Original Paper
Landslides (2010) 7:117–124 Chiara Biscarini
DOI 10.1007/s10346-009-0194-z
Received: 26 January 2009
Accepted: 11 December 2009 Computational fluid dynamics modelling of landslide
Published online: 23 January 2010
© Springer-Verlag 2010 generated water waves
Abstract This paper describes the application of detailed compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate the formation and
propagation of waves generated by the impact of landslide material
with water. The problem is schematised as a multiphase–multi-
component fluid flow: compressible air, water and transported
alluvial material. The landslide simulation is performed by means
of a hybrid approach: as a rigid solid body slipping down along an
inclined slope until it starts penetrating the water body. The CFD
model solves the Navier–Stokes equations with the RNG k-ɛ
turbulence closure scheme and the volume of fluid multiphase
method, which maintains the interface as a sharp front. The
governing equations are solved using the commercial CFD code,
FLUENT. The computed results are compared with experimental
data reported in the literature. The model is then applied to
simulate the 1958 Lituya bay Tsunami event with a 2D a simplified
geometry and the results are compared to others found in
literature.
Keywords Impulse waves . Landslide . Computational fluid
dynamics . Multiphase flows . Tsunami . Volume of fluid
Introduction
The increase demand for hydrogeological risk assessment in
coastal areas motivates the research for sustainable flood risk
management all over the world. This task has to account that
coastal areas are complex environments and pose particularly
challenging problems due to the simultaneous operation of several
processes (atmospheric, oceanographic, biological and geological).
The coast is also the location of the major human settlements, and
human activities represent an important part of the environmental
impacts and socio-economic developments.
As discussed by the author in previous papers (Esposito et al.
2004a,b; Biscarini et al. 2005), the hydrogeological evaluation of
risk in coastal areas should be based on a combined damage ex-
post and ex-ante analysis. In the ex-post analysis (actual damage),
historical and geological data are combined in order to reconstruct
flood recurrence and associated geological effects. This in turn will
assist the flood risks assessment. Data deriving from the ex-post
analysis are used to update the numerical models applied for the
ex-ante analysis, which is mainly carried out by means of
mathematical and numerical modelling, in order to make
provision for possible flooding or other risk-associated events.
In the risk analysis in rocky coastal areas, particular attention is
required on the possible geological induced effect including large
water waves occurring in conjunction with catastrophic floods. As
a matter of fact, huge amount of alluvial or landslide material may
suddenly fall into the sea producing large impulse waves that may
propagate from their generating source to the near shore area
causing disaster due to the run up. The understanding and the
forecasting of these events is important both for the safety of
people and properties which are along the sea shorelines.
In this paper, we discuss the possibility of using detailed
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate landslide
generated water waves. The simulation of impulse waves and
tsunamis is receiving much attention by the scientific community.
Different numerical approaches have been proposed in literature
to model landslide generated waves, as the linear potential theory
(Iwasaki 1987; Verriere and Lenoir 1992; Pelinovsky and Poplavsky
1996), the depth-averaged non-linear shallow water wave equations
(Harbitz 1992; Jiang and LeBlond 1992; Imamura and Gica 1996),
the fully non-linear potential theory (Vinje and Brevig 1981;
Nakayama 1983; Grilli and Watts 1999), the smoothed particle
hydrodynamics method (Monaghan and Kos 1999) and methods
based on full Navier–Stokes solution (Lin and Liu 1998; Mader and
Gittings 2002; Abadie et al. 2006). However, much research is still
needed as general methods to accurately predict landslides
generated waves are not available.
Considering the available computer technologies of today, a full
Navier–Stokes mathematical model based on FLUENT 6 (Fluent
2003) code is employed to simulate the formation and propagation
of waves generated by the impact of landslide material with marine
water. The problem is schematised as a multiphase–multicompo-
nent fluid flow: compressible air, water and transported alluvial
material, which is also modelled as a fluid. The volume of fluid
(VOF) method, which maintains the interface as a sharp front, is
used to simulate this multiphase flows.
The model has been updated and validated with experimental
data available in literature (Fritz et al. 2001). The principal
landslide parameters, such as its volume, impact velocity, shape of
the front and slope inclination angle, are compared and the
differences are discussed. Finally, the model is applied to simulate a
simplified reconstruction of the landslide at the head of Lituya Bay
which produced a water wave estimated at 50–150 m and reached
524 m up local mountains. The simulation is carried out in a real-
scale schematised environment.
Landslide−generated waves
A tsunami is a series of waves generated when a body of water, such
as a lake or ocean is rapidly displaced on a massive scale. Waves are
formed as the displaced water mass moves under the influence of
gravity to regain its equilibrium. Earthquakes, landslides, volcanic
eruptions and large meteorite impacts all have the potential to
generate a tsunami. As the effects of a tsunami can range from
unnoticeable to devastating, their formation and propagation play
a very important role in the hazard of a coastal area. A single
tsunami event may involve a series of waves of varying heights; the
set of waves is called a train. In this paper, the attention is focused
on a particular type of tsunamis waves: landslide-generated waves.
Landslides 7 • (2010) 117
 Original Paper
These kind of water waves may be generated by landslide events in
artificial reservoirs (Vajont valley, Italy, 1963) or natural lakes, or
may be triggered by landslides occurring on sea shorelines (Lituya
Bay, Alaska, 1958; Miller 1960; Papua New Guinea, 1998; Stromboli
volcano, Italy, 2002).
A landslide-generated wave is defined as an impulsive distur-
bance that vertically displaces the water column and complex
three-dimensional water flows are generated close to the impact
area. Then, the perturbation travels for long distances if in oceanic
areas, causing disasters far away from the generation area,
producing high wave runups on shorelines. The associated fluid
phenomenon is complex and can be accurately simulated only with
detailed numerical models (Kamphuis and Bowering 1970). This is
confirmed by the study of Mader and Gittings (2002) of the Lituy
Bay wave generation event, where it is concluded that the giant
non-linear wave produced by the rockslide impact could be
realistically simulated only with full Navier–Stokes modelling.
Numerical modelling is nowadays playing an important role
due to the increase in competition in all fields of engineering and
to the enormous improvements in computer technology in the last
two decades. Moreover, modelling is widely utilized because it is a
valid tool to investigate physical fluid systems more cost-effectively
and more rapidly than with experimental procedures. In particular,
the process of modelling should be integrated into the entire
engineering process that usually foresees a combined experimental–
numerical approach.
Numerical model
Using an Eulerian approach, the description of fluid motion
requires the determination of the thermodynamic state, in terms of
sensible fluid properties, pressure, P, density, ρ and temperature, T,
~ ðx~; t Þ (Patankar 1980; Abbott and Basco
and of the velocity field V
1989; Hirsch 1992).
Therefore, in a three-dimensional space for a given fluid system
having two intensive degrees of freedom, we have six independent
variables as unknowns, thus requiring six independent equations.
The six equations (Navier–Stokes equations) are given by the
equation of state and the three fundamental principles of
conservation:
. Mass continuity
@ρ ~ ~
þ V  rρ ¼ 0
@t
where ρ is the fluid density;
. Newton’s second law or momentum conservation that leads to
the well-known Navier–Stokes system of equations (three
equations in a three-dimensional space x, y and z)

 1998) and the volume of fluid model, which is a surface-tracking
@ρ ~
 
V þ r~ ρV
~V ~ þ ρf~ þ μ 1 r~ rV
~ ¼ rp ~ þ r2 V
~ technique applied to a fixed Eulerian mesh, is used to take into
@t 3 account two different phases (gaseous and liquid) and three
where μ is the dynamic viscosity and f~ is a specific prescribed
body force (i.e. gravity force);
. Energy conservation (first law of thermodynamics); in the fluid
problem studied in this paper, the fluid flow is considered
isothermal and the energy conservation equation simply
becomes dT=0.
118 Landslides 7 • (2010)
In principle, the Navier–Stokes equation can be used to simulate
both laminar and turbulent flows without averaging or approxima-
tions other than the necessary numerical discretisations. However,
turbulent flows at realistic Reynolds numbers span a large range of
turbulent length and time scales and in a direct numerical simulation
(DNS) the discretisation of the domain should capture all of the
kinetic energy dissipation, thus involving length scales that would
require a prohibitively fine mesh for practical engineering problems
(the total cost of a direct simulation is proportional to Re3).
A large amount of CFD research has concentrated on methods
which make use of turbulence models to predict the effects of
turbulence in fluid flows without resolving all scales of the smallest
turbulent fluctuations. There are two main groups of turbulence
models:
. the introduction of averaged and fluctuating quantities that
modify the unsteady Navier–Stokes into the Reynolds Averaged
Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations (Rodi 1984);
. large eddy simulation (LES; Galperin and Orszag 1993) approach
based on the filtering of the flow field by directly simulating the
large-scale structures (resolved grid scales), which are respon-
sible for most of the transport of mass and momentum, and
somehow modelling the small-scale structures (unresolved sub-
grid scales), which contribution to momentum transport is little.
In this paper, the RANS k-ɛ model is used with the
Renormalised Group Theory (RNG) modification of Yakhot and
Orszag (1986), with standard wall functions. The effectiveness of
this model has been proven by Hargreaves et al. (2007) for multi-
phase simulations similar to the present.
The computational effort required by the LES models, often
used as an intermediate technique between the DNS of turbulent
flows and the resolution of RANS equations, are in fact
unacceptable for large-scale problems, as the one presented in
this paper (tsunami generation).
In landslide wave generation and propagation phenomena, we
have at least three phases: liquid (water), gaseous (air) and solid
(the landslide material), a multiphase model must be applied.
Therefore, a model able to represent the interface between the
phases must be employed.
A landslide source of tsunami, either subareal or submarine,
can be modelled in several ways. The characterisation and the
forecasting of the landslide mechanism is a very complex task,
involving lots of different aspects and physical variables. The study
of this part of the impulse waves generation process lies in the
scientific field of geology and soil mechanics, and is not going to be
treated in the present work. In the present paper the landslide
material in the subacqueous motion is schematized as a liquid
(Jiang and LeBlond 1992; Imteaz and Imamura 1995; Heinrich et al.
different components (air, water and landslide material).
The VOF model has been designed for two or more immiscible
fluids where only one fluid (i.e. air) is compressible and the
position of the interface between the fluids is of interest. Therefore,
it is perfectly suitable for describing water wave generation and
propagation phenomena.
In the VOF model, a single set of mass, momentum and energy
equations is shared by the fluids. For each additional phase beyond
air, an additional variable, the volume fraction of the phase, is
introduced and is tracked throughout the domain. This means that
from a mathematical point of view, using VOF means adding one
transport equation for each additional variable beyond air. In other
words, if the q-th fluid’s volume fraction in the infinitesimal
volume is denoted as αq, then the following three conditions are
possible:
. αq =0 when the infinitesimal volume is empty of the q-th fluid
. αq =1 when the infinitesimal volume is full of the q-th fluid
. 0<αq <1 when the infinitesimal volume contains the interface
between the q-th fluid and one or more other fluids
Then the following additional equation needs to be solved:
@ραq

þ r~ ραq V
~q ¼ 0
@t
In each infinitesimal volume, the volume fractions of all phases
sum to unity and the fields for all variables and properties are
shared by the phases and represent volume-averaged values, as
long as the local value of the volume fraction αq of each of the
phases is known at each location.
For the calculation of face fluxes, the geometric reconstruction
scheme for unstructured meshes developed by Youngs (1982) has
been used. It assumes that the interface between two fluids has a
linear slope within each cell, and uses this linear shape for
calculation of the advection of fluid through the cell faces.
The governing equations constituting the mathematical model
just described, are numerically solved through the commercial
code FLUENT (Fluent Inc. 2003), which employs a finite volume
technique (Versteeg and Malalasekera 1995) to discretise the partial
differential equations in fully unstructured meshes.
As discussed by Grilli and Watts (1999) and by Abadie et al.
(2006), the influence of slide deformation on wave generation is
crucial to a correct prediction of both slide motion and wave
generation and a rigid slide may lead to overestimated offshore-
moving tsunami height.
Some preliminary numerical simulations have highlighted that
the choice of simulating a landslide as a liquid (Jiang and LeBlond
1992; Imteaz and Imamura 1995; Heinrich et al. 1998) may be
acceptable to predict the landslide–water interaction but it
significantly overestimates the landslide deformation due to the
aerodynamic forces (i.e. air–landslide interaction).
To overcome this problem, in the present study, a hybrid
approach is proposed for subaerial landslide generated waves. As
the landslide is mainly made up with solid material, we assume that
the landslide deformation due to the aerodynamic interaction in
air is negligible. Therefore, the subaerial landslide behaves as a
rigid solid body slipping down along an inclined slope until it
starts penetrating the water body. Then the landslide material is
modelled as a liquid with an impact velocity that depends on
gravity, hill slope angle, drop height and friction coefficient.
In order to highlight the limits of validity of the present model,
it is important to note that when the landslide is treated as a rigid
body (i.e. subaerial landslide) neither possible crushing of rock
mass in the course of falling nor relative motion of landslide
material are taken into account. As crushing may elongate the time
difference of arrival between the top and tail of the falling rock
mass and modifies the landslide shape at the impact, the accuracy
of the landslide–water interaction process simulation (i.e. reduced
impact effects) is significantly affected by landslide dimensions
and deformability and by the distance between the landslide
separation point and the water body.
On the other hand, when the landslide is treated as a fluid,
landslide deformation could be overestimated. This second effect,
that partially compensates the previous one in the water wave
generation process, does not allow a correct prediction of the
landslide evolution in the water body. Therefore, the present
method is designed for high relative velocity slides, when an air
cavity is generated in the water body near the impact and the
motion of the slide after impact is of secondary importance in
generating waves. On the contrary, it may fail in predicting wave
generation by low relative velocity slides (i.e. slide detachment near
the water surface), when the water displacement is mainly
determined by the subaqueous evolution of the slide, as well as
deposition dynamics of landslide material (i.e. slide deposit).
Summarizing the proposed modelling procedure may be seen as
a hybrid approach, between the pure combination of full Navier–
Stokes, VOF and k-ɛ turbulence models and the simple treatment
of the landslide motion as a block or a multi-blocks motion (see
Heinrich 1992).
Validation
Since the numerical results of a computation are only an approx-
imation of real life and considering that convergence is not a
sufficient condition to stability, a necessary step in the development
of a computational model is validation. Validation is performed
through the comparison between numerical results and experimental
data to establish the range of validity and the accuracy of the code.
Blind acceptance of computed results are not a good basis to make
engineering decisions involving risks, especially when it is used for
prediction purposes and especially when we deal with natural
disasters and risk of losing human lives. However, it is important to
underline that even a validation against many and the most complex
problems cannot prove that the model is totally error-free.
Among the various physical model results available in literature
(Fritz et al. 2001; Ataie-Ashtiani and Nik-Khah 2008; Kamphuis
and Bowering 1970; Noda 1970; Panizzo et al. 2005; Walder et al.
2003), the experimental data of Fritz et al. (2001) have been used to
validate the present CFD model. The measurements have been
performed in a rectangular prismatic water wave channel with a
pneumatic installation for landslide production and a particle
image velocimetry measurement systems. The channel is a 1:675
scale of the Lituya Bay 1958 event (see next section) studied in
Froude similarity. More details on the employed similitude laws
and on the experimental apparatus can be found in Fritz (2002).
The geometrical scheme of the benchmark test chosen to
validate the model is shown in Fig. 1. The water depth in the
channel is h=0.45 m with a hill slope angle of 45°. The mean impact
velocity of the landslide is 6.68 m/s, thus leading to a Froude
number F=3.18.
In the experimental tests an artificial granular material (87 %
barium-sulfate with a density of 4.5 t/m3 compounded with 13%
polypropylene with a density of 0.91 t/m3) was used as landslide
material. The resulting granulate average density of 1.61 t/m3
(2.64 t/m3 with a porosity of 39%) has been used in the simulation
(Fritz 2002) and the granular nature of the material has been
represented by imposing a volume fraction of 0.9 instead of 1.0 in
the landslide liquid domain.
Landslides 7 • (2010) 119
 Original Paper

6.68 m/s

0.45 m
45˚

Fig. 1 Simplified geometrical scheme representing the experimental set up

The computational domain is an unstructured grid of about

40,000 triangular cells with smaller elements in the interfaces
between air and water, landslide and air and landslide and water.
The elements nominal size ranges from 8 mm to 3 cm. The grid has
been realised keeping in mind that the most important task is to
exactly reproduce the first stage of the wave generation, which
significantly affects the whole wave propagation process.
No-slip wall boundary conditions were used at the bottom of
the liquid pool and on the slopes and atmospheric pressure
condition has been set on the top boundary. As the walls of the
experimental setup were smooth, friction between fluid and wall is
neglected.
In the sequence of images shown in Fig. 2, the experimental and
the numerical temporal evolutions of the slide front and the water
wave are compared. The time instants of the images in the
sequence are reported in Table 1.
After about 0.05 s the slide impacts the water surface (Fig. 2a) in
both the experimental and the numerical images. The impact part
of the process is at the root of waves generation, due to the energy
exchange mechanism between the landslide and the water (i.e. the
transmission of landslide kinetic energy to potential and kinetic
wave energy).
The landslide front profile in the numerical image of Fig. 2a is
almost vertical as the water body penetration and then the switch
from rigid to fluid motion of landslide material just begun.
Then flow separation on the landslide shoulder occurs and a
backward collapsing air crater in the water body is formed (called
“impact crater”, Fritz 2002). As the landslide penetrates the free
surface, the impact crater expands leading to the classic wave
shape. A large air cavity between the bottom of the wave and the
slide material is observed. During this first stage of impulse wave
formation (Fig. 2b–d) the agreement between numerical results
and measurements is excellent in terms of wave height and shape,
landslide–water interface and air cavity evolution. As expected, an
overestimation of landslide deformation is observed, due to the
simulation of the landslide material as a fluid (second part of the
hybrid approach). In particular, the numerical slide front tends
gradually to assume a curved shape while it remains almost vertical
in the experimental pictures. However, the landslide material
propagation in the horizontal plane and the thickness of the slide
are still well represented.
The hydrodynamic crater expands until, at about 0.36 s, the Fig. 2 a–g Density image sequence, on the left experimental results (Fritz et al.
wave reaches its maximum height. As shown in Fig. 2d, the 2001) on the right numerical results
maximum wave height is slightly underestimated by the model.
Immediately after, the impact crater collapses backward. This
closure results in the formation of a closed air cavity in the

120 Landslides 7 • (2010)

Table 1 Time step of mathematical simulation
Sequence Time (s)
A 0.05
B 0.15
C 0.25
D 0.36
E 0.67
F 0.77
G 0.88
numerical model in place of the massive mixing of air and water
observed in the experiments. This is due to the limitation of the
VOF model of considering immiscible fluids. However, the wave
development during the impact crater collapsing phase (Fig. 2e–g)
is still well represented by the numerical model, even if the height
of the landslide material is slightly underestimated.
Due to the slight underprediction of the maximum wave height,
the numerical simulation gives an earlier water–slide impact
(Fig. 2f).
A quantitative comparison of the computed vs. experimental
gas–liquid interface profile at different times is given in Fig. 3.
numerically) as a bi-dimensional one, as the radial diffusion of the
wave may be assumed negligible. Therefore, the present analysis is
purely two dimensional and the employed simplified geometry is
based on the paper by Fritz et al. (2001; see Fig. 4), but in a real-
scale size.
This landslide has been often classified as a subaerial rockslide
or rockfall (see Miller 1960; Pararas-Carayannis 1999; Fritz et al.
2001), thus enforcing the present hypothesis of null deformability
in subaerial part.
The computational domain (Fig. 5) is an unstructured grid of
30,646 elements with a nominal size ranging from 5 m, at the air–
water interface, to 150 m, well above the water level.
The main input parameters of the performed simulation are
listed in Table 2. The landslide material has been simulated as a
fluid with a density of 2,600 kg/m3 and an initial air volume
fraction of 10%, in order to model its granular structure.
Considering the landslide centroid elevation equal to 610 m,

Application—the Lituya Bay wave event

Lituya Bay is a large inlet on the northeast shore of the Gulf of
Alaska, a seismically active area particularly susceptible to 915 m
landslide-induced waves (Wieczorek et al. 2007). On July, 9, 1958, 524 m
a large earthquake (in the range 7.9–8.3 of magnitude on the 0m
Richter Scale) caused by tectonic movements occurred and about
1 min after the earthquake a large mass of rock and ice slide were 1350 m
separated from the northeast wall of Gilbert Inlet and moved
towards the bay. The impact on the water induced a giant gravity
wave with a maximum height of about 150 m. The tsunami reached
the southwest shore of Gilbert Inlet destroying everything in its
run. The inundation has been estimated as large as 5 mi2 of land
with a run-up altitude of 524 m, the largest in recorded history. This
event is typically used as an example of subaerial landslide-
generated wave (Fritz et al. 2001; Mader 1999; Pararas-Carayannis
1999) and the event has been often simulated (both physically and

0.75
Experimental
Numerical
0.60

t=0.35 s
a)
0.45
t=0.85 s
t=0.15 s
Z (m)

0.30

0.15

t=0.005 s
0.00

0.00 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20

X (m)
Fig. 3 Wave profile: quantitative comparison between present numerical results
and experimental data from Fritz et al. (2001)
b)
Fig. 4 a Lituya Bay real environment (photo from footsnviews, Map from
Terrametrics, Map Data 2009 Tele Atlas); b geometrical bidimensional scheme of
the Lituya Bay (simplified geometry)

Landslides 7 • (2010) 121

 Original Paper

Fig. 5 Numerical grid employed for the Lituya bay tsunami simulation

according to Noda (1970) and Fritz et al. (2001), and neglecting shown in Fig. 6c–e, is the propagation of the wave train in open
frictional losses (i.e. free fall), the landslide rigid motion till water water. The most critical phase, in terms of damage, is the wave run-
penetration leads to an impact velocity of 110 m/s. A parametric up (fourth phase shown in Fig. 6f–h), which usually causes
study on the effects of landslide impact velocity on wave dynamics destruction and loss of lives.
is given in (Fritz 2002). In terms of quantitative results, the present simulation predicts
The density image sequence resulting from the three-phase a maximum wave height of 187 m and a wave run-up of 538 m.
numerical simulations is shown in Fig. 6. The impulsive wave Comparing the numerical simulation with the real phenomenon is
phenomenon resulting from the landslide impact may be not easy as the information available on this event are scarce and
schematised in the typical three phases, usually identified for mainly limited to observation of signs left by the inundation, as
subaerial landslide-generated waves. As the landslide penetrates scars and land deposits. However, the experimental surveys
the water, the landslide–water interaction phase, which produces highlight a run-up height of 524 m above sea level, which is quite
the impulse wave, starts. This first phase is characterised by the close to the present numerical simulation. (Fritz et al. 2001). It is
energy transfer from the landslide to the water (Fig. 6a–c), the important to note that the real tsunami probably overtopped the
water displacement and the surface elevation. The second phase, hill on both sides as shown by (Fritz et al. 2001). However the
present study is bi-dimensional and is made on the maximum
runup trench (524 m) where hill crossing did not occur.
The comparison between the present results and other
Table 2 Input data for the Lituya bay tsunami simulation predictions found in literature is summarised in Table 3, which
Symbol Value Description reports the wave run-up along the southwest shore of Gilbert Inlet
b 823 m Slide width as found by other researchers or calculated by means of empirical
ls 120 m Slide length formula (Hall and Watts 1953; Synolakis 1987; Müller 1995). The
s Slide thickness empirical runup values have been calculated considering the wave
A 21,000 m2 Landslide area height resulting from the present numerical simulations.
Vs 30.6 106 m3 Landslide volume
α1 45° Hill slope angle Conclusions
α2 45° Headland angle A full Navier–Stokes numerical model has been applied for
h 122 m Water depth simulating impulse waves in water bodies. The water surface is
x 1,342 m Wave propagation distance traced by using the volume of fluid method with the geometric
vs 110 m/s Slide impact velocity reconstruction scheme.
vx 77.8 m/s Component x of velocity
A hybrid approach is proposed to simulate the landslide
vy 77.8 m/s Component y of velocity
dynamics: its motion is simulated considering it as a rigid solid
ρs 2,868 kg/m3 Slide density
body slipping down along an inclined slope until it penetrates the
ρw 1,030 kg/m3 Water density
water, then it is considered a liquid

122 Landslides 7 • (2010)

Fig. 6 Density image sequence of the
Lituya Bay tsunami simulation
t = 2.4 s t = 6.4 s

a) b)

t = 8.4 s t = 10.4 s

c) d)

t = 14.4 s t = 22.4 s

e) f)

t = 29.4 s t = 50.4 s

g) h)

The model has been used to simulate the wave generated by a
landslide of granular material reproduced in laboratory by Fritz et
al. (2001) and the agreement between computed and experimental
gas–liquid interface profile evolution is good. In particular, it is
shown how the model is able to catch the complex phenomena that
occur during the initiation of an impulse wave associated with an
extremely unsteady process: the flow separation on the back of the
alluvial material entering into the water creates a large cavity and
three phases may be clearly distinguished: water, alluvial material
and air.
The wave generated by 1958 Lituya Bay slide has been also
simulated in a simplified bidimensional environment and the
results are consistent with the findings of other researchers found
in literature.

Table 3 Comparison of run-up height: present results vs. literature data

Reference Equation or experience R (m)
Lituya bay event 1958 Experimental survey 524
Present numerical simulation Detailed Navier-Stokes–RANS-VOF 560
Physical model (Fritz et al. 2001) Measurement 530
Numerical model (Mader and Gittings 2002) Compressible Navier Stokes 580
Empirical formula (Hall and Watts 1953) h=122 m, H=187 m R=h ¼ 3:1ðH=hÞ1:15 618
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Theoretical approximation (Synolakis 1987) h=122 m, H=187 m, β=45° R=h ¼ 2:831 cot  ðH=hÞ5=4 589
Empirical formula (Müller 1995) h=122 m, H=187 m, β=45°, L=1,100 m R=h ¼ 1:25ð=2Þ0:2 ðH=hÞ1:25 ðH=LÞ0:15 422

Landslides 7 • (2010) 123

 Original Paper
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful for the productive suggestions and the
support of Prof. Gino Bella.
References
Abadie S, Grilli S, Glockner S (2006) A coupled numerical model for tsunami generated
by subaerial and submarine mass failures. In Proc. 30th Intl. Coastal Engng. Conf.,
San Diego, California, USA, 1420–1431
Abbott MB, Basco DR (1989) Computational fluid dynamics: an introduction for
engineers Harlow, Essex, England: Longman Scientific & Technical. Wiley, New York
Ataie-Ashtiani B, Nik-Khah A (2008) Impulsive waves caused by subaerial landslides.
Environ Fluid Mech 8(3):263–280
Biscarini C, Esposito E, Porfido S, Violante C (2005) Hydrogeological risk analysis in coastal
area. IHP—UNESCO 2005–2015 United Nations Decade for action—Water For Life
Esposito E, Porfido S, Violante C, Biscarini C (2004a) Il nubifragio dell’ottobre 1954 a
Vietri sul mare–Costa di Amalfi, Salerno. Scenario ed effetti di una piena fluviale
catastrofica in un’area di costa rocciosa. Pubbl. GNDCI n. 2870, ISBN 88-88885-03-X
Esposito E, Porfido S, Violante C, Biscarini C (2004b) Water events and historical flood
recurrences in the Vietri sul Mare coastal area (Costiera Amalfitana, southern Italy).
Proceedings of the UNESCO/IAHS/IWHA symposium on “The Basis of Civilization—
Water Science”? Rome IAHS Publ 286:95–106
Fluent 6.1 User’s guide (Fluent Inc. 2003)
Fritz HM (2002) Initial phase of landslide generated impulse waves. In: Minor H-E (ed)
VAW-Mitteilung 178. Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie, ETH
Zürich
Fritz HM, Hager WH, Minor HE (2001) Lituya bay case: rockslide impact and wave run-
up. Sci Tsunami Hazards 19(1):3–22
Galperin BA, Orszag SA (1993) Large Eddy simulation of complex engineering and
geophysical flows. Cambridge University Press
Grilli ST, Watts P (1999) Modeling of waves generated by a moving submerged body:
applications to underwater landslides. Eng Anal Bound Elem 23(8):645–656
Hall JV Jr, Watts GM (1953) Laboratory investigation of the vertical rise of solitary waves on
impermeable slopes. Tech. Memo. 33, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board
Harbitz CB (1992) Model simulations of tsunamis generated by the Storegga slides. Mar
Geol 105:1–21
Hargreaves DM, Morvan H, Wright NG (2007) Validation of the volume of fluid method
for free surface calculation: the broad-crested weir. Engineering Applications of
Computational Fluid Mechanics 2:136–146
Heinrich P (1992) Nonlinear Water Waves Generated by Submarine and Aerial
Landslides. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng. ASCE 118(3):249–266
Heinrich P, Mangeney A, Guibourg S, Roche R, Boudon G, Cheminée JL (1998)
Simulation of water waves generated by a potential debris avalanche in Montserrat,
Lesser Antilles. Geophys Res Lett 25:3697–3700
Hirsch C (1992) Numerical computation of internal and external flows. Wiley, New York
Imamura F, Gica EC (1996) Numerical model for tsunami generation subaqueous
landslide along a coast. Sci Tsunami Hazards 14:13–28
Imteaz MMA, Imamura F (1995) Long waves in two-layers: governing equations and
numerical model. Sci Tsunami Hazards 13:3–24
Iwasaki S (1987) On the estimation of a tsunami generated by a submarine landslide.
Proc Intl Tsunami Symp, Vancouver, BC, pp 134–38
Jiang L, LeBlond PH (1992) The coupling of a submarine slide and the surface waves
which it generates. J Geoph Res 97(C8):12731–12744
124 Landslides 7 • (2010)
Kamphuis JW, Bowering RJ (1970). Impulse waves generated by landslides. Proc. 12’h
Coastal Engineering Con ASCE, pp 1575–588
Lin P, Liu PL-F (1998) A numerical study of breaking waves in the surf zone. J Fluid
Mech 359:239–264
Mader CL (1999) Modeling the 1958 Lituya Bay mega-tsunami. Sci Tsunami Hazards 17
(2):57–67
Mader CL, Gittings ML (2002) Modeling the 1958 Lituya Bay mega-tsunami, II. Sci
Tsunami Hazards 20:241–250
Miller DJ (1960) Giant waves in Lituya Bay Alaska, USGS Professional Paper 354-C,
Shorter Contributions to General Geology
Monaghan JJ, Kos A (1999) Solitary waves on a Cretan beach. J Waterw Port Coast
Ocean Eng 125(3):145–154, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1999)125:3(145)
Müller D (1995) Auflaufen und Überschwappen von Impulswellen an Talsperren. VAW-
Mitteilung 137, Ed. Vischer D, Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und
Glaziologie, ETH Zürich. (in German)
Nakayama T (1983) Boundary element analysis of nonlinear waterwave problems. Intl J
Numer Methods Engng 19:953–970
Noda E (1970) Water waves generated by landslides. ASCE J Waterways, Harbours, and
Coastal Engineering Division 96(4):835–855
Panizzo A, De Girolamo P, Di Risio M, Maistri A, Petaccia A (2005) Great landslide events
in Italian artificial reservoirs. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:733–740
Pararas-Carayannis G (1999) Analysis of mechanism of tsunami generation in Lituya Bay.
Sci Tsunami Hazards 17:193–206
Patankar SV (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. Hemisphere, USA
Pelinovsky E, Poplavsky A (1996) Simplified model of tsunami generation by submarine
landslide. Phys Chem Earth 21(12):13–17
Rodi W (1984) Turbulence models and their application in hydraulics—a state of the art
review. Presented by the IAHR Section on Fundamentals and Division II: Experimental
and Mathematical Fluid Dynamics (2nd revised ed)
Synolakis CE (1987) The run-up of solitary waves. J Fluid Mech 185:523–545
Verriere M, Lenoir M (1992) Computation of waves generated by submarine landslides.
Intl J Num Methods Fluids 14:403–421
Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (1995) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics:
the finite volume method. Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow
Vinje T, Brevig P (1981) Numerical simulation of breaking waves. Adv Water Resour
4:77–82
Walder JS, Watts P, Sorensen OE, Janssen K (2003) Water waves generated by subaerial
mass flows. J Geophys Res [Solid Earth] 108(5):2236–2255
Wieczorek GF, Geist EL, Motyka RJ, Jakob M (2007) Hazard assessment of the tidal inlet
landslide and potential subsequent tsunami, Glacier Bay National Park. Alaska
Landslides 4:205–215, doi:10.1007/s10346-007-0084-1
Yakhot V, Orszag SA (1986) Renormalization group analysis of turbulence: I. Basic
Theory. J Sci Comput 1(1):1–51
Youngs DL (1982) Time-dependent multi-material flow with large fluid distortion. In:
Morton KW, Baines MJ (eds) Numerical methods for fluid dynamics. Academic, New
York
C. Biscarini ())
Warredoc, Water Resources Research And Documentation Centre, University For
Foreigners Perugia,
Villa La Colombella,
06134 Perugia, Italy
e-mail: biscarini.chiara@unistrapg.it