Advances in the Assessment of Buildings Subjected to Earthquakes and Tsunami

  • Tiziana RossettoEmail author
  • Crescenzo Petrone
  • Ian Eames
  • Camilo De La Barra
  • Andrew Foster
  • Joshua Macabuag
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 46)


Currently, 8 out of the 10 most populous megacities in the world are vulnerable to severe earthquake damage, while 6 out of 10 are at risk of being severely affected by tsunami. To mitigate ground shaking and tsunami risks for coastal communities, reliable tools for assessing the effects of these hazards on coastal structures are needed. Methods for assessing the seismic performance of buildings and infrastructure are well established, allowing for seismic risk assessments to be performed with some degree of confidence. In the case of tsunami, structural assessment methodologies are much less developed. This stems partly from a general lack of understanding of tsunami inundation processes and flow interaction with the built environment. This chapter brings together novel numerical and experimental work being carried out at UCL EPICentre and highlights advances made in defining tsunami loads for use in structural analysis, and in the assessment of buildings for tsunami loads. The results of this work, however, demonstrate a conflict in the design targets for seismic versus tsunami-resistant structures, which raise questions on how to provide appropriate building resilience in coastal areas subjected to both these hazards. The Chapter therefore concludes by summarizing studies carried out to assess building response under successive earthquakes and tsunami that are starting to address this question.



The research presented in this Chapter has been predominantly funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC grant agreement number 336084 ‘URBANWAVES’, awarded to Professor Tiziana Rossetto. The authors are grateful to Dr. David McGovern, Dr. Ian Chandler, Professor William Allsop, Dr. Tristan Robinson and Dr. Christian Klettner for their assistance in this research.


  1. Allsop W, Chandler I, Zaccaria M (2014) Improvements in the physical modelling of tsunamis and their effects. In: Coastlab14 (5th International conference on the application of physical modelling in coastal and port engineering and science), Varna, Bulgaria, 29 September–2 October 2014Google Scholar
  2. ASCE 7–16 (2017). ASCE 7 standard minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings 488 and other structuresGoogle Scholar
  3. Attary N, van de Lindt JW, Unnikrishnan VU, Barbosa AR, Cox DT (2017) Methodology for development of physics-based tsunami fragilities. J Struct Eng 143(5)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandler, I., Allsop, W., Barranco Granged, I., McGovern, D. (2016) Understanding wave generation in pneumatic tsunami simulators. In: Coastlab16 (6th International conference on the application of physical modelling in coastal and port engineering and science), Ottawa, Canada, 10–13 May 2016Google Scholar
  5. FEMA (2000) FEMA 356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. FEMA (2005) Coastal construction manual. In: FEMA 55, 3rd edn. Washington, DC, Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  7. FEMA (2008) Guidelines for Design of Structures for vertical evacuation from tsunamis. In: Technical report P646. Washington, DC, Federal Emergency Management AgencyGoogle Scholar
  8. Foster ASJ, Rossetto T, Allsop W (2017) An experimentally validated approach for evaluating tsunami inundation forces on rectangular buildings. Coast Eng 128(November 2016):44–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goda K, Yasuda T, Mori N, Mai M (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):4552–4575Google Scholar
  10. Goda, K., Petrone, C., De Risi, R., Rossetto, T. (2017) ‘Stochastic coupled simulation of strong motion and tsunami for the 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake’, Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (November), pp 1–19.
  11. Grilli ST, Ioualalen M, Asavanant J, Shi F, Kirby JT, Watts P (2007) Source constraints and model simulation of the December 26, 2004, Indian Ocean tsunami. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 133:414–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Latcharote P, Kai Y (2014) Nonlinear structural analysis of reinforced concrete buildings suffering damage from earthquake and subsequent tsunami. In 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering – Frontiers of Earthquake EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  13. Mader CL (2004) Numerical modeling of water waves, 2nd edn. CRC Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Okada T, Ishikawa T, Tateno T, Sugano T, Takai S (2006) Tsunami loads and structural design of tsunami refuge buildings. Technical report, The Building Centre of JapanGoogle Scholar
  15. Park S, van de Lindt JW, Cox D, Gupta R, Aguiniga F (2012) Successive earthquake-tsunami analysis to develop collapse fragilities. J Earthq Eng 16(6):851–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petrone C, Rossetto T, Goda K (2017) Fragility assessment of a RC structure under tsunami actions via nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Eng Struct 136:36–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Qi ZX, Eames I, Johnson ER (2014) Force acting on a square cylinder fixed in a free-surface channel flow. J Fluid Mech 756:716–727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rossetto T, Peiris N, Pomonis A, Wilkinson SM, Del Re D, Koo R, Gallocher S (2007) The Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004: observations in Sri Lanka and Thailand. Nat Hazards 42(1):105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rossetto T, Allsop W, Charvet I, Robinson DI (2011) Physical modelling of tsunami using a new pneumatic wave generator. Coast Eng 58(6):517–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossetto T, Gehl P, Minas S, Galasso C, Duffour P, Douglas J, Cook O (2016, October 15). FRACAS: a capacity spectrum approach for seismic fragility assessment including record-to-record variability. Eng Struct ;125:337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rossetto T, De La Barra C, Petrone C, De La Llera JC (2018a) Comparison of nonlinear static and dynamic analysis methods for assessing structural response under earthquake and tsunami in sequence. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics (submitted)Google Scholar
  22. Rossetto T, Macabuag J, Petrone C, Eames I (2018b) Does ductility play a significant role in the response of structures to tsunami Loading?. Eng struct (submitted)Google Scholar
  23. Sundermann L, Schelske O, Hausmann P (2014) Mind the risk – a global ranking of cities under threat from natural disaster’. Swiss Re. Report No. 1505715_13_en12/14. pp 39Google Scholar
  24. Suppasri A, Latcharote P, Bricker JD, Leelawat N, Hayashi A, Yamashita K, Makinoshima F, Roeber V, Imamura F (2016) Improvement of tsunami countermeasures based on lessons from the 2011 great East Japan earthquake and tsunami—situation after five years. Coast Eng J 58(4):1640011. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Titov VV, Synolakis CE (1998) Numerical modeling of tidal wave runup. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 124:157–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yepes-Estrada C, Silva V, Rossetto T, D'Ayala D, Ioannou I, Meslem A, Crowley H (2016) The global earthquake model physical vulnerability database. Earthquake Spectra 32(4):2567–2585CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiziana Rossetto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Crescenzo Petrone
    • 2
  • Ian Eames
    • 3
  • Camilo De La Barra
    • 1
  • Andrew Foster
    • 4
  • Joshua Macabuag
    • 5
  1. 1.EPICentre, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Earthquake Research Analyst, Willis Towers WatsonLondonUK
  3. 3.EPICentre, Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil EngineeringUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  5. 5.NatCat and Research and Development Analyst SCORLondonUK

Personalised recommendations