JOINT CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
9th International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering/ 4th Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering
March 6-8, 2012, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, JapanEVALUATION OF TSUNAMI STRENGTHS OF HOUSESSUBJECTED TO A TSUNAMI WAVE LOAD

Gaku Shoji1) and Hirofumi Shimizu2)
1) Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Information and Systems, University of Tsukuba, Japan
2) Graduate Student, Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan
gshoji@kz.tsukuba.ac.jp, e0711212@edu.esys.tsukuba.ac.jp

Abstract: The damage of confined-masonry-brick and concrete-block houses is assessed subjected to a tsunami wave
load due to the recent three earthquakes and tsunamis at the 2001 Near Coast of Peru, the 2009 Samoa Islands, and the2010 Maule, Chile. We analyze 13 data surveyed for affected houses, which are single-storey ones located along thecoastlines, focusing on the evaluation of tsunami wave pressure distribution on a house inferred by various failure modes
when subjected to an inundation depth. Based on the related formula by Asakura et al. (2000) hydraulic experimental
results, we identify the required tsunami strength of a wall which is not suffered with an inundation depth.

1. INTRODUCTION
Recent severe earthquakes and tsunamis in the world
cause many fatalities and missing: the 2001 Near Coast ofPeru, June 23 (UTC 20:33:14, MW=8.4) (2001 Peru tsunami),
the 2004 Sumatra, Indonesia, Dec.26 (UTC 00:58:53,
MW=9.1) (2004 Indian Ocean tsunami), the 2006 South ofJava, Indonesia, July 17 (UTC 08:19:28, MW=7.7) (2006Java tsunami), the 2009 Samoa Islands, Sept. 29 (UTC
17:48:10, MW=8.1) (2009 Samoa tsunami) and the 2010
Maule, Chile, Feb.27 (UTC 06:34:14, MW=8.8) (2010 Chiletsunami) as well as the Great East Japan earthquake andtsunami occurred on March 11, 2011 in Japan (UTC05:46:24, MW=9.0) (2011 Japan Tohoku tsunami). The
reason of the catastrophe is that houses located within few
kilometers from a coastline are suffered severely by atsunami wave. Therefore it is very essential to clarify themechanism of a tsunami wave load acting on a structuralcomponent of a house, based on the tsunami damage
assessment for suffered houses.
Matsutomi and Izuka (1998) propose the simple
formulation to derive the tsunami fluid velocity on a house,based on the results of hydraulic experiments. Matsutomi etal. (2004) clarify the dependence of tsunami fluid force on ahouse on hydraulic quantity such as a drag coefficient.
Asakura et al. (2000) propose the formula (Asakura formula)to evaluate tsunami wave pressure distribution on a structure
located at the land behind on-shore structures and thisformula is used for designing a tsunami evacuation building(Japanese Cabinet Office 2005). Shoji et al. (2007) discussvalidness of Asakura formula from damage assessment for
suffered houses at the 2006 Java tsunami. Regarding the
research on development of tsunami damage functions ofstructures, Matsutomi and Shuto (1994) reveal relations
between the inundation depths and velocities, and damage
ranks of suffered houses. Koshimura et al. (2009) propose
the methodology to develop tsunami damage functions byusing tsunami damage data from remote sensing, fieldsurvey and numerical analysis.
From the reason above, we analyze the tsunami damage
data of confined-masonry-brick and concrete-block houses
affected by the 2001 Peru tsunami, the 2009 Samoa tsunami
and the 2010 Chile tsunami. Based on the Asakura formula,
we identify the required tsunami strength of a wall which is
not suffered with an inundation depth.

2.
SUBJECT EARTHQUAKE TSUNAMIS AND
STRUCTURES
We use the investigation data on damage ofconcrete-block houses at the 2001 Peru tsunami (Tani et al.
2010) (Peru data), data on damage of lifeline systems andconfined-masonry-brick houses at the 2009 Samoa tsunami(Miyajima et al. 2009) (Samoa data) and data on damage ofconfined-masonry-brick houses at the 2010 Chile tsunami(Shoji et al. 2010) (Chile data). Walls in suffered houses areanalyzed. Among all survey data we select houses for the
analysis which are single-storey ones located along thecoastlines and do not affected by floating debris as well as
by seismic excitations. It means that houses for the analysis
have no crack at joint parts of beams and columns, andrelated structural components such as a beam, a column anda wall get damaged dominantly due to a tsunami wave load.
Table 1 shows height H, width B and thickness w ofsubject wall. In addition Table 1 shows inundation depths h- 1277 -Table 1 Height, Width and Thickness of Subject Wall and Related Observed Inundation Depth(‘p’ denotes Peru, ‘s’ denotes Samoa and ‘c’ denotes Chile respectively)

numberWall'snumberLatitudeLongitude

Wall'sheightH [m]Wall's
width
B [m]

p1

p1

S16°39'19.6"

W72°40'35.1"

2.35

3.50

0.16

2.60

S16°39'31.8"

W72°38'45.3"

2.60

3.20

0.16

2.60

2.60

3.60

0.15

2.60

House's
※

p2

p21
p22

Wall's Inundation
thickness
depth
w [m]
h [m]

p3

p3

S16°39'36.0"

W72°38'04.7"

0.65

4.95

0.16

2.13

p4

p4

S16°39'35.9"

W72°37'59.9"

2.20

3.30

0.16

2.13

p5

p5

S16°39'35.8"

W72°37'57.2"

2.50

2.80

0.16

2.28

2.00

2.53

0.15

2.55

S14°15'06.7"

W170°33'53.5
2.03

3.96

0.15

2.55

1.80

2.68

0.15

2.55

1.80

2.16

0.15

2.55

s11
s1
s12
s21
s2

S14°15'15.5"

W170°33'51.9"

s22
c1

c1

S36°33'9.69"

W72°57'25.33"

2.33

3.82

0.15

0.97

c2

c2

S36°32'14.89"

W72°57'32.42"

2.07

1.35

0.15

0.81

c3

c3

S36°44'48.72"

W73°5'3.57"

2.67

2.90

0.15

1.00

W

References for inundation
depthsInundation depth measured
3.3km in the nearest direction(Tani et al., 2010)
Inundation depth mesured in
the house (Tani et al., 2010)
Inundation depth obtained near
the investigation
spot(Koshimura, 2001)
Inundation depth obtained near
the investigation
spot(Koshimura, 2001)
Inundation depth masured in
the house (Tani et al., 2010)
Inundation depth measured at
the front wall in subject
house(M iyajima et al., 2009)
Inundation depth measured
0.3km in the nearest
direction(M iyajima et al.,2009)
Inundation depth measured at
the side wall in subject
house(Shoji et al., 2010)
Inundation depth measured at
the side wall in subject
house(Shoji et al., 2010)
Inundation depth measured at
the side wall in subject
house(Shoji et al., 2010)

A

TsunamiH

Tsunami

H

Crack
B

B

w

w

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: Relation between Direction of a Tsunami Wave and Longitudinal Axis of Subject Wall:(a) Paired Walls placed at Right Angles to a Coastline, and (b) Wall out of Placed along a Coastline
and the related references. Height H, width B and thickness
w of subject wall are basically from Peru, Samoa and Chile
survey data. When the related data are lacked, we detect
those parameters by analyzing the digital pictures for subject
walls.

3. COMPUTATION OF TSUNAMI STRENGTHS OFSUBJECT WALLS
3.1 Calculation of Tsunami Strengths
As shown in Figure 1(a), when shear cracks occur inpaired walls which are placed at right angles to a coastline,
we classify the failure mode of a wall as type1 failure mode
(hereinafter ty1). Shear strength of a wall with ty1 V1 iscalculated as the following equation, by setting W=W/2
when adapting Asakura formula,V1   1 A- 1278 -(1)

Table 2 Computed Ty1 Shear Strength V1 ,Ty2 Tensile Strength T2 and Ty2 Shear Strength V2 , and the Parameters
related with Tsunami Wave Pressure on Subject Wall
Wall'snumberp1
p21

p22

Failue mode Tensile stress Shear stressnumber[kN][kN]
p1-ty2-m1

449.28p1-ty2-m2
p21-ty2-m1‐
445.44

p21-ty2-m2‐

p22-ty1‐446.40p22-ty2-m1
p3-ty2-m1‐
215.04p3-ty2-m2‐

p4-ty1‐407.04p22-ty2-m2
p3
p4
p5
s11
s12
s21
s22

p5-ty2-m1
p5-ty2-m2
s11-ty2-m1
s11-ty2-m2
s12-ty2-m1
s12-ty2-m2
s21-ty2-m1
s21-ty2-m2
s22-ty2-m1
s22-ty2-m2‐
326.16‐431.28‐322.56‐218.88‐442.80η'a‐168.48

6.75

2.60

3.26

1.25

‐
167.04

6.76

2.60

3.35

1.29

108.00

2.77

1.07

‐
167.40

6.16

2.37

3.12

1.20

‐
80.64

7.14

3.35

2.88

1.35

105.60

2.66

1.25

‐
152.64

7.18

3.15

3.47

1.52

‐
122.31

7.57

2.97

3.46

1.36

‐
161.73

6.49

2.55

3.06

1.20

‐
120.96

7.72

3.03

3.46

1.36

‐
82.08

8.38

3.29

3.70

1.45

‐
166.05

6.23
3.07

6.77
3.34

c1

c1-ty2-m1
c1-ty2-m2

c2

c2-ty1

‐

70.88

3.57

4.41

c3

c3-ty1‐152.25

5.12

5.12

‐

where A is cumulative surface areas of bricks andconcrete-blocks with shear cracks, since a wall is made bybonding bricks and concrete-blocks with mortar. In Eq. (1) 1 is shear stress and we set the value of  1 based on thefollowing procedure by referring the value of 0.4 N/mm2 by
previous research (Nakano 2005, Nakano and Park 2005a,
2005b). For dealing with Peru data (concrete-blocks)  1 isassumed to be 0.2N/mm2 which is 1/10 of compression
strengthofaconcrete-block
used
for
a
non-proof-strengthening wall (Ministerio de Vivienda,
Republica del Peru 2006). For dealing with Chile data(masonry-bricks)  1 is assumed to be 0.35N/mm2, which isconservative value, and is 1/20 of compression strength of abrick used for a prism-type wall specimen (Yanez et al.
2004).
As shown in Figure 1(b), when tensile and shear
failures occur out of a wall placed along a coastline, weclassify the failure mode of a wall as type 2 failure mode
(hereinafter ty2). Ty2 is classified into two mechanisms:
tensile failure between bricks and concrete-blocks bondedwith a frame by mortar (mechanism 1; ty2-m1) and shear
failure between those (mechanism 2; ty2-m2).
We calculate tensile strength T2 and shear strength
V2 by the following equations, by setting W = B when
adapting Asakura formula,

Collapsep3
s1,s2 p1,p2

Cracking

p4 p5

c2

No damagec1 c3

Concrete block
Masonry brick

0

1

2

3

Inundation depth[m]Figure 2 Relation between Inundation Depth and Damage
Rank of Subject Wall

T2  2  B  H  w 2
V2  2  B  H  w 2

(2a)
(2b)

where  2 is tensile stress between bricks andconcrete-blocks bonded with a frame by mortar, and we use
the value of  2 =0.24N/mm2 by referring Architectural
Institute of Japan Standard Specifications forConcrete-Block Structures (1997).  2 is shear stressbetween bricks and concrete-blocks bonded with a frame bymortar, which value is assumed to be 0.09N/mm2 from the- 1279 -54

Collapse

p1-ty2-m1, p21-ty2-m1
p21-ty2-m2
p22-ty2-m2 p5-ty2-m2
p5-ty2-m1

3
2

6

Collapse
Cracking

Inundation depth[m]Inundation depth[m]6p22-ty1
p1-ty2-m2

p3-ty2-m1
p3-ty2-m2

1

p4-ty1001p22-ty2-m1

2
a

3

4

5
4

3 s12-ty2-m2

s12-ty2-1

s11-ty2-m1
1 s11-ty2-m2, s21-ty2-m2 s22-ty2-m1

0
0

(a)

s21-ty2-m1

2

6

Inundation depth[m]s22-ty2-m2

2
a

1

3

4

(b)

Cracking
No damage

5
4
3
2
c1-ty2-m2

c3-ty11

c1-ty2-m1

c2-ty1

00

3

6

a

9

(c)
Figure 3 Relation between Computed Horizontal Wave Pressure Index a and Observed Inundation Depth h for Peru,
Samoa and Chile Data:(a) Peru Data, (b) Samoa Data, and (c) Chile Data
research by Sanada et al. (2006).
3.2 Results on Tsunami Strengths
Table 2 shows results of ty1 shear strength V1 , ty2
tensile strength T2 and ty2 shear strength V2 , and theparameters related with tsunami wave pressure on subject
wall as we mention later.
Wall p1 failure mode is assumed to be ty2 since p1
failed out of the plane. Based on ty2-m1,
T2 =2× 2350mm+3500mm ×160mm×0.24N/mm2 =449.28
kN, while based on ty2-m2, V2 =2× 2350mm+3500mm ××160mm×0.09N/mm2 =168.48kN. Similarly, wall p21
failure mode is assumed to be ty2 since most part of it wascollapsed in the same failure modes as wall p1. Hence, for
p21 T2 and V2 are computed respectively as shown in Table 2.
In contrast, wall p22 is placed at right angles to the coastline
in the same house as wall p21, then the failure mode isassumed to be ty1. Based on ty1 for wall p22
V1 =0.2N/mm2 ×3600mm×150mm=108.00kN . O n t h eother hand we can suppose wall p22 failed out of the plane
after the tsunami flow attacking wall p21. Viewed in thislight wall p22 failure mode is assumed to be ty2, and therelated values of T2 and V2 are computed as shown in Table 2.
Wall p3 failure mode is assumed to be ty2 since most part ofit was collapsed as well as wall p1. By considering wall p3

boundary conditions as upper and one side boundaries are
free, we compute T2 and V2 by modified Eq (2a) and (2b):σ andτ as shown in
Table 2. In the same way, for rest of Peru data (p4, p5),
Samoa data (s11, s12, s21, s22) and Chile data (c1, c2, c3),
the related wall failure modes are classified into ty1 and ty2,
and we compute V1, T2 and V2 as shown in Table 2.

4. TSUNAMI WAVE PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
ON SUBJECT WALLS
4.1 Relation between Inundation Depth and Damage
Rank
Figure 2 shows relation between observed inundation
depth and damage rank of subject wall. We categorize walldamage into three damage ranks: completely and mostly
collapse (collapse), partially collapse and occurrence of
cracks (cracking), and no structural damage (no damage).
Damage ranks of ‘collapse’ and ‘cracking’ forconcrete-block houses (Peru data) show in the range ofinundation depth from 2.13m to 2.60m. Damage ranks of‘no damage’ and ‘cracking’ for masonry-brick houses(Samoa and Chile data) show with inundation depth from
0.81m to 1.00m, and damage rank of ‘collapse’ with- 1280 -6

6
Cracking

No damage
Cracking
Collapse

5

Inundation depth[m]Inundation depth[m]All plots are ty1

4
3
2
1
00

3
a

6

5
4
3
ty2-m12
1

ty2-m2

00

(a)

ty1

ty2-m2
ty1

ty2-m1

6

3
a

(b)

Figure 4 Relation between Computed Horizontal Wave Pressure Index a and Observed Inundation Depth h for Sri
Lanka and Thailand Data (Nakano et al. 2005), and Java Data (Shoji et al. 2007):(a) Sri Lanka and Thailand Data, and (b) Java Data
inundation depth of 2.55m.
4.2 Evaluation of Tsunami Wave Pressure Distribution
based on Observed Inundation Depth
Tsunami wave pressure distribution on subject wall inhorizontal direction is computed by the following Asakura
formula (Asakura et al. 2000),px  z    g  amax  z 

2R
 gW

(4a)


1  2RH2h   gWH


(4b)

a

(3)

where px  z  is horizontal wave pressure, max is
maximum run-up height, ρ is density of mass of sea water ina unit volume and z is height from ground level. a isdefined as horizontal wave pressure index which means
magnification factor of hydrodynamic pressure on a rigid
body due to a tsunami wave compared with hydrostaticpressure with max . Asakura et al. indicate a  3.0 for a
non-breaking wave from their experimental results.
Therefore it indicates that assumption of a  3.0 isrequired theoretically to design a tsunami-proof structuralcomponent subjected to a non-breaking tsunami wave. To
put it another way in case by subjecting by a non-breaking
tsunami wave, horizontal wave pressure distribution ofa  3.0 on a structural component is the border that a
structural component becomes whether damaged or
undamaged.
In this study firstly we suppose ty1, ty2-m1 and ty2-m2
failure modes defined in Section 3.1 for subject walls
exposed to a tsunami wave and calculate the corresponding
tsunami strength R (including ty1 shear strength V1, ty2
tensile strength T2 and ty2 shear strength V2). Second wecompute inversely the value of a as the following
equations by assuming max equal to be observed
inundation depth h . By comparing the value of a withtsunami damage of subject walls, we discuss validness of
Asakura formula.

a

1
h

where W is width of a wall subjected to a tsunami wave asshown in Figure 1. When the value of    amax is lessthan or equal to a wall height H, horizontal wave pressure
distribution is the triangle one and a is computed by Eq(4a). When the value of    amax is more than a wallheight H, horizontal wave pressure distribution is thetrapezoid one and a is computed by Eq (4b).
Table 2 also shows computed   and a . Figure 3
shows relation of a with observed inundation depth h .
Similarly, Figure 4 shows the results for Sri Lank andThailand data at the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami by Nakano
et al. (2005) and Java data at the 2006 Java tsunami by Shojiet al. (2007) as well as in Figure 3, with showing theanalytical results corresponding to ty1 and ty2 failure modes
for subject walls.
From Figure 3(a) among Peru data 10 data witha  3.0 are observed. a shows 1.07~2.60 for inundation
depth h of 2.13m~2.60m, which indicates Asakura
formula is valid in these cases because these walls are
actually suffered with the damage rank of either ‘collapse’ or‘cracking’. On the other hand among Peru data 2 data witha  3.0 are observed, showing the collapse: 3.35 with hof 2.13m and 3.15 with h of 2.28m. It is inferred fromthese data that when the value of a is slightly larger than
3.0, a wall has low possibility to actually collapse due tovariation of strength of material properties and construction
condition when fabricating a wall. For Samoa data (Figure3(b)) 6 data with a  3.0 are observed, showing 1.20~2.97
with h of 2.55m. These walls collapse actually, the reason
is why Asakura formula is valid in these cases. In addition 2
data with a  3.0 are observed as well as for Peru data:
3.03 and 3.29 with h of 2.55m. These walls also collapse- 1281 -although a  3.0 . From Figure 3(c) Chile data has 4 datawith a  3.0 : they show 3.34~6.77 with h of
0.81m~1.00m. Among them we can say Asakura formula
may be valid because 3 data have no damage although one
data shows cracking.
When walls with a of slightly larger than 3.0 in Peru
and Samoa data are assumed to be suffered by ty2-m2, a
becomes less than or equal to be 3.0. It is quite likely thatthese walls actually collapsed with a failure mode by notty2-m1 but ty2-m2.
By comparing Figure 3(a), (b) with Figure 4(a), no datawith a  3.0 showing no damage in Peru and Samoa data
are observed whereas 4 data with a  3.0 showing nodamage in Sri Lanka and Thailand data are observed. In
contrast, Sri Lanka and Thailand data have one data withcollapse regardless of a  3.0 as well as Peru and Samoa
data. By comparing Figure 3(c) with Figure 4(b), as we
mentioned above, there are one data with a  3.0 showing
cracking with ty1 failure mode in Chile data as well as twodata in Java data, which a especially show 4.19~5.33.
Therefore it is possible that a wall with a of around 4~5
beyond a  3.0 , that has larger tsunami strength, sufferswith cracking failure mode due to a tsunami wave.

5. CONCLUDIONSWe analyzed the tsunami damage data ofconfined-masonry-brick and concrete-block houses affectedby the 2001 Peru tsunami, the 2009 Samoa tsunami and the2010 Chile tsunami. We classified them into three failuremodes of a wall subjected to a tsunami wave: shear cracks
induced in paired walls which are placed at right angles to acoastline (ty1), tensile failure induced out of a wall between
bricks and concrete-blocks bonded with a frame by mortar(ty2 mechanism 1) and shear failure induced out of a wall
between those (ty2 mechanism 2). Based on the formula
proposed by Asakura et al. (2000) (Asakura formula) toevaluate tsunami wave pressure distribution on a structure
located at the land behind on-shore structures, used fordesigning a tsunami evacuation building (Japanese Cabinet
Office 2005), by assuming 24 failure modes for subject 13
walls, we identified the required tsunami strength of a wall
which is not suffered with an inundation depth. Following
conclusions were deduced.
(1) 16 data with a  3.0 show collapse and cracking
failure modes, and 3 data with a  3.0 show no damage
among 24 assumed failure modes. Hence from these results,
Asakura formula is almost valid to evaluate tsunami strengthof a wall subjected to a non-breaking tsunami wave.
(2) When subject walls with a of slightly larger than 3.0(3.03~3.35) in Peru and Samoa data are assumed to besuffered by ty2 mechanism 2, a becomes less than orequal to be 3.0. It is quite likely that these walls actuallycollapsed with failure mode by not ty2 mechanism 1 but ty2
mechanism 2.
(3) One data with a  3.0 showing cracking with ty1
failure mode in Chile data is observed as well as two data inJava data, which a especially show 4.19~5.33. Therefore
it is possible that a wall with a of around 4~5 beyonda  3.0 , that has larger tsunami strength, suffers withcracking failure mode due to a tsunami wave.

Acknowledgements:
This study was sponsored by the research project on earthquake
and tsunami disaster mitigation in Peru under the framework of"Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable
Development (SATREPS)," by Japan Science and Technology
Agency (JST) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)(leader, Professor F. Yamazaki at Chiba University and sub-leader,
Professor S. Koshimura at Tohoku University). The authors deeply
appreciate research information and valuable assistance associatedwith the field survey provided by the related professors, researchersand officers of local governments at Peru, American Samoa andChile.
References:Architectural Institute of Japan (1997), “Standard Specifications forConcrete-Block Structures.”
Asakura, R., Iwase, K., Iketani, T., Takao, M., Kaneto, T., Fujii, N.,
and Ohmori, M. (2000), “Experimental Study on Wave ForceActing on On-shore Structures due to Overflowing Tsunamis,”
Proceedings of Coastal Engineering, Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, 47, 911-915.
Japanese Cabinet Office (2005), “Guideline for Tsunami
Evacuation Building,”
http://www.bousai.go.jp/oshirase/h17/050610/guideline.pdf.
Koshimura, S., Okal, E., Dengler, L., Araya, S., Borrero, J., Gomer,
B., Laos, G., Olcese, D., Ortiz, M., Swensson, M., Titov, V., andVegas, F. (2002), “Field Survey of the 2001 Peruvian
Earthquake Tsunami,” Proceedings of Coastal Engineering,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 49, 1461-1465.
Koshimura, S., Namegaya, Y., and Yanagisawa, H. (2009),“Fragility Functions for Tsunami Damage Estimation,” Doboku
Gakkai Ronbunshuu B, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 65(4),320-331.
Matsutomi, H. and Shuto, N. (1994), “Tsunami Inundation Depth,
Tsunami Velocity and the Related Damage of Houses,”
Proceedings of Coastal Engineering, Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, 41, 246-250.
Matsutomi, H. and Iizuka, H. (1998), “Tsunami Current Velocity on
Land and its Simple Estimation Method,” Proceedings of
Coastal Engineering, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 45,
361-365.
Matsutomi, H., Ohmukai, T., and Imai, K. (2004), “Fluid Force on a
Structure due an Inundated Flow Caused by a Tsunami,”
Proceedings of Hydraulic Engineering, Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, 48, 559-564.
Ministerio de Vivienda, Republica del Peru (2006), “Reglamento
Nacional de Edificaciones E.070 Albanileria.”
Miyajima, M., Shoji, G., and Shigihara, Y. (2009), “Reconnaissanceof the Damage caused by the September 29th, 2009, Samoa
Islands Earthquake and Tsunami in American Samoa,”
Proceedings of the Symposium on Disaster Mitigation ofLifelines considering System Interactions, Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, 40-45.
Nakano, Y. (2005), “Investigation Report for Damaged Structuresdue to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami Ver. 2.2,”
http://sismo.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/Research.files/topic4.files/topic4-0
07.files/T4-7-1.pdf.
Nakano, Y., and Park, J. (2005a), “Studies on Lateral Resistance ofStructures and Tsunami Load Caused by the 2004 Sumatra
Earthquake Part 1 Outline of Survey,” Proceedings of AIJ
Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, 723-724.
Nakano, Y., and Park, J. (2005b), “Studies on Lateral Resistance of- 1282 -Structures and Tsunami Load Caused by the 2004 Sumatra
Earthquake Part 2 Comparison of Tsunami Load and Lateral
Resistance,” Proceedings of AIJ Annual Meeting, Architectural
Institute of Japan, 725-726.
Sanada, Y., Nakamura, Y., Yamauchi, N., Ho, C., and Nakano, Y.
(2006), “A Method to Enhance Seismic Performances of
Unreinforced Masonry Structures Derived from Lateral Force
Resisting Mechanisms of Masonry Infilled Frames,” Journal of
Structural and Construction Engineering, Architectural Instituteof Japan, 605, 159-166.
Shoji, G., Moriyama, T., Kosa, K., Matsutomi, H., Shigihara, Y.,
and Murashima, Y. (2007), “Damage Assessment of Structuresdue to the 2006 Java Tsunami,” Proceedings of Coastal
Engineering, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 54, 861-865.
Shoji, G., Pulido, N., Sekiguchi, T., Alva, J., Lazares F., and Saito, T.
(2010), “Damage Investigation of the 2010 Chile Earthquake
and Tsunami - Consideration to the Damage of a Structure
subjected to a Seismic Excitation and a Following Tsunami
Wave Load,” Proceedings of 13th Japan Earthquake
Engineering Symposium, 1146-1150.
Tani, Y., Shoji, G., Koshimura, S., and Estrada, M. (2010),“Damage Assessment of Houses due to the 2001 Southern Peru
Earthquake and Tsunami,” Proceedings of 13th Japan
Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 829-836.
USGS, http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2001/eq_010623/.
USGS,http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2009/us
2009mdbi/.
USGS,http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2010/us
2010tfan/.
Yanez, F., Astroza., M., Holmberg, A., and Ogaz, O. (2004),“Bahavior of Confined Masonry Shear Walls with Large
Openings,” Proceedings of 13th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 3438.

- 1283 -