ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to

my supervisor, Dr. Lau Tze Liang, who always patiently provides constructive advices

to me throughout this research, which is the fundamental towards the completion in this

dissertation. Besides, Dr. Lau is always accessible and willing to help students in

conducting their research.

I would also like to express my gratitude to my labmates, Liew Kok Kei and

Moon Wei Chek for helping me to complete the experiments. Without their

unconditional helps, the experimental could not be completed smoothly. Nevertheless,

my gratitude also goes to Kenny Chia, Lee Weng Foo and Van Tze Che for their helps

in various aspects.

Last but not least, I would like to express my sincere thanks toward all the

laboratory technicians from River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre

(REDAC), who always have been helpful and accommodating in solving technical

problems faced during the experimental works.

2
 ABSTRAK

Di Malaysia, langkah mitigasi utama untuk menghalang tsunami telah diambil

berat dan strategi pemindahan telah dirancang selepas peristiwa 2004 Indian Ocean

Tsunami. Walau bagaimanapun, taktik yang sama ini tidak dapat diaplikasikan terhadap

infrastruktur pantai terutama superstruktur jambatan darat yang berdekatan pantai.

Sehingga kini, reka bentuk struktur jambatan rintang tsunami masih belum dirumuskan

di Malaysia. Hal ini disebabkan kekurangan pengetahuan mengenai impak tsunami

terhadap jambatan. Oleh itu, anggaran daya tsunami terhadap superstruktur jambatan

adalah diperlukan di Malaysia. Dalam kajian ini, daya-daya tsunami terhadap tiga jenis

superstruktur jambatan telah dikaji. Tiga jenis superstruktur jambatan ialah geladak

jambatan dipermudahkan, geladak jambatan rasuk I dan geladak jambatan galang

kotak. Semua model jambatan telah diskala-turunkan dengan 1:100. Eksperimen ini

dijalankan di dalam flum ombak yang berdimensi 1 m 1 m 40 m. Model geladak

jambatan diletakkan 30 mm, 40 mm dan 50 mm dari dasar flum ombak. Model tersebut

dikenakan ombak ketinggian nominal 40 mm, 60 mm dan 80 mm. Keputusan

eksperimen menunjukkan kekuatan serangan ombak terhadap model jambatan

bergantung kepada ketinggian geladak jambatan dan ketinggian nominal gelombang

tsunami. Apabila ketinggian nominal tsunami meningkat dan ketinggian geladak

jambatan direndahkan, tekanan dan daya tsunami yang dikenakan adalah lebih tinggi.

Dari keputusan eksperimen, persamaan taburan tekanan yang berada di lokasi yang

berbeza untuk setiap model geladak jambatan telah dicadangkan. Kestabilan setiap

jenis geladak jambatan terhadap gelongsor juga telah dinilaikan.

3
 ABSTRACT

In Malaysia, the primary mitigation measures of tsunami have been concerned

and evacuation strategies had been planned after the event of 2004 Indian Ocean

Tsunami. However, it does not address the same mitigation tactic to the coastal

infrastructure especially the onshore bridge superstructures nearby the coastline. To

date, proper design of tsunami-resistant bridge superstructure is yet to be formulated in

Malaysia due to lack of knowledge on tsunami impact on bridge superstructure.

Therefore, there is a need to estimate tsunami loading on bridge superstructure in

Malaysia. In this research, the tsunami forces on three different types of bridge

superstructures were investigated. They were simplified deck model, I-beam deck

model and box girder model. All bridge models were downscaled with 1:100. The

experiment was carried out in a wave flume of 1 m 1 m 40 m. The bridge deck

models were placed 30 mm, 40 mm and 50 mm from the bed of flume. The bridge

models were subjected to 40 mm, 60 mm and 80 mm of nominal wave height in all

cases. The experimental results reveal that the nature of the wave attack on bridge

models depends largely on the deck clearance and the nominal height of incident wave.

In general, the wave pressures and forces increase when the nominal wave height

increases and the deck clearance decreases. From the results, the equation for pressure

distribution at different faces of each type of bridge model was proposed. The stability

of each type of bridge model against sliding was evaluated.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.. ii
ABSTRAK... iii
ABSTRACT. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.... v
LIST OF FIGURES.... ix
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................ xvi
NOMENCLATURES.............................................................................................. xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background................................ 1
1.2 Problem Statement..... 3
1.3 Objectives............... 4
1.4 Scope of Work............................................................................................... 4
1.5 Justification of Research................ 5
1.6 Structure of Dissertation.... 5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Tsunami Impact on Bridge Superstructure....................................................... 6
2.2.1 Damage in Bandar Acheh, North Sumatra, Indonesia... 7
2.2.2 Damage in Battocaloa Lagoon, Sri Lanka....... 9
2.2.3 Damage in Tohoku, Japan... 10
2.3 Estimation of Tsunami Force on Bridge Superstructure...... 12
2.3.1 Hydrodynamic Forces.......... 14
2.3.1.1 Hydrodynamic Drag Force............................................ 14
2.3.1.2 Hydrodynamic Uplift Force............................................................... 15
2.3.2 Buoyant Forces................................................................ 16
2.3.3 Hydrostatic Forces....... 17
2.3.4 Impact Forces...... 18
2.3.5 Horizontal Forces.... 19
2.3.6 Vertical Forces......................................................................................... 20
2.3.7 Maximum Momentum Flux..................................................................... 21
2.4 Past Studies on Tsunami Forces Acting on Bridge Superstructure.. 22
2.4.1 Tsunami Forces Acting on Bridge Deck 22

2.4.2 Structural Performance of I-beam girder Bridge Located Offshore... 24

2.4.3 Effect of Perforation on I-beam Girder.. 28

2.4.4 Studies on Unique Shaped of Bridge Girder.. 30

2.5 Summary of Literature Review........ 33
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 General...... 34
3.2 Past Recorded Laboratory Data.... 35

5
3.3 Model Study...... 36

3.3.1 Model Scaling...... 36

3.3.2 Experimental Setup...... 36
3.4 Model Construction....... 37
3.5 Measuring Apparatus.... 38
3.6 Calibration of Instruments..... 42
3.7 Execution of Physical Modeling... 47

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General...... 48
4.2 Tsunami Wave Attack on Bridge Model...................................................... 48
4.3 Effect of Different Nominal Wave Heights with Constant Deck Clearance 58
4.3.1 Simplified Deck Model.... 58
4.3.2 I-beam Deck Model...... 61
4.3.3 Box Girder Model.... 62
4.4 Effect of Different Deck Clearances with Constant Nominal Wave Height.... 67

4.4.1 Simplified Deck Model 67

4.4.2 I-beam Deck Model.. 70

4.4.3 Box Girder Deck Model...... 70

4.5 Effect of Bridge Types with Constant Nominal Wave Height and Constant
75
Deck Clearance.....
4.5.1 Relationship between Bridge Types and Normalised Pressure... 75
4.5.2 Relationship between Bridge Types and Forces.. 78
4.6 Wave Pressure Distribution on Bridge Models. 78
4.6.1 Simplified Deck Model 79
4.6.2 I-beam Deck Model...... 81
4.6.3 Box Girder Deck Model....... 83
4.7 Stability against Sliding.... 85
4.7.1 Simplified Bridge Model.. 86
4.7.2 I-beam Bridge Model ...... 88
4.7.3 Box Girder Bridge Model........ 91
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions 94
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research..... 95

REFERENCES.... 96
APPENDIX A Pressure and Force Time Histories at Different Nominal

Wave Heights with Constant Deck Clearance

6
APPENDIX B Pressure and Force Time Histories at Different Deck

Clearances with Constant Nominal Wave Height

APPENDIX C Pressure and Force Time Histories for Different Bridge

Types with Constant Nominal Wave Height and Constant

Deck Clearance

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 : Illustrated tsunami generation (Atwater et al., 2005)........ 6

Figure 2.2 : Bridge deck that had been totally washed away by tsunami

7
 (Unjoh and Endoh, 2007)...... 7
Figure 2.3 : Washed-out and survived bridges (Unjoh and Endoh, 2007).. 7
Figure 2.4 : Collapsed of wooden bridge on masonry substructure

(Unjoh and Endoh, 2007)...... 8

Figure 2.5 : Lateral displacement of bridge deck (Unjoh and Endoh, 2007) 8
Figure 2.6 : Failure of shear key reinforcement on the bridge superstructure

(Unjoh and Endoh, 2007)...... 9

Figure 2.7 : Collapsed of simple digit bridge girder (Kusakabe et al., 2005).. 9
Figure 2.8 : PC girder (40 m) washed away and damaged by tsunami

(Hosoda and Maruyama, 2011)..... 11

Figure 2.9 : Inclined piers of Tsutanigawa Bridge

(Hosoda and Maruyama, 2011). 11

Figure 2.10 : Deck sections displaced from piers and abutments (left); severe

scour behind abutment (right) (Robertson et al., 2011) 12

Figure 2.11 : Remaining deck section (left) and soffit detail (right)

(Robertson et al., 2011) 12

Figure 2.12 : Typical tsunami depth and inundation nomenclature

(Chock, 2013).... 13
Figure 2.13 : Hydrodynamic force distribution (Spencer, 2014).... 15

Figure 2.14 : Buoyant force acing on a floating component

(Spencer, 2014). 17
Figure 2.15 : Hydrostatic force distribution and location of resultant

(Spencer, 2014). 17
Figure 2.16 : Debris and force distribution (Spencer, 2014).. 19
Figure 2.17 : Exclusion of water by the exterior walls at the upper floor level

(FEMA P646, 2008).. 20

Figure 2.18 : Velocity and force time history for tsunami at nominal wave height

of 18.6 cm. (Iemura et al., 2007)... 23

Figure 2.19 : Correlation between maximum force and maximum velocity

(Iemura et al., 2007). 24

Figure 2.20 : Relationship between horizontal fluid force and tsunami height

(Araki et al., 2010).... 25

Figure 2.21 : Wave types of experimental cases (Kosa et al., 2009)...... 25
Figure 2.22 : Relationship between wave pressure and water pressure obtained

8
 from horizontal wave force (Kosa et al., 2009)..... 26
Figure 2.23 : Force time history (Lau et al., 2011). 27
Figure 2.24 : Pressure time history (Lau et al., 2011) 27
Figure 2.25 : Time history of wave height and wave force (Fx) during broken

wave (Fu et al., 2014)... 28

Figure 2.26 : Time history of wave height and wave force (Fx) during unbroken

wave (Fu et al., 2014).... 28

Figure 2.27 : Force time history for both solid and perforated girder for different

reservoir depths (Rahman et al., 2014)..... 30

Figure 2.28 : Time history of horizontal drag force for rectangle, trapezoid and

inverted trapezoid (Nakao et al., 2012)..... 31

Figure 2.29 : Time history of horizontal drag force for rectangle, hexagon and

modified rectangle (Nakao et al., 2012) 31

Figure 2.30 : Time history of horizontal drag force for original I-beam model,

vertical baffle plate, inclined baffle plate and semicircular baffle

plate (Kawasaki and Izuno, 2012). 32

Figure 2.31 : Obliquely upward wave toward the offset part of I-beam model

(Kawasaki and Izuno, 2012).. 32

Figure 3.1 : Flow chart of research activities... 34
Figure 3.2 : Time history of wave height..... 35
Figure 3.3 : Time history of wave height (60 mm) and wave velocity. 36
Figure 3.4 : Schematic diagram of the experimental setup... 37
Figure 3.5 : Constructed bridge models.... 38
Figure 3.6 : Schematic diagram of instrumentation and data acquisition

system.... 39
Figure 3.7 : Position of pressure gauges on different bridge models.... 41
Figure 3.8 : Correlation between voltage and flow depth. 43
Figure 3.9 : Correlation of depth of pressure gauge to the strain of pressure

gauge. 44
Figure 3.10 : Correlation between velocity and wave height. 46
Figure 3.11 : Correlation between force and output strain of load cell.. 46
Figure 3.12 : Calibration of load cell. 46
Figure 4.1 : Sequences of the wave attack on SH30 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm... 49

Figure 4.2 : Sequences of the wave attack on SH40 model by incident wave of

9
 nominal height = 60 mm... 50
Figure 4.3 : Sequences of the wave attack on SH50 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm... 51

Figure 4.4 : Sequences of the wave attack on IH30 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm ...... 52

Figure 4.5 : Sequences of the wave attack on IH40 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm ...... 53

Figure 4.6 : Sequences of the wave attack on IH50 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm ...... 54

Figure 4.7 : Sequences of the wave attack on BH30 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm ...... 55

Figure 4.8 : Sequences of the wave attack on BH40 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm ...... 56

Figure 4.9 : Sequences of the wave attack on BH50 model by incident wave of

nominal height = 60 mm ...... 57

Figure 4.10 : Time history of (a) front face, (b) back face and (c) bottom face

pressure for simplified deck model with deck clearance of 30 mm.. 60

Figure 4.11 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force for simplified deck model with deck clearance of 30 mm .. 61

Figure 4.12 : Time history of (a) front face, (b) back face and (c) last girder at

seaward pressure for I-beam deck model with deck clearance of

30 mm ........................... 63
Figure 4.13 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force for I-beam deck model with deck clearance of 30 mm ... 64

Figure 4.14 : Time history of (a) front face, (b) back face and (c) bottom face

pressure for box girder deck model with deck clearance of 30 mm.. 65
Figure 4.15 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force for box girder deck model with deck clearance of 30 mm .. 66

Figure 4.16 : Time history of (a) front face, (b) back face and (c) bottom face

pressure for simplified deck model with nominal wave height of

60 mm.... 68
Figure 4.17 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force for simplified deck model with nominal wave height of

10
 60 mm 69
Figure 4.18 : Time history of (a) front face, (b) back face and (c) last girder at

seaward pressure for I-beam deck model with nominal wave

height of 60 mm.................................... 71
Figure 4.19 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force for I-beam deck model with nominal wave height of 60 mm.. 72
Figure 4.20 : Time history of (a) front face, (b) back face and (c) bottom face

pressure for box girder deck model with nominal wave height of

60 mm 73
Figure 4.21 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force for box girder deck model with nominal wave height of

60 mm.... 74
Figure 4.22 : Time history of (a) front face and (b) back face pressure at deck

clearance of 50 mm and nominal wave height of 80 mm..... 76

Figure 4.23 : Time history of (a) horizontal resultant force and (b) total vertical

force at deck clearance of 50 mm and nominal wave height of

80 mm................................................................................ 77
Figure 4.24 : Pressure distribution of simplified deck bridge model at (a) front

face, (b) back face and (c) bottom face................. 80

Figure 4.25 : Pressure distribution of I-beam deck bridge model at (a) front face,

(b) back face and (c) last girder at seaward....... 82

Figure 4.26 : Pressure distribution of box deck bridge model at (a) front face,

(b) back face and (c) bottom face...... 84

Figure 4.27 : Typical dimension of simplified concrete bridge prototype. 86
Figure 4.28 : Typical dimension of I-beam concrete bridge prototype.. 89
Figure 4.29 : Typical dimension of box girder concrete bridge prototype. 91

11
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 : Summary of results (Lukkunaprasit et al., 2011).... 29

Table 3.1 : Details of bridge model... 38
Table 3.2 : Details of instrumentation 40
Table 3.3 : Calibration constant of each pressure gauge... 45
Table 3.4 : Calibration constant of load cell.......... 47
Table 4.1 : Calculation for self-weight of simplified concrete bridge deck.. 87
Table 4.2 : Calculation of frictional resistant force for simplified concrete

bridge deck.. 87
Table 4.3 : Comparison of horizontal resultant force and frictional resistant

force. 87

Table 4.4 : Calculation for self-weight of I-beam concrete bridge 90

Table 4.5 : Calculation of frictional resistant force for I-beam concrete bridge

deck.. 90
Table 4.6 : Comparison of horizontal resultant force and frictional resistant

force. 90
Table 4.7 : Calculation for self-weight of box girder concrete bridge... 92
Table 4.8 : Calculation of frictional resistant force for box girder concrete

bridge deck... 92
Table 4.9 : Comparison of horizontal resultant force and frictional resistant

12
 force. 92

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AASTH
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official
O
American Society of Civil Engineers
ASCE
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GEBCO General Bathymetric Chart of Ocean

JSCE Japanese Society of Civil Engineers

REDAC River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Center

13
 NOMENCLATURES

A Projected area of the body normal to the direction of flow

Af
Area of the floor panel or floor framing system

B Breadth of the structure

Cd
Drag coefficient

Cf
Force coefficient

D Distance from the shoreline to the structure

d Distance between visual wave source to the target structure

Fb
Buoyant force

Fd
Hydrodynamic force

Fdm
Debris dam force

Fh
Hydrostatic force

Fs
Surge force

Fu
Uplift force

Fx
Horizontal resultant force

Fz
Total uplift force

g Gravitational acceleration

H Nominal wave height

h Surge height

ha
Nominal wave height that in contact with the bridge model from its

height to the flow bed

hb
Water height displaced by the floor

14
 he
Elevation of the elevated floor slab

hi
Inundation depth at the point of interest in the absence of obstacles

hmax
Maximum water height above the base of the wall
2
hi ui Momentum flux per unit mass per unit breadth

Qx Tsunami wave force

qx Tsunami wave pressure

R Ground elevation at maximum inundation depth measured from shoreline

t Time of travel of tsunami

ui
Velocity at the point of interest in the absence of obstacles

uv
Estimated vertical velocity or water rise rate

v Wave velocity
W Nominal wave height
z Height of the relevant portion from ground level

z1
Minimum height of pressure-exposed surfaces

z2
Maximum height of pressure-exposed surfaces

Greek letters
Static wave coefficient

Density of water

s
Fluid density including sediment

15
16