Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 1117–1139 | Cite as

Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment (PTHA) for resilience assessment of a coastal community

  • Hyoungsu Park
  • Daniel T. Cox
  • Andre R. Barbosa
Original Paper
  • 99 Downloads

Abstract

Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis (PTHA) can be used to evaluate and quantify tsunami hazards for planning of integrated community-level preparedness, including mitigation of casualties and dollar losses, and to study resilient solutions for coastal communities. PTHA can provide several outputs such as the intensity measures (IMs) of the hazard quantified as a function of the recurrence interval of a tsunami event. In this paper, PTHA is developed using a logic tree approach based on numerical modeling for tsunami generated along the Cascadia Subduction Zone. The PTHA is applied to a community on the US Pacific Northwest Coast located in Newport, Oregon. Results of the PTHA are provided for five IMs: inundation depth, flow speed, specific momentum flux, arrival time, and duration of inundation. The first three IMs are predictors of tsunami impact on the natural and built environment, and the last two are useful for tsunami evacuation and immediate response planning. Results for the five IMs are presented as annual exceedance probability for sites within the community along several transects with varying bathymetric and topographic features. Community-level characteristics of spatial distribution of each IM for three recurrence intervals (500, 1000, 2500 year) are provided. Results highlight the different pattern of IMs between land and river transects, and significant magnitude variation of IMs due to complex bathymetry and topographic conditions at the various recurrence intervals. IMs show relatively higher magnitudes near the coastline, at the low elevation regions, and at the harbor channel. In addition, results indicate a positive correlation between inundation depth and other IMs near the coastline, but a weaker correlation at inland locations. Values of the Froude number ranged 0.1–1.0 over the inland inundation area. In general, the results in this study highlight the spatial differences in IMs and suggest the need to include multiple IMs for resilience planning for a coastal community subjected to tsunami hazards.

Keywords

Tsunami Hazard Intensity measures PTHA Resilience Coastal community 

List of symbols

Fr

Froude Number (–)

g

Gravitational acceleration (LT−2)

h

Flow (Inundation) depth (L)

M

Momentum flux (hV2) (L3T−2)

Mw

Moment magnitude (–)

NMw

Number of moment magnitude (–)

NL

Number of peak locations (–)

NS

Number of slip shapes (–)

n

Manning Number (LT−1)

P

Probability (–)

TA

Arrival time exceeding 1 m flow depth (T)

TD

Duration exceeding 1 m flow depth (T)

TM

Mean recurrence period (T)

t

Time (years) (T)

V

Velocity (LT−1)

wL

Weighting factor for peak location (–)

wS

Weighting factor for slip shape (–)

z

Elevation from datum (L)

(.)max

Value of (.) (–)

λ

Mean annual rate of recurrence (–)

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided as part of the cooperative agreement 70NAB15H044 between the National Institute of Standard 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 of NIST or the U.S. Department of Commerce.

References

  1. Adams LM, LeVeque RJ, González FI (2015) The pattern method for incorporating tidal uncertainty into Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment (PTHA). Nat Hazards 76(1):19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alam MS, Barbosa AR, Scott MH, Cox DT, van de Lindt JW (2018) Development of physics-based tsunami fragility functions considering structural member failures. ASCE J Struct Eng 144(3):04017221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amante C, Eakins BW (2009) ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model: Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis. NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-24. National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA.  https://doi.org/10.7289/v5c8276m. Accessed 05 2016
  4. Annaka T, Satake K, Sakakiyama T, Yanagisawa K, Shuto N (2007) Logic-tree approach for probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis and its applications to the Japanese coasts. Pure Appl Geophys 164(2):577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASCE7 Tsunami. Online (2018) ASce tsunami design geodatabase. https://asce7tsunami.online/. Accessed 17 Jan 2018
  6. Attary N, van de Lindt JW, Unnikrishnan VU, Barbosa AR, Cox DT (2016) Methodology for development of physics-based tsunami fragilities. J Struct Eng 143(5):04016223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Attary N, Unnikrishnan VU, van de Lindt JW, Cox DT, Barbosa AR (2017) Performance-based tsunami rngineering methodology for risk assessment of structures. Eng Struct 141:676–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benjamin JR, Cornell CA (1970) Probability, statistics, and decision for civil engineers. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Burbidge D, Cummins PR, Mleczko R, Thio HK (2008) A probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for Western Australia. Pure appl Geophys 165(11–12):2059–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornell CA (1968) Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull Seismol Soc Am 58(5):1583–1606Google Scholar
  11. De Risi R, Goda K (2017) Simulation-based probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis: empirical and robust hazard predictions. Pure Appl Geophys 174(8):3083–3106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Risi R, Goda K, Yasuda T, Mori N (2017) Is flow velocity important in tsunami empirical fragility modeling? Earth Sci Rev 166:64–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. FEMA (2013) Tsunami methodology technical manual, prepared by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA P-646 (2012) Guidelines for design of structures for vertical evacuation from tsunamis, 2nd edn. Federal Emergency Management Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Geist EL, Parsons T (2006) Probabilistic analysis of tsunami hazards. Nat Hazards 37(3):277–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goda K, Yasuda T, Mori N, Mai PM (2015) Variability of tsunami inundation footprints considering stochastic scenarios based on a single rupture model: application to the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. J Geophys Res Oceans 120(6):4552–4575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldfinger C, Nelson CH, Morey AE, Johnson JE, Patton JR, Karabanov E, Patton J, Gracia E, Enkin R, Dallimore A, Dunhill G, Vallier T (2012) Turbidite event history: methods and implications for holocene paleoseismicity of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1661-FGoogle Scholar
  18. González FI, Geist EL, Jaffe B, Kânoğlu U, Mofjeld H, Synolakis CE, Titov VV, Arcas D, Bellomo D, Carlton D, Horning T et al (2009) Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment at seaside, Oregon, for near-and far-field seismic sources. J Geophys Res Oceans.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. González FI, LeVeque RJ, Adams LM (2013) Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Assessment (PTHA) for Crescent City, CA. Final Report for Phase I. University of Washington Department of Applied MathmaticsGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffin J, Latief H, Kongko W, Harig S, Horspool N, Hanung R, Rojali A, Maher N, Fuchs A, Hossen J, Upi S (2015) An evaluation of onshore digital elevation models for modeling tsunami inundation zones. Front Earth Sci 3:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heidarzadeh M, Kijko A (2011) A probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment for the Makran subduction zone at the northwestern Indian Ocean. Nat Hazards 56(3):577–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaiser G, Scheele L, Kortenhaus A, Løvholt F, Römer H, Leschka S (2011) The influence of land cover roughness on the results of high resolution tsunami inundation modeling. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(9):2521–2540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ko HS, Cox DT, Riggs HR, Naito CJ (2014) Hydraulic experiments on impact forces from tsunami-driven debris. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 141(3):04014043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koshimura S, Oie T, Yanagisawa H, Imamura F (2009) Developing fragility functions for tsunami damage estimation using numerical model and post-tsunami data from Banda Aceh, Indonesia. Coast Eng J 51(03):243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. LeVeque RJ, George DL, Berger MJ (2011) Tsunami modelling with adaptively refined finite volume methods. Acta Numer 20:211–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorito S, Selva J, Basili R, Romano F, Tiberti MM, Piatanesi A (2014) Probabilistic hazard for seismically induced tsunamis: accuracy and feasibility of inundation maps. Geophys J Int 200(1):574–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynett P, Wu T, Liu P (2002) Modeling wave runup with depth-integrated equations. Coast Eng 46:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynett PJ, Borrero JC, Weiss R, Son S, Greer D, Renteria W (2012) Observations and modeling of tsunami-induced currents in ports and harbors. Earth Planet Sci Lett 327:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynett PJ, Gately K, Wilson R, Montoya L, Arcas D, Aytore B, Bai Y, Bricker JD, Castro MJ, Cheung KF, David CG (2017) Inter-model analysis of tsunami-induced coastal currents. Ocean Model 114:14–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mori N, Goda K, Cox DT (2017) Recent process in probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA) for mega thrust subduction earthquakes. In: Reconstruction and restoration after the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami: insights and assessment after 5 yearsGoogle Scholar
  31. Mueller C, Power W, Fraser S, Wang X (2015) Effects of rupture complexity on local tsunami inundation: implications for probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment by example. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 120(1):488–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Murotani S, Satake K, Fujii Y (2013) Scaling relations of seismic moment, rupture area, average slip, and asperity size for M ~ 9 subduction-zone earthquakes. Geophys Res Lett 40(19):5070–5074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naito C, Cercone C, Riggs HR, Cox D (2013) Procedure for site assessment of the potential for tsunami debris impact. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 140(2):223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nakamura T, Yasuki K, Norimi M (2008) Tsunami scour around a square structure. Coast Eng J 50(02):209–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NOAA Center for Tsunami Research (2014) Newport, OR 1/3 arc-second NAVD 88 DEM. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/inundation/. Accessed 9 Sept 2014
  36. Okada Y (1985) Surface deformation due to shear and tensile faults in a half-space. Bull Seismol Soc Am 75(4):1135–1154Google Scholar
  37. Park H, Cox DT (2016) Probabilistic assessment of near-field tsunami hazards: inundation depth, velocity, momentum flux, arrival time, and duration applied to Seaside, Oregon. Coast Eng 117:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Park H, Cox DT, Lynett PJ, Wiebe DM, Shin S (2013) Tsunami inundation modeling in constructed environments: a physical and numerical comparison of free-surface elevation, velocity, and momentum flux. Coast Eng 79:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Park H, Cox DT, Barbosa AR (2017a) Comparison of inundation depth and momentum flux based fragilities for probabilistic tsunami damage assessment and uncertainty analysis. Coast Eng 122:10–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Park H, Cox DT, Alam MS, Barbosa AR (2017b) Probabilistic seismic and tsunami hazard analysis conditioned on a megathrust rupture of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Front Built Environ 3:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Power W, Downes G, Stirling M (2007) Estimation of tsunami hazard in New Zealand due to South American earthquakes. Pure Appl Geophys 164(2–3):547–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Priest GR, Goldfinger C, Wang K, Witter RC, Zhang Y, Baptista AM (2010) Confidence levels for tsunami-inundation limits in northern Oregon inferred from a 10,000-year history of great earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone. Nat Hazards 54(1):27–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rueben M, Cox D, Holman R, Shin S, Stanley J (2014) Optical measurements of tsunami inundation and debris movement in a large-scale wave basin. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 141(1):04014029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Satake K, Wang K, Atwater BF (2003) Fault slip and seismic moment of the 1700 Cascadia earthquake inferred from Japanese tsunami descriptions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JB002521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suppasri A, Koshimura S, Imai K, Mas E, Gokon H, Muhari A, Imamura F (2012) Damage characteristic and field survey of the 2011 Great East Japan Tsunami in Miyagi Prefecture. Coast Eng J 54(01):1250005Google Scholar
  46. Thio HK, Somerville P (2009) A probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis of California. In TCLEE 2009: Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in a Multihazard Environment, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  47. Thio HK, Somerville P, Ichinose G (2007) Probabilistic analysis of strong ground motion and tsunami hazards in Southeast Asia. J Earthq Tsunami 1(02):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Titov VV, Moore CW, Greenslade DJM, Pattiaratchi C, Badal R, Synolakis CE, Kânoğlu U (2011) A new tool for inundation modeling: Community Modeling Interface for Tsunamis (ComMIT). Pure appl Geophys 168(11):2121–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tung S, Masterlark T (2018) Sensitivities of near-field tsunami forecasts to megathrust deformation predictions. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 123(2):1711–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang H, Mostafizi A, Cramer LA, Cox D, Park H (2016) An agent-based model of a multimodal near-field tsunami evacuation: decision-making and life safety. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 64:86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Witter RC, Zhang YJ, Wang K, Priest GR, Goldfinger C, Stimely L, English JT, Ferro PA (2013) Simulated tsunami inundation for a range of Cascadia megathrust earthquake scenarios at Bandon, Oregon, USA. Geosphere 9(6):1783–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yeh H, Francis M, Peterson C, Katada T, Latha G, Chadha RK, Singh JP, Raghuraman G (2007) Effects of the 2004 great Sumatra tsunami: southeast Indian coast. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 133(6):382–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yeh H, Barbosa A, Ko H, Cawley J (2014a) Tsunami loadings on structures: review and analysis. Coast Eng Proc.  https://doi.org/10.9753/icce.v34.currents.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yeh H, Barbosa A, Mason BH (2014b) Tsunamis effects in man-made environment. Encycl Complex Syst Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_623-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang YJ, Baptista AM (2008) An efficient and robust tsunami model on unstructured grids. Part I: inundation benchmarks. Pure Appl Geophys 165(11–12):2229–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang YJ, Witter RC, Priest GR (2011) Tsunami–tide interaction in 1964 Prince William Sound tsunami. Ocean Model 40(3–4):246–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Construction EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations