Estimation of Tsunami Forces

on Three Different Types of

Bridge Superstructure
Name : Koon Foo Siong
Matric : 112290
Supervisor : Dr. Lau Tze Liang
 Introduction
The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and 2011 Tohoku Tsunami
poses a significant damage to the coastal infrastructures,
especially the bridge superstructures.
About 81 bridges out of 168 were washed away by 2004
tsunami in Sumatera (Unjoh et al. 2007)
The 2011 Tohoku tsunami had caused at least 280 bridges
were washed away where 3164 bridges were located in the
inundation area, from the northern part of Iwate prefecture
to the part of Fukushima prefecture, which more than
200km long was affected by the Tsunami (Hosoda &
Maruyama, 2011)
Unjoh et al. (2007) - 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Indonesia

Washout of Backfill
Total Wash-Away of Deck Soil of Abutment

Failure of Shear Key

Reinforcement Lateral Displacement
Kusakabe et al. (2005) Damage in Battocaloa Lagoon,
Sri Lanka

Collapsed of Simple Digit Bridge Girder

Hosoda & Maruyama (2011) - 2011 Tohoku Tsunami in Japan

PC girder (Tsutanigawa bridge) washed away and damaged by tsunami

Falling down of PC
Failed pier (Tutanigawa Inclined piers (Tsutanigawa
girders (Utatsu-ohashi
bridge) bridge)
bridge)
 Literature Review
Authors (Year) Review
Iemura et al. Study on tsunami force acting on bridge model (Case: with and without
(2007) debris)

-The largest tsunami force happened at the largest velocity which at the
beginning of the attack.

Lukkunaprasit et Study on tsunami wave loading on a bridge deck with perforations (Case:
al. (2011) solid girders with parapet, 10% and 60% perforation in its girders and
parapets)

-Perforation in girders and parapets reduces the average peak forces by

about the same rate of the reduction in vertical projection area of the
deck.
 Literature Review
Authors (Year) Review

Lau et al. (2011) Study on experimental and numerical modeling of tsunami force on
bridge decks. (Case: I-beam girder with pier substructures that located
offshore).

-The normalised pressure and force decreased as the time increased.

 Literature Review
Authors (Year) Review
Nakao et al. Study on tsunami hydrodynamic force on various bridge sections.
(2012)

- The performance of horizontal drag force in this studied increased in the

order such that modified rectangle, hexagon, inverted trapezoid, trapezoid
and lastly rectangle shape
 Literature Review
Authors (Year) Review
Kawasaki & Izuno Study the effect of baffles plates on reducing tsunami forces acting on
(2012) bridge girders.

- Baffle plate I-beam girder helps to reduce the horizontal drag force of
tsunami acting on bridge superstructure.
- Baffle plate help to reduce the oblique upward wave toward the corner
of the offset zone of the I-beam model
 Literature Review
Authors (Year) Review

Fu et al. (2014) Study on effect of tsunami force acts on the 6 I-beam girder subjected to
two types of cases (bore wave: broken & unbroken wave; steady flow).

-Maximum wave force of broken wave was about two times as great as
un-broken wave; For steady flow study, both flow velocity and wave
force almost did not change at different girder model positions.

Rahman et al. Study on performance of bridge girder with perforations under tsunami
(2014) wave loading

-Force reductions were observed not only in peak but also throughout the
whole force time history when compared to solid girder.
 Problem Statement
Up to date, there is still no proper way to estimate tsunami
force in Malaysia.
No study had been done in Malaysia with the consideration
of both wave height and wave velocity in the case of 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami.
There is no design guidelines developed in Malaysia for
bridge to resist tsunami fluid force.
The stability of bridge against sliding that subjected to
tsunami force is still unknown.
 Objectives

1. To study the effect of different wave heights, deck

clearance on three types bridge types subjected to
tsunami loadings.
2. To estimate tsunami forces acting on three different
types of bridge superstructure.
3. To evaluate the stability against sliding of the
bridge superstructures subjected to tsunami force.
 Scope of Work
Only one common coast profile in Northwest Peninsular
Malaysia is selected.
Only typical bridge type in Malaysia will be considered.
The bridge superstructure is located at onshore.
The model is scale 1:100.
The experiment will be conducted with different wave
height (40mm, 60mm, 80mm) acts on the bridge models
and different clear distance from the bed to the bottom
of bridge deck (30mm, 40mm, 50mm) in each bridge
model.
Project Benefits to Civil Engineering

Enhance the understanding of the impact of

tsunami on bridge superstructures.
Contribute to the development of design
guideline for tsunami-proof bridge structures.
Evaluate the stability of bridge superstructures
against sliding when subjected to tsunami force.
 Type of Bridge Model

I-Beam Deck Simplified Deck Box Deck

Methodology
Laboratory Outlook
 Calibration of Instruments
Calibration for the instrument namely wave gauges, pressure gauges and
load cell were conducted prior to the experiment tests to ensure related
physical quantities measured by the instruments were exact.
30

f(x) = 6.05x
25 R = 1

20

15
Depth (cm) WG1
Linear (WG1)
10 Linear (WG1)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Voltage (V)
Schematic
Diagram of
Instrumentation
and Data
Acquisition
System
 Outline of Results & Discussion
Tsunami Wave Attack on Bridge Model.
Effect of Different Nominal Wave Heights with
Constant Deck Clearance.
Effect of Different Deck Clearances with Constant
Nominal Wave Height.
Effect of Bridge Types with Constant Nominal Wave
Height and Constant Deck Clearance.
Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge Models.
Stability against Sliding.
 Tsunami Wave Attack on Bridge Model

(a) 0.00 sec (b) 4.60 sec (c) 4.96 sec

(d) 5.24 sec (e) 5.60 sec (f) 6.08 sec

(g) 7.36 sec (h) 8.40 sec

Sequences of the wave attack on SH40 model by incident wave of nominal height = 60 mm
Effect of Different Deck Clearances with Constant Nominal Wave Height
Simplified Deck Model
Front Face Pressure Time History
2.5
2
Horizontal Force Time History
1.5 12 SH30W40
1 SH30W60
Normalised Pressure 10 SH30W80
0.5
8
0 SH30W40
-0.5 0 5 10 15 6 20 25 30
Back Face Pressure Time History
SH30W60
Fx (N)
4
Time (sec) SH30W80
0.8
2
0.6
0 SH30W40
0 5 10 15 20 25 0.4 30
-2 SH30W60
Normalised Pressure
0.2 SH30W80
Time (sec)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
Vertical Force Time History Time (sec)
Bottom face Pressure 15Time History
10
1
5
0.8
0 SH30W40
0.6
Fz (N) -5 0 5 10SH30W40
15 20 25 30 SH30W60
SH30W60 SH30W80
Normalised Pressure 0.4
-10 SH30W80
0.2 -15
0 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2 -25
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Effect of Different Nominal Wave Heights with Constant Deck Clearance
Box Deck Model
Front Face Pressure Time History
2.5 Horizontal Force Time History
2 10
1.5 BH30W60
1 8 BH40W60
Normalised Pressure
BH50W60
0.5 6 BH30W60
0
BH40W60
-0.5 0 5 Fx (N)
10 4 15 20 25 30
BH50W60
Time2(sec) Back Face Pressure Time History
0 0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2 0.4
BH30W60
Time (sec) 0.2 BH40W60
Normalised Pressure
0 BH50W60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
Vertical Force Time History
-0.4
Time (sec)
15
Bottom Face Pressure Time History
10
5
1 0
BH30W60
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5 BH40W60
Fz (N) -10 BH30W60
BH50W60
-15 BH40W60
Normalised Pressure 0
-20 BH50W60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-25
-0.5
-30
-35
-1
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Effect of Bridge Types with Constant Nominal Wave Height and Constant
Deck Clearance
Front Face Pressure Time History
2.5 Horizontal Force Time History
2
15
1.5 SH50W80
10 IH50W80
Normalised Pressure 1
BH50W80 SH50W80
0.5 IH50W80
Fx (N) 5
0 BH50W80
-0.5 0 5 10
0
15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec)
-5 Back 25 30
Face Pressure Time History
Time (sec) 0.4
0.3
0.2 SH50W80
0.1 IH50W80
Normalised Pressure
Vertical Force Time History 0 BH50W80
-0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
15
-0.2
10
5 -0.3
Bottom Face Time History0
SH50W80
Time (sec)
IH50W80
Fz (N) -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.8 BH50W80
-10
0.6 -15
-20
0.4 -25 SH50W80
Normalised Pressure 0.2 Time (sec)
BH50W80
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.2
-0.4
Time (sec)
 Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge Model
Simplified Deck Model
1.8
Front Face Pressure Distribution
1.6

1.4 f(x) = - 0.41x + 1.49

R = 0.64 Measured
1.2 Mean
/h 1 Mean + SD
Mean + 2SD
0.8

0.6

0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5P/pgh 2 2.5 3 3.5
1.8
Back Face Pressure Distribution
1.6
1.4
Measured
1.2 f(x) = - 1.21x + 1.25 Mean
z/h 1 R = 0.7 Mean + SD
Mean + 2SD
0.8
0.6

Bottom Face Pressure Distribution0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 P/pgh

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
1.4
1.2
1 Measured
f(x) = - 0.77x + 1.05
R = 0.61 Mean
0.8
z/h Mean + SD
0.6 Mean + 2SD
0.4
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
P/pgh
 Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge Model
I-beam Deck Deck Model
.8
Front Face Pressure Distribution
.6
.4
.2 f(x) = - 0.33x + 1.37
R = 0.65 Measured
1 Mean
/h
.8 Mean + SD
.6 Mean + 2SD
.4
.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2P/pgh 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Back Face Pressure Distribution
1.4
1.2
1
f(x) = - 0.98x + 1.02 Measured
0.8 R = 0.86
Mean
z/h 0.6 Mean + SD
Mean + 2SD
0.4
0.2
0
1.4 Front Face of Last Girder -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 P/pgh 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2 Pressure Distribution
1
f(x) = - 0.54x + 1.02 Measured
0.8 R = 0.4
Mean
h 0.6 Mean + SD
Mean + 2SD
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1
P/pgh 1.5 2
 Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge Model
Box Deck Model
1.8
Front Face Pressure Distribution
1.6
1.4
f(x) = - 0.39x + 1.43 Measured
1.2 R = 0.58 Mean
h 1 Mean + SD
Mean + 2SD
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 0.5 1 P/pgh
1.5 2 2.5 3

1.8
Back Face Pressure Distribution
1.6
1.4
Measured
1.2 Mean
f(x) = - 1.27x + 1.22
z/h 1 R = 0.65 Mean + SD
Mean + 2SD
0.8
0.6
0.4
Bottom Face Pressure Distribution 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 P/pgh
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

1.2
1 f(x) = - 1.2x + 1.12
R = 0.86 Measured
0.8 Mean
z/h 0.6 Mean + 1SD
Mean + 2SD
0.4
0.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
P/pgh
Stability against Sliding
Simplified Bridge Model
Stability against Sliding
I-beam Bridge Model
Stability against Sliding
Box Girder Bridge Model
 Conclusion
The normalised pressure exerted on the front face of all three bridge
models was the higher than the bottom face and the back face of all three
bridge models.
Generally, the lower the deck clearance of bridge models, the higher the
normalised pressure, when the nominal wave height is constant.
The higher the nominal wave height, the greater the normalised pressure
in general.
The greater the nominal wave height, the greater the horizontal resultant
force and the total uplift force. However, the case of SH40W60,
IH40W60 and BH40W60 do not exhibit the similar behaviour.
The phenomenon of oblique tsunami force where the upward wave flow
toward the offset zone of the bridge models when the nominal wave
height was about the same elevation of the bridge model could lead to the
case of SH40W60, IH40W60 and BH40W60.
 Conclusion
Among all the bridge models, the I-beam deck model experienced the
highest horizontal resultant force at deck clearance of 50 mm. In contrast,
the simplified deck model experienced the lowest horizontal resultant
force at nominal wave height of 40 mm.
The pressure distribution at the lower position of the front face of all
bridge models recorded a maximum value about 1.2 to 1.5 times the
hydrostatic pressure and remains about hydrostatic pressure for a much
longer period subsequently. The pressure distribution at the back, bottom
and internal girder coincides with the frontal face pressure in the steady
flow and hence, achieving similar pressure which is about the hydrostatic
pressure.
In term of structural performance, none of the bridge models are able to
survive in both dry and wet conditions when the actual incident wave
height is at 6 m and 8 m. Among the three bridge superstructures,
simplified concrete bridge has the structural performance against sliding
because it was the only bridge type which able to resist the tsunami force
at incident wave height of 4 m when the deck clearance is at 3 m and 4 m.
 Future Recommentation
Numerical analysis of this or similar research can be performed
simultaneously with the physical experiment to provide better
understanding on the behaviour of tsunami flow on bridge models.
Use of closer deck clearance (35 mm, 40 mm and 45 mm) to get better
understanding on the phenomena of splash up effect that might occur at
shore profile of Penang Island.
Study the effect of offset zone to investigate the tsunami force on
phenomenon of oblique upward wave toward the offset zone of the
bridge model with different nominal wave height (55 mm, 60 mm, 65
mm).
It is necessary to have the entire bridge models extensively instrumented
with pressure gauges for accurate measurement of pressure distribution
on the bridge models.
Similar research with perforation on the parapet with different
percentage of perforation can be carried out to study the effect of
perforation.
 References
1. Fu, L., Kosa, K., Sasaki, T. & Sato, T. (2014), Tsunami Force on Bridge Comparison of Two
Wave Types by Experimental Test, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 60A, pp 282-292.

2. Hosoda, A. & Maruyama, K. (2011), Washed Away of Bridge by the Great East Japan
Earthquake, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Disaster Survey Report.

3. Kawasaki, Y. & Izuno, K. (2013), Mitigation of the Impact of Tsunamis on Bridges, Vienna
Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013
(VEESD 2013), No. 115, pp 1-8

4. Iemura, H., Pradono, M. H., Yasuda, T. and Tada, T. (2007), Experiments of Tsunami Force
Acting on Bridge Models, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp 902-911.

5. Kawasaki, Y. and Izuno, K. (2013), Mitigation of the Impact of Tsunamis on Bridges, Vienna
Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2013
(VEESD 2013), No. 115, pp 1-8

6. Kosa, K. (2012), Damage Aanalysis of Bridge Affected by Tsunami Due to Great East Japan
Earthquake, Proceeding of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned
from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, pp 13861397.
 References
7. Kusakabe, T., Matsuo, O. and Kataoka, S. (2005), Introduction of A Methodology to Mitigate
Tsunami Disaster by The Pre-evaluation of Tsunami Damage Considering Damage Investigation of
2004 Tsunami Disaster in the Indian Ocean, Proceeding of the 21st US-Japan Bridge Engineering
Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, October 3-5, 2005

8. Lau, T. L., Ohmachi, T., Inoue, S., and Lukkunaprasit, P. (2011), Experimental and Numerical
Model of Tsunami Force on Bridge Decks, A Growing Disaster, Mohammad Mokhtari (Ed).
InTech, Chapter 6, pp 105-130.

9. Lukkunaprasit, P., Lau, T. L., Ruangrassamee, A. and Ohmachi, T. (2011), Tsunami Wave Loading
on a Bridge Deck with Perforations, Journal of Tsunami society International, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp
244-252.

10. Nakao, H., Nozako, Izuno, K. & Kobayashi, H. (2012), Tsunami Hydrodymanic Force on Various
Bridge Sections, The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No.3, pp 121-130

11. Rahman, S.., Shatirah, A., M. T. R. Khan & R. Triatmadja (2014), Performance of Bridge Girder
with Perforations under Tsunami Wave Loading, World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, International Journal of Civil, Architectural, Structural and Construction Engineering,
Vol. 8, No.2, pp 139-144.
 References
12. Robertson, I. N. (2011), Design of Buildings for Vertical Evacuation from Tsunamis, Joint ASCE/
JASCE Tohoku Tsunami Survey, April 15-30, 2011.

13. Spencer, N. L. (2014), Evaluation of Tsunami Design Codes and Recommendations for Bridge
Susceptible to Tsunami Inundation, Msc thesis, University of Washington.

14. Unjoh, S and Endoh, K. (2007), Damage Investigation and Preliminary Analyses of Bridge
Damage caused by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, 38th UJNR WSE Joint Panel Meeting.

15. Yim, S. C., Sutraporn, B., Nimmala, S. B., Winston, H. M., Azadbakht, M., and Cheung, K. F.
(2011), Development of A Guideline for Estimating Tsunami Forces on Bridge Superstructures,
Final Report SR 500-340, Oregon Department of Tramsportation Research Section.
Thank
You
Q&A
Section