See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308892982

Methodology for Development of Physics-Based Tsunami Fragilities

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · November 2016

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001715

CITATIONS READS
48 757

5 authors, including:

Navid Attary John W. van de Lindt

FM Global Colorado State University
18 PUBLICATIONS   442 CITATIONS    314 PUBLICATIONS   6,090 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vipin Unnithan Andre R. Barbosa

Aon Oregon State University
13 PUBLICATIONS   551 CITATIONS    169 PUBLICATIONS   2,453 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NIST-funded Center for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning View project

Structural Health Monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andre R. Barbosa on 07 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Methodology for Development of Physics-Based
Tsunami Fragilities
Navid Attary, A.M.ASCE 1; John W. van de Lindt, F.ASCE 2; Vipin U. Unnikrishnan 3;
Andre R. Barbosa, A.M.ASCE 4; and Daniel T. Cox, A.M.ASCE 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Tsunamis affect coastal regions around the world, resulting in fatalities and catastrophic damage to communities. Fragility func-
tions form the basis of most risk and resilience analyses at the individual structure level, thereby allowing physical infrastructure components
to be included at the community level. For tsunami loading, the vast majority of fragilities that have been developed are based on postevent
observations in the field, which are usually specific to the site of the event. In this paper, a methodology to generate physics-based tsunami
fragility functions is proposed, using vector intensity measures, such as tsunami flow depth and flow velocity and several combinations
thereof. The proposed methodology relies on Monte Carlo Simulation for consideration of material uncertainties and includes epistemic
uncertainties in the tsunami force calculation. The ability of different tsunami intensity measures (flow depth, flow velocity, and momentum
flux), which are common in the literature, to predict the response of structures are investigated, and a new intensity measure (kinematic
moment of momentum flux) that represents overturning moment of a structure for tsunami fragility curves is proposed. The methodology
is illustrated using an application example consisting of a steel moment frame structure and fragility functions based on the kinematic
moment of momentum flux are presented and shown to be a better predictor with less epistemic uncertainty. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001715. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Tsunami fragility; Momentum flux; Moment of momentum flux; Physics-based fragility; Tsunami intensity measure;
Monte Carlo simulation; Structural safety and reliability.

Introduction infrastructure damage, even leaving several cities near a nuclear

The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami resulted in more than 200,000
fatalities in a host of countries throughout Asia, making it one
of the worst natural disasters in history (Park et al. 2012). Current
design processes and hazard mitigation strategies are not able to
resist these destructive hydrodynamics forces, and evacuation (typ-
ically to higher ground) is the only survival mechanism in many
countries. Although Japan has state-of-the-art coastal protection
measures in place (e.g., sea walls), the 2011 Great East Japan
tsunami (resulting from the Great Tohoku earthquake) killed
more than 15,000 and resulted in approximately $200 billion in
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, Center of Excellence for Risk-Based Community
Resilience Planning, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523 (corresponding author).
E-mail: nattary@colostate.edu
2
George T. Abell Professor in Infrastructure and Co-Director, Center
of Excellence for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins,
CO 80523. E-mail: jwv@engr.colostate.edu
3 namic features of tsunami inundation flow by using field surveys
Postdoctoral Fellow, Center of Excellence for Risk-Based Community
Resilience Planning, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado
State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523. E-mail: vipin@colostate.edu
4
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331. E-mail: Andre.Barbosa@
oregonstate.edu
5
Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State
Univ., 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331. E-mail: dan.cox@
oregonstate.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 5, 2016; approved on
October 5, 2016; published online on November 30, 2016. Discussion per-
iod open until April 30, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445.
plant uninhabitable. In 2013, FEMA predicted that in the event
of a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake on the West Coast
of the United States, the estimated number of deaths would exceed
10,000 with more than 30,000 people injured (Cascadia Region
Earthquake Workgroup 2013). The economic impact of such an
event would also be significant for the states of Washington,
Oregon, and California, with losses estimated to exceed $70 billion
(Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup 2013). There is a need
to provide better tools to predict the behavior of structures in
tsunamis with the objective of improving hazard mitigation
plans and enabling risk-informed decision making for at-risk
communities.
To estimate the damage to structures caused by tsunamis, many
empirical relationships between tsunami hazard and structural vul-
nerability have been developed. Shuto (1993) used the empirical
data from historical tsunamis in Japan to propose a tsunami scale
to estimate the structural damage based on the observed damage
and tsunami flow depth. Later, Izuka and Matsutomi (2000)
proposed a threshold for structural destruction based on hydrody-
and laboratory experiments. Another approach that can be used to
estimate the damage of structures subjected to hazards is a fragil-
ity function. A fragility function is defined as the probability that a
structure will reach or exceed a specified level of damage as a
function of a given intensity measure (IM), e.g., flow depth.
Traditionally, fragility curves are defined based on mean (μ)
and standard deviation (σ) in the form of a cumulative lognormal
[Eq. (1)] distribution and represent a conditional cumulative dis-
tribution function. Generally, the lognormal fragility (Shinozuka
et al. 2000; Ellingwood 2001; Rosowsky and Ellingwood 2002;
Koshimura et al. 2009a, b; Park and van de Lindt 2009) can be
expressed as

© ASCE 04016223-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1



lnðHÞ − μ
FrðHÞ ¼ Φ ð1Þ
σ for different damage states, and the results were compared.
where Φð.Þ = standard normal distribution function; and H =
intensity measure. The development of fragility functions, which
is very common in earthquake engineering, has just begun for
tsunamis with early efforts by Koshimura et al. (2009a). The ma-
jority of the tsunami fragility functions that have been developed
to date are empirical stochastic functions developed based on ob-
servations during field studies, performed following events around
the world. For example, Koshimura et al. (2009b), Suppasri et al.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2011, 2013) and Dias et al. (2009), used the data on tsunami-
damaged houses to construct vulnerability curves based on
tsunami flow depth. Then, a Monte Carlo Simulation was per-
formed for a typical building subjected to tsunami loading with
different inundation depths to generate fragility curves. Sihombing
and Torbol (2015), developed synthetic fragility curves for differ-
ent tsunami scenarios using advanced fluid numerical simulations
and fluid-structure-interaction models. Although the fragility
curves developed from simulation and the empirical ones provide
a reasonable estimate of damage to the structures located at a spe-
cific site, they would be applicable only at that specific site and for
that specific scenario.
In recent years, research has focused on developing physics-
based tsunami fragility curves (e.g., Park et al. 2012, 2013b;
Macabuag et al. 2014). In these studies, tsunami fragility curves
were developed by imposing simplified functional forms of the
tsunami forces on structures and performing nonlinear structural
analysis in an effort to bridge the gap between ocean and structural
engineering. Based on fluid mechanics, numerical simulations, and
experimental studies [Neelamani et al. 1999; FEMA 2008b; Wilson
et al. 2009; ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2016)], it is well understood that
tsunami forces are related to flow depth and velocity; thus, these
would be logical intensity measures for fragility curve develop-
ment. Nanayakkara and Dias (2016) developed physics-based fra-
gility curves using inundation depth as the intensity measure and
assumed that the flow velocity was a function of flow depth. It has
been observed from literature that tsunami flow depth is the most
popular tsunami intensity measure used for fragility development.
The reason for this is the fact that tsunami flow depth can be de-
termined and estimated relatively easily after an event compared to
estimating the flow velocity, which usually requires more detailed
numerical simulations or recorded videos (e.g., Ngo and Robertson
2012). However, tsunami velocity measurements are now available
from the analysis of survivor videos from 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami (e.g., Ngo and Robertson 2012). Charvet
et al. (2015) looked at different possible tsunami intensity measures
for empirical fragility functions considering flow velocity. A few
recent studies [e.g., Park et al. 2013a, 2014; ASCE 7-16 (ASCE
2016)], have suggested the use of momentum flux (combination
of tsunami flow depth and velocity) as an intensity measure for
tsunami fragilities (because the largest component of tsunami force,
i.e., the hydrodynamic force and impulsive force are, in theory, lin-
early related to the momentum flux).
In this paper, a methodology to develop physics-based structural
fragility functions based on vector-valued intensity measures (com-
binations of tsunami flow depth and flow velocity) is proposed.
In addition, the ability of different tsunami IMs that are popular
in literature, to predict the response of the structure are investigated,
and finally, an alternate IM is proposed. Different sources of un-
certainty, affecting both the structural modeling and the tsunami
loading are considered. The proposed methodology is illustrated
using a three-story moment frame steel structure. A Monte Carlo
© ASCE 04016223-2
J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
Simulation is performed to compute the tsunami fragility functions
Tsunami Loading
Tsunami forces are broadly classified as hydrostatic forces, buoyant
forces, hydrodynamic forces, impulsive forces, and debris impact
forces [FEMA P-646 (FEMA 2008a)]. Differential water depth on
the opposite sides of a structure would develop an imbalance of
water pressure and hydrostatic force. Therefore, for a structure with
a relatively short breadth, around which the water can quickly flow
and fill in on all sides, this force can be neglected [FEMA P-646
(FEMA 2008a)]. Hydrostatic forces, for the special case of vertical
rectangular wall, can be calculated by using the following equation:
1
Fh ¼ · ρ · g · B · h2max ð2Þ
2 s
where ρs = fluid density including sediment (usually assumed to be
1,200 kg=m3 ¼ 2.33 slugs=ft3 ); g = gravitational acceleration; B =
breadth of the building in the plane normal to the direction of flow;
and hmax = maximum water height above the base of the wall at
structure location. Effects of hydrostatic forces on the structure
are directly related to the depth of the water.
Buoyant force is a vertical hydrostatic force and is equal to the
weight of water displaced. Buoyant forces are resisted mostly
through weight of the structure and can be calculated using the fol-
lowing equation:
Fb ¼ ρs · g · V ð3Þ
where V = volume of water displaced by the building. Buoyancy
forces can reduce the capacity of the structure to resist lateral loads
(Yeh et al. 2014).
Hydrodynamic force is similar to the drag force applied in fluid
dynamics and is induced by the flow of water moving at moderate
to high velocity (steady flow), which can be computed as [FEMA
P-646 (FEMA 2008a)]
1
Fd ¼ · ρ · Cd · B · ðhu2 Þmax ð4Þ
2 s
where Cd = drag coefficient; B = breadth of the building in the
plane normal to the direction of flow; h = flow depth; and u = flow
velocity. The term hu2 is the momentum flux per unit mass, and
ðhu2 Þmax is the maximum momentum flux per unit mass at any time
during the tsunami inundation at the site. Impulsive forces are
caused by the leading edge of a surge of water impacting structure,
which can be estimated using the following equation:
Fimp ¼ α · Fd ð5Þ
where α = amplification factor with a maximum value of 1.5, based
on studies by Ramsden (1996) and Arnason (2005). Hydrodynamic
forces and impulsive forces are assumed to be distributed uniformly
along the height of the building.
Debris impact forces are difficult to calculate and can be related
to maximum flow velocity but also depend on possible debris in the
region and can be estimated as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fdeb ¼ Cm · umax · k · m ð6Þ
where Cm = added mass coefficient (usually taken as Cm ¼ 2);
umax = maximum flow velocity carrying the debris; and m and
k = mass and the effective stiffness of the debris, respectively.
In order to generate tsunami fragility curves, several researchers
J. Struct. Eng.
 have used the previously mentioned equations to estimate tsunami
forces on the structures (Park et al. 2012, 2013b; Macabuag et al.
2014). In this study, only slowly accelerating flow is considered;
thus, the hydrodynamic forces (Fd ) are used to calculate the total
lateral dynamic force on the structure (F), which is estimated using
the following equation:

1
F¼ · ρ · Cd · B · Co :ðhu2 Þ ð7Þ
2 s

where Co = deamplifying coefficient to account for openings and

wall/window failure/breakage. Fukuyama et al. (2011) suggested
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that this opening coefficient should always be greater than 0.7

because of the existence of the interior walls.

Physics-Based Methodology and Uncertainty

Considerations

Modeling Uncertainties
There are many uncertainties associated with the process of esti-
mating the response of a structure subjected to tsunamis. Many
of these uncertainties are considered in the tsunami hazard analysis
phase, e.g., fault location, magnitude of the earthquake, length and
direction of the rupture, wave path along the ocean, shore slope,
and surface roughness. The statistical characteristics of the tsunami
flow depth or flow velocity at the location of the structure can be
determined by performing a tsunami hazard analysis. For a given
flow depth (h) and flow velocity (u), the total tsunami lateral force
(F) can be estimated using Eq. (7). In this study, the fluid density,
ρs , is treated as a deterministic variable because it does not vary
much (less than 10%) for a given location. The drag coefficient,
Cd , depends on the aspect ratio of the structure and is estimated
to reach a maximum of 2 for square-shaped structures. The drag
coefficient is assumed to follow a uniform probability distribution
within a range of 1.25–2 [ASCE 7-16 (ASCE 2016)]. The same
methodology can be used for α, the factor that would relate the
impulsive force to the hydrodynamic force. The deamplification
factor, Co , which accounts for the variability in the wall openings
Fig. 1. Proposed methodology to develop physics-based fragility func-
and possible wall/window collapse/breakage, is assumed to fol-
tions for structures subjected to tsunami
low a uniform probability distribution in the range of 0.7–1.0
(Fukuyama et al. 2011). Of course, all of these can be adjusted for
other structure types and conditions, but for typical commercial
building, these values are proposed. For each hj , a set of tsunami flow velocities (uk;j ) is generated con-
sidering maximum desired tsunami flow velocity (U max ).
To develop general fragility functions for tsunami hazard, both h
Proposed Methodology and u should be considered as independent variables. This may not
This methodology employs Monte Carlo Simulation for developing be the case, but there are currently no studies with enough evi-
fragilities for structures subjected to tsunami hazard. The uncertain- dence to suggest otherwise. Flow velocity and flow depth are then
ties in structural parameters are accounted for by modeling them as changed incrementally to generate a number of possible combina-
independent random variables (e.g., modulus of elasticity and yield tions of h and u at the location of the structure. A concern that might
force). The proposed methodology is summarized in the flowchart be raised in this process is that based on real events and site char-
in Fig. 1. The first step in the methodology is to generate q struc- acteristics, some of these combinations might not be realistic. In
tural models (Si ), each having random structural properties using order to resolve this issue, the Froude number, which is a dimension-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Latin hypercube sampling (LHS). These q numerical models would less number from continuum mechanics (Frk;j ¼ uk;j = g · hj )
be used to estimate the response of the structure to a particular is applied as constraint. It is observed from historical tsunamis
tsunami force. A set of tsunami flow depths (hj ) will be generated that the Froude numbers for tsunamis are typically less than 2.0
considering a maximum tsunami flow depth (Hmax ), which is se- (Matsutomi and Okamoto 2010). Hence, in this proposed method-
lected based on the height of the structure and maximum tsunami ology, the unrealistic combinations of flow depth, h, and flow veloc-
flow depth observed. It should be noted that the value of Hmax can ity, u, are not considered thereby obtaining only the combinations of
be chosen based on the desired range of flow depth, but as a starting flow depth and flow velocity that have been observed in past events.
point, using the minimum of 9 m (30 ft) (maximum flow depth ob- To calculate the total tsunami force (Fm;j;k ) for each structure
served during Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004) seems to be reasonable. (Si ) in the random set and for each combination of h and u, p

© ASCE 04016223-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 different random combinations of the two factors described earlier
(Cd and Co ) are selected to generate a large array of possible tsunami
forces on the structure. The buoyancy force may reduce structural
capacity to withstand lateral loads for structures with shallow foun-
dations because of changes in soil properties (Yeh et al. 2014). How-
ever, because most commercial steel buildings along the shore have
deep foundations, the effect of buoyancy force is minimal and can be
neglected in this type of structure. It should be noted that the effects
of debris impacts, although important, are outside the scope for this
study and will be addressed in future research by the authors.
As mentioned earlier, hydrodynamic and impulsive forces
are assumed to be uniformly distributed along the height of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
building. In order to estimate the response of the structure to the
calculated tsunami force (Fm;j;k ), a nonlinear structural (push-over
or time-history) analysis is then performed with the height of the
uniformly distributed loads equal to the selected tsunami flow
depth (hj ). Estimating the performance and damage level of the
structure can be achieved using different damage states available in
the literature (e.g., FEMA 2008b). In this study, maximum inter-
story drifts (ISD) are used as the engineering demand parameters
(EDP) for the damage assessment. Because the tsunami loading on
the structure is a lateral load similar to the horizontal earthquake
forces induced from the inertia, the maximum interstory drift would
give a reasonable estimate of the structural damage. This approach
has been used in the development of other physics-based tsunami
fragility curves studies (e.g., Park et al. 2012). However, it should
be noted that this study uses ISD as the sole EDP and that possible
local failures of columns and column-foundation connections will
not be captured. These local failures may even cause the complete
collapse of the building and require other types of analysis, such as
progressive collapse analysis. In addition, new IM and EDP/damage
measures should eventually be defined, which requires further sig-
nificant research and implementation work but is felt to be beyond
the scope of this study and will be pursued in future studies. The
maximum ISD (Drm;j;k ) is then checked against the limit state for
each of the four damage states, namely slight, moderate, extensive
and complete. This process is repeated for all q randomly generated
tsunami forces, until uk;j and hj reach the maximum considered flow
velocity (U max ) and flow depth (Hmax ) for all p randomly generated
structures. Finally, by averaging the number of cases exceeding the
limit state from each of the four damage state limits (N j;k ) for all p
and q cases (considering structural property uncertainties and tsu-
nami loading uncertainties), a cumulative probability of damage
for each damage state for every tsunami flow depth and flow velocity
can be estimated. Using these probabilities, fragility functions based
on the following intensity measures are developed.
Intensity Measures
As discussed earlier, there are a number of tsunami intensity mea-
sures that have been used in past research studies. The progression
ranging from flow depth, depth-velocity surfaces, momentum
flux, and finally, the proposed new intensity measure of kinematic
moment of momentum flux, is examined here.
Flow Depth
Physics-based tsunami fragilities based solely on tsunami flow
depth can be generated using the proposed methodology by
averaging cumulative probability of damage for each depth. As
mentioned earlier, it should be noted that using flow depth as
an intensity measure has been popular in the research literature
(e.g., Park et al. 2012, 2013b; Macabuag et al. 2014), but it should
be noted that this IM is the most widely reported from field studies
following tsunamis. However, for a given flow depth, it is possible
to have different flow velocities, hence, different total tsunami
© ASCE 04016223-4
J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
forces, resulting in a significant dispersion of the response, result-
ing in substantial epistemic uncertainty.
Momentum Flux
As discussed earlier, because hydrodynamic forces dominate the
magnitude of tsunami forces resulting in structural damage, the mo-
mentum flux is expected to be a relatively good intensity measure for
tsunami fragility curves (e.g., Park et al. 2014). The momentum flux
(hu2 ) can be computed using the combinations of flow depth and flow
velocity discussed earlier. It should be noted that because the momen-
tum flux is a combination of h and u, the results would be sensitive to
the increments chosen for flow depth and velocity. Therefore, either
fine increments should be chosen for h and u or the momentum flux
itself should be incremented as well as flow depth/velocity. Using the
four damage states mentioned earlier, the cumulative probabilities of
damage can be calculated. It should be noted that one value of mo-
mentum flux might be a result of different combinations of h and u,
resulting in a possible dispersion of the response.
Kinematic Moment of Momentum Flux
Momentum flux has been proposed in several recent studies assum-
ing it would have a good correlation with the structural response,
with a focus on the total tsunami force. However, although momen-
tum flux is estimated to be linearly related to hydrodynamic forces,
the magnitude of the force alone may not be a good representation
of tsunami effects on the building other than collapse. In addition to
the magnitude of the force, the location of the resultant force and
distribution of the force along the height of the building are important
parameters that may affect the response of the structure. For example,
one value of momentum flux might be generated from high-flow
velocity and low-flow depth or vice-versa, and the response in these
two cases will be completely different. Thus, it would be possible
that the data points for tsunami fragilities based on momentum flux
would be scattered and sometimes do not correlate well with the re-
sponse of the structure. Moreover, it is well understood that, by in-
creasing the height of the distributed load on a structure, the stiffness
and capacity of the structure will decrease. For example, a simple
cantilever column (neglecting the axial force) with height hb , with
a modulus of elasticity (E), and moment of Inertia (I), subjected to a
uniform distributed load of w with a variable height of (hw , i.e., water
flow depth), is considered. Maximum deflection of the column and
equivalent stiffness of the column can be calculated theoretically.
The initial stiffness (kint ) can be calculated as
24EI
kint ¼ ð8Þ
h2w · ð4hB − hw Þ
Assuming hB ¼ 11.89 m (39 ft), Fig. 2(a), shows the variation
of yield force with respect to the water flow depth hw . The simpli-
fied pushover curves are obtained by assuming a simple bilinear
behavior for the material, as shown in Fig. 2(b). Fig. 2(b) shows
how one value of force (e.g., the dotted line shown in the figure)
can correspond to different flow depths, leading to a wide array of
possible responses.
In an effort to explore a new IM related to structural damage, a
combination of flow depth (h) and momentum flux (hu2 ) is pro-
posed here to consider both tsunami forces and the loading height.
The proposed new intensity measure, called kinematic moment of
momentum flux (KMMF), is expected to have a better correlation
with structural responses because for each combination of the mag-
nitude of force and a particular load height, only one particular re-
sponse of the structure will exist. By definition, the flux of any
quantity per unit mass (q), across a defined surface, is the integral
across the surface of the mass flux (ρ · u) times q. Assuming q as
the moment of momentum per unit mass (q ¼ z · u), the moment of
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. (a) Relation between equivalent yield force of a cantilever column to flow depth; (b) simplified bilinear push-over curves of a cantilever
column based on different flow depths
momentum flux per unit width can be obtained using the following
equation (Gupta and Gupta 2012):
Z h
MMF ¼ ðρ · uÞ · ðz · uÞdz ð9Þ
0
where ρ = density; and z = height of water varying from zero at the
ground till h (the maximum water height). Assuming that the flow
velocity would be constant along the height, the previous equation
can be simplified as follows:
ρ in Fig. 3 and Table 1 (see FEMA-355C for additional details).
MMF ¼ h2 u2 ð10Þ
2
Dividing the moment of momentum flux by the density, a
parameter called the KMMF can be obtained (h2 u2 =2), which is
a measurable physical quantity and it is a function of flow depth
(h) and momentum flux (hu2 ), simultaneously.
Flow Depth and Flow Velocity
As an alternative to the three IMs mentioned earlier, because
tsunami forces are related to both flow depth and flow velocity,
a vector-valued intensity measure can also be considered. The same
methodology described earlier could be used to generate tsunami
fragility surfaces based on tsunami flow depth and flow velocity.
Illustrative Case Study: Three-Story Moment Frame
Steel Building
The proposed methodologies are applied herein to illustrate the
procedure for development of physics-based tsunami fragility
Fig. 3. Floor plans and elevations for model buildings and floor plans showing layout of moment-resisting frames (0.305 m ¼ 1 ft) (adapted from
FEMA-355C)
© ASCE 04016223-5
J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
functions with the intensity measures described previously for a
three-story steel moment frame building. The three-story structure
selected for this study is the one presented in detail in FEMA-355C
(FEMA 2000b). For this study, the three-story building, designed
for Seattle, Washington, according to the preNorthridge earthquake
code (i.e., without consideration of FEMA-267) is considered. The
height of the building is 11.89 m (39 ft) and width B ¼ 54.86 m
(180 ft), and it is assumed the building has its longer dimension
facing the ocean. Some of the details of the building are presented
Three-dimensional (3D) models of the structure were devel-
oped using A572 Grade 50 steel for all column, beam, and girder
sections in the design of the building. It is evident from the liter-
ature (Ellingwood et al. 1980; Porter et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2011),
that most of the material property uncertainties for steel structures
arise from randomness in the yield strength (f y ). In this study, the
yield strength is assumed to follow a lognormal distribution with a
mean value of 379 MPa (55 ksi) and COVof 10% (Kim et al. 2011),
and other parameters, such as modulus of elasticity are assumed to
be deterministic (2 × 105 MPa ¼ 29,000 ksi). In order to capture
the material uncertainty in this study, 100 random structural models
were generated, using LHS, each having unique yield strength,
chosen from 100 random yield strength values.
For each of these 100 structural models, different tsunami flow
depths (hj ), were considered. The total height of the building was
11.89 m (39 ft), and the flow depth for a very large tsunami was
also of a similar range; therefore, H max is assigned to be 11.89 m
(39 ft) The flow depths (hj ) are incremented every 0.305 m
(1 ft) until it reaches Hmax . For flow velocity, based on tsunami
J. Struct. Eng.
 Table 1. Designed Sections of the Three-Story Building Used in This
Study (Adapted from FEMA-355C)
Moment-resisting frames Gravity frames
Columns
Story Exterior Interior Girder Columns Beams
1 W14X159 W14X176 W24X76 W10X77 W16X26
2 W14X159 W14X176 W24X84 W10X77 W16X26
3 W14X159 W14X176 W18X40 W10X60 W14X22

Table 2. Random Variables Used in This Study and Their Probabilistic

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Distribution
Variable Distribution Parameters Fig. 5. Sample force-displacement results of several push-over
analyses with different distributed applied load height along the height
Cd Uniform 1.25–2
of the building (4.448 kN ¼ 1 kip, 0.305 m ¼ 1 ft)
CO Uniform 0.7–1.0
fy Lognormal Mean ¼ 379 MPa (55 ksi) and COV ¼ 10%

nonlinear method in which the structure is subjected to gravity

calculated wave velocity from field studies (e.g., Fritz et al. 2012;
Arcos and LeVeque 2015), U max is chosen to be 12.19 m=s
(40 ft=s). For each considered flow depth (hj ), flow velocity is
increased from u1;j ¼ 0.305 m=s (1 ft=s) to u40;j ¼ 12.19 m=s
(40 ft=s) with an increment of 0.305 m=s (1 ft=s), resulting in
1,560 (39 × 40 ¼ 1,560) possible combinations. One-hundred ran-
dom values were generated for the coefficients Cd and Co based on
their corresponding statistical properties (Table 2). For each con-
sidered flow depth (hj ) and flow velocity (uk;j ), the 100 random
combinations of the previously generated coefficients were used
in Eq. (7) to generate 100 random total tsunami forces.
The response of the 100 different structural models to each of
the computed total tsunami forces with each specific flow depth
were calculated using nonlinear pushover analyses. A typical time-
history of tsunami force would initially reach the maximum am-
plitude and is followed by minor fluctuations. It should be noted
that the response for the structure used in this study does not con-
sider time under load but rather uses the peak value. Thus, the
use of push-over analysis for estimating the response of structure
subjected to tsunami is reasonable. Push-over analysis is a static
loading and a monotonically increasing lateral load with a specific
load pattern representative of the physical loading. As stated earlier,
the local failures of the columns are not considered in this case
study. Therefore, for the nonlinear push-over analysis, distributed
loads with each specific height (hj ) were assigned only to the most
seaward columns of the lateral load-resisting frames. Plastic hinges
based on FEMA-356 (FEMA 2000a) were assigned to all of the
members, to capture the nonlinear behavior of the beams and col-
umns (Fig. 4). Hinges with coupled axial-force-biaxial-moment
(PMM hinge) behavior (based on section properties) are assigned
for each column type. For these PMM hinges, an interaction yield
surface in 3D PMM space that represents the first occurrence of
yielding for different combinations of axial force and the two mo-
ments is specified. The interaction surface is defined based on
FEMA-356 for steel columns. Additionally, simple moment plastic
hinges are assigned to the beams.
Fig. 5 shows some sample push-over analyses results for differ-
ent flow depths. Using these results, the maximum ISD of the struc-
ture for each case (each structure-tsunami force combination) was
estimated.

Fig. 4. Sample plastic hinges results for distributed load push-over analysis

© ASCE 04016223-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 In this illustrative case study, for each structure-tsunami
force combination, the maximum ISDs are compared with the
HAZUS earthquake limit states for precode structures for dam-
age states of slight, moderate, extensive, and complete. The
number of cases for which the ISD would exceed the limit
states for each damage state is determined. The cumulative
probability of damage for each four damage states was calcu-
lated for each combination of h and u, which can be used to
develop fragility curves and surfaces for the structure using
different intensity measures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Results and Discussions Based on Different
Intensity Measures
Flow Depth
Using the methodology explained earlier, fragility curves were
developed with flow depth as the sole IM. Fig. 6 shows the
cumulative probability of damage for the four damage states, for the
case study structure, using tsunami flow depth as an intensity mea-
sure. It is clear from the figures that the data points have some scatter
in all damage states. This is because of the fact that most unrealistic
combinations of flow depth and velocity were filtered out by impos-
ing a Froude number constraint, but there are still many possible flow
velocity values (and tsunami total forces) for each flow depth. In
order to be able to compare the results, trend lines indicating the
mean values for each damage states are also provided in Fig. 6.
For example, in Fig. 6, the probability of exceeding the moderate
damage state for a flow depth of 3.96 m (13 ft) is approximately
45%. However, the possible flow velocities will be in the range
of umin ¼ 0.305 m=s (1 ft=s) and umax ¼ 12.19 m=s (40 ft=s),
Fig. 6. Cumulative probability of damage results and mean line for damage states: (a) slight; (b) moderate; (c) extensive; (d) complete, based on
tsunami flow depth as the sole IM (0.305 m ¼ 1 ft)
© ASCE 04016223-7
J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
resulting in a likely momentum flux range of MFmin ¼ 0.37 m3 =s2
(13 ft3 =s2 ) and MFmax ¼ 590.15 m3 =s2 (20,800 ft3 =s2 ). This broad
range of momentum flux means that the total tsunami force for a
particular height may have very different possible values.
Momentum Flux
The calculated cumulative probability of damage for each flow
depth and flow velocity can be combined in the form of momen-
tum flux (hu2 ). In this study, in order to avoid the effect of incre-
ments of flow depth and velocity on the results, the flow depths (hj )
were incremented every 0.305 m (1 ft) up to 11.89 m (39 ft) but
instead of incrementing flow velocity, momentum flux itself was
incremented every 2.13 m3 =s2 (75 ft3 =s2 ) until 851.18 m3 =s2
(30,000 ft3 =s2 ) (400 points). Fig. 7 shows the cumulative probability
of damage as well as the mean and mean – standard devia-
tion based on the momentum flux for the four damage states. It
is evident from Fig. 7 that although the mean line of the data
has the typical fragility curve trend, large standard deviation ranges
suggest that the cumulative probability data points are still scat-
tered. However, in comparison with the case of using flow depth
as an IM, the results are still much better. It should be noted that
each data points shown in Fig. 7 represents 10,000 different cases
(based on 100 different structural models and 100 different tsunami
forces) for one combination of flow depth and momentum flux.
This is a total number of 1.56 × 108 simulations to create a single
plot and compute fragility curves.
Kinematic Moment of Momentum Flux
The fragility curves developed for the case study structure based
on KMMF for the four damage states are shown in Fig. 8. Similar
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Cumulative probability of damage for damage states: (a) slight; (b) moderate; (c) extensive; (d) complete, based on momentum flux (gray lines
show the mean – standard deviation for each damage state) (0.028 m3 =s2 ¼ 1 ft3 =s2 )

Fig. 8. Fragility curve and data points based on kinematic moment of momentum flux for damage states: (a) slight; (b) moderate; (c) extensive;
(d) complete (gray lines show the mean – standard deviation for each damage state) (0.0087 m4 =s2 ¼ 1 ft4 =s2 )

© ASCE 04016223-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Fragility surfaces based on tsunami flow depth and flow velocity for damage states: (a) slight; (b) moderate; (c) extensive; (d) complete
(0.305 m ¼ 1 ft, 0.305 m=s ¼ 1 ft=s)
to what was mentioned in the previous section, for obtaining
the results based on KMMF, the same increments for flow depth
were used and KMMF was incremented every 10.82 m4 =s2
(1,250 ft4 =s2 ) until reaching 4,326.83 m4 =s2 (500,000 ft4 =s2 ).
Data points and the standard deviations shown in the figure suggest
that the proposed new intensity measure has a better correlation
with structural response. It can be observed from Fig. 8 that the
data exhibit less scatter, providing better correlation that was ob-
served with momentum flux (Fig. 7).
Flow Depth and Flow Velocity Simultaneously
Finally, if one considers tsunami flow depth and flow velocity as two
independent intensity measures, fragility surfaces can be developed
for the illustrative case study building, providing all possible results.
The 3D fragility surfaces for the four damage states are shown in
Fig. 10. Overlaid fragility surfaces based on tsunami flow depth and
flow velocity for damage states slight, moderate, extensive, and com-
plete (0.305 m ¼ 1 ft, 0.305 m=s ¼ 1 ft=s)
© ASCE 04016223-9
J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
Fig. 9. Fig. 10 shows how these four damage states would overlap,
showing a reasonable trend in the four damage states.
Using these surfaces, an analyst can develop cumulative prob-
abilities for different damage states for any tsunami flow depth or
flow velocity. Fig. 11 shows several sample cuts through these
surfaces for specific tsunami flow depths or flow velocities.
In order to use these surfaces more effectively, the 3D fragility
surfaces can be presented in the form of fragility contours as well
(Fig. 12). Since the response of the structure subjected to tsunami
loading is a function of both tsunami flow depth and flow velocity,
any combination of the two factors or any effort to lump their ef-
fects will result in a decrease in accuracy. In other words, consid-
ering flow depth as an IM, by using the mean trend line, 100%
amount of error would be possible in comparison with using h − u
fragility surfaces. Using momentum flux as and IM, the data points
and standard deviations shown in Fig. 7 suggest that by using the
mean trend line, a large range (with a maximum of 55%) of error
would be possible for each specific h and u combination. On the
other hand, considering the KMMF as an IM, and again using
the mean trend lines, less error (a maximum of 20%) is observed.
This represents a significant reduction in error compared to the
other two IM’s.
Conclusion
A methodology to develop physics-based fragility functions for
tsunamis was proposed in this study. Several relevant types of un-
certainties, including material properties, the drag force coefficient,
and openings in the surrounding walls were considered in devel-
oping these fragility functions. Because tsunami forces on struc-
tures are mainly based on tsunami flow depth and flow velocity,
they have often been treated as two independent variables. In this
process, by using Froude number, realistic combinations of tsunami
J. Struct. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Fragility curves based on particular tsunami flow depth or flow velocity: (a) flow depth of 4.6 m (15 ft); (b) flow depth of 7.6 m (25 ft);
(c) flow velocity of 4.6 m/s (15 ft=s); (d) flow velocity of 7.6 m/s (25 ft=s), for damage states of slight, moderate, extensive, and complete
(0.305 m ¼ 1 ft, 0.305 m=s ¼ 1 ft=s)

Fig. 12. Fragility contours for damage states of (a) slight; (b) moderate; (c) extensive; (d) complete, based on flow depth and flow velocity (0.305 m
1 ft, 0.305 m=s 1 ft=s)

© ASCE 04016223-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., -1--1

 flow depth and flow velocity were generated and were used to
produce tsunami forces on the structure. In order to estimate the
response of the structure to these forces, nonlinear push-over analy-
ses were performed using finite-element software. Consistent with
earthquake engineering analysis approaches, the maximum inter-
story drift of the structure was used to determine the damage state
of the structure for each tsunami load. Cumulative probabilities of
damage for the four damage states of slight, moderate, extensive,
and complete were calculated for all realistic tsunami flow depth
and flow velocity. The study herein focused on structural damage,
but future work should include nonstructural damage as well.
Based on the methodology explained in this paper, four differ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ent types of tsunami fragilities were generated for structures sub-
jected to tsunami hazard. A three-story steel structure was used as
an illustrative example to show and compare the results. As men-
tioned, the two most important characteristics of tsunami effects on
buildings are tsunami flow depth and flow velocity. Because the
tsunami flow depth is easier to measure, it has been used as an in-
tensity measure for tsunami fragility curves when developing them
empirically. Physics-based fragility curves based on tsunami flow
depth were also presented herein. For each specific tsunami flow
depth, the cumulative probabilities for each damage states were
presented for all possible realistic flow velocities. However, as is
well known, the tsunami forces on the structure are related to drag
forces used in fluid dynamics, which is related to flow depth (h) and
the square of the flow velocity (u2 ). For each tsunami flow depth,
there can be different flow velocities, which will affect the total
force by the square of that velocity and thus would cause signifi-
cantly different levels of damage to the structure. As a result, using
tsunami flow depth as the intensity measure may not provide a suit-
able relation with the response of the structure for estimation of
damage. Recently, researchers proposed the use of a combination
of h and u in the form of momentum flux (hu2 ) as an intensity
measure for tsunamis. The physics-based approach discussed in
this study was applied to develop fragility curves based on momen-
tum flux for different damage states. Although the overall shape
of the developed fragility curves based on momentum flux were
similar to typical fragility curves, the data, although much better
than the case of using flow depth as an IM, was still scattered. The
reason for this dispersion is that, although the momentum flux is
considered to be linearly related to tsunami forces, it lacks the effect
of the location of the force, which affects the lateral deformation
response of the structure, which, in turn, is directly related to struc-
tural damage.
In this study, a new intensity measure termed the KMMF was
proposed. The KMMF showed promising results in comparison
with other intensity measures for estimating likely structural dam-
age caused by a tsunami. In conclusion, because the response of the
structure to tsunamis is a function of flow depth and velocity simul-
taneously, the best option to estimate the response and performing
risk or resilience analysis would be to use joint flow depth-velocity
fragility surfaces. Any combination of the two intensity variables
would result in a decrease in accuracy, but the use of two intensity
variables does not necessarily align well with current approaches to
estimating risk or resilience. Therefore, if the use of fragility curves
based on one intensity measure is desired, momentum flux is felt to
be reasonable; based on this single analysis, KMMF is a better in-
tensity factor for tsunami analysis of buildings.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this study was provided as part of the cooperative
agreement 70NANB15H044 between the National Institute of
© ASCE 04016223-11
J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
Standards and Technology (NIST) and Colorado State University.
The content expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of NIST or the
U.S. Department of Commerce.
References
Arcos, M. E. M., and LeVeque, R. J. (2015). “Validating velocities in the
GeoClaw tsunami model using observations near Hawaii from the 2011
Tohoku tsunami.” Pure Appl. Geophys., 172(3–4), 849–867.
Arnason, H. (2005). “Interactions between an incident bore and a free-
standing coastal structure.” Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
ASCE. (2016). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.”
ASCE 7-16, Reston, VA.
Cascadia Region Earthquake Workgroup. (2013). “Cascadia subduction
zone earthquakes: A magnitude 9.0 earthquake scenario.” U.S. Dept.
of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
Charvet, I., Suppasri, A., Kimura, H., Sugawara, D., and Imamura, F.
(2015). “A multivariate generalized linear tsunami fragility model for
Kesennuma City based on maximum flow depths, velocities and debris
impact, with evaluation of predictive accuracy.” Nat. Hazards, 79(3),
2073–2099.
Dias, W. P. S., Yapa, H. D., and Peiris, L. M. N. (2009). “Tsunami vulner-
ability functions from field surveys and Monte Carlo simulation.”
Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst., 26(2), 181–194.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A.
(1980). “Development of a probability-based load criterion for
American National Standard A58.” National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, DC.
Ellingwood, B. R. (2001). “Earthquake risk assessment of building struc-
tures.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 74(3), 251–262.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2000a). “Commentary
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” FEMA-356, Washington,
DC.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2000b). “State of the
art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subject to
earthquake ground shaking.” Washington, DC.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2008a). “Guidelines
for design of structures for vertical evacuation from tsunamis.” FEMA
P-646, Washington, DC.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). (2008b). “HAZUS-MH
MR5: Technical manual.” Washington, DC.
Fritz, H. M., et al. (2012). “The 2011 Japan tsunami current velocity mea-
surements from survivor videos at Kesennuma Bay using LiDAR.”
Geophys. Res. Lett., 39(7), L00G23.
Fukuyama, H., Kato, H., Ishihara, T., Tajiri, S., Tani, M., Okuda, Y., and
Nakano, Y. (2011). “Structural design requirement on the tsunami
evacuation buildings.” UJNR, Tokyo.
Gupta, V., and Gupta, S. K. (2012). Fluid mechanics and its applications,
New Academic Science, London.
Iizuka, H., and Matsutomi, H. (2000). “Damage due to the flooding flow of
tsunami.” Proc. Coastal Eng., 47(1), 381–385.
Kim, J., Park, J. H., and Lee, T. H. (2011). “Sensitivity analysis of steel
buildings subjected to column loss.” Eng. Struct., 33(2), 421–432.
Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H. (2009a). “Tsunami
fragility—A new measure to identify tsunami damage.” J. Disaster
Res., 4(6), 479–488.
Koshimura, S., Oie, T., Yanagisawa, H., and Imamura, F. (2009b). “Devel-
oping fragility functions for tsunami damage estimation using numeri-
cal model and post-tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia.” Coastal
Eng. J., 51(3), 243–273.
Macabuag, J., Rossetto, T., and Lloyd, T. (2014). “Structural analysis for
the generation of analytical tsunami fragility functions.” 10th Int. Conf.
on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Anchorage, AK.
Matsutomi, H., and Okamoto, K. (2010). “Inundation flow velocity of
tsunami on land.” Island Arc, 19(3), 443–457.
Nanayakkara, K. I. U., and Dias, W. P. S. (2016). “Fragility curves for struc-
tures under tsunami loading.” Nat. Hazards, 80(1), 471–486.
J. Struct. Eng.
 Neelamani, S., Schuttrumpf, H., Muttray, M., and Oumeraci, H. (1999).
“Prediction of wave pressures on smooth impermeable seawalls.”
Ocean Eng., 26(8), 739–765.
Ngo, N., and Robertson, I. N. (2012). “Video analysis of the March 2011
tsunami in Japan’s coastal cities.” Research Rep. UHM/CEE/12, Univ.
of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Park, H., Cox, D. T., Lynett, P. J., Wiebe, D. M., and Shin, S. (2013a).
“Tsunami inundation modeling in constructed environments: A physi-
cal and numerical comparison of free-surface elevation, velocity, and
momentum flux.” Coastal Eng., 79, 9–21.
Park, H., Wiebe, D. M., Cox, D. T., and Cox, K. (2014). “Tsunami inun-
dation modeling: Sensitivity of velocity and momentum flux to bottom
friction with application to building damage at Seaside, Oregon.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY on 03/23/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Coastal Eng. Proc., 1(34), 1.
Park, S., van de Lindt, J., Cox, D., and Gupta, R. (2013b). “Concept
of community fragilities for tsunami coastal inundation studies.”
Nat. Hazards Rev., 10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000092, 220–228.
Park, S., and van de Lindt, J. W. (2009). “Formulation of seismic fragilities
for a wood-frame building based on visually determined damage
indexes.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509
.0000034, 346–352.
Park, S., van de Lindt, J. W., Cox, D., Gupta, R., and Aguiniga, F. (2012).
“Successive earthquake-tsunami analysis to develop collapse fragilities.”
J. Earthquake Eng., 16(6), 851–863.
Porter, K. A., Beck, J. L., and Shaikhutdinov, R. V. (2002). “Sensitivity
of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables.” Earthquake
Spectra, 18(4), 719–743.
© ASCE 04016223-12
View publication stats J. Struct. Eng., -1--1
Ramsden, J. (1996). “Forces on a vertical wall due to long waves, bores,
and dry- bed surges.” J. Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-950X(1996)122:3(134), 134–141.
Rosowsky, D. V., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2002). “Performance-based
engineering of wood frame housing: Fragility analysis methodology.”
J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:1(32), 32–38.
Shinozuka, M., Feng, M. Q., Lee, J., and Naganuma, T. (2000). “Statistical
analysis of fragility curves.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399
(2000)126:12(1224), 1224–1231.
Shuto, N. (1993). Tsunami intensity and disasters, Springer, Dordrecht,
Netherlands.
Sihombing, F., and Torbol, M. (2015). “Large scale smooth particle hydro-
dynamics model for analytical fragility curves of a building subject to
tsunami.” World Congress ASEME, IASEM, Daejeon, Korea.
Suppasri, A., et al. (2013). “Building damage characteristics based on sur-
veyed data and fragility curves of the 2011 Great East Japan tsunami.”
Nat. Hazards, 66(2), 319–341.
Suppasri, A., Koshimura, S., and Imamura, F. (2011). “Developing tsunami
fragility curves based on the satellite remote sensing and the numerical
modeling of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand.” Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., 11(1), 173–189.
Wilson, J. S., Gupta, R., van de Lindt, J. W., Clauson, M., and Garcia, R.
(2009). “Behavior of a one-sixth scale wood-framed residential struc-
ture under wave loading.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)
CF.1943-5509.0000039, 336–345.
Yeh, H., Barbosa, A. R., Ko, H., and Cawley, J. G. (2014). “Tsunami
loadings on structures: Review and analysis.” Coastal Eng. Proc.,
1(34), 4.
J. Struct. Eng.