Lessons from the 2011 Tohoku tsunami
and tsunami mitigationgin Japanp〇Anawatt Suppasri〇A
Si
Panon Latcharote
Fumihiko Imamura
Tsunami Engineering Research Field
Hazard and Risk Evaluation Research DivisionInternational Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS)
Tohoku University
25 February 20161

About IRIDeS
DisasterDisaster Institute established in Major National University

1923
G t Kanto
Great
K t E
Earthquake
th k

The University of Tokyo
Earthquake Research Institute（1925
Institute（1925-））

1950
Typhoon Jane

Kyoto University
Disaster Prevention Research Institute（1951-）

2011
GEJE and Tsunami

Tohoku University International Research Institute ofDisaster Science（2012-）

Human andsocialresponse• Overturning the Japanese character
meaning disaster「災」= reconstruction
and sustainable and resilient societies• Purple is the color of the Tohoku
University• The Iris is the symbol of “hope” and“dignity”

Regional
R
i
l and
d
urban
reconstruction

IRIDeS

Hazard andriskevaluation

Endowedresearch

Disasterscience
Disastermedicalscience

Disasterinformation
management anddpublic collaboration
2

About tsunami
engineering3Size of event – casualties and economic loss

Logarithmic scales on vertical axes

DEATHS + MISSINGECONOMIC LOSS US$ bn

Source: Dr. Stephen Platt, Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR)

Size of disastersize = (deaths + missing) x ( loss / GDP )Deaths Missing

Loss US$bn

GDP US$bn

Size of disaster

China,, Wenchuan 2008

87,587
,

130

9,240
,

1,232
,

Japan, Tohoku 2011

20,350

210

4,919

869

Pakistan, Kashmir 2005

87,000

2.3

232

863

Iran, Bam 2003

30,000

1.5

368

122

Chile, Maule 2010

547

30

277

59

New Zealand, Christchurch 2011

181

15

186

15

Thailand, Indian Ocean 2004

8,212

0.4

387

8

Italy, L'Aquila 2009

308

11.6

2,149

2

Turkey, Van 2011

601

1

819

1

USA Northridge 1994

72

41.8

16,7680

Disaster

Source: Dr. Stephen Platt, Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR)

zero growth

DISAS
STERS
S

EconomySources: Japan – OECD; Turkey – IMF; Chile – Banco Central de Chile

Source: Dr. Stephen Platt, Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR)

Money(total financial assistance from government, insurance and international aid)

Logarithmic scales on both axes

Rebuild Cost US$ bn
Source: Dr. Stephen Platt, Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR)

Planning strategy

Japan
p

Turkeyy

Focus on Protection strategies

Little planning for new housing

Two main protection strategies:
Strategy A, moving homes to higher
ground, used along the Rias Coast.
Strategy B, providing barriers andconcentrating housing on raised
platforms, is being adopted in Sendai.

Within 15 months 10,000 new
apartments were built in Van and
5 000 in Erçiş by the government
5,000
housing agency, TOKI. But little
urban planning, in town centres or
new housing estates.

Source: Dr. Stephen Platt, Cambridge Architectural Research (CAR)

Chile
Comprehensive master planning
Moving buildings back from thebeach and estuary and planting
trees. Canalising the river. Creating
a defensive esplanade. Building
tsunami resistant housing andsigning evacuation routes.

Local economic recovery: Situation after four years
Total population and aged
g population

Miyagi

Fukushima

Recovery ratio offishing port

Completion in percent (%)

Fukushima Miyagi Iwate Fukushima Miyagi Iwate

Debris

Iwate

SchoolFukushima Miyagi Iwate Fukushima Miyagi Iwate

Source: Yomiuri newspaper (11 Mar 2015)

Housing

Agriculture

Fukushima Miyagi IwateFukushima Miyagi Iwate

Aquaculture

Seawall9

Local economic recovery: Situation after four years
Iwate

MiyagiL d forLand
f affected
ff t d peoplel

Fukushima

Disaster public housing

People living in
temporary housing

Business

Number of evacuee

Infrastructure
Seawall

SchoolAq ac lt re
Aquaculture

Agric lt reAgriculture

Source: Asahi newspaper (11 Mar 2015)

Manufacturing

Road

10

Local economic recovery: Situation after four years
Recovery of damaged farmland

Labor shortageTimes

Mi i = 74 %Miyagi

Fukushima = 23 %Iwate = 60 %PopulationpdeclineOfunatoSendai

Soma-Futaba

No. of business who came back because of
the recovery campaign

Iwate

Source: Nikkei newspaper (11 Mar 2015)

Ishinomaki

Miyagi

Fukushima

11

Underestimation of the earthquake
magnitude. Sugawara et al. (2001) estimatedmagnitude of 8.3-8.6 and 2-3 km inundation
distance.

869 Jogan tsunami

http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/e-okotoba/02/address/koen-h24az-mizuforum6th.html 12

1611 Keicho-Sariku tsunami
Villages in Edo period (1603-1868)(1603 1868) were located outside inundation area of the 2011 tsunami

Hirakawa、
2011

13

Sanriku tsunamis and Miyagi Sea tsunamis
Onagawa

Level D2011 Great East Japan

Max

41

1896
M8.5
40

8.5
8

39
7.5

1933
M8.1

7

0

5

10 15 20 25 30 35
Maximum tsunami height (m)Fukushima2011 Great East Japan

1611
M8.1

Miyagi Oki
M7.5 ‐ 8.0

6.5
40

Latitude

Earthquake magnitud
de

9

869
M8.3

Code D
Max

38

37

9

2011 Heisei
H i i

8.5

1896 Meiji

2011
M9.0

1933 Showa
1611 Keicho

8
35
0

7.5

9
Earthquuake
magnituude

Earthquake maagnitude

36

7
6.5
0

5
10
15
20
Maximum tsunami height (m)

25

8.5

1793
M8.2

8
7.5
7
1790

Miyagi Sea earthquake
1835 1861
M7.3 M7.4
1830

1870

1897
M7.4
1910
Year

1936
M7.4
1950

2011 10
M9.0

20

30

40

Maximum tsunami hegiht (m)

1978
M7.4
1990

2030

14

Tsunami warning systems in Japan
Assumed faults around Japan(100,000 cases)

Numerical simulation results stored in database30

Sea Level Network

25
Elapsed time(mminutes)

Seismic Network

20
15
10

1983 tsunami
arrived 7 min
100 casualties

1993 tsunami
arrived < 5 min
230 casualties

501952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004yearTsunami warnings during the 2011 tsunami
Local
Event
Information----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14:46
Earthquake
14:49
Mjma = 7.9 Major
Tsunami Warning Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima
14:50
Tsunami Information Iwate: 3m,
3m Miyagi: 6m,
6m
Fukushima: 3m, etc.
Only up to M8.0 in the database
15:10
GPS buoys > 3m
15:14
Tsunami Warnings/Advisories extended
15:14
Tsunami Information Iwate: 6m, Miyagi: over 10m,
Fukushima:k hi
6 etc.
6m,
Tsunami hit the nearest coast
15:21
Tide gauges at Kamaishi (Iwate) > 4.1m (scale out)
15:30
Tsunami Warning extended
15:31
Tsunami InformationIwate, Miyagi, Fukushima: over 10m, etc.
16:00
Mjma = 8.4
17:30
Mw = 8.8
Mw = 9.0
13th May
Hayashi et al (2011) and http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/2011_Earthquake.html

16Observed tsunami waveforms

http://www.pari.go.jp/info/tohoku-eq/

17Earthquake generation mechanism andseafloor deformation
UpliftSubsidence
Japan trench
Land

Sea

1933 Showa Sanriku(Outter-rise)

869 Jogan tsunami(Typical interplate)1896 M
Meiji
iji Sanriku
Sik(Tsunami earthquake)18

2011 Tohoku earthquake

20xx Nankai earthquake

Shallow region
Deep region

Interplate
earthquake

Tsunamiearthquake

Source: NHK
19

The 2011 tsunami:
Large different intsunami hazard map

Taro

Ofunato

Red: 2011 tsunami inundation area
Blue: Predicted inundation area

I hiIshinomakiki

Sendai20

Stochastic tsunami hazard map
If we use the hazard curve data, we can estimate tsunami inundation area

RiskInundation
Evaluationa portare with return
period of 200 years
Inundation are with return period of 600 years
Inundation are with return pperiod of 1200 yyears

The 2011 GEJE inundation area
(Reference) : The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Soma portp
Water depth 20m
Water depth 10m

Tsunami inundation areas can be
captured not by deterministic map but
stochastic map

An example of inundation map for Soma-city in Japan21

Lessons : Unosumai Elementary and Junior high schools
Miracle of Kamaishi…Awareness for expected event- All nearly 3,000 students survived
Three principles- First,First don't put too much faith in outdated assumptions.
assumptions “InIn
other words, don't trust hazard maps.
- The second rule of thumb is for people to make their best
efforts to deal with the situation. They urged the teachers tokeep moving higher, adding that the older kids also
remembered to help the younger ones.
- And finally, to takeCasualty
the initiative in any
distribution
evacuation.
of deaths
http://mnj.govonline.go.jp/kamaishi.html

on hazard
map

Hazard map

SchoolSchoolHistoricaltsunamis

Actual tsunami

http://insite.typepad.jp/.a/6a0120a6885bf1970b01543336c30e970c-320wi

http://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/earthquake/sonae/20120
312/images/PK2012031202100063_size0.jpg
22

Questionnaire survey related to tsunami evacuation (1)S
Source:C bi officeCabinetffi off JapanJ

By Cabinet Office, Fire Agency and Japan Meteorological Agency-Total answers: 870 (Iwate = 391, Miyagi = 385 and Fukushima = 94), period: During July 2011
-A: Soon evacuated (57%), B: Evacuated after some actions (31%), C: Tsunami came during doing some actions (11%)
and D: Did not evacuated ((theyy were alreadyy in highg gground)) ((1%))-[A+B] Main reasons for starting evacuation: large shaking (48%), were asked to evacuate by family or surrounding
people (20%) and surrounding people start their evacuation (15%)
 Less amount of calling out for evacuation-[B+C][] Whyy theyy did not evacuated as soon as p
possible: Went back home ((22%),), looking
g for familyy or ppickingg up
pfamily (21%), tsunami did not come in the past (11%) and did not think about tsunami coming (9%)
 Have to reduce the amount of people going back home or seeking family
Condition of evacuation shelter- C has the highest ratio of people who were inside the inundation area (38%)- A and B are both mostly evacuated to designated evacuation shelters but C is large on the highest floor of the samebuilding

A: Soonevacuated
B: Evacuatedafter somethingdone
C: Last minuteevacuatedBlue = outside inundation area
Red = inside inundation area
Green = could not identify

Evacuation method- In general,
general about 57% of people evacuated using car.
car
- Reason for using car: Not enough time without using car(34%), wanted to evacuate together with family (32%), farfrom safe pplace ((20%))- About 34% of them were trapped in the serious traffic.
- In general, limit distance for evacuation by walking wasabout 500 m and by car was 2 km.
Tsunami hazard map- Number of people who had seen tsunami hazard map or
had hazard map in their house was less than 20%
23

Questionnaire survey related to tsunami evacuation (2)By Weathernews- Target area: Hokkaido, Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki and Chiba- Total answers: 5,296 (3,298 from survivors and 1,998 related to people who were casualty)
1) TimeTi fromfearthquake
th k generation
ti tot startingt ti evacuationti- Survivor = 19 min and casualty = 21 min
2) Reason for starting evacuation- Majorj tsunami warningg or tsunami warningg and onlyy 28 % of the survivors soon evacuated3) Evacuation condition- Reason for not evacuated was they believe they were safe and 20% of victim could not evacuated4) Selected evacuation place- 75% of survivor could evacuated to safe place while 75% of victim could not- 40% could not evacuate to high ground and 50% evacuated to non-designated evacuation place5) Why they could not evacuate from the tsunami- 18% of victim was because theyy were obstructed duringg their evacuation
6) Evacuated elevation from tsunami- Approximately 2.9th floor for survivor and 1.7th floor for victim
7) Moving from evacuation place- 60% of victim moved to tsunami inundation zone again
8) Reason for moving from evacuation place- Looking for their family was the main reason

24

Tsunami countermeasures in Japan• 1896 Meiji-Sanriku tsunami: by individual
M i high
Movinghi h groundd• 1933 Showa-Sanriku tsunami: by country and prefecture
Moving high ground + Seawall in some areas
960 C
Chilee tsu
tsunami:a : StStructuraluctu a measureseasu es• 1960
Seawalls, breakwaters and tsunami gates• 1993 Okushiri
Ok hi i tsunami:tiStructural measures, town planning and combination
with soft measures• 2011 Great East Japan tsunami:
Prevention  Reduction
25

Breakwater: Kamaishi

Water gate: Fudai

Tsunami countermeasure system

Seawall: Taro

Sea

Land

Control forest: Rikuzenakata
Highland residence: Toni-hongo

川26

Reconstruction plan of Miyagi prefecture

http://www.pref.miyagi.jp/seisaku/sinsaihukkou/keikaku/index.htm

27

The world’s largest breakwater
KamaishiKi hi breakwatersb k@ sea depth = 63 m

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/shyougaiitisekkeisi2581/imgs/4/a/4aab1
165.jpg
http://f.hatena.ne.jp/images/fotolife/k/kimkaz/20110401/2011040
1220511.jpg
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Resources/nuclear/japan/GIF/kamaishi-breakwater.png

28

Level 1 & Level 2 tsunami
Level 1:High frequency (30-200 years) but small to moderate tsunami.
Community should be mostly protected by coastal defense structures.
structures
Height of coastal structures were decided by past Level 1 tsunami
eventsLevel 2:
Low frequency (200-1,000 years) but very high tsunami.
Forget about properties but secure evacuation routes for safe
evacuation
evacuation.
Coastal structures should be strong enough even in case of theovertopping.

http://www.bousai.go.jp/kaigirep/chousakai/tohokukyokun/4/pdf/2-2.pdf

http://www.pa.thr.mlit.go.jp/kakyoin/PDF/sankou.pdf

Level 1

Level 229

New height of seawalls in Miyagi prefecture

After 2011

Before 2011

2011 tsunami

30

Sendai city plan:
land use managementg

The 2011 tsunami

Increase roadlevel = 6 m

http://www.city.sendai.jp/fukko/1198749_2757.html

31

Reduction effect from control forest

Control forest
Zone D

Zone B
Zone C
Zone AB k t
Breakwater

Breakwater

Breakwater
32

Building damage: Overturned building in Onagawa town

33

Inundation depth = 4 m

1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4

Thai_One
story_LV2

0.2

Thai_> one
story_LV2

0.0
0

5
10
1
15
20
Inundation depth (m)Before tsunami

Damage probability

Example from Ishinomaki city

Damage probability

Building fragility andtsunami damage

1.0

0.8
0.6
0.4

Japan_W

0.2

Thai_Mix
Thai_RC

0.0
0

5
10
15
Inundation depth (m)20After tsunami

34

Condition before March 2011
Tokai Tonankai Nankai earthquake
Tokai-Tonankai-Nankai
Earthquake possibility in Japan

SapporoSendaiTokyoy
NagoyaN
Osaka
Fukuoka

http://www.jishin.go.jp/main/chousa/07_yosokuchizu/img/f1-3-2.jpg

20xx Heisei
20
H i i
1946 Showa
1854 Ansei
1707 Hoei
1605 Keicho
Meio
1361 Shohei
1099 Kowa
887 Ninna
684 Hakuho
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/Activities/earthquake.html

20xx
20
160 years1944

1498
1096

35

New estimated tsunami height (M9 earthquake) VS historical tsunami data
MaximumMittsunamii
height11 slipli
modelshttp://www bousai go jp/jishin/chubou/nankai trough/15/kisya 4 pdf
http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/chubou/nankai_trough/15/kisya_4.pdf
http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/chubou/nankai_tr
ough/15/kisya_5.pdf

http://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/chubou/nankai_trough/15/kisya_6.pdf

New estimated tsunami height
Historical tsunami data36

Advance technology of earthquake and tsunami observation

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamst
ec-e/maritec/donet/index.html

http://www.bosai.go.jp/activity_special/the_third/ev/
earthvol-04.html

37

New tsunami warning classification
Previous system (8 levels)
Present system (5 levels)
Announce tsunami height Number Message Estimated tsunami height> 10 m> 10 m> 10 mMajor tsunami
Major
8 m, 6 m
10 m
5 m - 10 m
Warning
4 m, 3 m5m
3m-5m
Tsunami2 m, 1 m
3m
High
1m-3m
Advisory Tsunami advisory
0.5 m
1m
20 cm - 1m

Tsunami warning and watch

Source: JMA

38

No. of evacuation drill participants in Taro village
伊豆
大島
地震

東方沖
はるか沖
（警報）

日本海
中部

阪神
大震災

十勝沖
（警報）

三陸沖
（警報）

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200

宮城県沖

北海道
南西沖
（警報）

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

1983

1981

1979

1977

0

Preservation of buildings and other facilities destroyed by the tsunami
Several memorial in rocks,
stones,, shrines and templesp
before the 2011 event…

But…no preservation ofdamaged structures after the2004 eventt

ThailandIndonesia40After tsunami in 1933

Toni Hongo village:
Highland residence
1934年

1977年

All damaged
1947年

2010年
年

After tsunami in 1960
1933 tsunami
2011 tsunami

1961年
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/meiji-kenchikushi/19530101/p1

2011年
41

1896 tsunamiV (%)
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
25
50
50
50
50
75
75
75
75
100
100
100
100

E (μ)
(min)
30
60
90
120
30
60
90
120
30
60
90
120
30
60
90
120
30
60
90
120

F (%)
23%
26%
30%
34%
9%
14%
21%
26%
7%
10%
16%
22%
6%
10%
16%
21%
7%
11%
15%
22%

Tsunami evacuation
problems in Thailand
11 April 2012

“V” is the percentage of population using vehicles
for evacuation.
evacuation Either as driver or passenger.
passenger It is
assumed that each car has four passengers.
“E” is the mean of the distribution (μ) used toconstruct the evacuation start time curve.
“F” is the Fatality ratio

Patong beach

One way
alonglshorelineh li
One way
from inland

42

KAKEAGARE! THAILAND (June 18,2014)

Ban Kalim School(Phuket, Thailand)

Incorporation with: Southern Meteorological Department (West Coast),TMD

43

DamageEstimateApp: Pilot version for Kesennuma city44

World Tsunami Day (5 November)
•
•
•
•

•

The World Tsunami Day proposal materialized after the third U.N. World Conference on
Disaster Reduction in Sendai in March.
J
Japan
h
hopes
to playl a leading
l di role
l in
i the
h internationali
i l community
i in
i the
h field
fi ld off disasterdi
reduction after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami devastated the Tohoku region
Japan designated Nov. 5 as Tsunami Disaster Prevention Day under a law on measures todeal with tsunami after the March 2011 disasters.
The day was chosen in honor of a villager, Mr.Hamaguchi, in the region currently known
as Wakayama Prefecture who saved the lives of many by evacuating them in anticipationof a massive tsunami spurred by the Ansei Nankai earthquake of Nov. 5, 1854.
Inamura no Hi in your language from ADRC website
http://www.adrc.asia/publications/inamura/phase1.html
ppp
Sea walls
1854
tsunami1946
tsunami