Methodological Framework for Tsunami Risk Assessment in Port Facilities

Padilla, Sergio; Aguirre-Ayerbe, Ignacio; González, Mauricio; Aniel-Quiroga, Íñigo; Galán Pérez, David

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720

Preprints

14 Aug 2026

| 14 Aug 2026

Methodological Framework for Tsunami Risk Assessment in Port Facilities

Sergio Padilla, Ignacio Aguirre-Ayerbe, Mauricio González, Íñigo Aniel-Quiroga, and David Galán Pérez

Abstract. The present study proposes a comprehensive methodological framework for the assessment of tsunami risk in port terminals. Although tsunami hazard modeling has advanced significantly, the development of asset-specific vulnerability functions and risk indicators at the terminal scale remains a critical challenge, hindering the effective integration of scientific knowledge into operational port planning. The main objective of this study is to propose a methodological framework specifically tailored to tsunami risk assessment in port terminals. The analysis focuses on assessing damage to key components of the port supply chain located within the port’s landside operational area and directly exposed to tsunami impacts. The proposed framework integrates advanced numerical hydrodynamic modeling, dynamic exposure analyses and asset-specific damage states. Its main novelty lies in the quantification of vulnerability thresholds based on hydrodynamic failure mechanisms for heterogeneous port assets, including container stacks, gantry cranes, liquid bulk tanks, Ro-Ro, and pedestrians. The methodology was applied to the Port of Cádiz, Spain. The results show that relative tsunami risk is spatially concentrated in specific operational areas and assets, particularly container storage yards and passenger circulation zones. The proposed framework is modular and can be adapted to other port contexts, provided that suitable local hazard, exposure, and asset information is available. Rather than providing absolute estimates of losses, the framework offers a spatially explicit decision-support basis for identifying critical assets, comparing relative risk among docks, and prioritising further detailed assessments or mitigation actions.

Received: 05 Aug 2026 – Discussion started: 14 Aug 2026

Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3641 KB)

Supplement (774 KB)

Download & links

Sergio Padilla, Ignacio Aguirre-Ayerbe, Mauricio González, Íñigo Aniel-Quiroga, and David Galán Pérez

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-4720', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Sep 2026
Title: Methodological Framework for Tsunami Risk Assessment in Port Facilities
Authors: Sergio Padilla, Ignacio Aguirre-Ayerbe, Mauricio González, Íñigo Aniel-Quiroga, David Galán Pérez
The manuscript proposes a comprehensive methodological framework for the assessment of tsunami risk in ports. In the study, the vulnerability thresholds based on hydrodynamic failure mechanisms for heterogeneous port assets, including container stacks, gantry cranes, liquid bulk tanks, Ro-Ro, and pedestrians are quantified. The results indicate that relative tsunami risk is spatially concentrated in the specific operational areas and assets, particularly container storage yards and passenger circulation zones. The framework offers a spatially explicit decision support basis for identifying critical assets, comparing relative risk among docks, and prioritizing further detailed assessments and mitigation actions.
My comments are presented in the following.
In Abstract Line 7: The first statement is repeated in third statement. First one may be deleted.

Page 10, Line 264: Since tsunami is long wave and the velocity distribution throughout the depth in vertical direction is almost constant, the description in parenthesis (averaged vertically) may not be necessary. However, the authors’ choice is welcome.

Page 10, Line 265: On the other hand, in the case of a given asset may extend over multiple nodes of the computational grid, the paper recommends that the representative TIM adopted for the vulnerability assessment should correspond to the maximum value identified within the spatial extent of that asset. Is this maximum value selected from the values at multiple nodes of the computational grid?

Page 13, Lines 343-349: The following papers give some other information about the damages at port facilities and coastal structures caused by small size tsunami (1999 Izmit Bay Tsunami). It may be reviewed by the authors and used if relevant.

Yuksel; B. Alpar; A. C. Yalciner; E. Cevik; O. Ozguven; Y. Celikoglu, (2003), Effects of the eastern Marmara Earthquake on marine structures and coastal areas, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water and Maritime Engineering (2003) 156 (2): 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1680/wame.2003.156.2.147

Yalciner A. C., Altinok Y., Synolakis C. E., Borrero J., (2000), Tsunami Waves in Izmit Bay, Earthquake Spectra, published by EERI 16(suppl. A), 55-62.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290461788_3_Tsunami_Waves_in_Izmit_Bay
Page 14, Line 363: According to UNESCO International Tsunami Survey Team (ITST) Post-Tsunami Survey Field Guide, 2014, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000229456 , and in Tsunami Glossary UNESCO (2019) Technical Series 85, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000188226 , the term “inundation depth” used in this manuscript refers to the flow depth (the vertical distance from the ground level to the water surface at the inundation area). In order to be compatible with the international terminology, I suggest to use flow depth instead of inundation depth as used in UNESCO documents. Otherwise, a note should be added to the manuscript to describe the inundation depth and flow depth.

The methodological framework focused on tsunami damage and exclude earthquake damage (if exists at the port when near field tsunami occurs). This condition should be discussed in the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sergio Padilla Álvarez, 09 Sep 2026
  
  Dear referee
  Firstly, we would like to thank you for the time you have taken to review our manuscript. Your comments, suggestions and observations have been highly helpful and have contributed significantly to improving the quality of the study.
  In the following document, we provide our response to each of your comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720-AC1
RC2:
'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Oct 2026
Title: Methodological Framework for Tsunami Risk Assessment in Port Facilities
Authors: Sergio Padilla, Ignacio Aguirre-Ayerbe, Mauricio González, Íñigo Aniel-Quiroga, David Galán Pérez
General comment:
The paper presents a methodological framework for tsunami risk assessment in ports, integrating existing advanced hydrodynamic modelling, with exposure analysis and asset-specific vulnerability thresholds for critical port infrastructure and operations. Applied to the Port of Cádiz, Spain, it identifies those areas and assets particularly exposed to tsunami impacts, providing a practical tool for prioritising risk reduction and mitigation measures. The methodology represents an important step towards systematic tsunami risk assessment across the those ports in Spain closer to tsunamigenic areas, with potential for application to ports in other countries, supporting more informed infrastructure planning, emergency preparedness and port resilience to tsunami risk, often underestimated in some countries.
I find the dynamic exposure approach adopted in the methodology particularly interesting, as it provides a more realistic assessment of the vulnerability of certain assets under a given hazard scenario.
Detailed comments:
Abstract:
“operational port planning”: potentially misleading term (operational usually understood for short-term, e.g. hours/days, decisions); an alternative could be: “…hindering the effective integration of scientific knowledge into port infrastructure planning and risk management.”

Line 10: “methodological framework” repetition (used already in the first sentence)

Section 1: Introduction:
Line 30: Puertos del Estado, 2001, not found in the references

Line 53: The “japanese” Ministry of Agriculture..

Section 2:
Port characterization (assets and activities) is crucial for this methodology and requires information provided by the Port Authorities. Since this information is also needed for other types of risk assessment, could data collection efforts be shared across different risk assessments? Best practices, standardized data formats, and centralized data repositories in this area would save port decision-makers considerable time and effort.

The study focuses on physical risks. Would it also be relevant and feasible to assess economic risks in tsunami risk assessments?

The study focuses on risks in landside operational areas, excluding harbour basins. This is understandable, as inundation is likely to be the dominant impact of very large tsunamis. However, tsunami-induced currents and waves or sea-level oscillations can also pose significant hazards for moored or anchored ships, even during smaller tsunami events, which may occur more frequently than the worst-case scenario considered for Cádiz. Although the discussion acknowledges the potential importance of resonance and wave-dispersion effects within harbour basins, it does not address their implications for tsunami risk assessment. It would be useful to expand the discussion on potential future extensions of the methodology to include these hazards and assess risks associated with smaller tsunami events, particularly in other geographical regions.

Line 120: replace “regional-scale” by “regional to coastal scale” (aligned with broadly used terms for scales in oceanographic models)

Section 4:
Line 265: Could this approach lead to an overestimation of risk? Please provide a justification for this methodological choice.

Line 295: The use of an Exposure Index at dock level is an interesting component of the proposed methodology. However, exposure indices are already widely used in natural hazard risk assessments, including tsunami studies. It would be useful to clarify to what extent the proposed index builds on existing approaches and which aspects of its formulation or application at dock level represent a methodological innovation.

Figures 4, 5.. caption: I propose re-write for clarification: “Representation of the selection of damage thresholds (coloured vertical lines)..”. Adding a horizonal line for P(DS > ds(h) = 0.5 could also be nice.

Line 392: “have enabled”

Lines 462-463: correct this paragraph, not understandable

Lines 583-584: further explanation of why only damage associated with the onset of instability would be welcome here: why? Are other processes too complex?

Section 5:
UNDRR: please spell out the acronym at its first occurrence in the text. Check other acronyms in the text

Integrated Risk Index: Please clarify which aspects of this index are already established in the literature and which represent methodological innovations in its application to this study.

Line 670: references could be added here

Section 6
Figures 9 and 10: sources of this port information could be mentioned in the caption.

Subsection 6.2.1: S-PTHA? Spell out or explain please

Section 7:
Line 994: could the authors elaborate further on the challenges of incorporating tidal variability, giving its relevance to tsunami impacts?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sergio Padilla Álvarez, 16 Oct 2026
  
  Dear Referee #2,
  We sincerely thank you for the time and attention you have spent reviewing our manuscript, as well as for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions. Your observations and feedback have helped us identify areas where we can strengthen our work and improve its clarity. All of your comments will be carefully reviewed and taken into account, as appropriate, in the final revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your contribution to improving the quality of our work.
  Kind regards,
  The authors
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720-AC2

Sergio Padilla, Ignacio Aguirre-Ayerbe, Mauricio González, Íñigo Aniel-Quiroga, and David Galán Pérez

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4720-supplement

Sergio Padilla, Ignacio Aguirre-Ayerbe, Mauricio González, Íñigo Aniel-Quiroga, and David Galán Pérez

Viewed

Total article views: 298 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
144	101	53	298	63	39	36

HTML: 144
PDF: 101
XML: 53
Total: 298
Supplement: 63
BibTeX: 39
EndNote: 36

Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Aug 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2026	38	28	15	81
Sep 2026	73	53	29	155
Oct 2026	33	20	9	62

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Aug 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2026	38	28	15	81
Sep 2026	73	53	29	155
Oct 2026	33	20	9	62

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 267 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 267 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 16 Oct 2026

Short summary

Ports are vital to global trade and can be severely affected by tsunamis. This study has developed a practical framework to identify which port areas and assets are most at risk, using the Port of Cádiz in Spain as a case study. The results show that risk is concentrated in specific docks and assets, especially container yards, vehicle areas, and passenger routes. The framework can support port authorities to prioritize safety measures for future events.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0