Estimation of Tsunami Forces on Three Different Types of Bridge

Superstructure
1

1,2

Foo Siong KOON*, 2Tze Liang LAU

School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)

14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
*
E-mail: lordbardenpowell@hotmail.com

Abstract

Since the past two disastrous tsunami events (i.e. Indian Ocean and Tohoku Tsunami), a number of
bridge superstructure were damaged by tsunami waves. In this study, laboratory experiments were conducted to
estimate the tsunami forces on three different types of bridge superstructure. The models which placed at various deck
clearances were downscaled at a ratio of 1:100 and subjected to tsunami bores of various runup heights in a 1 m x 1 m
with 40 m long wave flume. The experimental results revealed that the nature of wave attack on bridge model depends
on the relationship between deck clearances, nominal wave heights and bridge types. The time histories of forces in the
horizontal and vertical directions on bridge models due to incident waves were measured. The relationships among the
forces and pressures for the incident wave of nominal wave height around 60 mm were discussed in detailed. The
maximum horizontal force and front face pressure were attained when nominal height of the wave was achieved by the
flow. Stability of each bridge superstructure against sliding was evaluated. The experimental results provide vital
information for the dynamic analysis in the later stage of the study.
Keywords: Bridge, Tsunami, Force, Wave pressure, Deck clearance

types of bridge in Malaysia. Due to the complexity and

substantial uncertainties of the tsunami phenomena,
theoretical approach for the determination of tsunamiinduced forces cannot be easily applied. On the other
hand, there is no study had been done in Malaysia with
the consideration of both wave height and wave velocity
based on the case of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The
stability of bridge subjected to tsunami force is still
unknown and thus there is no design guideline developed
in Malaysia for bridge to resist tsunami fluid force.
Hence, a comprehensive study of estimation of tsunami
force on different types of bridge superstructure should
be carried out and explored promptly.
The main objective of the study is to study the
characteristics of tsunami wave and its impact onto
onshore simplified deck, I-beam deck and box girder
with deck clearance of 3 m, each subjected to 6 m wave
heights at Penang Island, Malaysia.

1. Introduction
Tsunamis are destructive waves that propagate with
considerable speed from the sources toward the shore
with unique wave length and flow velocity [1]. As the
tsunamis approach the shoreline, the unremitting amount
of energy results in tremendous force that will acts on the
infrastructures nearby, including bridge superstructure.
The enormous destruction caused by the 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami and the 2011 Tohoku tsunami had
demonstrated the annihilation power of tsunami that
caused serious damages on bridge superstructures . In the
wake of the both past tsunami events, about 81 bridges
out of 168 were washed away by the 2004 tsunami in
Sumatra [2] and at least 280 bridges were washed away
by the 2011 Tohoku tsunami [3].
In Malaysia, the primary mitigation measures of
tsunami countermeasure have been concerned and
evacuation strategies had been planned after the event of
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. However, the strategies did
not address the same mitigation tactic to the coastal
infrastructures especially the bridge superstructures
onshore nearby the coastline. Furthermore, there were no
evidence proving that the impact of tsunami on bridge
superstructures located onshore especially the coastal
area had been conducted in Malaysia.
Type of bridge superstructure plays an important role
for the tsunami-proof design. Up to date, there is no
proper way to estimate tsunami force acting on different

2. Background
It is not viable to perform field investigation of
tsunami flow characteristic since the occurrence of
tsunami is rare and complex in nature. Furthermore, the
important flow characteristics such as flow depth, flow
velocity, forces and pressure distribution are further
complex especially in bridge superstructure [4]. There
were numbers of research on the development of design
guideline had also been conducted include Final Report

on Development of a Guideline for Estimating Bridge

Superstructures [5] and American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE 7) [6]. From the existing guidelines,
the loads considerations were: i) horizontal force, ii)
vertical force, iii) impact force, iv) hydrostatic force, v)
hydrodynamic force, vi) uplift force, vii) buoyant force
and viii) additional gravity force [5].
Number of experimental studies on wave pressures
and forces on bridge superstructures had been
investigated by Iemura et al. [7], Lau et al. [8], Nakao et
al. [9] and Kawasaki and Izuno [10]. Several formulas
had been proposed to evaluate the tsunami wave loadings
on bridge superstructures. Iemura et al. [7] proposed an
equation to determine drag force due to tsunami flow on
the bridge model. As for Lau et al. [8], the author
proposed empirical formulas for the slow-varying forces
on bridge decks by establishing pressure distribution on
bridge deck. In Japan, Nakao et al. [9] had investigated
the relationship of horizontal drag force for various
shapes of I-beam bridge models.
Tsunami waves on bridge superstructures had been
studied and scrudinised deeply by other countries such as
Japan and United States. However, the development of
Malaysia coastal bridge superstructures design in
accordance to relevant standards and codes still cease at
the infant stage due to the lack of knowledge on tsunami
impact topics. Besides, the ocean bathymetry,
topography, hydrology and geology of the coast have
great influence in determination of tsunami runup
mechanisms and impact forces of tsunami [11].

Therefore, this study had focused on one common coastal

profile in Penang Island in order to investigate the
tsunami characteristics on bridge superstructures.

3. Methodology
3.1 Data Collection
The beach profile of Penang Island was evaluated
from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans
(GEBCO) software. Wave velocities and wave heights
were obtained from the past recorded laboratory data.
3.2 Experimental Setup
Physical modelling was downscaled to 1:100 based
on Froude Number Similitude Law. Fig. 1 illustrated the
setup of this experimental study. The hydraulic model
experiments were carried out in a wave flume of 40 m
long, 1 m wide and 1 m high wave flume. The flume's
platform represented the common beach profile of
Northwest Peninsular Malaysia, and was comprised of a
compound bed with continuous plane slope of 1:200 and
1:125 and a flat platform where the model was located as
shown in Fig. 1. The compound bed ended with a
horizontal flat plane where the downscaled building
model subjected to tsunami loading was located. The
bridge models were constructed from acrylic plates with
specific dimensions as shown in Fig. 2. In the experiment,
tsunami runup was simulated while the tsunami
drawdown was not considered in the study.

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup

300 mm
135

I-Beam Deck

Simplified Deck

300 mm

300 mm

135 mm

135 mm
28 mm

Box Girder

28 mm

Figure 2. Constructed bridge models

117 mm

28 mm

65 mm

Long period solitary wave was generated by sudden

releasing of mass water built up in a water tank. By
varying the released volume from the tank, different
wave forms and wave forces were produced. In this
experiment, water height of 0.72 m in the tank was used
to generate the wave with nominal wave height of 60 mm
at the location of bridge model. Upon released, water
flowing through the wave baffle was regulated and
eventually broke into bores and surges after travelling
past the slope of 1:4. The broken wave which consisted
of bores and surges then propagated across all remaining
wave flume sections. The travelled broken wave then
attacked the bridge model which was located at the
flumes horizontal bed.

Tsunami forces and the wave pressures acted on the

bridge models were recorded by the load cell and
pressure gauges respectively. The positions of pressure
gauges were attached to the position of interest to study
with, which shown in Fig. 4. There were total five
pressure gauges used in the experiment and all five
pressure gauges were attached to the mid span distance
(whole span is 300 mm) of the bridge model. The front
face of the bridge model was defined as the face facing
the incident wave and hit directly by the wave. Before
the experiment was carried out, the bridge model with
deck clearance of 30 mm was mounted onto an I-section
with a load cell was installed on the flume. The bridge
model was then subjected to tsunami attacks (Fig. 5).
However, wave gauge and current meter at the location
of model were not installed to avoid the instruments
interference to the flow characteristics of tsunami wave
near the bridge model. Each case of studied was repeated
at least three times to ensure the repeatability of the
experiment.

3.3 Physical Modeling

Fig. 3 showed the schematic diagram of the
instrumentation and data acquisition system used in the
experiment. Capacitance type wave gauges were used to
measure the wave profiles at onshore (H2) and offshore
(H1) locations as illustrated in Fig. 2. The velocities of
the flow in the flume for various wave heights were
recorded by electromagnetic type current meter at V2
(Fig. 2). Both wave gauge and current meter were
installed at H2 and V2 with the absence of the model
during measurement. The wave height and velocity at H2
and V2 were then correlated with the wave height at H1.
During the testing of the model, only the wave height H1
was measured in order to avoid the interference from the
instruments on the flow regime in the vicinity of the
model. Video and digital cameras were used to capture
the wave motion acting on the building model.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Tsunami Wave Attack on Bridge Model
The nature of the tsunami wave attack on the bridge
models greatly depends on the relationship between the
deck clearance of the model and the shape of bridge
model with the nominal wave height of the approaching
tsunami. Fig. 6 shows the sequences of wave attack on
bridge model (Case SH30W60). The instant the wave
first reaches the point that directly parallel downward to
the front face of the bridge model is taken as t = 0 sec.

Control Unit

Pressure
Gauge

Data Acquisition
and Processing
Load Cell

Force

PG1, PG2, PG3, PG5

PG6, PG7, PG8

Wave
Gauge

Current
Meter

Control Unit

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of instrumentation and data acquisition system

Data Logger

Figure 4. Position of pressure gauges on each bridge model

Load cell

Bridge model

Pressure gauge

Figure 5. Bridge model instrumented with load cell and pressure gauges

(b) t = 1.48 sec

(a) t = 0.00 sec

(d) t = 4.80 sec

(c) t = 2.80 sec

(e) t = 6.00 sec

Figure 6. Sequence of wave attack on bridge model (SH30W60)

result in a standing wave which continually strike the
model until the wave height reduces over time. The
model is then gush over by incoming wave and totally or
partially submerges under water, which depending on the
deck clearance. Such sequential wave attack is similarly
observed for all cases where the nominal wave is higher
than the bridge model.

When the leading edge of the wave reaches the front face
of bridge model, the wave flows beneath the model. The
wave height increases gradually and achieves its nominal
wave height of 60 mm. The model is then struck by the
incoming wave, creating a splash up impact force on the
model. The combination of downward water along the
front face of the bridge model and the incoming surge

overtopping phenomena until t = 15 sec. After that, the

total vertical force in all three bridge models has
increases. One possible reason might due to the uplift
force acting on the bridge models is greater than the
downward force.
Fig. 7 (b) to Fig. 9 (b) shows the recorded pressure
time histories for all three types of bridge models with
pressure gauges attached at different locations of study.
All bridge models are subjected to incident wave with
nominal wave height of 60 mm with deck clearance of 30
mm. The pressure shown in Fig. 7 (b) to Fig. 9 (b) are
normalised by the hydrostatic pressure (gh), where is
density of water, g is gravitational acceleration and h is
the nominal wave height. The front face pressure of all
bridge models exhibited similar trend as the horizontal
resultant force. This is because most of the front face
pressure was contributed to the horizontal resultant force.
For front face, after reaching the peak value, the
pressures then decrease gradually but remain at the
hydrostatic pressure for a much longer period
subsequently. Besides, it can be observed that the
maximum horizontal resultant force occurs almost the
same time instance with the occurrence of peak value of
the normalised front face pressure. The front face
pressure of all three bridge models are approximately 1.5
to 1.7 times of the hydrostatic pressure.

4.2 Wave Force and Pressure on Bridge Model

The recorded force time histories for three bridge
models: simplified bridge model, I-beam deck and box
girder deck model with the incident wave and nominal
wave height around 60 mm at deck clearance of 30 mm
are displayed in Fig. 7 (a) to Fig. 9 (a). The maximum
horizontal force (Fx) of the three bridge models occurs
during a time frame when nominal wave height is
achieved by the flow. The force then decreases gradually
to zero when the wave heights at both front and back
faces of bridge models are equal. Based on the
experimental results, I-beam deck model has attains the
highest maximum horizontal resultant force of 9.5 N,
follow by simplified deck (8.4 N) and box girder deck
(7.6 N). The wave induced force is mainly contributed by
the incident surge up force that subtracted to the
drawback force that accumulates at the back face of the
bridge models. As for total vertical force (Fz). At time t =
3 sec, the bridge models is hit by the leading wave,
causing an initial uplift force. Then, the wave is followed
by the higher surge up wave, which has higher level than
the elevation of each bridge models, causing an
overtopping onto the deck surface. Therefore, additional
downward force has deduces the uplift force. Fig. 6 has
clearly shows the effect of overtopping onto the bridge
models. All three bridge models has experience the
(a) 15

(b)

10
Normalised Pressure

1.5

Force (N)

5
0
-5

10

20

30

Fx
Fz

-10
-15

PG5
0.5

PG1

0
-0.5

-20

-1

-25

-1.5

Time (sec)

PG2

10

20

30

PG6
PG7
PG8

Time (sec)

Figure 7. Time histories of (a) wave forces and (b) wave pressures on SH30W60 bridge model

10
5
0
-5 0
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30

(b)

10

20

30

Normalised Pressure

Force (N)

(a) 15

Fx
Fz

2
1.5
1

PG2

0
-0.5

10

20

30

Time (sec)

Figure 8. Time histories of (a) wave forces and (b) wave pressures on IH30W60 bridge model

PG7
PG5

-1
-1.5

Time (sec)

PG8

0.5

(b)

(a) 10
5

1.5

Force (N)

10

20

Normalised Pressure

0
-5

30

-10

Fx

-15

Fz

-20
-25

PG2

PG5
0.5

PG7

PG8
0

10

20

30

PG6

-0.5

-30
-35

-1

Time (sec)

Time (sec)

Figure 9. Time histories of (a) wave forces and (b) wave pressures on BH30W60 bridge model

1.8

1.8
Mean

1.6
1.4

Mean + 2

1.2

Mean +
Mean + 2

1.2

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4
0

P/pgh

Mean
Mean +
Mean + 2

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0

P/pgh

2 P/pgh

pressure when the wave heights at the front face and back
face of the bridge models are about the same. For the
bottom face pressure time histories of simplified deck
and box girder deck, the results show negative
normalised pressure at the initial stage (t = 2.5 sec). This
implies there is air entrapped at the bottom face of the
both bridge models. As time increases, the bottom face
pressures become positive, which imply the bridge
models have been thrusting upward gradually by the flow.
The pressure distribution of all three bridge models at
the front face are presented in Fig. 10 to Fig 12. The
pressure is normalised with hydrostatic pressure while
the elevation of the bridge point (z) is normalised with
nominal wave height (h). The best fit line which
represents the mean value of the measured pressure
recorded from the experiment. In the same graph, the
values of mean plus one standard deviation (mean + )
and mean plus two standard deviation (mean + 2) are
also plotted which correspond 68 % and 95 % percentiles
of the data, respectively. In this research, the proposed
prediction formulas (Eq. 1 to Eq. 3) for tsunami wave
pressure on the onshore bridge superstructures are adopts
the equation obtain from linear least squares regression.

1.8
1.6

Figure 11. Pressure distribution of I-beam deck at

front face

Figure 10. Pressure distribution of simplified deck at

front face

z/h

Mean

1.4
z/h

z/h

1.6
Mean +

Figure 12. Pressure distribution of box girder deck at

front face
On the other hand, the wave pressures at the back
face of all bridge models pick up slightly later than the
front face pressure. This is due to the fact that there is
time when no water can be observed at the back face of
all bridge models as the wave hit the bridge models. The
back pressures then decrease progressively to hydrostatic
pressure as time goes on. Based on the results, the front
face and back face pressures of the bridge models
achieve similar pressure which is about the hydrostatic

At front face of simplified deck bridge, the mean:

P = gh (1.4856 z/h) /0.4093

(1)

At front face of I-beam deck bridge, the mean:

P = gh (1.3673 z/h) /0.3251

(2)

Table 2: Comparison of horizontal resultant force and

frictional resistant force for I-beam deck
Case

At front face of box girder bridge, the mean:

P = gh (1.4262 z/h) /0.395

(3)

where
P = Pressure (N/m2)
= Density of water (kg/m3)
g = Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
h = Nominal wave height for the incident wave (m)
z = Elevation from ground (m)
4.3 Stability against Sliding

SH30W40
SH30W60

8019.1

Unstable

Unstable

SH30W80

11907.2

Unstable

Unstable

SH40W40

2572.1

Stable

Stable

SH40W60

12256.1

Unstable

Unstable

SH40W80

11141.8

Unstable

Unstable

SH50W60

4677.9

Unstable

Unstable

SH50W80

10834.5

Unstable

Unstable

Wet Condition

Stable

Unstable

Wet Condition

5012.5

Unstable

Unstable

IH30W60

9300.0

Unstable

Unstable

IH30W80

13408.0

Unstable

Unstable

IH40W40

1763.3

Stable

Stable

IH40W60
IH40W80

10669.9
10826.7

Unstable
Unstable

Unstable
Unstable

IH50W60

12062.4

Unstable

Unstable

IH50W80

13829.3

Unstable

Unstable

BH30W40

Measured
Horizontal
Force , Fx
(kN)
5066.8

Deck Stability

BH30W60

7645.1

Unstable

Unstable

BH30W80

10946.4

Unstable

Unstable

BH40W40

3586.4

Unstable

Unstable

BH40W60

9449.6

Unstable

Unstable

BH40W80

11142.0

Unstable

Unstable

BH50W60

8040.4

Unstable

Unstable

BH50W80

10015.5

Unstable

Unstable

Dry Condition

Wet Condition

Unstable

Unstable

5. Conclusions
The experiment has significantly achieved the main
objective of the study. Tsunami modeling and its impact
onto the onshore bridge models (simplified deck, I-beam
deck and box girder deck) were successfully carried out.
The forces and pressures acted on all the bridge models
are obtained from the experimental studies. The stability
against sliding of each bridge model is also evaluated.
These experimental results provide pragmatic
information for the dynamic analysis in the later stage of
the study that will contribute towards the design of
tsunami-resistant onshore bridge superstructures in
Penang Island, Malaysia.

Deck Stability
Dry Condition

Dry Condition

IH30W40

Case

Table 1: Comparison of horizontal resultant force and

frictional resistant force for simplified deck
Measured
Horizontal
Force , Fx
(kN)
3829.2

Deck stability

Table 3: Comparison of horizontal resultant force and

frictional resistant force for box girder deck

All bridge models were constructed from acrylic

plate which used to represent the bridge models in the
laboratory test. The dimension of bridge models were
magnified from 13.5 2.8 30 cm to a bridge prototype
of 13.5 2.8 30 m under the scaling ratio of 1:100. All
bridge superstructures were examined under dry and wet
frictional conditions under tsunami loadings in this study.
Each acrylic plate had thickness of 3 cm. The coefficient
of dry and wet concrete used in this study are 0,6 and
0.45, respectively.
The self-weight of all bridge models were calculated
based on the dimensions shown in Fig. 4. Then, the
frictional resistant force of each bridge models under dry
and wet conditions can be computed from the calculated
self-weight of bridge superstructure. Lastly, the
calculated frictional resistant force was compared with
the horizontal resultant force of each bridge model in
each respective case, which had shown in Table 1 to
Table 3.

Case

Measured
Horizontal
Force , Fx
(kN)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their deepest
gratitude to the School of Civil Engineering in Universiti
Sains Malaysia for opportunity to carry the research
without many obstacles. A whole hearted thanks to the

River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Center

(REDAC) for providing a convenient environment to the
authors to carry out the laboratory test. Special
appreciations also goes to Mr. Liew Kok Kei and Mr.
Moon Wei Chek for their countless contributions in
conducting physical experiments.

[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. 105130.

[9]

Nakao, H., Nozako, Izuno, K. and Kobayashi,

H. (2012), Tsunami Hydrodymanic Force on
Various Bridge Sections, The 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No.3,
pp. 121-130.

[10]

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.

[11]

Colbourne, F. W. (2005), Tsunami Impact on

the West Coast of Penang Island, Malaysia,
Research Project Report, MS in Physical
Sciences, Emporia State University, Emporia,
Kansas, USA.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

Atwater, B. F., Musumo, R. S., Satake, K.,

Tsuju, Y., Eueda, K. and Yamaguchu, D. K.
(2005), The Orphan Tsunami of 1700Japanese Clues to a Parent Earthquake in
North America, USGS Professional Paper
1707, USGS, Reston, VA, pp. 144.
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.

[3]

Hosoda, A. and Maruyama, K. (2011),

Washed Away of Bridge by the Great East
Japan Earthquake, Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Disaster Survey Report.

[4]

Spencer, N. L. (2014), Evaluation of Tsunami

Design Codes and Recommendations for
Bridge Susceptible to Tsunami Inundation,
Msc thesis, University of Washington.

[5]

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.

[6]

ASCE 7 Standard (2002), Minimum Design

Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,
Second Edition, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Revision 7-02.

[7]

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.