FYP Presentation (Tsunami Engineering)

Estimation of Tsunami Forces on Three Different Types of

Bridge SuperstructureName : Koon Foo Siong Matric : 112290Supervisor : 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

Total Wash-Away of DeckWashout of Backfill Soil of Abutment

Lateral Displacement Failure of Shear Key Reinforcement

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 girders (Utatsu-ohashi bridge)

Failed pier (Tutanigawa bridge)

Inclined piers (Tsutanigawa bridge)

Authors (Year) Review

Iemura et al. (2007)

Study on tsunami force acting on bridge model (Case: with and without debris)

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

Lukkunaprasit et al. (2011)

Study on tsunami wave loading on a bridge deck with perforations (Case: 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


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) ReviewNakao et al. (2012)

Study on tsunami hydrodynamic force on various bridge sections.

- 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) ReviewKawasaki & Izuno (2012)

Study the effect of baffles plates on reducing tsunami forces acting on bridge girders.

Literature Review

- 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


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. (2014)

Study on performance of bridge girder with perforations under tsunami wave loading

-Force reductions were observed not only in peak but also throughout the whole force time history when compared to solid girder.

Literature Review

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.

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.

Objectives

• 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.

Scope of Work

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.

Simplified DeckI-Beam Deck Box Deck

Type of Bridge Model

Methodology

Laboratory Outlook

Calibration of InstrumentsCalibration 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.

0 1 2 3 4 50

5

10

15

20

25

30

f(x) = 6.05372376257943 xR² = 0.999989997360919

WG1Linear (WG1)Linear (WG1)

Voltage (V)

Dep

th (c

m)

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

Sequences of the wave attack on SH40 model by incident wave of nominal height = 60 mm

(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

Effect of Different Deck Clearances with Constant Nominal Wave HeightSimplified Deck Model

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-0.50

0.51

1.52

2.5

Front Face Pressure Time History

SH30W40SH30W60SH30W80

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Back Face Pressure Time History


Time (sec)N

orm

alis

ed P

ress

ure

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Bottom face Pressure Time History


Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Horizontal Force Time History


Time (sec)

Fx (N

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Vertical Force Time History


Time (sec)

Fz (N

)

Effect of Different Nominal Wave Heights with Constant Deck ClearanceBox Deck Model

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-0.50

0.51

1.52

2.5


BH30W60BH40W60BH50W60

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.10.20.30.40.5



Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

Bottom Face Pressure Time History


Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-2

0

2

4

6

8

10



Time (sec)

Fx (N

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10



Time (sec)

Fz (N

)

Effect of Bridge Types with Constant Nominal Wave Height and Constant Deck Clearance

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5


SH50W80IH50W80BH50W80

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.10.20.30.4



Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Bottom Face Time History

SH50W80BH50W80

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ised

Pre

ssur

e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30-202468

101214



Time (sec)

Fx (N

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-25-20-15-10

-505

1015



Time (sec)

Fz (N

)

Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge ModelSimplified Deck Model

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

f(x) = − 0.409300347815651 x + 1.48555889571662R² = 0.641304953835268

Front Face Pressure Distribution

MeasuredMeanMean + SDMean + 2SD

P/pgh

z/h

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

f(x) = − 1.21451237562972 x + 1.25425076957154R² = 0.698858605014762

Back Face Pressure Distribution


P/pgh

z/h

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.80.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

f(x) = − 0.766873774213688 x + 1.05168630757347R² = 0.606643803082511

Bottom Face Pressure Distribution


P/pgh

z/h

Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge ModelI-beam Deck Deck Model

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

f(x) = − 0.32506151846495 x + 1.36732643925258R² = 0.648050762893784



P/pgh

z/h

-0.3 0.2 0.7 1.20

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

f(x) = − 0.984977721733661 x + 1.01994478702779R² = 0.85937806642829



P/pgh

z/h

0 0.5 1 1.5 20

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

f(x) = − 0.543768696445809 x + 1.01700553764416R² = 0.401890360612915

Front Face of Last GirderPressure Distribution


P/pgh

z/h

Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge ModelBox Deck Model

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

f(x) = − 0.394985439899627 x + 1.42622963518152R² = 0.582393559333132



P/pgh

z/h

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

f(x) = − 1.26949867319827 x + 1.21853179677692R² = 0.651987253456618



P/pgh

z/h

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

f(x) = − 1.20419482782212 x + 1.12253127308125R² = 0.862718572539873

Bottom Face Pressure Distribution

MeasuredMeanMean + 1SDMean + 2SD

P/pgh

z/h

Stability against SlidingSimplified Bridge Model

Stability against SlidingI-beam Bridge Model

Stability against SlidingBox Girder Bridge Model

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.

Conclusion

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.

Future Recommentation

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 1386–1397.

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.

References

Thank You

Q & A Section

FYP Presentation (Tsunami Engineering)

Documents

Transcript of FYP Presentation (Tsunami Engineering)