Abstract

This article presents an overview of the damage caused by the tsunami on December 26, 2004, along the east coast of the Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu. The tsunami struck the Indian coast,  along the Cuddalore coastal area where it severely damaged the buildings and properties of the coastal fishing communities. Damages included the large-scale destruction of houses,  property, and compound walls; washed-away roads; uprooted electric poles; damages caused to boats and nets; the toss and drag of vehicles; damages of agricultural land; destruction of young coconut trees; loss of human lives; and livestock; and so on. In addition to analysing the damages, the article also evaluates their causes and the remedial measures to avoid these in the future.

A number of past tsunamis in Indonesia (2004), Samoa (2009), Chile (2010), and Japan (2011) have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and damages worth billions of dollars to coastal communities [1]. The Indian Ocean tsunami that occurred on December 26, 2004, affected the coast of Sri Lanka, where a field survey was conducted. The field survey results showed that the tsunami damaged a number of brick and wooden houses, coastal railways, port and harbour facilities; washed away many vessels; and scoured the foundations of coastal structures [2]. The 1960 earthquake in Chile produced a tsunami that killed hundreds of people in Chile, Hawaii, and Japan [3]. In a similar vein, the tsunami on June 16, 1964, caused by the Niigata earthquake in Japan, caused widespread damage [4]. The recent Sumatra earthquake, of a moment magnitude of 9.1–9.3 Mw, caused major tsunamis. These tsunamis caused many casualties and damages [5]. They were so powerful that they caused damages even in distant Somalia and more than 300,000 lives were reported to have been lost. Jain [6] and Yeh [7] studied the aftermath of the damage caused by the tsunamis in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India and along its mainland coast. The mainland areas include coasts of Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha. The tsunami on December 26, 2004, with its epicenter off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, devastated the south-eastern coastal areas of India. Most prominently, the state of Tamil Nadu in India suffered the greatest damage in terms of life and property [8, 9]. The effects of medu, naturally elevated landmass very near to the seashore and extended parallel to the coast, and coastal topography on the damage pattern during  the deadliest Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004 was reported by J P Narayan [10]. The prevention of a natural disasters is not feasible, but the devastation it unleashes can be reduced at least to some extent by the postulation of consistent hazard management system and by its reliable implementation [11]. The Tamil Nadu boundary, particularly the Cuddalore area, was the worst affected by the tsunami, causing enormous loss of human life and property as reported by G Santhiya [12]. In this article, an attempt has been made to assess the damages caused to buildings and properties in the tsunami-affected areas.

The district lies between 11°11’’ N and 12°35’ latitude and between 78°38°E and 80°E longitude. It has an average elevation of 1 m (3 ft). It is predominantly an agricultural district with the coastal line stretching from the Puducherry union territory in the north to the mouth of the River Coleroon in the south. The total geographical area of the district is 3,678 sq. km with a coastline of about 54 km, and the district falls on the Survey of India toposheets of 58M 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 on a 1:50,000 scale. It is the 19th largest district in Tamil Nadu and ranked 332 in India in terms of its total area. Out of the 32 districts in Tamil Nadu, it is the 11th most populous district and is the 188th most populous district in India. Figure 1 is the location map of the study area.

Field work was carried out immediately after the tsunami by the Tahsildar Disaster Management, Cuddalore, Government of Tamil Nadu. They observed and assessed the damages visually, photographs were taken at the most affected areas, and the local people were interviewed to collect information about the current situation at nearly 30 places. The observations included structural and non-structural property damages, ranging from damaged compound walls and brick masonry houses to huts that were completely devastated. Damage of fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP), wooden boats, fishing nets, roads, uprooted electric poles, and agricultural land became saline due to the tsunami devastation, and a huge number of young coconut trees perished. They also removed sand from beaches, destroyed trees, tossed and dragged vehicles; moreover, the fishing activities in Cuddalore  also suffered and huge economic losses were incurred. The tsunami damage details have been given in Table 1. The tsunami-affected photos of fields have been provided (Figures 2–6). Figure 2 shows the damage of road due to erosion, uprooted electrical poles, and compound wall with damages. Figure 3 shows collapsed huts and brick masonry houses. Figure 4 shows damaged FRP, wooden boats, fishing nets, and toss and drag vehicles. Figure 5 shows damages of agricultural crops, agriculture land, and a huge number of young coconut trees that perished due to the devastation. Figure 6 shows loss of human lives and animals.

The Government of Tamil Nadu has taken action on a war footing [13]. The government has taken the steps for the restoration of electricity. Damages rectified for the restoration of electricity were high-tension (HT) and low-tension (LT) poles. For easy communication, Ham Radio stations were set up in Cuddalore, Parangipettai, and Killai. Control rooms and mobile stations were established; coverage was made available in all the places possible; mobile towers were put up in remote places; free cell connection was given by BSNL; and computers between the control room and the collector’s chamber were connected through wireless VHF-RF link to facilitate video conferencing using voice over Internet Protocol (IP) Technology. Public Health and Preventive Medicine included 17 government medical teams, six medical teams through volunteers, and 75,833 people were given medical attention. A total of 9,373 doses of vaccinations were given, 17,000 typhoid vaccines were provided, medicines worth Rs 13 lakh were administered, and 18 ambulances were deployed. Mass cleaning operations were carried out for the removal of carcasses of dead animals, visits from the health teams in the affected area was ensured, and vaccination, anti-cholera, anti-diarrhoea, and antibiotics were given. For providing protection to animals, 20,109 animals were vaccinated. The amount of fodder mobilized was 41 tonnes and 4 cattle camps were organized. Water testing in all the areas was done by Pepsico. Reverse osmosis desalination plants were set up in four places and water purifiers were provided in 14 villages. Bore wells and shallow well hand pumps, 107 in number and worth Rs 5.26 lakh were provided. A total of 23 power pumps were restored in the affected areas, 500 synthetic plastic tanks were used by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWAD), Aquaguard water purifiers were put up, chlorination of water, and regular testing of water was done. Drinking water tanks were drained, fresh water was filled in, chlorinated, and then supplied, synthetic plastic water tanks were put up, and water was brought from outside by municipalities, Neyveli Lignite Corporation. For resuming fishing activities, the successful steps taken were: quick government relief, NGO assistance, bank loans for over Rs 10 crore, and so on were facilitated along with the strengthening of fish landing and navigation infrastructure, fishing harbour repair at Cuddalore, and Parangipettai, deepening backwater canals in Cuddalore, Parangipettai, and Killai (Rs 118 lakh was sanctioned) and fish merchants, ice units, and women traders were assisted. The results were as follows: fish catch: approximately 90 tonnes/day, and trawling mechanized boats resumed fishing from June 1, 2005. Temporary shelters were built and approximately 2,502temporary shelters were constructed by the government. Non-governmental organizations constructed approximately 1,577 temporary shelters. Through the reconstruction phase it became evident that the ultimate responsibility for recovery was with individuals and within the affected community (the Tahildar Disaster Management).

Houses constructed along the coastal area may have a provision to provide diagonal bars or structures on walls perpendicular to the coast which buttresses the wall strength.

Shelters should have multi disaster-resistant features, including elevating the shelters at least 3 m above the ground level to withstand the effects of disaster.

Bio-shields or green cover such as mangroves can be implemented along with various coastal protection measures to protect the coastal communities from the tsunami.

Improve the coastal belt database with information on trends of high tides, storm surge, local bathymetry,  population, development, and so on. In addition, satellite-based data can be retrieved and archived to collect information about physical parameters (sea surface temperature and wave pattern) and also other valuable information. 

The ideal solution in reducing the impact of tsunamis is to prohibit human habitation within 500 m from the high tide level (HTL), and also analyse vulnerable low-lying areas and avoid construction in those areas.

This study has been carried out to analyse the impact of the 2004 tsunami,  with a special emphasis on the damages caused by it—life and property damages, settlement damages, transport damages, communication damages, agricultural damages, and biological damages in places along the east coast of Tamil Nadu. The Government of Tamil Nadu implemented several measures on a war footing.  The government has taken these steps to reduce the disaster risk comprising economic, political, and administrative elements. Economic governance includes the decision-making process that impacts the country’s economic activities and its relationships with other economies. Political governance is the process of decision making to formulate policies, including the national disaster reduction policy and planning. Administrative governance is the process of policy implementation and requires the existence of well-functioning organizations at the local and central levels. Disaster-risk reduction requires the enforcement of environmental risk and human vulnerability monitoring, land-use planning, building codes, and safety standards. The Disaster Management Committee draws up the plans which consist of the elected representatives at the village level; local authorities; government functionaries, including doctors/paramedics; agricultural offices; fire services; and primary health centres located in the village. The plan encompasses prevention, mitigation, and preparedness measures. The Disaster Management Committee reviews the disaster management plan at least once a year. It also generate awareness amongst the villagers about the do’s and don’ts in a hazardous situation, depending on the vulnerability of the village.

1) The government should take the necessary actions to construct walls for preventing the flood-prone area.

2) The deltaic regions experienced severe agricultural loss; hence the government should waive off agricultural loans.

3) The government should offer aid to the people to help them return to a state of normalcy in the severely affected region of the Cuddalore district.

4) The plan should focus on an integrated proposal covering all the relevant aspects of physical planning, water management, infrastructural facilities, agriculture, land use, transport and urban development, and the preservation of nature at all levels (local, regional, and national).

5) In the development of the disaster management plan, the decision-making authority should be involved at all levels (local, regional, national, and international) in addition to the stakeholders and civil communities.

The authors are thankful to the Department of Harbour and Ocean Engineering, AMET University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. They are also thankful to the Tahsildar Disaster Management (Cuddalore), Tamil Nadu, for their valuable inputs in this research.

1. Michael R. Motley et al. 2015.'Tsunami-Induced Forces on Skewed Bridges'. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X.


2. Takashi Tomita et al. 2006. 'Damage Caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami
   on the Southwestern Coast of Sri Lanka'. Coastal Engineering Journal, World Scientific Publishing Company and Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 48, No. 2 (2006) 99-116.


3. Iida, K, D C Cox, and Pararas-Carayannis, G. 1967. ‘Preliminary Catalog of Tsunamis Occurring in the Pacific Ocean’, Report HIG-67-10, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA.


4. Day, R W. 2002. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.


5. Stein, S and E A Okal. 2005. ‘Speed and Size of the Sumatra Earthquake’. Nature 434(7033): 581–582.


6. Jain, S K, C V R Murty, D C Rai, J N Malik, A R Seth, A Jaiswal, S Sanyal, H B Kaushik, P Gandhi, G Mondal, S R Dash, J S Sodhi, and G Santosh. 2005. 'The Great Sumatra Earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004', EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter, April 2005.


7. Yeh, H, C Peterson, R K Chadha, G Latha, and T Katada. 2005. ‘Preliminary Report on the 2004 Great Indian Ocean Tsunami: Tsunami Survey along the South-East Indian Coast’, EERI Special Earthquake Report, EERI Newsletter.


8. Pye, Kenneth and Simon J Blott. 2006. ‘Coastal Processes and Morphological Change in the Dunwich-Sizewell Area, Suffolk, UK’. Journal of Coastal Research 22(3): 453.


9. Chandrasekar, N, S Saravanan, J Loveson Immanuel, M Rajamanickam, and G V Rajamanickam. 2006. The International Journal of the Tsunami Society 24(1).


10. Narayan, J P, M L Sharma, and B K Maheshwari. 2005. ‘Effects of Medu and Coastal Topography on the Damage Pattern during the Recent Indian Ocean Tsunami along the Coast of Tamil Nadu’. The International Journal of the Tsunami Society 23(2): 9–18.


11. Murthy, K S R, A S Subrahmanyam, G P S Murty, K V L N S Sarma, V Subrahmanyam, K M Rao, P S Rani, A Anuradha, B Adilakshmi, and T S Devi. 2004. Current Science 90(11): 1535–1538.


12. Santhiya G, C Lakshumanan, and S Muthukumar. 2010. International Journal of Geomatics and Geosciences. 1(3): 2010.


13. http://www.tn.gov.in/tsunami/digitallibrary/ebooks-web/TOTPART2/TidingoverPART2.pdf; last accessed on November 10, 2017.