as  it     on   where   where   Mean  d  amage   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   describes   𝑃𝑃   ctorresponds   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   he   probability   to   the   othe   f   being   probability   !!!!!! in   damage   of   of   !!! damage   state   i.   𝑛𝑛        f1.  the   != 𝑑𝑑n𝐷𝐷 = ! 𝐷𝐷 ormalised   !! 𝑑𝑑 == 𝑥𝑥)  = 𝑝𝑝!𝐷𝐷  t    o   !      𝑥𝑥) 𝑝𝑝 a          fv  or   =  alue     𝑝𝑝=!𝑖𝑖b    𝑛𝑛      f𝑖𝑖or   = etween   0  a𝑛𝑛   nd  1:   ! ! normalised to a value mean   damage   0 and curves   1:were   normalised   to  ! a  value   b etween   0   a nd   1 :     mean     mean  d𝑛𝑛amage   damage  curves  were  normalised   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.   mean-­‐damage   these   were   ncurves   these   were   not   well-­‐matched   ot   well-­‐matched   are  available   to  ftor   to   the   he  tsunamis   building  (tReese   building   types   in   ypes   in   et  the   It  asl.   the   mean   damage   (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   at   a   given   flood   Mean damage Mean   Mean   damage   Mean   damage   level    From   damage   can   a  bset   where  Φ  corresponds  to  the  lognormal  cumulative   e  coalculated   f   fragility  ucsing   urves     the   distribution  function   containing   following  𝑛𝑛e  quation:   damage   levels.   a  dsteel   steel   and    and   reinforced   reinforced   concrete   concrete   using   using   in  six   six   different   6different   .   six  We   transformed   these   for   probabilistic   fragility   curves   into   el   reinforced   concrete   using   deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML.    case   !!by  a  b𝑖𝑖uilding.   i nventory.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   Washed away.   to  brick.   2010).   hm inventory..   010).     𝑝𝑝 !!! for  𝑖𝑖 = 1. d amage   damage   D6).   2007.   ! w(hich   CDF).   010).   brick.   brick.   nd  2n h owever.   ! 6.  orepresent   !!! Consistent   athe   nd  tw proportion   ith  cost   other   of  rseplacing   of   damage   tudies.   The   lower   case  𝑝𝑝! .   f!cragility   t urves.  𝑃𝑃  is   determined   from   a   se of   baeing   lower   bsy   ustained   the   etween   bay   bauilding.   he  cost  Coonsistent   f  repairing   waith   nd  otther   studies.   f  the   ragility   c urves.  Each  damage  level       The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al.   (CDF).       wdefined dhich   !bis  y  dbefined   ! where Φ corresponds where  where   Φ  cΦorresponds    Mean   c  orresponds      to the damage   to  the   lognormal o  the   lognormal   lognormal   cumulative cumulative   umulative   distribution distribution  distribution   function function   function   (CDF).  as  shown  in  Table  6.   of   brick.   u sing   the   m the   ean   following   damage  e(quation:   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   at   a   given   flood  𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑛𝑛 For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.   however. Pi is ! .   these   were   not   well-­‐matched   to   the   building   types   in   and  np    otation   urpose-­‐built   mean-­‐damage   mean-­‐damage   mean-­‐damage   curves   curves   are  acare   urves   available   vailable   are  for   available   ftor   tsunamis   sunamis   for  (Reese   tsunamis   (Reese   (Reese   et   aet   l..   nscoted   Valencia   et  inventory.   as  sahown   s  state.       es  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML.  Each  damage  level   deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML..   The   The   lower   from   lower   a   scase   et   of  𝑝𝑝!fragility   urves   𝑝𝑝!  (𝑥𝑥) of𝑛𝑛= From   a  level   set   ocf  an   fragility   curves   containing    damage  elquation:   evels.   he  cost   we of  repla six   different   damage   levels   for   each   and  building   type   (D1   to   D6)..  as  it               f or   𝑖𝑖 !! 𝑖𝑖 =  damage  level  fragility  curve.   COVERMAR   ome   some   alculation   al.   The   lower   case  𝑝𝑝! ..2…n-­‐1   !   For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.   a   s et   o The  case   f   f of beingragility   lower   c urves   .   these   were   not   well-­‐matched   to   th inventory.  𝑃𝑃!  is  level.  =𝑃𝑃i𝐷𝐷 .   where   𝑃𝑃!  c𝑃𝑃orresponds   ! with   describes    d amage   to   the   the  lpevels   probability   robability   as:   o!"#!! f   bof   eing   !damage   idamage   n   damage   the   sthe   tate   i.   007.   al. f or   1.   these   level  level   c an   c an   b e   b c e   alculated   c alculated   were   not      well-­‐matched   to   the   building   types   in   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = !!!𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   inventory.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  res constructed   of   timber.     d amage   !     (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)   at   ! a   g iven   f lood         level   !! From     acc  an   level   san   et  bboe   f  ccfalculated   e   ragility   alculated   curves   using  ctontaining   u sing   t he  following   he   f ollowing   𝑛𝑛  damage   equation:   e quation:   levels.   2the   l.        for   or   𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥)      = −  𝑝𝑝 𝑖𝑖      f  or   to   to   𝑖𝑖 =D6).   however.   where  Φ the  constants  𝜇𝜇  and  𝜎𝜎  –  the  log-­‐mean  and  variance  of  tfhe     set   ocf  urves    c orresponds   e  ean-­‐damage   calculated   ftcragility   urves   hese   t o   t he   csunamis   l ognormal   cere   ontaining   w n containing   urves   c umulative   u damage n sing   ot   d istribution   curves   c𝑛𝑛 w the  afre   ontaining    damage    ell-­‐matched   d𝑛𝑛amage   unction   ollowing   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑛𝑛 (CDF).  as  it   the f rom   probability level.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) =   𝑝𝑝!              for  𝑖𝑖 = 𝑛𝑛  deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML.   transformed   as  shown   these   s  these   52  probabilistic   Table   these   probabilistic   probabilistic       fragility   6.      however.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   of   timber.       𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥) 𝐷𝐷 ! 𝑑𝑑 𝑥𝑥)= =   = 𝑝𝑝 𝐷𝐷   − 𝑝𝑝 ! 𝑥𝑥) −  𝑝𝑝 =  𝑝𝑝      𝑝𝑝    !        − f     or      𝑝𝑝   f or   𝑖𝑖 !!! = 𝑖𝑖     =     1.   We   shown s tate.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   Washed away complete   to  d estruction)   equate   sustained   to  the   reinforced   concrete   using  replacement.2…n-­‐1      curves   𝑃𝑃 each   each   𝐷𝐷 ! ! 𝑑𝑑 building   𝑥𝑥) = building   building     into deterministic = 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥)of   𝑝𝑝 ! −  𝑝𝑝 =type   type   !!! type   𝑃𝑃 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) =       𝑝𝑝!        (D1   deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML. 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 =     The   normalised   mean   damage   curves   represent   the   proportion   of   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) Destructive damage to walls (more than half of wall density) and several columns.   transformed   a s   inshown   Table i n   in  Tthese   6.   the   C2OVERMAR   hould   COVERMAR   It  should   007..       level i) 1:     Type Description 1 ! 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 = For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage mean  damage  curves  were  normalised  to  a  value  between  0  and  1:   𝑛𝑛 𝑃𝑃! 𝑑𝑑 = 𝐷𝐷! 𝑥𝑥) ∗ 𝑖𝑖   52   There is no significant structural or non-structural damage.  the   ormalised       to  a  descriptive   t   deterministic  mean  damage  curves  which  are  more  useful  for  assessing  PML.   were   the  nm ean   ormalised   damage   𝑥𝑥 =1𝑛𝑛alue   ! 𝑃𝑃! a𝑑𝑑   g=  lood   and   level  can   taining   𝑛𝑛  dbamage   e  calculated   For  the  purposes  of  estimating  the  economic  loss  associated  with  the  damage  of  a  building.   he     m   ean   c  urves.   f!or   mean he  t𝑃𝑃 tsunamis   lmevels.  oof   damage   f  r(with   damage   (with   respect   a  (with   respect   to  respect   to   to   where  𝑃𝑃!  corresponds     of   damage   complete   to   at  complete   the   the  𝑖𝑖 !!d  damage   corresponds  to  the  probability  of  reaching  or  exceeding  the   obability   probability     to  equate   complete   d   estruction)   estruction)   describes   level.   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 six different 𝑥𝑥 = (2012) steel   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀   =   steel   and   and   𝑥𝑥 describe 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) = damage reinforced     reinforced   𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) the damage response of buildings constructed of timber.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 using brick.   tipnventory.   2007. Tsunami damage scale description.   the   mean   dam s:  o level f   b eing   probability   )  of   !fragility i n   d     amage   curve. It  should  be  noted  that  some  purpose-­‐built  mean-­‐damage  curves  are  available  for  tsunamis  (Reese   It  should  be  noted  that  some  purpose-­‐built  mean-­‐damage  curves  are  ava It  should  be  noted  that  some  purpose-­‐built  mean-­‐damage  curves  are  available  for  tsunamis  (Reese   It  et  et   should   al..2…n-­‐1         the damage of a building..  as  shown  in  Table  6. after Suppasri et al.2…n-­‐1   D6).   however.   wwhich hich   is  dis is  efined   efined   by theby  constants y   !"#!! !and ! ! – the log-mean the  the   cand constants   onstants   the   From   variance Mean   𝜇𝜇 constants   ! 𝜇𝜇 !  and     a nd   a d   𝜎𝜎 s et   amage   ! 𝜎𝜎𝜇𝜇!!  –   of –o   t  faragility   he   f   the   nd   t he   l 𝑝𝑝 (𝑥𝑥) = 𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑 ≥ 𝐷𝐷 𝑥𝑥) =  Φ og-­‐mean   fragility !  –c  turves   𝜎𝜎log-­‐mean   he  acurves..   ae   assumed   ssumed   we  daamage   building:   ssumed   damage  damage   ! 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶  𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡  𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟  ($) describes   the   probability   f  reaching  or  exceeding  the   to  eto   oef  quate   quate   𝑖𝑖b!! tto   eing   o   t  e  he   i  quate   o   n  the   dratio    damage  level  fragility  curve.   The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al.   steel   and   Suppasri  et  al.  (2012)  describe  the  damage  response  of  buildings   acorresponds   descriptive The  fragility  curves  published  in  Suppasri  et  al.   nd  variance   which  ios  f  dtefined   he  fragility   by   𝑃𝑃c!urves.   damage we  assumed   to somedamage   walls but no damage to columns.   2 et   ahal.   brick.   hat   et   a  l.   alencia  V 2007. or totally overturned.

2 and >= 3 storey wood. These are available for wood and RC buildings. corresponding to 1. COVERMAR Project. 2012 provides distinct sets of fragility curves for 1. brick and RC buildings. Figure 12 plots the mean damage curves calculated for a single storey timber building and the underlying fragility curves used to derive them. Coastal Inundation. 2012 for 1 storey Wood and RC buildings A total of nine distinct mean damage curves were derived from Suppasri et al.To account for the variation in damage response related to the number of storeys of a building. 2 and >= 3 storey buildings. Figure 11. (2012). Fragility curves published in Suppasri et al. Suppasri et al. Figure 12. while for steel- framed and brick structures only a single average set of curves are available. Figure 11 plots the fragility curves published for single storey wood and RC buildings. 45 . Normalized Mean Damage curve calculated for a single storey timber building and corresponding fragility curves.

2 Wood 2 14.16.10 RC 1 8.24 RC >=3 12.21 Brick 2 4.22 Brick >=3 7. Table 7. Mean damage curves and their corresponding building class.Table 7 lists the mean damage curves that were derived along with their corresponding building class.19. MEAN DAMAGE CURVE COVERMAR BUILDING TYPE Material Number of Storeys Wood 1 1.17. Mean Damage curves for timber and RC buildings obtained from the fragility curves published by Suppasri et al.11. 2 and >= 3 storey fragility curves for timber buildings. Note that it was not necessary to calculate mean damage curves for steel-framed buildings because no such buildings were identified in the study area.9.18. Figure 13.20 Since fragility curves were unavailable for brick buildings. mean damage curves were estimated by considering the damage response of timber buildings. The scaling and offsetting parameters were determined by inspecting the differences observed between the average. 46 .13. Brick fragility curves were estimated by scaling and offsetting Average Brick curves. Wood >=3 - Brick 1 3. These curves are plotted in Figure 13 and Figure 14.23 RC 2 5.15. (2012). 1.6.

water treatment plants Health facilities Hospitals.g. local roads. natural areas. namely: 1. ambulance stations. Mean Damage curves for brick buildings obtained from the fragility curves published by Suppasri et al. Therefore damage estimates for buildings with significantly more than 3 levels (e. breakwaters. Surf-life saving clubs Utility buildings Power transmission and distribution. flood damage would be expected to occur if a basement exists. its limitations must be borne in mind. 2. 47 . This approach represents the best available option for estimating tsunami damage to typical Australian buildings. kindergartens Airports. beaches Coastal structures Marinas. Infrastructure classes whose exposure was identified and mapped INFRASTRUCTURE CLASS ELEMENTS WITHIN THE CLASS Government buildings Council offices. Transport car parks. piers Coastal Inundation. medical centres Education buildings Schools. COVERMAR Project. VULNERABILITY OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE We identified and mapped the degree of exposure to the selected storm surge and tsunami inundation scenarios of the infrastructure listed in Table 8. Fire-Brigade stations. seawalls. parks. Police stations. reserves. However. train stations. (2012). harbours. bridges Recreational buildings Sport facilities. The fragility curves by Suppasri et al (2012) are only defined for buildings having 1. Figure 14. high-rise buildings) are overestimated. However. When the tsunami flow depth above the ground floor is <= 0 m. the damage is zero. railways. It does not account for basement levels. 2 or more than 3 levels. Table 8. Sydney Water facilities. bus stations. arterial roads.

the total construction cost to repair/cost to replace. the construction cost In COVERMAR.5 m/sec 0-20% 0. This is obtained through The construction costs applied by Geoscience Australia were specific vulnerability assessment models.For some infrastructure listed in Table 8. The calculation of PML requires comprehensive information about: • The hazard.. The construction degree of damage is obtained with a Damage Index. Building contents were not considered. we assessed the degree of damage and economic losses expected to be incurred in response to each inundation scenario. used for tax depreciation purposes (http://www. Kreibich et al. • Damage to streets and carparks was assessed according to the work by Kreibich et al. (2009). described in used for applicable COVERMAR building types. Since Kreibich et al. Flow velocity Damage Index (roads and carparks) 0-0. spatial distribution and probability of occurrence. consistent the ‘Vulnerability Assessment’ Section of this report. noted that during the 2002 Elbe Catchment flood in Germany. cost was obtained by multiplying the cost by the building • The economic value of the exposed assets. • The degree of expected damage to exposed assets in response to the hazard.com. hazards are described through a was calculated by using either the total construction cost per probabilistic hazard assessment. the degree of damage to streets correlated very well with flow velocity rather than flow depth.. For each COVERMAR building type. in a stated proportion of all cases. and replacement contingencies. Specifically: • Damage to buildings was assessed using the building vulnerability models described in the previous sections. 1. Where the flow velocity was higher than 2 m/sec most streets were completely destroyed and required replacement. the PML of a property is defined as that proportion of total value of the property that will equal or exceed.bmtqs. Since these databases provide a construction cost per square metre. numerical simulation of the selected inundation scenarios 2013). the amount of loss from a specified peril or group of perils (McGuinness. The with the storm surge vulnerability model. the PML was calculated as follows: discussed below. cost of the remaining COVERMAR building types used tax which uses the following ratio: depreciation databases. For buildings requiring repair: The PML of buildings was calculated using current building PML(repair) = (cost to repair) = (percentage of damage) x (construction cost) x (repair contingency) 48 . A hazard may be described by its intensity. Further research can verify this assumption once additional empirical evidence about the relationship between flow velocity and damage to roads becomes available. au/construction-cost-table).5-1 m/sec 20-40% 1-1. combined with a building estimated by Geoscience Australia (Maqsood et al. we adopted a simple linear damage/velocity relationship. plus repair surface area.5 m/sec 40-60 % 1.5-2 m/sec 60-80% >2 m/sec 80-100% PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS The term ‘Probable Maximum Loss’ or ‘PML’ refers to an approach widely used in the insurance and re-insurance industry to assess or estimate the expected economic losses associated with a given hazard. or the construction costs per square metre currently (see the COVEMAR Hazard Assessment Report). construction costs. 1969). The value of buildings Depending of the degree of damage incurred by the and infrastructure within the COVERMAR study area are building. provided no data for flow velocities between 0 and 2 m/sec. Specifically.

‘rf’= raised ground floor.284 “ “ grf $1. au/construction-cost-table).523 “ “ 49 grf $1. $242.985 “ “ $20.bmtqs.505 “ “ $20.985 “ “ $20.284 “ “ . .284 “ “ ggf $1. $342.840 “ “ $27. For those COVERMAR building types not included in the GA dataset.523 “ “ rf $2.523 “ “ grf $2. $304.284 $362.nsw. We considered a building to require replacement where repair was uneconomical: Cost to repair x repair contingency ≥ replacement cost Table 9 summarises the construction.347 2 G .gov.365 “ “ $27.985 “ “ $20. cost + demolition cost building surface Rf $1.376 $253.020 “ “ $27.523 “ “ ggf $2.523 “ “ 8 g $1. demolition and replacement costs for each COVERMAR building type.523 “ “ 5 g $2.347 .365 “ “ $27. $1.788 $20.150 “ “ $27.072 Grf .523 “ “ grf $1.830 Rf .376 $253.505 “ “ $20. $242.971 $10.072 .284 $360.284 $324.523 “ “ ggf $1.523 “ “ . $242.3 to account for demolition and disposal costs.365 “ “ $27. demolition and replacement costs for each COVERMAR building type.. ‘grf’+garage and raised ground floor. The construction cost per building unit was provided by Geoscience Australia. a construction cost per square metre was used (http://www. .150 “ “ $27.347 1 G .840 “ “ $27.985 “ “ $20. $339.523 “ “ 9 g $1.523 “ “ rf $1. Table 9.347 Rf .284 “ “ 7 g $1. $242. $2.523 “ “ Coastal Inundation.020 “ “ $27.376 $253.523 “ “ .523 “ “ rf $2.020 “ “ $27.m) (per building) .505 Constr.284 “ “ rf $1.971 $10.com.347 Grf . .523 “ “ grf $2.284 $360. COVERMAR PML building type CLASS SUBCLASS Construction Construction Demolition TOT Replacement cost cost cost cost (per sq.971 $10. $242.284 “ “ 4 G $1.971 $10.pdf).376 $253.840 “ “ $27.523 “ “ ggf $2.376 $253. Summary of the construction. COVERMAR Project. .376 $253.985 “ “ $20. $1.284 “ “ Grf $1. $242.150 “ “ $27.284 “ “ Ggf $1.505 “ “ $20.au/ resources/warr/1086CostsOfDecon. ‘ggf’=ground floor entirely used as a garage.523 “ “ . $242.347 Rf .546 $20.environment.840 “ “ $27.2.284 “ “ . $2.505 “ “ $20.840 “ “ $27.020 “ “ $27.971 $10.971 $10. $339. ‘g’=garage.971 $10. $1. For buildings requiring replacement: PML(replace) = (replacement cost) = (construction cost) + (demolition cost) Geoscience Australia (Maqsood et al.376 $253.685 3 G .376 $253.284 Constr. 2013) applied a repair contingency factor of 1.020 “ “ $27.523 “ “ 6 g $2.150 “ “ $27.523 “ “ rf $1.150 “ “ $27.347 Grf . $1. $242.971 $10.347 .401 $20. Demolition costs for typical NSW buildings are provided by the NSW Government (http://www.365 “ “ $27.788 $20. cost (per m2) x $20.

408 $10.179 ggf .284 $492.365 “ “ $27.632 “ “ $27.050 “ “ $27.376 $349.415 “ “ $27.179 rf .803 $10. cost + demolition cost building surface 18 rf $2.284 $492. $1.985 “ “ $20. $511.523 “ “ .632 “ “ $27.523 “ “ 11 g $1.523 “ “ ggf $1.179 17 g .415 “ “ $27. $923.167 “ “ $27. .835 ggf .695 $946.472 $20.070 “ “ $27.523 “ “ ggf $2.756 rf .835 . $923.632 “ “ $27. $339.523 “ “ ggf $2.167 “ “ $27.803 $10.523 “ “ 8 g $1.985 “ “ $20.523 “ “ .365 “ “ $27.523 “ “ grf $2.376 $349.179 14 g .695 $946.840 “ “ $27.284 $492.523 “ “ 20 g $2.284 “ “ grf $1.150 “ “ $27. 6 g $2.985 “ “ $20.523 “ “ rf $1.070 “ “ $27. $472.365 “ “ $27. $2. $923.523 “ “ rf $2.523 “ “ g $2.695 $946.408 $10. $472.523 “ “ .070 “ “ $27.523 “ “ .803 $10.513 $20.695 $946.370 Constr.523 “ “ grf $2.797 grf . $2.797 grf .797 ggf .376 $349.803 $10.376 $349. $511. cost (per m2) x $27.167 “ “ $27.050 “ “ $27. $2.695 $946.376 $349.050 “ “ $27.756 19 g .523 “ “ ggf $1.179 grf .523 “ “ ggf $2.523 “ “ rf $1.632 Constr. $338.523 “ “ ggf $1.523 “ “ grf $1.513 $20. $472.523 “ “ rf $2.513 $20. $338.523 “ “ g $2. $472. $2.523 “ “ rf $2. $1.523 “ “ grf $2.472 $20.140 $23.376 $349.150 “ “ $27. $511. $338.140 $23.284 $531.523 “ “ grf $1.472 $20.523 “ “ .415 “ “ $27.179 ggf .784 .050 “ “ $27.150 “ “ $27. cost (per m2) x $27. $472.284 “ “ 7 g $1.523 Constr.365 “ “ $27. $923. .070 “ “ $27.840 “ “ $27.835 15 g .756 rf .835 grf . $511.140 $23. $472.523 “ “ grf $2. $1.370 “ “ $27. $2.756 16 g .284 “ “ . $339.985 “ “ $20.284 $531. .284 $531. cost + demolition cost building surface rf $2.284 $531.376 $349. $923.376 $349.365 “ “ $27.523 “ “ rf $1.835 rf .797 .513 $20.632 “ “ $27.284 “ “ rf $1.415 “ “ $27.797 50 .523 “ “ 12 g $2.472 $20.376 $349.415 “ “ $27. .523 “ “ .803 $10.523 “ “ ggf $2.797 ggf .803 $10.523 “ “ 10 g $2.523 Constr. $338.523 “ “ grf $1.179 grf .284 $492.803 $10.140 $23.284 $492.140 $23.840 “ “ $27.370 “ “ $27.784 .523 “ “ .376 $349.050 “ “ $27.513 $20.523 “ “ ggf $2. $338. $1.284 $492.523 “ “ 9 g $1.370 “ “ $27.179 rf .523 “ “ grf $2.840 “ “ $27.513 $20. $338.985 “ “ $20.167 “ “ $27.167 “ “ $27. $338.523 “ “ 13 grf $2.523 “ “ .284 “ “ ggf $1.803 $10.840 “ “ $27.523 “ “ .070 “ “ $27. $338. .

$472. .115 $207.960.753. .753.115 $207.523 “ “ .115 $207.110 “ “ $36.960.110 “ “ $36.115 $207. cost + demolition cost building surface rf $2.523 “ “ ggf $2. .000 $2.000 $2.753.523 Constr.370 Constr. $511. $2.632 “ “ $27. $1.797 ggf .115 24 g .115 $207.250/m duplicate three lanes – $2.472 $20.115 23 g . grf $2.115 grf .B.050 “ “ $36.050 “ “ $36.753.620/m For other infrastructure types PML was not calculated due to either a lack of suitable vulnerability assessment models or specific data about the structural characteristics of the infrastructure.400 “ “ rf $1.960.050 “ “ $36.000 $2.753.370 “ “ $27.960.115 ggf .115 $207. $472.370 “ “ $27. $2.960. These prices include minimal cut and fill but exclude lighting and drainage.950–2.960. $2.960.797 grf . $2. cost (per m2) x $27.400 “ “ rf $1. $2.$620–660/m N.115 rf .115 $207.000 $2. $2. Coastal Inundation.960.523 “ “ .000 $2.370 “ “ $27.115 $207. City highway/freeway with median strip and emergency lanes: duplicate two lanes – $1.284 $492.000 $2.370 “ “ $27.400 “ “ 21 g $1.115 .110 “ “ $36.050 “ “ $36.115 $207.523 “ “ 20 g $2.000 $2.753.513 $20. $2.400 “ “ ggf $1. $511. COVERMAR Project. $2.753.753.115 The PML for arterial roads and secondary streets was obtained from construction costs reported by the 2013 Rawlinsons Construction Cost Guide: Suburban road with in-situ concrete kerbs: 6 m wide – $520–560/m 8 m wide–. $472. $2.050 “ “ $36.400 “ “ g $1.756 rf .523 “ “ ggf $2.284 $492.960.472 $20.110 “ “ $36.523 “ “ grf $2.400 “ “ 22 grf $1. $2.756 19 g .400 “ “ .513 $20.000 $2.115 grf .284 $531.632 “ “ $27.284 $531.400 “ “ .000 $2.797 .000 $2.284 $492.400 “ “ grf $1. $2.753.400 “ “ ggf $1.115 ggf . $1.960.513 $20.110 “ “ $36.390–2.753.115 $207. 51 .115 rf .

Table 10.. Probable Maximum Loss:  the economic losses associated with the expected degree of damage experienced by exposed and vulnerable assets. +34 cm) 138 252 439 829 3 (1/100 yr. INUNDATED BUILDINGS STORM SURGE BOTANY BAY ROCKDALE SUTHERLAND TOTAL CODE SCENARIO 1 (1/100 yr..g. and precisely identifying attached buildings. Each element is discussed separately below: EXPOSURE Buildings The number of buildings inundated by each storm surge and tsunami scenario is presented in Tables 10 and 11 and Figures 15–17. the number of buildings. Numbers vary slightly from those reported in the Results section of the Hazard Assessment Report because the vulnerability assessment process examined and ground-truthed individual exposed buildings eliminating sheds and garages.RESULTS The results of the assessment address the following elements: Exposure : the quantity of assets that would be inundated by each of the selected storm surge and tsunami scenarios (e. +84 cm) 210 1121 1842 3173 Figure 15.) 45 52 151 248 2 (1/100 yr. Number of buildings inundated in each storm surge scenario. Number of buildings in each LGA inundated in the storm surge scenarios. length of roads). 52 . Vulnerability: the susceptibility to damage of each of exposed asset.

Number of buildings inundated in each tsunami scenario.000 +97 cm S16 1 31 575 607 +131 cm S17 19 102 731 852 +181 cm S18 75 348 2200 2623 Coastal Inundation. 53 . Table 11.000 +97 cm N16 1 42 566 609 +131 cm N17 1 107 811 919 +181 cm N18 75 306 1937 2318 +0 cm S1 0 2 7 9 +34 cm S2 0 4 27 31 +84 cm S3 1 4 92 97 1/100 +97 cm S4 1 6 110 117 +131 cm S5 1 10 154 165 +181 cm S6 67 82 525 674 +0 cm S7 0 2 27 29 +34 cm S8 0 4 60 64 +84 cm S9 1 6 172 179 Puysegur 1/1. TSUNAMI SCENARIO INUNDATED BUILDINGS Tsunami Annual Initial Sea Level Scenario Source Probability BOTANY BAY ROCKDALE SUTHERLAND TOTAL (above the code Location for NSW 2010 msl) +0 cm N1 0 2 15 17 +34 cm N2 0 4 32 36 +84 cm N3 1 4 112 117 1/100 +97 cm N4 1 6 125 132 +131 cm N5 1 12 171 184 +181 cm N6 67 90 754 911 +0 cm N7 0 2 32 34 +34 cm N8 0 4 60 64 +84 cm N9 1 8 175 184 New 1/1.000 Hebrides +97 cm N10 1 12 199 212 +131 cm N11 1 35 289 325 +181 cm N12 67 122 1115 1304 +0 cm N13 0 2 169 171 +34 cm N14 0 8 266 274 +84 cm N15 1 29 470 500 1/10.000 +97 cm S10 1 9 198 208 +131 cm S11 1 30 293 324 +181 cm S12 67 117 1131 1315 +0 cm S13 0 3 155 158 +34 cm S14 0 6 255 261 +84 cm S15 1 21 488 510 1/10. COVERMAR Project.

Number of buildings in each LGA inundated in the tsunami scenarios generated by the Puysegur Trench. Figure 17. Figure 16. 54 . Number of buildings in each LGA inundated in the tsunami scenarios generated by the New Hebrides Trench.

17 24–29 Sydney Airport and Port Botany 18.13 18–20 Rockdale 14. 19 30–33 Table 12. Coastal Inundation. Infrastructure exposed to each of the storm surge scenarios in Botany Bay Council area. Botany Bay Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to storm surge inundation. m 2 ) Parks and reserves Marinas (Number) SCENARIO CODE Arterial roads (m) Bridges (Number) Car parks (Area) Health buildings Local roads (m) Utility buildings Sydney Airport Sport facilities Other coastal Train stations breakwaters Railway (m) Port Botany Seawalls or (Area.Infrastructure Exposed critical infrastructure is summarised in the following Tables and Figures: Location Tables Figures Botany Bay 12. Government buildings structures (Number) Education buildings Beaches (Area. COVERMAR Project. m 2 ) (Number) (Number) Buildings   inundation 0 0 0 0 1001 0 0 0 0 2 472 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 STORM SURGE erosion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA inundation 0 0 0 0 422 2117 0 0 0 0 4 745 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 erosion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA inundation 0 0 0 0 734 3473 0 0 0 0 7 1940 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 erosion NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA   Figure 18. 15 21–23 Sutherland 16. 55 . m 2 ) (Area.

000 yr S10 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 2 S11 0 0 0 0 12 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 S12 0 0 0 0 12 869 0 0 0 0 547 0 0 0 1 0 3 S13 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 1 S14 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 1 S15 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 5617 0 0 0 1 0 2 10. m2) Parks and reserves Marinas (Number) Bridges (Number) Arterial roads (m) Health (buildings Car parks (Area) Local roads (m) Return Time Utility buildings Sydney Airport Other coastal Train stations Railway (m) Port Botany (Area. Infrastructure exposed to each of the tsunami scenarios in the Botany Bay Council area.Puysegur S8 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 S9 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.000 yr S16 0 0 0 0 34 219 0 0 0 0 0 97472 0 0 0 1 0 2 S17 0 0 0 0 1964 1808 0 0 0 0 0 314141 0 0 0 1 0 6 S18 0 0 0 0 3293 3015 0 0 0 0 439793 0 0 0 1 0 4 56 .000 yr N16 0 0 0 0 0 202 0 0 0 0 0 2315 0 0 0 1 0 2 N17 0 0 0 0 505 978 0 0 0 0 0 48575 0 0 0 1 0 2 N18 0 0 0 0 3191 2810 0 0 0 0 0 421365 0 0 0 1 0 4 S1 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 S2 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 S3 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 yr S4 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 S5 0 0 0 0 12 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 S6 0 0 0 0 12 804 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 3 S7 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 TSUNAMI. Seawalls or breakwaters Sport facilities (Number) SCENARIO CODE Government buildings structures (Number) Education buildings Beaches (Area. Table 13.New Herbridges N6 0 0 0 0 12 804 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 3 N7 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 N8 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 N9 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 1.000 yr N10 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 N11 0 0 0 0 12 43 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 N12 0 0 0 0 12 816 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 3 N13 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 1 N14 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 N15 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 454 0 0 0 1 0 2 10. m2) (Number) (Area m2) Buildings N1 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 N2 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 1 N3 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 yr N4 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 N5 0 0 0 0 12 43 0 0 0 0 0 439 0 0 0 1 0 2 TSUNAMI.

Figure 20. Botany Bay Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: New Hebrides). 57 . Coastal Inundation. Botany Bay Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: Puysegur).Figure 19. COVERMAR Project.

Infrastructure exposed to each of the storm surge scenarios in the Rockdale Council area. m2) Parks and reserves Marinas (Number) Bridges (Number) Arterial roads (m) SCENARIO CODE Car parks (Area) Health buildings Local roads (m) Utility buildings Train stations Railway (m) (Area. Seawalls or breakwaters Other Coastal structures Sport facilities (Number) Sydney Airport Buildings Government buildings Education buildings Beaches (Area. Rockdale Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to storm surge inundation. Table 14. m2) (Number) (Number)     inundation 0 0 0 0 557 1494 107 9 55 1 2 94448 2 323253 20 0 24 1 STORM SURGE erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 0 0 258434 0 10400 16 0 0 inundation 0 0 0 0 1414 4669 777 9 62 1 3 130584 3 729857 22 0 27 2 erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 0 0 0 0 257938 0 10198 15 0 0 inundation 0 0 4 1 3697 17086 13402 10 128 1 5 160548 3 984682 22 0 27 3 erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 0 0 0 0 256114 0 8467 15 0 0   Figure 21. 58 .

Table 15. m2) (Number) (Number) N1 0 0 0 0 811 129 0 3 0 0 0 20311 1 454 14 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 844 129 0 4 0 0 0 34556 2 522 18 0 9 N3 0 0 0 0 944 196 0 7 0 0 0 63113 2 17387 19 0 16 100 yr N4 0 0 0 0 976 196 3 7 0 0 0 75396 2 24986 21 0 16 N5 0 0 0 0 1048 785 123 7 0 0 0 115536 2 93419 22 0 22 TSUNAMI .New Hebrides N6 0 0 0 0 560 2193 525 9 0 0 0 157170 3 221231 22 0 24 N7 0 0 0 0 844 129 0 3 0 0 0 35493 1 522 18 0 8 N8 0 0 0 0 915 129 0 4 0 0 0 54568 2 1431 18 0 14 N9 0 0 0 0 1029 737 3 7 0 0 0 102518 2 55004 20 0 17 1. 59 . m2) Marinas (Number) Parks and reserves Bridges (Number) Arterial roads (m) Car parks (Area) Health buildings Local roads (m) Utility buildings Return TIme Train stations Railway (m) (Area.000 yr 0 0 0 0 1351 2067 528 7 0 0 0 174302 3 123215 22 0 19 N16 N17 0 0 0 0 1907 3105 1277 7 0 0 0 189649 3 157386 23 0 23 N18 0 0 0 1 2931 5954 8755 9 0 0 1 213504 3 304103 23 0 24 S1 0 0 0 0 799 29 0 3 0 0 0 18743 1 454 14 0 7 S2 0 0 0 0 844 129 0 4 0 0 0 34019 2 522 18 0 9 S3 0 0 0 0 944 196 0 7 0 0 0 64616 2 15686 19 0 16 100 yr S4 0 0 0 0 976 205 3 7 0 0 0 79462 2 24457 21 0 16 S5 0 0 0 0 1042 580 221 7 0 0 0 118538 2 70950 23 0 22 S6 0 0 0 0 1477 2022 525 9 0 0 0 155916 3 215354 22 0 24 TSUNAMI .000 yr 0 0 0 0 1048 823 333 7 0 0 0 126586 2 80770 22 0 17 S10 S11 0 0 0 0 1094 1393 525 7 0 0 0 153323 3 124967 22 0 23 S12 0 0 0 0 2060 3061 1560 9 0 0 0 179716 3 241171 22 0 24 S13 0 0 0 0 1060 129 3 3 0 0 0 93225 1 1617 18 0 11 S14 0 0 0 0 977 189 333 4 0 0 0 129621 2 19520 20 0 14 S15 0 0 0 0 1466 1176 578 7 0 0 0 169925 3 105315 20 0 18 10. area. COVERMAR Project.Puysegur S7 0 0 0 0 844 129 0 3 0 0 0 36647 1 454 18 0 7 S8 0 0 0 0 892 129 0 4 0 0 0 57388 2 1282 18 0 12 S9 0 0 0 0 1023 390 123 7 0 0 0 111251 2 42445 20 0 17 1. Sydney Airport Buildings Sport facilities (Number) Seawalls or breakwaters Other Coastal structures Government buildings Education buildings SCENARIO CODE Beaches (Area. Infrastructure exposed 15 to each of the tsunami scenarios in the Rockdale Council area.000 yr N10 0 0 0 0 1048 921 123 7 0 0 0 119894 2 88754 22 0 17 N11 0 0 0 0 1319 1549 345 7 0 0 0 54649 3 133504 23 0 23 N12 0 0 0 0 2148 2994 932 9 0 0 0 178354 3 236637 22 0 24 N13 0 0 0 0 954 129 0 3 0 0 0 79524 1 1551 19 0 12 N14 0 0 0 0 1000 571 3 4 0 0 0 119550 2 28378 20 0 14 N15 0 0 0 0 1279 1752 348 7 0 0 0 167344 3 116177 21 0 18 10.000 yr S16 0 0 0 0 1220 1859 1062 7 0 0 0 176576 3 123943 23 0 19 S17 0 0 0 0 2166 3043 4245 6 0 0 0 178379 3 176138 23 0 23 S18 0 0 0 1 3322 5731 11236 9 0 0 1 214961 3 308794 23 0 24 70 Coastal Inundation.

Figure 23. 60 . Rockdale Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: New Hebrides). Rockdale Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: Puysegur). Figure 22.

COVERMAR Project. Sutherland Council area: number of buildings providing critical services exposed to storm surge inundation. m2) Parks and reserves Marinas (Number) SCENARIO CODE Bridges (Number) Arterial roads (m) Car parks (Area) Health buildings Local roads (m) Utility buildings Other Coastal Train stations Railway (m) (Area. Coastal Inundation. 61 . m2) (Number)     inundation 1 0 0 0 351 2060 199 6 9 0 236347 7 3244405 8 7 8 1 STORM SURGE erosion 0 0 0 0 0 38 145 0 0 0 347276 0 235898 2 0 0 inundation 2 0 3 0 1117 7563 3892 6 11 0 292328 11 4075443 9 7 21 2 erosion 0 0 0 0 0 59 209 0 0 0 375098 0 292757 2 0 0 inundation 3 1 12 1 2862 25686 18593 6 9 0 357932 13 4849666 11 7 16 3 erosion 0 0 0 0 0 161 716 0 0 0 376663 0 354575 2 0 0   Figure 24. Table 16. Seawalls or breakwaters Sport facilities (Number) Government buildings structures (Number) Education buildings Beaches (Area. Infrastructure exposed in each of the storm surge scenarios in the Sutherland Council area.

Puysegur S8 1 0 0 0 774 1418 177 6 67 0 385067 2 4924686 15 7 18 1.New Hebrides N7 0 0 0 0 740 1155 121 5 47 0 279840 2 4246630 14 7 10 N8 1 0 0 0 258 1306 131 6 67 0 353116 2 4971481 15 7 11 N9 1 0 0 0 842 2577 386 6 94 0 430410 4 6937167 16 7 11 1.000 yr S16 2 0 2 0 1447 7468 762 6 110 0 605353 7 8687463 18 7 12 S17 2 1 2 0 1845 10891 1365 6 242 0 642487 8 9295046 18 7 13 S18 4 3 11 0 3933 26199 15640 6 128 0 657980 10 9971374 18 7 17 62 .000 yr N16 3 0 2 0 1168 7033 762 6 110 0 572221 7 8510974 17 7 12 N17 3 1 6 0 1706 9629 973 6 124 0 600051 8 9207438 18 7 14 N18 3 3 11 0 4080 22426 17694 6 126 0 633693 10 9850694 18 7 17 S1 0 0 0 0 740 943 121 5 47 0 124485 1 3841510 12 7 8 S2 0 0 0 0 762 1143 121 6 67 0 168963 1 4250589 13 7 8 S3 0 0 0 0 815 1931 121 6 94 0 261074 4 5715407 16 7 11 100 yr S4 0 0 0 0 832 2200 121 6 94 0 287926 4 6314552 16 7 11 S5 1 0 0 0 1126 2406 121 6 97 0 360997 6 7509665 17 7 11 S6 2 0 3 0 1675 5395 2636 6 109 0 457366 9 8676243 17 7 15 S7 0 0 0 0 740 1235 121 5 47 0 327016 2 4278103 14 7 10 TSUNAMI . Sport facilities (Number) Seawalls or breakwaters Government buildings SCENARIO CODE structures (Number) Education buildings Beaches (Area. m 2 ) Parks and reserves Marinas (Number) Arterial roads (m) Bridges (Number) Car parks (Area) Health buildings Local roads (m) Utility buildings Return Time Other Coastal Train stations Railway (m) (Area. s m 2 ) (Number) N1 0 0 0 0 740 896 121 5 47 0 142878 1 3897606 12 7 8 N2 0 0 0 0 762 1118 121 6 67 0 196118 1 4322140 13 7 10 N3 1 0 0 0 815 2092 121 6 94 0 289288 4 5960377 16 7 11 100 yr N4 1 0 0 0 832 2263 121 6 94 0 313875 4 6459666 16 7 11 N5 1 0 0 0 1117 2325 121 6 97 0 382355 6 7578021 17 7 11 N6 2 0 4 0 1918 8720 2636 6 109 0 469618 9 8734841 17 7 15 TSUNAMI .000 S9 1 0 0 0 854 2402 654 6 94 0 455408 4 6835621 17 7 12 yr S10 1 0 0 0 877 2751 695 6 94 0 471828 4 7321389 17 7 12 S11 1 0 0 0 1276 3674 708 6 101 0 511945 6 8319104 18 7 13 S12 2 1 5 0 2043 11881 5843 6 117 0 554974 9 9262917 18 7 17 S13 1 0 0 0 774 2581 762 6 67 0 517706 2 5355931 16 7 11 S14 1 0 0 0 850 3503 762 6 72 0 548484 2 6615307 16 7 12 S15 2 0 1 0 1328 5952 762 6 110 0 593492 6 8370542 17 7 12 10. Infrastructure exposed to each of the tsunami scenarios in the Sutherland Council area.000 yr N10 1 0 0 0 896 2697 654 6 96 0 445974 4 7368130 16 7 12 N11 1 0 0 0 1326 3346 708 6 114 0 485822 6 8307090 17 7 13 N12 2 0 5 0 2154 11882 6104 6 117 0 534540 9 9248701 18 7 17 N13 1 0 0 0 758 2733 762 5 60 0 492263 2 5428689 16 7 12 N14 1 0 0 0 821 3607 762 6 72 0 519339 3 6575073 16 7 12 N15 1 0 2 0 962 6009 762 6 108 0 565581 7 8226907 17 7 12 10. Table 17.

COVERMAR Project. Sutherland Council area: total length of arterial and local roads exposed to storm surge inundation. Figure 25. Figure 26. Coastal Inundation. Sutherland Council area: buildings providing critical services exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: New Hebrides). 63 .

Sutherland Council area: buildings providing critical service exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: Puysegur). Sutherland Council area: length of arterial and local roads exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: New Hebrides). Figure 28. 64 . Figure 27.

m2) inundation 283049. SYDNEY AIRPORT PORT BOTANY SCENARIO CODE (area. COVERMAR Project.6 745 2 erosion 0 NA inundation 1627392 1940 3 erosion 0 NA Coastal Inundation. m2) (area.5 472 1 STORM SURGE erosion 0 NA inundation 804541.Figure 29 Sutherland Council area: length of arterial and local roads exposed to tsunami inundation (originating: Puysegur). Area of Sydney Airport and Port Botany (within Botany Bay LGA only) inundated by the Storm Surge scenarios. Table 18. 65 .

66 . Figure 31. Figure 30. Port Botany: area exposed to storm surge inundation. Sydney Airport: area exposed to storm surge inundation.

New Hebrides N6 30461 439 S6 25238 439 N7 7222 439 TSUNAMI . COVERMAR Project.000 N15 109383 454 10. Area of Sydney Airport and Port Botany (within Botany Bay LGA only) inundated by the tsunami scenarios. 67 . m 2 ) SCENARIO SCENARIO (area m 2 ) CODE CODE N1 6200 439 S1 6088 439 N2 7162 439 S2 7099 439 N3 8491 439 S3 8459 439 100 yr 100 yr N4 9152 439 S4 8950 439 N5 12942 439 S5 12079 439 TSUNAM I .Puysegur S7 7210 439 N8 8386 439 S8 8522 439 N9 13174 439 1.000 S15 125408 5617 yr N16 145829 2315 yr S16 152314 97472 N17 320785 48575 S17 406534 314141 N18 785224 421365 S18 940826 439793   Coastal Inundation.000 S9 16033 439 1. m 2 ) (area. Sydney Airport Sydney Airport Port Botany Port Botany (area.000 yr N10 16000 439 yr S10 20657 439 N11 31493 439 S11 42423 439 N12 194176 439 S12 176493 547 N13 20660 439 S13 29603 439 N14 44703 439 S14 57032 439 10. m 2 ) (area. Table 19.

Figure 33. Figure 32. 68 . Port Botany: area exposed to tsunami inundation. Sydney Airport: area exposed to tsunami inundation.

The approach by Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes (2009) was positively evaluated by Sydney stakeholders and residents in a subsequent study. We also generated six detailed maps as examples (Appendix II). The areas covered by the maps included in this report are shown in Figure 34. namely Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes (2010). vulnerability is represented using a colour-coded scale ranging from green (low vulnerability) to red (high vulnerability). Frames S1.000. The maps also show the ‘use’ of each building (e. 2. Figure 34. Therefore. Frames 1 to 5 were printed in an A0 format. commercial.e. 69 . S6 and S7 are detail maps (Appendix II). Figure 35 and Figure 37). we assumed that they were the most common building type found in the study area: COVERMAR type 3RF (one storey brick veneer buildings. the Mean Damage Curve) obtained for one Storey Brick Buildings. this approximation means that the storm surge building vulnerability model used to assess the expected damage is the FCM9 vulnerability function. Coastal Inundation. we created five maps per inundation scenario. PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS The Probable Maximum Loss (PML) caused by each inundation scenario was calculated for buildings and roads. with a raised ground-floor): • For storm surges. Figure 36 and Figure 38). In these maps.000 and 1:10. health and education) following Dall’Osso and Dominey-Howes (2009). They have been printed in A0 size and are also available in a digital form with the pdf version of this report. with scales ranging between 1:5.VULNERABILITY The vulnerability of individual buildings and selected infrastructure was calculated within the COVERMAR GIS and used to generate thematic vulnerability maps. Values for all the accessible buildings. we calculated two different PML values: 1. this approximation uses the vulnerability function (i.g. residential.000 and 1:10. • For tsunamis. their vulnerability could not be directly assessed. in order to have comprehensive estimates of the expected economic losses associated with each inundation scenario.000. Values which included both accessible and inaccessible buildings (Table 22 and Table 23. Coverage of the COVERMAR vulnerability maps. COVERMAR Project. whose characteristics were identified during the survey and stored in the GIS (Table 20 and Table 21. In order to estimate the expected damage to inaccessible buildings. Given the extent of the study area and the benefits of a geographic scale that allows a view of single building units. Since the physical and engineering characteristics of 555 buildings were unavailable because they were inaccessible during the survey. These maps have scales ranging between 1:5.

0 263.0 16.9 S2 31 14 7.1 S18 2623 2212 668.5 144.6 10.3 S3 S6 97 674 46 466 16.5 219.2 S5 S8 165 64 57 27 29.0 S13 S16 158 607 85 385 42.1 N12 N15 1304 500 1025 302 263.1 N3 117 56 18.3 44.000 yr N10 N13 212 171 92 108 44.8 23.4 123. Inundated buildings No.9 S3 97 46 16.000 yr TSUNAM I .5 100 yr 2 829 556 47. The number of buildings used for PML calculations is smaller than the total number of inundated buildings – those inaccessible are not considered.000 yr 1.000 yr N13 N16 171 609 108 391 44.3 N2 N5 36 184 17 62 9.0 S12 S15 1315 510 1034 306 257.Puysegur 100 yr 100 yr N4 N7 132 34 58 16 23.3 11.000 yr   N16 609 391 137.8 S10 S13 208 158 90 85 44.1 100 yr 100 yr N1 N4 17 132 10 58 4. buildings No.6 66.000 yr 10.2 37.8 S1 9 6 3.7 S14 S17 261 852 143 649 66. buildings used in No.3 S4 S7 117 29 54 15 20.2 TSUNAMI .1 29.000 yr 10. Inundated No.5 N11 N14 325 274 168 157 72.3 257.1 20. No.3 17.1 N8 N11 64 325 25 168 16.8 137.3 68.New Hebrides N3 N6 117 911 56 694 18. buildings used in PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE PML ($ Millions) No.4 1. buildings used in PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE PML ($ Millions) No.2 N5 N8 184 64 62 25 34. buildings used in 3 is smaller than the total number of inundated 3173 buildings as2717 212. Inundated No.1 S15 S18 510 2623 306 2212 123.7 S17 852 649 198.5 S9 S12 179 1315 80 1034 37.0 577.5 S11 S14 324 261 172 143 68.New Hebrides N6 N9 911 184 694 81 145.2 668.3 S1 S49 117 6 54 3.2 44.3 10.3 36.0 S2 S5 31 165 14 57 7.7 those inaccessible are not considered.8 44.3 1.1 198.8 N15 N18 500 2318 302 1923 114.8 N18 2318 1923 577.5 3 3173 2717 212.5 STORM SURGE 1 248 108 17.0 S16 607 385 144.2 72. No.0 N14 N17 274 919 157 655 64. Return Time Return Time buildings buildings N1 17 10 4. Table 20.9 145.5 Table 21.2 64.3 TSUNAM I .3 TSUNAM I .0 S6 S9 674 179 466 80 114. The number of buildings used for PML calculation No.000 yr 1.2 S8 S11 64 324 27 172 17. PML Calculation PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE SCENARIO CODE PML ($ Millions) PML ($ Millions) Inundated Inundated Return Time Return Time   buildings buildings in in used used PML Calculation PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE SCENARIO CODE PML ($ Millions) PML ($ Millions) No.1 114. buildings No.5 114.1 42. PML of buildings caused by each tsunami scenario.0 N17 919 655 219.6   70 .9 34.7   100 yr 2 829 556 47. PML of buildings caused by each storm surge scenario.6 N9 N12 184 1304 81 1025 36.1 N2 36 17 9.Puysegur N7 N10 34 212 16 92 11. Inundated buildings STORM SURGE 1 248 108 17.2 10.8 S7 S10 29 208 15 90 10.

buildings used in buildings ($ Millions) buildings ($ Millions) 3 is equal to the total number of inundated buildings 3173inaccessible – those 3173 were included 263.1 4.0 N12 N9 1304 184 184 1304 294.7 TSUNAM I . buildings used in buildings ($ Millions) PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE No. buildings used in No.8 S15S18 2623 510 2623 510 728. PML of all buildings caused by each storm surge scenario.3   100 yr 2 829 829 64.9 S5 S8 16564 16564 19.8 S1 9 9 3.1 N2N5 36184 36184 44.8 29.5 146.000 yr 287.4 N16 N13 171609 171 609 163.2 S7S10 29208 29208 53.1 N5N8 18464 18464 18.9 47.9 10. Inundated buildings including inaccessiblePML No.5 S12S15 510 1315 510 1315 146.5 10. Inundated Return time Return time   buildings buildings PML PML including inaccessible including inaccessible No.000 yr 10.3 N3 117 117 23.1   Coastal Inundation.9 S17 852 852 227.4 N17 919 919 256.5 S6 S9 179 674 674179 44.9 10.4 inaccessible inaccessible Table 23.8 76.2 100 yr 2 829 829 64.7 25.2 53.1 S4 S7 11729 11729 10.1 S3 97 97 19.7 S8S11 64324 64324 85.7 85.7 TSUNAMI .4 49.Puysegur N10 N7 34212 34212 11. PML of all buildings caused by each tsunami scenario. buildings used in No. inaccessible No. Inundated No.0 44.7 N11 N8 64325 64325 18.9 S14S17 852 261 261852 227.4 STORM SURGE 1 248 248 26.5 S9S12 1315 179 1315 179 287.8 S1 S4 9 117 9 117 3. Inundated No.8 S18 2623 2623 728.6 N17 N14 274919 274 919 256.4 135.5 19.4 10.6 TSUNAMI .4 N18 N15 2318 500 500 2318 635.0 38.000 yr 1.338. PML Calculation PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE SCENARIO CODE No.1 19. Inundated Return time Return time buildings buildings PML PML N1 17 17 4. COVERMAR Project. 71 .6 S2 31 31 7.1 1. The number of buildings used for PML calculation is equal to the total number of inundated buildings – those inaccessible were included in the PML estimate. Inundated buildings PML STORM SURGE 1 248 248 26.8 S11S14 261 324 324261 76.000 yr   N16 609 609 163.9 N14 N11 325274 325 274 73.3 in the PML estimate.6 73.0 168.855.189.000 yr 1.1 N2 36 36 10.1 S3 S6 97674 97674 135.6 S16 607 607 171.Table 22.6 55.1 44.9 S10S13 158 208 208158 47.2 3 3173 3173 263.125.5 N15 N12 500 1304 1304 500 136.6 S13S16 607 158 158607 171.New Hebrides N6N9 911184 911 184 44. The number of buildings used for PML calculation No.000 yr 294.Puysegur 100 yr 100 yr N4N7 13234 13234 11.4 89.000 yr N13 N10 212171 212 171 49.4 1.6 S2 S5 31165 31165 7.6 N18 2318 2318 635.5 23.000 yr TSUNAM I .6 100 yr 100 yr N1N4 17132 17132 29.4 44. buildings used in ($ Millions) ($ Millions) buildings including buildings including PML Calculation PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE SCENARIO CODE No.New Hebrides N3N6 911 117 117 911 168. buildings used in ($ Millions) buildings including PML Calculation SCENARIO CODE No.4 10.1 136.

Figure 36. PML of buildings for each storm surge scenario (inaccessible buildings are not considered). Figure 35. PML of buildings for each storm surge scenario (including inaccessible buildings) 72 .

Figure 37. COVERMAR Project. 73 . PML of buildings for each tsunami scenario (excluding inaccessible buildings) Figure 38. PML of buildings for each tsunami scenario (including inaccessible buildings) Coastal Inundation.

New Hebrides N6 6 106 112 891 394 1284 1444 1776 3220 N7 0 11 11 689 18 707 650 211 861 N8 0 11 11 731 21 752 709 243 952 N9 0 12 12 919 157 1075 761 490 1252 1. BOTANY BAY ROCKDALE SUTHERLAND SCENARIO CODE Arterial Roads Arterial Roads Arterial Roads Total PML for Total PML for Total PML for Local Roads Local Roads Local Roads Roads Roads Roads N1 0 4 4 536 17 553 502 129 631 N2 0 9 9 560 17 577 528 41 570 N3 0 10 10 662 30 691 518 345 863 100 yr N4 0 6 6 641 30 671 502 374 876 N5 6 6 11 624 164 788 659 44 703 TSUNAM I .000 yr N10 0 6 6 934 200 1134 790 524 1313 N11 6 6 11 1175 365 1540 1189 642 1830 N12 6 108 113 1799 658 2457 2065 2869 4934 N13 0 14 14 1045 27 1071 830 823 1653 N14 0 15 15 1043 120 1164 886 1156 2042 N15 0 24 24 1338 425 1763 1027 1918 2946 10.Puysegur S7 0 8 8 728 20 747 630 279 909 S8 0 14 14 802 24 827 679 290 969 S9 0 12 12 974 74 1048 749 532 1281 1.000 yr N16 0 48 48 1413 516 1929 1163 2207 3370 N17 383 255 638 1973 824 2797 1733 3101 4834 N18 2818 713 3531 2843 1670 4513 4076 7037 11113 S1 0 4 4 490 17 507 428 141 569 S2 0 9 9 565 17 582 459 165 623 S3 0 6 6 625 31 657 511 318 830 100 yr S4 0 6 6 649 35 684 502 355 857 S5 6 6 11 609 109 717 663 348 1011 S6 6 106 112 769 356 1125 1117 901 2018 TSUNAM I .000 yr S16 28 65 92 1341 487 1829 1482 2662 4144 S17 1897 544 2441 2197 783 2980 2261 3927 6188 S18 3400 939 4339 3200 1626 4826 4267 8860 13127   74 . PML estimates ($ thousands) for damage to arterial and local roads for each tsunami scenario. Table 24.000 yr S10 0 10 10 1000 185 1185 772 614 1386 S11 6 6 11 1007 319 1326 1101 839 1940 S12 6 116 122 1719 665 2384 1939 3010 4949 S13 0 20 20 1052 27 1080 809 940 1750 S14 0 19 19 1160 40 1200 910 1302 2212 S15 0 31 31 1337 359 1696 1299 2119 3418 10.

COVERMAR Project. Per-Council PML estimates for damage to roads. 75 .Figure 39. Coastal Inundation.

Inundation of Kingsford Smith Airport and Port Botany would be significant only for 2. Bundeena are exposed only in the worst In the worst case scenarios (N18 and S18). 1 in 10. whereas those originating in the New Hebrides would take over 4 hours. S18. the total length Cronulla Beach Surf Life Saving clubhouse of inundated roads would be about half (in Gunnamatta bay) and the Coast Guard of that affected by the worst case storm Radio base (in Kurnell) would be flooded by surge scenario (no. 2. Dolls Point would be flooded by the third storm surge scenario. surges. schools. A relatively low number of buildings (i. 1/100 yr). the exposure of roads to buildings is higher. 1 in 10. For instance.e. with only 210 buildings details). conditions – N17. the total damage caused by buildings in Rockdale and 1842 buildings in tsunamis would be significantly higher (see Sutherland. in spite of the lower exposed in scenario 3. storm surges. None of the bridges on Cooks River or therefore Foreshore Road cannot be Georges River would be completely considered risk free until erosion hazard lines submerged. 76 .5 hours. 1/100 yr storm). the PML section for further details). with the largest differential being affect 2623 buildings. Tsunamis triggered in Puysegur would inundate more buildings than those generated in the New Hebrides. In occurring during high sea level conditions Rockdale.e. police stations. In each tsunami scenario. In Sutherland the exposure of critical 3. a 1 in 10. by tidal inundation. scenarios (N18 and S18). and buildings City Councils. S18). Building and infrastructure exposure assessment results. N18 and S17. the most This may in part be explained by the exposed Council LGA is Sutherland. hospitals. and 4. approach of McInnes et al. However. which is less than between scenarios 2 and 3. storm surge scenarios 2 and 3. the M1–M5 freeways would be flooded at the entrance of the airport tunnel. In create storm surge inundation layers (see Botany Bay City Council exposure remains the Hazard Assessment Report for more relatively low. 3. building 248) are inundated in scenario 1 (2010 sea exposure is lower than that for storm level conditions. N18 and S17. exposure increases exponentially with initial sea level conditions. 1. no storm erosion data was available from Botany Bay City Council. but damage may occur as a are considered. result of high flow velocities and impact from debris or boats. fire exposure only in the worst tsunami critical services brigades.e.e. critical buildings and Public School and the Fire Brigades base in infrastructure would be heavily affected. the exposure of buildings tsunami exposure of buildings and providing critical services during infrastructure is relatively low with high providing emergencies (e. the NSW Health Service offices in – N17. Note that Puysegur tsunamis would reach the study area in about 2. The number of exposed buildings increases generated in Puysegur and occurring exponentially across the three storm surge during high sea level conditions) would scenarios. the worst tsunami scenario (i. In the Botany Bay City Council LGA. Kingsford Smith Airport and Port Botany the worst tsunami scenarios (i.DISCUSSION EXPOSURE The results for building and infrastructure exposure are detailed in Table 25. 4. In the southern part of the LGA.3).e. storm surge scenario (no.g. 2. surf life savers. particularly for tsunamis is significantly lower than that to government and education buildings. The Kurnell beachfront roads. In Rockdale. (2012) to followed by Rockdale and Botany Bay. with the same initial sea level conditions (storm surge scenario 3). with Foreshore Road Dolls Point and Sandringham are the most being virtually untouched by the water. 3. In each storm surge scenario. scenarios (i. In the LGAs of Botany Bay and Rockdale 1. S18). Primrose House.000 yr event 2. This shows that those exposed to a storm surge with a the initial sea level conditions play a key much higher probability of occurrence role in defining the extent of inundation. as opposed to 1121 exposure. the Woolooware School. exposed zones. Table 25.000 yr events power transmission) is zero to very low.000 would be inundated under all storm surge yr events occurring in high sea level scenarios.3). EXPOSURE STORM SURGE TSUNAMI Buildings 1. (i. In the worst tsunami Specifically. 3. Infrastructure 1. However. The road network in the Botany Bay City most likely the whole tunnel would be Council LGA would be marginally affected unusable. As for storm surge. However.

Road exposure is significantly higher in 5. N18.e. Sutherland Shire Council • The residential area in Kurnell (this includes several one. N12. the pattern of critical southern part of the council (Carruthers buildings exposed to tsunamis is similar to Drive. dominated by government and education buildings). causing significant inundation of inner streets. In Sutherland road exposure is very high. under most tsunami scenarios. 7. which may result in damage to the structure and potential oil spills. VULNERABILITY AND PROBABLE MAXIMUM LOSS The outcomes of the vulnerability assessment and PML estimates are discussed below: 1.e. Sutherland streets are highly exposed to tsunamis. Woolooware High School is exposed with local roads being much more affected under all tsunami scenarios occurring in than arterial roads. the pier supporting the oil pipeline connecting the Kurnell Refinery to the ship access point would experience water levels in excess of 3 m and flow velocities up to 2 m/sec. the COVERMAR vulnerability maps show that the most critical built areas across the selected storm surge and tsunami scenarios are: Botany Bay City Council Port Botany and the industrial-residential area nearby Hale Street. no damage would occur to building that would be flooded under providing Grand Parade. Rockdale City Council The built-up areas along Cooks River. S18). N6. N16. Critical buildings in Rockdale have a low Rockdale and Sutherland councils. The Kurnell refinery pipeline may be an additional hazard. For each of the study LGAs. EXPOSURE STORM SURGE TSUNAMI Infrastructure 5. In to very low exposure to tsunamis. The Woolooware Bay would be heavily Kurnell Public School is exposed under inundated. which is the only connection to the Kurnell residential area. that for storm surges (i. areas of Gwawley Bay. N17. Coastal Inundation. the most vulnerable to inundation). S6. Captain Cook tsunami scenarios N18. COVERMAR Project.and two-storey timber houses. but water would penetrate scenarios N18 and S18 is the Primrose critical services inland through Cooks River (to the north) House at Dolls Point. As with storm surges. This risk is further exacerbated by the possible impact of debris and large boats/ships. would be flooded (mainly along the Gunnamatta Bay) and the Coast Guard section which passes through Woolooware Radio base (in Kurnell) are highly exposed Bay) and would be impassable. Muddy Creek and Wolli Creek and the residential units in Dolls point and Sandringham. Special attention should be given to Captain Cook Drive. 6. The only and buildings Rockdale. which is the only connection to Beach Surf Life Saving clubhouse (in Kurnell. 77 . Taren Point and S12. S17. S16. Erosion would be an issue only in the 6. which is currently and Baldo-Berong Creek (to the south) used for health care administration. The road network in the high sea level conditions (i. In Kurnell. The Cronulla Drive. S18. In Sutherland. Vanston Parade). 8. Importantly.

S7 to S12 and S13 to S18) follows the same trend observed for exposure (Table 25). This emphasises the critical influence of the initial sea level condition. Figure 41 and Figure 42).000. which is an exponential increase through the three storm surge scenarios. 4. 5. Figure 40. The damage to buildings caused by tsunamis is substantially higher than that caused by storm surges. tsunami PML per building is $237. high tide) would inundate only 132 buildings. tsunami scenario N4 (i. Woolooware Bay. Specifically. red columns represent an imaginary stock in which all buildings have a raised ground floor. the PML estimates for tsunamis are much higher than those for storm surges. whereas for storm surge it is about one-third less at $88. when the storm surge exposure is significantly higher. 3.e. The vulnerability of buildings is dependent upon their structural and engineering attributes. For instance.077 million. Blue columns represent the existing stock of buildings. Even simple construction options may significantly contribute to a reduction in damage and associated PML. Bundeena Bay and Simpsons Bay.6% (tsunami scenarios. event. 1/100 yr. 2010 sea level conditions) would affect 248 buildings. The PML for tsunamis generated in Puysegur is typically higher than that for those triggered in the New Hebrides. occurring in 2010 sea level conditions.000.193 million. • Kurnell peninsula is connected to the mainland by Captain Cook Drive which would be flooded in most storm surge and tsunamis scenarios. in some cases. PML estimates for the storm surges scenarios.6% (storm surge scenarios. • The industrial-residential areas of Taren Point. 1/100 yr. the average 1/100yr. storm surge scenario no.1 (i. where most houses have direct access to the water. event. reflecting the same pattern observed for exposure. For similar exposure values. the total PML estimates would decrease by 44. and the PML would be $29. 2. if all the buildings of the study area had a raised ground-floor (+30 cm above the ground level). Figure 40) and 29. This is the case for tsunamis and storm surges having the same probability of occurrence and. 6. Thus. 78 . • The residential area of Gwawley bay.e. but the associated PML would be less at $26. The PML in relation to buildings for both storm surges (scenarios 1 to 3) and tsunamis (scenarios S1 to S6.

Coastal Inundation. Blue columns represent the existing stock of buildings. COVERMAR Project. PML estimates for the tsunami scenarios triggered in New Hebrides. Blue columns represent the existing stock of buildings. red columns represent imaginary buildings with a raised ground floor. Figure 42. 79 . Figure 41. PML estimates for the tsunami scenarios triggered in Puysegur. red columns represent an imaginary stock in which all buildings have a raised ground floor.

the risk to coastal assets and people is further exacerbated by cascading effects. Vulnerability models currently available to the scientific community do not allow an accurate simulation of cascading effects. However. both by waves and by the impact of large objects mobilised by the waves such as cars.g. the protected wetland areas of Towra Point and Carters Island). Within the COVERMAR case study locations. A cascading effect occurs when a secondary hazard is triggered by the inundation (e. containers. In the case of extreme inundations. 80 . fires and contamination to the surrounding built and natural environment (e. • The container deposit facility in Port Botany. The pier could easily be damaged during a tsunami. Cascading effects may include potential chemical spills or the impact of containers mobilised by the water flow. Wolli Creek (Rockdale) and Hale Street (Botany Bay) from potential contamination.g. risk is generally higher for areas in close proximity to secondary hazards. these include: • The oil pipeline on the Kurnell pier (Figure 43).7. boats and oil tankers. • The industrial-residential areas in Taren Point (Sutherland). a chemical spill from a damaged industrial site). A potential oil spill within Botany Bay could lead to explosions.

Figure 43. Coastal Inundation. 81 . The oil pipeline along the pier in Kurnell (Sutherland). COVERMAR Project.

RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND BUILDING VULNERABILITY
We make the following recommendations:
1. Compare the COVERMAR tsunami hazard assessment with that undertaken by NSW SES (Hanslow et al., 2013) using
a different numerical model (i.e. DELFT 3D);
2. Expand the range of flood building fragility models currently available for Australia (Maqsood et al., 2013) to include more
building classes (e.g. multi-storey buildings);
3. Generate a set of Australia-specific building vulnerability functions for tsunamis based on synthetic or judgmental methods;
4. Until the functions in Item 3. are available, use the approach adopted in COVERMAR, that is a combination of:
a. The PTVA model, for comparing the vulnerability of different building types; and
b. The use of the building vulnerability functions developed in Japan (Suppasri et al., 2012), for a first-order estimate
of economic losses.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation Reasoning

Undertake multi-risk assessments for all LGAs along the Built assets along the NSW coastal zone are at risk of
NSW coastal fringe using the COVERMAR methodology. extreme inundation. The risk caused by storm surges and
tsunamis is dependent on local coastal zone
characteristics, such as near-shore bathymetry and
topography. Whilst the COVERMAR methodology and
modelling have general application and utility, the
results of this study cannot be extended or extrapolated
to locations beyond the study area.

Conduct further research to expand the number of The utility of an assessment can be expanded to include
hazards considered in the COVERMAR methodology. We different hazard types. This would increase the capability
suggest the inclusion of hazards such as extreme rain, for risk and emergency managers to compare different
catchment runoff, landslide and bushfire. risks and adopt more effective and balanced mitigation
measures.

Amend the Guidelines for preparing CZMPs to include a The current NSW legislation on coastal risk does not
requirement that councils consider low frequency, high require Councils to undertake risk assessment studies for
consequence hazards. hazards having a likelihood of occurrence beyond 100
years. Tsunami risks can be addressed under Section 3.3
of the NSW Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone
Management Plans, (OEH 2013) which provides:

A CZMP may address other risks to public safety or built
assets or the environment in the coastal zone if actions
are proposed by council or a public authority to reduce
these risks over the CZMP’s implementation period. These
additional coastal risks may include rock fishing, beach
safety, sand drift, stormwater outlets onto beaches and
tsunami impacts.

COVERMAR demonstrated that low frequency hazards
such as tsunamis can cause significant damage to
coastal assets on timescales longer than 100 years.

Establish sea level rise planning benchmarks. The hazard assessment demonstrated that the urban
inundation extent is strongly dependent on initial sea
level conditions. The 2012 NSW Government’s Coastal
Reforms revoked the 2009 NSW Sea Level Rise Policy
Statement and transferred to local councils, responsibility
in relation to sea level rise projections. The provision of

82 benchmarks by State government will allow consistent
assessment of exposure and vulnerability to marine
hazards across LGAs.

catchment runoff, landslide and bushfire. risks and adopt more effective and balanced mitigation
measures.

Amend the Guidelines for preparing CZMPs to include a The current NSW legislation on coastal risk does not
requirement that councils consider low frequency, high require Councils to undertake risk assessment studies for
consequence hazards. hazards having a likelihood of occurrence beyond 100
years. Tsunami risks can be addressed under Section 3.3
of the NSW Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone
Management Plans, (OEH 2013) which provides:

A CZMP may address other risks to public safety or built
assets or the environment in the coastal zone if actions
are proposed by council or a public authority to reduce
these risks over the CZMP’s implementation period. These
additional coastal risks may include rock fishing, beach
safety, sand drift, stormwater outlets onto beaches and
tsunami impacts.

COVERMAR demonstrated that low frequency hazards
such as tsunamis can cause significant damage to
Recommendation coastal assets on timescales longer than 100 years.
Reasoning

Undertake
Establish multi-risk
sea level riseassessments for all LGAs along the
planning benchmarks. Built hazard
The assets along the NSW
assessment coastal zone
demonstrated arethe
that at urban
risk of
NSW coastal fringe using the COVERMAR methodology. inundation extent isThe
extreme inundation. strongly dependent
risk caused by storm onsurges
initial and
sea
tsunamis is dependent
level conditions. The 2012 NSW on Government’s
local coastalCoastal zone
Reforms revokedsuch
characteristics, the 2009 NSW Sea bathymetry
as near-shore Level Rise Policy and
topography.
Statement and Whilst the COVERMAR
transferred methodology
to local councils, and
responsibility
in relation to
modelling sea general
have level rise application
projections. The
and provision
utility, theof
results of this study
benchmarks by Statecannot be extended
government or extrapolated
will allow consistent
assessment of exposure
to locations beyond the study and vulnerability to marine
area.
hazards across LGAs.
Conduct further research to expand the number of The utility of an assessment can be expanded to include
hazards
The considered
State Emergency in the COVERMAR
Service methodology.
and councils We
facilitate differentintegration
Ensure hazard types. Thismanagement
of risk would increase the capability
across the built
workshops
suggest thewith ownersofofhazards
inclusion critical infrastructure
such as extreme to review
rain, environment.
for risk and emergency managers to compare different
catchment
their runoff,
specific landslide
storm and and bushfire.
tsunami risk management risks and adopt more effective and balanced mitigation
approaches and strategies to ensure they are up to date measures.
and relevant.
Facilitate
Amend theworkshops
Guidelinesamong relevant
for preparing CZMPsstakeholders
to include in a Provide capacity
The current NSW to construction
legislation authorities,
on coastal building
risk does not
requirement
relation to thethat councils of
generation consider low tsunami
Australian frequency, high
building require Councils
regulators, to undertake
councils, insurance riskcompanies
assessment andstudies for
other
fragility curves,hazards.
consequence design standards and building code stakeholders.
hazards having a likelihood of occurrence beyond 100
regulations for tsunami flooding. years. Tsunami risks can be addressed under Section 3.3
Develop building codes in areas exposed to storm surges No building
of the NSW codes for storm
Guidelines for surges or tsunamis
Preparing Coastal have
Zone
or tsunamis stipulating appropriate construction Management
been developedPlans, (OEH
in NSW (or2013) which in
elsewhere provides:
Australia).
standards. The Codes should consider the following:
A CZMP may
Buildings with address other risks
raised ground to public
floors safety or built
are significantly less
a) A raised ground floor height. exposed
assets or to inundation.
the environment in the coastal zone if actions
are proposed by council or a public authority to reduce
Reduce
these risksexposure to flood
over the CZMP’s and increaseperiod.
implementation the overall
These
b) Raised, rigid foundations, such as reinforced
additional
building coastal to
resilience risks may
wave include
impact androck fishing, beach
scouring.
concrete piles or brick columns.
safety, sand drift, stormwater outlets onto beaches and
Heavier
tsunami buildings
impacts. are more likely to resist hydrodynamic
forces such as buoyancy and drag. In highly exposed
Recommendation Reasoning
c) Construction of buildings with greater mass. areas,
COVERMAR full brick and reinforced
demonstrated that low concrete
frequency buildings
hazards
such as
provide
provide tsunamis
greater
greater canthan
protection
protection cause
timber
than significant
and brick
timber damage
andveneer
brick to
buildings.
veneer
Restrict residential units on the ground floor of multi-storey buildings.
coastal assets
Ground on timescales
floors are longer
by far the most than 100
exposed toyears.
inundation
buildings that are not raised over pile foundations or and should not be used for residential purposes.
Establish sea level rise planning benchmarks.
columns. The hazard assessment demonstrated that the urban
Planning strategies consider open ground-floors (i.e. inundation
Open groundextent is strongly
floors dependent
would allow a tsunamion initial sea
to flow-
columns, many windows). level conditions. The 2012 NSW Government’s
through the building, imposing a smaller hydrodynamic Coastal
Reforms revoked
pressure onto the the load-bearing
2009 NSW Seastructure.
Level RiseClosed
Policy
Statement and transferred to local councils,
ground-floors (e.g. no windows or columns) would be responsibility
in relation to
inundated as sea level rise
a tsunami projections.
would The provision
destroy walls, causing of a
benchmarks by State government will
greater risk of structural failure or collapse. allow consistent
This is
assessmentimportant
particularly of exposure and vulnerability
for multi-storey buildings, to marine
or for one-
hazards across LGAs.
storey buildings with raised ground floors.

The State strategies
Planning Emergencyprefer
Service and councils
two-storey facilitate
buildings with Ensure integration
Multi-storey of are
buildings risk more
management across
resilient than the built
single-storey
workshops with owners of critical infrastructure to
garages and car spaces on the ground floor over single- review environment.
buildings, as they weigh more and generally have
their
storey specific
buildings storm and tsunami risk management
with basements. stronger foundations. They may also afford vertical
approaches and strategies to ensure they are up to date evacuation. Basements would be completely inundated.
and relevant.
Facilitate workshops among relevant stakeholders in Provide capacity to construction authorities, building
relation to the generation of Australian tsunami building regulators, councils, insurance companies and other
fragility curves, design standards and building code stakeholders.
regulations for tsunami flooding.
Develop building codes in areas exposed to storm surges No building codes for storm surges or tsunamis have
or tsunamis stipulating appropriate construction been developed in NSW (or elsewhere in Australia).
standards. The Codes should consider the following:

a) A raised ground floor height.
Coastalfloors
Buildings with raised ground Inundation.
are significantly less
exposed to inundation. COVERMAR Project. 83
Reduce exposure to flood and increase the overall

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Category # Recommendation
Category # Recommendation
Category
Category ## Recommendation
Recommendation
Coastal Zone Management Plans incorporate a COVERMAR multi-risk hazard
Coastal Zone Management Plans incorporate a COVERMAR multi-risk hazard
1 assessment.
Coastal
CoastalZone Zone COVERMAR
Management
Management is consistent
Plans with NSW acoastal
Plansincorporate
incorporate aCOVERMAR
COVERMAR risk management
multi-risk
multi-riskhazard policies
hazard
1 assessment.
and regulations.
COVERMAR is consistent with NSW coastal risk management policies
11 assessment.
assessment.
and regulations. COVERMAR
COVERMARisisconsistent consistentwith withNSWNSWcoastal
coastalrisk riskmanagement
managementpolicies policies
Undertaken
and
and regulations.hazard and vulnerability assessments where sea level rise
regulations.
Undertaken hazard and vulnerability assessments where sea level rise
benchmarks
Undertaken
Undertakenhazard are adopted
hazard and which differassessments
andvulnerability
vulnerability from the former where NSWsea SLR policy
level rise (because
2 benchmarks are adopted which differ assessments
from the former where NSW sea
SLRlevel
policyrise(because
2 inundation
benchmarks
benchmarks extent
are and the which
areadopted
adopted number
whichdifferof exposed
differ from
fromthe the buildings
former
formerNSW canSLR
NSW change
SLR policy
policy(because
(because
22 inundation
significantly). extent and the number of exposed buildings can change
inundationextent
inundation
significantly). extentand andthe thenumber
numberofofexposedexposedbuildings
buildingscan canchange
change
Councils
significantly).and emergency service organisations develop regional workshops to
significantly).
Councils and emergency service organisations develop regional workshops to
communicate
Councils
Councilsand current
andemergency best service
practice for storm surge and regional
tsunami risk. Workshops
3 communicate emergency
current bestservice
practice organisations
organisations
for storm surge develop
develop
and tsunami workshops
regionalrisk.workshops toto
Workshops
3 should
communicate identify,
communicate rank and
current
current best
bestexplain
practice alternative
practice for
forstorm
stormlocal
surge
surge risk
and management
and tsunami
tsunamirisk. strategies
risk.Workshops
Workshops
33 should identify, rank and explain alternative local risk management strategies
Coastal Risk practised by local
shouldidentify,
should identify, rank government
rank and
andexplain
explainaround the world.
alternative
alternative local
localrisk riskmanagement
managementstrategies strategies
Coastal Risk
Management
practised
Stakeholders
by local
address
government
risk management
around the world.
needs and strategies for areas affected
Coastal
CoastalRisk
Risk
Management
practised
practisedby
Stakeholders bylocal
localgovernment
address government
risk managementaround
aroundthe theworld.
needs world.
and strategies for areas affected
Management by the forecast
Stakeholders scenarios.
address risk Stakeholders
riskmanagement include
needs
needsand the general public (residents),
Management 4 byStakeholders
the forecast address
scenarios. managementinclude
Stakeholders the strategies
and strategies
general for
forareas
public areas affected
affected
(residents),
4 tourists
bybythe and
theforecast other
forecast temporary
scenarios.
scenarios. visitors, business,
Stakeholders
Stakeholders include
include companies
the
thegeneral
general operating
public
public(residents),
(residents),
44 tourists and
infrastructure, other
and
temporary
buildings
visitors, business,
providing critical
companies
services.
operating
touristsand
tourists
infrastructure,andother andtemporary
other visitors,
temporaryproviding
buildings visitors,business,
business, companies
companiesoperating
critical services. operating
Engage directly
infrastructure,
infrastructure, with
and
and coastal providing
buildings
buildings communities
providingcritical to understand
critical services. and
services. assess their
Engage directly with coastal communities to understand and assess their
5 knowledge
Engage
Engagedirectly and
directly interest
with
withcoastalin
coastaltsunami and
communities
communities storm surge
totounderstand
understand risk management
andandassess
assesstheirtheir
5 knowledge
information.
and interest in tsunami and storm surge risk management
55 knowledge
knowledgeand
information. andinterest
interestinintsunami
tsunamiand andstorm
stormsurgesurgerisk riskmanagement
management
Establish
information.
information. a regional extreme events policy officer in a key coastal representative
Establish a regional extreme events policy officer in a key coastal representative
organisation
Establish
Establishaaregional with extreme
responsibility
extremeevents in policy
relation toininacoastal risk management
6 organisation
processes.
regional
with responsibility events inpolicy officer
relationofficer to coastalakeykeycoastalrisk representative
coastal representative
management
6 organisation
organisation Alternatively,
with
with the Regional
responsibility
responsibility ininEmergency
relation
relation toManager
to coastal
coastal Officer
risk could
risk assume
management
management
66 processes. Alternatively, the Regional Emergency Manager Officer could assume
this responsibility.
processes.
processes. Alternatively,
Alternatively, the
the Regional
Regional Emergency
Emergency Manager
Manager Officer
Officer could
could assume
assume
this responsibility.
Integrate COVERMAR hazard maps into Local Environmental Plans, as indicated
7 this
thisresponsibility.
responsibility.
Integrate COVERMAR hazard maps into Local Environmental Plans, as indicated
7 in SEPP 71 COVERMAR
Integrate – Coastal Protection.
hazard
hazardmaps mapsinto intoLocal
LocalEnvironmental
EnvironmentalPlans, Plans,as asindicated
77 inIntegrate
SEPP 71 –COVERMAR
Coastal Protection. indicated
Consider
ininSEPP
SEPP71 71all potential
– –Coastal cascading effects. For example, industrial facilities and
CoastalProtection.
Protection.
Consider
critical all potential cascading effects. For example, industrial facilities and
Consider
Consider infrastructure
all
allpotential
potential within
cascadingBotanyeffects.
cascading Bay can Forproduce
example, ‘cascading
industrial effects’
industrialfacilities when
and
critical infrastructure within Botany effects.
Bay can For example,
produce ‘cascading facilitieswhen
effects’ and
subject
critical
critical to extreme inundations
infrastructure
infrastructure within
within Botany (particularly
Botany BayBay can
can tsunamis).
produce
produce Councils and
‘cascading
‘cascading effects’
effects’ when
when
subject
stakeholders to extreme inundations
must consider these
(particularly tsunamis).
additional tsunamis).
risks
Councils
in longCouncils
and
term planning
subjecttotoextreme
subject
stakeholders extreme inundations
inundations
must consider these (particularly
(particularly
additional risks tsunamis).
in long Councils and
term planningand
strategies.
stakeholders
stakeholders Potential
must sources these
mustconsider
consider of cascading
these additional
additional effects
risks
risksininclude:
inlong
longterm termplanning
planning
strategies. Potential sources of cascading effects include:
strategies. Potential sources of cascading
strategies. Potential sources of cascading effects include: effects include:
8 Botany Bay Rockdale Sutherland
8 Botany Bay Rockdale Sutherland
88 Port Botany
Botany
BotanyBay
Port Botany Bay St George Rockdale
Rockdale
Motor Boat Sutherland
Sutherland
Adjoining
Port
PortBotany
Botany industrial St George Motor Boat Kurnell Oil Refinery
Adjoining industrial Club
St George
St George Motor
Motor Boat
Boat Kurnell Oil Refinery
areas
Adjoiningindustrial
Adjoining industrial Club Kurnell
Kurnell Pier
KurnellOil OilRefinery
Refinery
areas Other
Club marinas
Club Kurnell Pier
All marinas and
areas
areas Other marinas Boating
Kurnell facilities.
KurnellPierPier
All marinas and Boating
Other
Other facilities.
marinas
marinas Boating facilities.
boating
All facilities.
Allmarinas
marinas and
and Boating facilities. Boatingfacilities.
Boating facilities.
boating facilities. Boatingfacilities.
Boating facilities.
boating
boatingfacilities.
facilities.
Preserve coastal dunes and vegetation from future development and protected
Preserve coastal dunes and vegetation from future development and protected
from other
Preserve
Preserve human
coastal
coastal pressures
dunes
dunes and such
andvegetation as pollution
vegetation from and ecosystem
fromfuture
futuredevelopment
development degradation.
and
andprotected
protected
from
These other human pressures such as pollution and ecosystem degradation.
fromother
from zoneshuman
other provide significant
pressures such protection
as against
aspollution and extreme
ecosystem inundation
degradation.by
These zones human
provide pressures
significant such
protectionpollution
againstandextreme
ecosystem degradation.
inundation by
slowing
These waterprovide
Thesezones
zones flow and trappingprotection
significant debris. In the studyextreme
against area, the majority of
inundation by
slowing
beaches water provide
flow and significant protection
trapping debris. In theagainst
study extreme
area, the inundation
majority of by
and green
slowingwater
slowing water flow zones
flowand
and along debris.
trapping
trapping the shoreline
debris. InInthe would
thestudy be
studyarea,flooded
area,the in most
themajority
majority storm
ofofstorm
beaches and green zones along the shoreline would be flooded in most
and tsunami
beaches
beaches andandscenarios,
green
greenzones acting
zones along
alongas the
a ‘freeboard’
shoreline between
shorelinewould
wouldbe the
befloodedsea inand thestorm
inmost built
and tsunami scenarios, acting as athe‘freeboard’ between flooded
the sea and most storm
the built
Planning and environment.
andtsunami
and These
tsunamiscenarios, zones
scenarios, exist as
acting
acting in the following locations:
aa‘freeboard’ between
betweenthe theseaseaandandthe
thebuilt
Planning and environment. These zones exist inasthe ‘freeboard’
following locations: built
Development
Planning
Planningand
and Botany These
environment.
environment. Bay
Thesezones
zonesexist Rockdale
existininthe
thefollowing
followinglocations:
locations: Sutherland
Development Botany Bay Rockdale Sutherland
Development
Development Botany
BotanyBay
Bay Rockdale
Rockdale Sutherland
Sutherland
• Towra Point Nature
• Barton Park • Towra Point Nature
• Barton Park •• Reserve
Towra
TowraPoint
PointNature
Nature
Muddy Creek Reserve
••

Barton
Muddy Park Reserve
BartonPark
Creek Reserve • Bonna
ReservePoint Reserve
Reserve
•• Lance
Muddy Stoddert
Creek • Bonna Point Reserve
• Muddy CreekReserve
Lance Stoddert Reserve •• Captain
Bonna Cook’s
BonnaPoint
Point Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Lance • Captain Cook’s
9 •• LanceStoddert
Reserve Stoddert •• CaptainPlace
Landing
Captain Cook’s
Cook’s
9 • Barton
Reserve
ReservePark Driving Landing
Endeavour
Place
99 • Sir Joseph Banks • Barton Park Driving • LandingPlace
Landing Field
Place
Sir Joseph Banks Range
Barton • Endeavour Field
• Park •• BartonPark
Range ParkDriving
Driving •• Green Hills Cronulla
Endeavour
Endeavour Field
Field
•• Sir
SirJoseph
JosephBanks
Banks Banksia Green Hills Cronulla
Park
Engine
• Range Field
Range •
Luca’s Reserve
• Park Pond
Park • Banksia
Kogarah
Field
Golf
•• Green Hills
GreenReserve
Luca’s
Cronulla
Hills Cronulla
• Engine
Mill
Pond
Ponds
••
Kogarah Field Club,
BanksiaField
Banksia
Golf Club,

•• Dunningham
Luca’s Park
•• Engine
Engine Pond
Pond •
Wooli Creek Luca’sReserve
Reserve
Dunningham Park
• Mill Ponds •• Kogarah
Kogarah Golf
GolfClub,
Club, •
•• Dransfield
Mill PondsAvenue
MillPonds Wooli Creek •• Solander
Dunningham
DunninghamPlaying
Park Fields
Park
• Dransfield Avenue • Cook
Wooli
WooliPark
Creek
Creek • Solander Playing Fields
Reserve
Dransfield
DransfieldAvenue • Cook Park •• Bundeena
Solander Reserve
Playing
Solander Playing Fields
Reserve Fields
•• Avenue Peter
Reserve
Todd Reserve.
•• CookDepena
Cook
Peter
Park
Park
Depena
Reserve
Reserve
• Bundeena
• Reserve
Reserve • •• Horderns
Bundeena
Bundeena Beach
Reserve
Reserve
• Todd Reserve. •• Scott
Peter
PeterPark
Depena
Depena Reserve
Reserve • Horderns Beach
•• ToddReserve.
Todd Reserve. • Scott Park •• Reserve
HordernsBeach
Horderns Beach
•• ScottSouci
Sans
Scott Park Park
Park Reserve
• Sans Souci Park • Maianbar
Reserve
Reserve Reserve
•• Badu-Brong
SansSouci
Sans Creek
SouciPark
Park • Maianbar Reserve
Category # • Badu-Brong Creek
Recommendation •• Tonkin ParkReserve
Maianbar