Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical evaluation of tsunami debris impact loading on wooden

structural walls
Anisa Como, Hussam Mahmoud ⇑
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Water-based disasters such as tsunami, hurricane, and flood can cause significant structural damage to
Received 27 March 2013 coastal areas and ultimately result in human and socioeconomic losses. Recent studies have highlighted
Revised 12 June 2013 the difficulties associated with estimating tsunami impact loads on residential structures with greater
Accepted 14 June 2013
challenges pertaining to estimating the debris impact loads. The main challenges are associated with
Available online 31 July 2013
large variations in debris mass, shape, velocity, and impact angle. According to FEMA P-646 [1], although
impact of floating debris is required to be considered by the codes, the added mass of water behind the
Keywords:
debris and/or the potential for damming when debris is blocked by structural elements are ignored. Addi-
Debris impact
Tsunami load
tionally, there is a lack of 3D numerical models that can accurately predict debris impact loads. Due to the
Wood panel three-dimensional dynamic nature of the problem, coupled with highly variable factors affecting debris
ABAQUS loads, a 3D finite element (FE) analysis is necessary to determine the debris impact on structures as accu-
3D FEM rately as possible. To date, one of the major obstacles in modeling tsunami impact on structures is the
Dynamic load intense computational demand linked with such models. This paper presents the formulation of an effi-
cient 3D FE model with computational fluid dynamic (CFD) capabilities to study debris impact on interior
and exterior wood structural panels. Several important parameters such as initial water volume, water
velocity, debris shape, and debris density are varied throughout the analysis in order to determine the
individual effect of each parameter as well as the overall effect on wood structural walls. The results
for an interior wall panels showed that contribution from water height and velocity is more significant
the debris mass in the impact force as water height and velocity increase. Additionally, as the water
height increases, the impact force due to debris decreases for an interior panel when debris mass is con-
stant. An exterior panel is significantly closer to a rigid structure, therefore, an increase in impact force
due to debris is observed with the increase in water height and debris mass. The results can be used
by engineers to estimate debris impact load on wood panels with similar dimension and material
properties.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction other related causes such as fire following earthquake or injuries

Damage to structures due to tsunami events as well as other
similar water-based natural disasters such as hurricanes can be
very significant and can result in major economic, social, and hu-
man losses. The events are typically triggered by a continental
earthquake in which an oceanic plate slides beneath a continental
plate and are often more devastating than the earthquakes them-
selves. In the recent 2011 Tohoku earthquake/tsunami in Japan, a
significant part of the damage resulted from the tsunami in addi-
tion to the main earthquake. Specifically, the direct economic
losses due to the Tohoku tsunami event were approximately
$210 billion [2,3]. Moreover, roughly 93% of total fatalities resulted
from the tsunami event rather than the main seismic event or
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 970 491 6605.
E-mail address: hussam.mahmoud@colostate.edu (H. Mahmoud).
and chronic illnesses [3].
Other water-based natural disasters, such as hurricanes, have
also have been the cause of major losses. One of the deadliest
and most destructive in the history of the United States is the
2005 hurricane Katrina, which exceeded 1800 fatalities and re-
sulted in direct economic losses of over $125 billion [4]. A more re-
cent water-based event is the 2012 hurricane Sandy, which
resulted in over $50 billion in direct economic losses and over
140 fatalities [5]. Furthermore, the displaced population for Katrina
and Sandy exceeded 1,000,000 and at least 100,000, respectively
[6]. It is clear that the socioeconomic impacts from these types of
events can be disastrous; therefore, it is imperative to improve fun-
damental understanding of the loading demands from such events
so that the residential and other structures can be improved and
optimized to better resist the expected demand.
Recent events have emphasized the need for more accurate
estimation of tsunami loads on structures. Recent progress has

0141-0296/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.06.023
1250 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261
been made in the direction of predicting tsunami structural loads,
which can generally be categorized into static and dynamic loads.
Static loading includes hydrostatic and buoyancy forces, while dy-
namic loading comprises hydrodynamic (drag), surge, and debris
impact loading [7]. While the static loads acting on structures
can be determined with relatively high accuracy, there are signifi-
cant challenges regarding the estimation of loads due to dynamic
effects. Due to the dynamic nature and multi-dimensional and
highly variable factors associated with debris loads, a 3D FE model
is necessary to determine the debris impact on structures as accu-
rately as possible. Physical impact caused by debris can be an
important contributor to the overall tsunami damage, which can
result in significant damage or even complete collapse of struc-
tures, as shown in Fig. 1.
This research study focuses on wood panels since they are
extensively used for the construction in residential houses in
coastal regions and the majority of damage caused during the
2011 Tohoku tsunami event was to wood structures. The aim of
this study is to evaluate the response of interior and edge wall pan-
els in a typical wood residential construction under several varying
parameters. The parameters included water height, water velocity,
debris length, and debris density.
Fig. 1. Structural damage due to debris impact during the Tohoku tsunami [7].
Fig. 2. Tsunami design versus stillwater depth design [10].
2. Background
2.1. Tsunami loads
Tsunami loads can be generally categorized into static and dy-
namic loads. Static loading includes hydrostatic and buoyancy
forces, while dynamic loading involves hydrodynamic (drag),
surge, and debris impact loading [7]. While the static loads acting
on structures can be determined with high accuracy, there are still
challenges in estimating loads due to dynamic effects. Magnitude
and load applications depend mainly on three parameters: inunda-
tion depth, flow velocity, and flow direction [7]. These three
parameters are dependent on tsunami wave height and period,
coastal topography, and roughness of the coastal inland [7].
FEMA 55 Coastal Construction Manual [9] addresses the design
for tsunami loads; however, most of the design guidelines are
based on extrapolations from flood event design procedures. How-
ever, there is a significant difference between tsunami and non-
tsunami events in terms of water velocity, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
According to FEMA P-646 [1], though hurricane storm surges
and tsunami inundation both result in flooding, the flooding char-
acteristic from the two events can differ significantly. Hurricane
storm surges or typical wind-generated water waves typically
inundate areas for a longer duration of several hours with repeated
pounding action, while tsunami inundation happens in a matter of
tens of minutes with rapid changes in water levels [1]. Further-
more, historic observations from tsunami events show that tsu-
nami behavior and characteristics can vary from event to event
and it is extremely difficult to derive any expected behavior from
intuition or common knowledge, and the time characteristics be-
tween tsunami and other coastal events is the main reason for
these differences [1]. As a result, extrapolation of storm surge
equations such as in hurricane events to tsunami events can cause
significant errors and it is not always applicable. Though tsunami
loads differ from other coastal events, occasionally the tsunami
runup can be characterized as a gradual rise and fall of water
(i.e., surge flooding), especially when a long-wavelength, leading-
elevation, and far-source-generated tsunami attacks land on a
steep slope [1].
 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261
2.2. Previous studies
The impact force from waterborne debris such as floating drift-
wood, lumber, boats, shipping containers, automobiles, and even
buildings can be a dominant cause of structural damage, but it is
difficult to estimate this force accurately [1]. After some recent tsu-
nami events such as the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and Tohoku
in 2011, research efforts have intensified in order to determine im-
pact loads due to debris and improve design guidelines. Experi-
mental efforts have been primarily confined to small scale, while
numerical models have been limited due to the high computa-
tional demand. Some experimental studies regarding impulsive
loads on structures as well as previous experimental and numerical
studies regarding estimating debris impact loads are summarized
in the following paragraphs.
Significant work, especially experimental studies has been con-
ducted in the recent years to investigate the effect of tsunami loads
on vertical walls and structures. Ramsden [11] extensively studied
impulse forces on vertical walls due to several different wave
types. The study showed no significant initial impact forces in
dry-bed surges, but an ‘‘overshoot’’ in force was observed in bores
that occur once the site is initially flooded [1,11].
More recent work was conducted by Arikawa [12] on surge
front tsunami force using physical model experiments. The study
focused on concrete and wooden walls, and different failure modes
were observed for different wall strengths. Wooden wall failure
was complete, while partial failure of concrete walls was observed.
Full-scale tests on idealized typical coastal construction woo-
den walls were conducted by Linton et al. [13]. Transient forces
were generated by the impact of the bore on a wall shortly after
the initial impact. This was followed by a quasi-static force after
the bore reflected from the structure. No impulsive forces were
observed for these tests. The ratio of the peak transient force to
mean quasi-static force was 2.2 overall. It was observed that the
peak of transient load can be affected by standard construction
up to 20%.
In addition to full-scale wall experimental tests on impulsive
forces, tests on model residential structures have also been con-
ducted by van de Lindt et al. [14]. The study tested typical residen-
tial buildings at 1/6th scale under wave loading. The structural
models were tested transversely and longitudinally, in order to ob-
serve behavior of common design components. Pushover tests
were also conducted in order to relate uplift forces from wave
loading to dry laboratory conditions.
Matsutomi [1,15] investigated the impulse forces of driftwood
experimentally. Two sets of tests were conducted: small-scale
including generated bore and surge, and a full-scale in-air. For
the in-air experiment, a log was tied to a pendulum and swung
against a load cell [1]. The in-air full-scale experiment was de-
signed to account for any scaling effects, and the small-scale tests
were designed to account for the added water mass effect [1]. Since
added water mass effects were ignored during the in-air tests, the
estimated impact load from the full-scale test can differ from the
loads introduced by a real tsunami event [1]. Though the study in-
cluded a large amount of laboratory data, the resulting equation for
the estimation of impact loads may be only applicable to driftwood
or logs [1]. Although the resulting equation only applies to drift
logs, it can evaluate impact load for different wall conditions
(impermeable where all the water returns back to where the wall
is partially damaged and the water is allowed to flow beyond the
wall) [1].
Ikeno et al. [16,17,1] conducted laboratory experiments similar
to Matsutomi [1,14] in order to estimate the impact forces of the
objects other than driftwood or logs. The used debris shapes in-
cluded cylindrical, square column, and spherically shaped drift
bodies [16,17,1]. The study only examined the impact onto an
1251
impermeable vertical wall, which signifies that all the water re-
turns back [1]. The ratio of small-scale experiments was approxi-
mately 1:100, which could introduce considerable scaling errors.
From these studies, it was concluded that forces due to tsunami
run-up were higher than wave forces due to non-tsunami run-up
[1].
Haehnel and Daly [1,18] studied the maximum impact force of
logs on floodplain structures by conducting small-scale and large-
scale experiments. The experiments consisted of colliding wood
logs with structures using flume and test basing laboratory facili-
ties [1]. Because a towing tank was used in the basin laboratory
experiments, water was stationary during the experiments; there-
fore, debris was not propagated by the water [1,18]. This can intro-
duce inaccuracies for the same reason that in-air tests might
introduce errors; the dynamic water effect is ignored. A single-de-
gree-of-freedom model of collision was also developed between
the logs and a rigid structure and the impact loads were estimated
using three different formulations: Contact-Stiffness, Impulse-
Momentum, and Work-Energy [18]. The resulting impact force
was a function of debris mass, impact velocity and effective stiff-
ness of the collision between the object and structure. The formu-
lation does not depend on structure properties, as long as the
structure is considered to be rigid. For cases where the rigidity
assumption is valid, the three developed formulations provided
very consistent results.
In terms of numerical models, though some attempts have been
made at modeling impact loads due to debris, to the authors’
knowledge, there are not any available peer-reviewed numerical
models for debris impact loading due to tsunami events.
2.3. Current provisions of tsunami design criteria
Current structural design codes provide very little guidance on
estimating loads induced by tsunami events. The general approach
in established codes has been to treat tsunami generated loads in a
similar fashion to storm flooding and storm surges [1]. Due to the
dynamic and varying nature of tsunami parameters affecting the
induced loads, the treatment of these loads similar to regular
floods may not be appropriate.
One of the first design provisions regarding tsunami loads is in-
cluded in the City and County of Honolulu Building Code [19]. The
loading requirements are addressed in the Coastal Flood Water De-
sign section and based on a 1980 Dames and Moore report [20]. The
approach is based on impulse momentum and it is ‘‘equivalent to
the impact force produced by a 1000-lb weight of debris traveling
at the velocity of the flood water and acting on one square-foot
surface of the structural material where impact occurs’’ [20]. It is
assumed that the velocity of the body goes to zero over some small
finite time interval (Dt), and the recommended Dt for wood con-
struction is 1 s [20]. According to FEMA P-646 [1], these values
are unsubstantiated.
International Building Code (IBC) addresses flood and tsunami
loads in their Appendices M and G, respectively [1,21]. For tsu-
nami loads, IBC permits construction in identified tsunami zones
if the constructed structure is designed as a Vertical Evacuation
Refuge complying with FEMA P-646 Guidelines or if designed
to resist without collapse the hydrostatic, hydrodynamic, debris
accumulation and impact, and scour effects of the Maximum
Considered Tsunami [1]. The guidelines outlined in these two
appendices are not mandatory unless adopted by local authorities
[1].
ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures [22] includes expressions for forces associated
with flood and wave loads on specific types of structural compo-
nents. Chapter 5 of this standard, Flood Loads, covers important
definitions that relate to flooding and coastal high-hazard areas
1252 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261
related to tides, storm surges, and breaking waves [1]. Currently it
does not address specifically tsunami loads, however, it is expected
that in the 2016 edition, a new chapter titled Tsunami Loads and
Effects will be added, according to updates from the ASCE 7 Sub-
committee on Tsunami Loads and Effects [23].
The only tsunami design guideline currently available in the US
is FEMA P-646 ‘‘Guidelines for Design of Structures for Vertical
Evacuation from Tsunamis’’ [1]. The document is not a mandatory
document and it cannot be incorporated into building codes as-is;
on the other hand, this document is the most comprehensive work
available and it is used as a reference in the International Building
Code and serves as the basis for the development of the new tsu-
nami code provisions, such as in the case of the new chapter in
the ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10 [23].
FEMA P-646 [1] presents several formulations for estimating
impact loads. Among several formulations are three main ap-
proaches: Contact-Stiffness, Impulse-Momentum, and Work-En-
ergy, which were developed in an earlier study by Haehnel and
Daly in 2002 [18] as discussed above. Out of the three methodolo-
gies, FEMA P-646 [1] suggests a variation of Contact-Stiffness ap-
proach to estimate the maximum force as shown below:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
F max ¼ u kmð1 þ CÞ
where Fmax = maximum impact force, u = debris velocity, m = mass
of debris, k = contact stiffness, and c = hydrodynamic mass coeffi-
cient (0 for a wood log in longitudinal direction).
Values for k and c are provided for common debris types such as
logs and shipping containers. The main challenge associated with
this methodology is in estimating the effective contact stiffness be-
tween debris and structure during the impact. The effective stiff-
ness is derived by the equation below:
1 1 1
¼ þ
k kd ks
where kd and ks are the debris and structure stiffness, respectively
[18]. A major assumption in the estimation of the effective stiffness
is that the structure is rigid relative to the debris; therefore, the
effective stiffness can be equaled to the debris stiffness. Until re-
cently, a k value for a wooden log debris impact has been made
available by Haehnel and Daly [18]. Recent research has provided
a few additional debris stiffness values for some of the most com-
mon debris types, as shown in Table 1 [1].
Undoubtedly, the use of the Contact-Stiffness approach is lim-
ited by the number of k values available in the literature. The accu-
rate application of this methodology is dependent on the
estimation of stiffness for a specific debris type. Additionally, the
rigidity assumption needs to be satisfied. According to Haehnel
and Daly [18], this assumption is satisfied if the structure is very
Table 1
Mass and stiffness of some common waterborne floating debris [1].
Debris type Mass of debris Debris stiffness, kd
(kg) (N/m)
Lumber or wood oriented 450 2.4  106
longitudinally
20-ft standard shipping container 2200 85  106
(longitudinally)
20-ft standard shipping container 2200 80  106
(transverse)
20-ft heavy shipping container 2400 93  106
(longitudinally)
20-ft heavy shipping container 2400 87  106
(longitudinally)
40-ft standard shipping container 3800 60  106
(longitudinally)
40-ft standard shipping container 3800 40  106
(transverse)
stiff or really massive so that the debris rebounds off of the surface
after impact before the structure can be displaced. Haehnel and
Daly [18] conducted flume experiments in order to determine a
structural stiffness required for the rigidity assumption to be valid.
According to the authors, a structural stiffness of 22 MN/m was
sufficient to provide a relatively rigid structure (compared to the
debris stiffness) and to obtain maximum impact forces during their
experiments. Further stiffness increases up to 120 MN/m did not
result in increased maximum impact loads [18].As previously men-
tioned, Haehnel and Daly [18] used three different approaches to
estimate the impact force due to debris: Contact-Stiffness, Im-
pulse-Momentum, and Work-Energy. The Contact-Stiffness ap-
proach was covered previously, while the Impulse-Momentum
approach links the impulse acting on the debris in contact with
the structure with the change in momentum of the debris [18].
Momentum of debris is mu and it is assumed to tend to zero as
the debris impacts the structure. Additionally, the impact force de-
pends on a sinusoidal relationship of time [18]. The resulting max-
imum impact force is estimated as
p um
F max ¼ ð3Þ
2 Dt
ð1Þ where Dt is the time of impact duration. For equivalency purposes
between the methods, Dt can be related to the Contact-Stiffness ap-
proach as follows [18]:
rffiffiffiffiffi
p m
Dt ¼ ð4Þ
2 k
The Work-Energy approach computes the impact force by
equating the work done on the structure with the kinetic energy
of the debris element, and assuming that the velocity of the debris
approaches zero as a result of the collision [18]. The stopping dis-
tance of the debris, Dx, is defined as the distance the debris travels
ð2Þ from the point of contact with the target until the debris is fully
stopped [18]. The resulting impact force is a function of the stop-
ping distance, Dx, over which the force acts (Fmax = kDx). In order
to solve for stopping distance, the work and kinetic energy are
2 2
equalized,
pffiffiffi
m
k Dx = mu . This equation canpbe ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi solved for Dx,
Dx ¼ u k , resulting in Dx as a function of 1=k.
The Contact-Stiffness approach is preferred and recommended
in comparison to the other two methods mainly because k is less
sensitive than estimated Dt (Impulse-Momentum) and Dx
(Work-Energy), even though k is only available for a limited num-
ber of debris types [1]. Additionally, it is clear that Dt and Dx are
dependent on k. For example, regarding the evaluation of Dt in Im-
pulse-Momentum formulation, there is significant variability be-
tween assumed impact duration times. For instance, City and
County of Honolulu Building code [20] gives Dt values for wood
construction as 1.0 s, steel construction as 0.5 s, and reinforced
concrete as 0.1 s (though these values have not been substantiated)
[1]. FEMA 55 Coastal Construction Manual assumes the values as
follows: 0.7–1.1 s for wood wall, 0.2–0.4 for reinforced concrete,
and 0.3–0.6 for concrete masonry [1]. The major variability of the
suggested impact duration times can cause significant fluctuations
in maximum impact loads due to tsunami generated debris.
The availability of many formulations and their inherited uncer-
tainties emphasizes the lack of a consensus in the community and
the need for national systematic provisions regarding tsunami
structural loads.
3. Numerical modeling – coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
approach
The objective of this study is to obtain an accurate and effi-
cient numerical model which can be used to accurately determine
debris impact loading on structures, specifically wood buildings.
 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261 1253

The attention of this study is concentrated on obtaining an impact
load due to tsunami-generated debris, and not on any structural
performance or failure modes of the wall panels. Even though
structural failure modes are not the focus of this study, it is
important to notice that in the case of determining the behavior
of the wall, a multi-dimensional approach is needed to address
different failure modes, including localized damage in the studs,
the wall panel, and nail connectors. A multi-dimensional ap-
proach has been presented by Cimerallo and Reinhorn for deriva-
tion of seismic fragility curves and the approach has been applied
to a case study, a hospital building [24]. Cimerallo and Reinhorn
proposed an analytical method to derive the fragility curves that
are a function of the return period and are based on a multidi-
mensional threshold limit states (MTLS) function [24]. The pro-
posed approach can be applied locally including parameters that
represent nonstructural components, and globally to describe
the limit state of a part of a substructural system or to describe
the entire building structure [24].
One of the major obstacles in the way of rigorous numerical
analysis of debris impact in particular and dynamic tsunami loads
in general is the cost of both computational time and power. There-
fore, time and computational requirements are important consid-
erations in addition to accurate model formulations. The
advancements in both hardware and software have significantly
increased the potential for conducting such demanding simula-
tions. Specifically, it is possible to construct a model which allows
for computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis without the neces-
sity of coupling any other computational techniques. The proposed
model was constructed using a coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian (CEL)
analysis in ABAQUS software, which is a general purpose finite ele-
ment package [25]. The Eulerian capability included in ABAQUS
can be coupled with traditional Lagrangian formulations to model
interactions between highly deformable materials and relatively
stiff bodies, such as in fluid–structure interaction [25]. The avail-
ability of this formulation significantly reduces the analysis time
for fluid–structure interaction problems. Successful applications
of CEL include numerical studies by Smojver and Ivancevic [26]
regarding bird striking damage on aircraft structures and Qiu
et al. [27] regarding geomechanical problems involving large
deformations such as soil–structure interactions. In both these
studies, CEL was found to solve issues related to large mesh distor-
tions, and in the second study several benchmarks were used to
validate the CEL methodology.
3.1. Description of wall system
The numerical model is assembled to conform to typical con-
struction practices, using typical material and dimension proper-
ties for wood structures constructed in the US. A typical 0.5 in.
thick plywood panel of 4 ft  8 ft is selected along with typical
framing studs which consist of 2 in.  4 in. Douglas Fir-Larch at

Fig. 3. Front view of wall panel.

Fig. 4. (a) FE model of a wooden wall impacted by water and debris. (b) Spring load-deformation curve.
1254 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261

Fig. 5. Experimental setup [18] (left) and finite element modeling in the current study (right).

Table 2
Comparison of force results between experimental and numerical modeling.
pffiffiffiffiffi
Velocity (m/s) Contact-Stiffness force 1550u m (N) Numerical modeling force (N) Difference (%)

0.381 2621 3218 54.3

0.533 3667 3218 12.2
0.800 5504 4037 26.6

16 in. on-center spacing. A front view of the wall system and its
dimensions are presented in Fig. 3.
Orthotropic material properties are used for the framing and
panel. The framing system is fixed at the bottom and at the top,
to simulate connections to top and bottom plates. The wall panel
is connected to the framing system with 8 d common nails every
6 in. on the outside studs and every 12 in. on the two inside studs.
Two sets of models are constructed in order to emulate two differ-
ent field conditions: interior panels and edge panels for a residen-
tial construction. In the case of edge panel, one of the studs is fixed
top-to-bottom.

3.2. Modeling technique

In the proposed model, the effect of several factors on the debris

impact on structures is investigated. An analysis matrix is set up in
order to conduct a parametric study and determine the sensitivity
of the impact force to the varying parameters. The considered
parameters include water height and velocity, and debris density Fig. 6. Validation of numerical results [18].
and shape. Specifically, three different water heights and velocities,
Table 3
two debris lengths, and three debris densities are varied during the
Analysis matrix.
analysis.
Both Lagrangian and Eulerian formulations are used in the mod- Component Variable Range
el to allow for small and large deformations, as needed. The water Water Run-up height Relative to wall height (Hw): 0.167Hw,
is modeled with the Eulerian part, assuming a Newtonian, nearly 0.33Hw, and 0.5Hw
incompressible, and practically frictionless fluid. The general form Maximum 1.99 m/s, 2.82 m/s, and 3.46 m/s
velocity
of Navier–Stokes equation for incompressible fluids [28] is shown Velocity profile Uniform
below:
Wall Material Panel: Plywood material properties
  properties
@v Framing: Douglas Fir-Larch material
q þ ðv  rÞv ¼ rP þ lr2 v þ f ð5Þ
@t properties
Panel 4 ft  8 ft  0.5 in.
dimensions
where q = fluid density, v = fluid velocity, P = pressure, l = dynamic Framing 2 in.  4 in. at 16 in. on center
viscosity, and f = other body forces. dimensions
It should be noted that for incompressible materials: r  v = 0 Debris Angle of impact 0°
and q = constant. Shape Rectangular
Specifically, water is defined through its density and a linear Mass 3.40, 4.25, 6.37, 13.6, 17.0, and 25.5 kg
equation of state (EOS) in energy. The particular EOS is the linear
form Us  Up of Hugoniot form [29], where Us and Up are the linear
shock velocity and the particle velocity, respectively. Three param- The Eulerian–Lagrangian general contact formulation is based
eters are required to determine water as a material: den- on an enhanced immersed boundary method. In this method the
sity = 1200 kg/m3 (seawater mixed with sand and other debris), Lagrangian structure occupies void regions inside the Eulerian
speed of sound in water = 1483 m/s, and dynamic viscosity of mesh [30]. The general contact algorithm automatically computes
water at 20 °C = 0.001 kg/(m s). and tracks the interface between the Lagrangian structure and the
 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261 1255

Eulerian materials, while penalty methods are used to couple the hourglass control are used to model the structural elements. Den-
Eulerian and Lagrangian parts [29,30]. sities for the studs, plywood, and debris are 500 kg/m3, 600 kg/m3,
Debris, wall panel, and framing are modeled using solid ele- and 600 kg/m3, respectively. The nail connections between wall
ments. Specifically, 3D elements with reduced integration with panel and framing are modeled using spring elements with

Fig. 7. Typical water–debris–panel interaction in the simulations.

Fig. 8. Normal stress history for interior panel with water velocity of 2.82 m/s.
1256 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261

Fig. 9. Normal stress history for exterior panel with water velocity of 3.46 m/s.

Fig. 10. Impact force versus augmented velocity at impact zone.

load-deformation data for 8 d common nails from Gruber [31]. An Table 4

overview of the model and the load-deformation relation of the Resulting slopes from numerical impact force analyses.
spring elements are illustrated in Fig. 4a and b, respectively. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Slope ð N=mÞ
pffiffiffiffiffi
Contact-Stiffness formulation ð1550u mÞ 1550
3.3. Modeling validation Exterior panel force at time of impact 855
Maximum exterior panel force 1218
Interior panel force at time of impact 218
In order to confirm the modeling approach, a validation of the
Maximum interior panel force 633
utilized methodology is conducted based on previous experimental
 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261 1257

tests. Available experimental data on isolated rigid systems are on
small-scale tests. One set of comprehensive tests was conducted by
Haehnel and Daly [18] in which small scale flume tests were con-
ducted to evaluate the force results from wood logs impacting a
stationary target. Out of a total of 8 test series conducted by Haeh-
nel and Daly [18], selective tests are chosen to verify the modeling
approach used in this study, as they mimic the same hydrodynamic
conditions as the field conditions. In the actual experiments, logs of
varying weight and cross-sectional dimensions were used to mea-
sure the impact forces on a stationary target. In addition to log
weight, flow velocity, impact orientation, and target material were
varied. The load frame had a 7.5 cm semi-circular target mounted
on a front plate, which in turn was mounted on three load cells that
were fastened to a rigid frame mounted on the flume floor [18].
The rounded target kept the point of impact concentrated between
the three load cells, assuring that all of the load cells were in com-
pression on impact.
The corresponding numerical model used for verification is con-
structed using the exact experimental measurements and relative
placements of debris, water, and load cell used by Haehnel and
Daly [18]. Plan views of experimental set-up and corresponding
ABAQUS model are shown in Fig. 5.
Out of 48 different tests, three small-scale experiments are
numerically modeled for verification purpose, which consist of a
reduced-scale log with cross-section of 8  8 in. and length of
36 in. Three different water velocities are selected from the actual

Fig. 11. Impact force due to debris on interior panel grouped by mass.

Fig. 12. Impact force due to debris on exterior panel grouped by mass.
1258 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261
experiments, mainly 0.381, 0.533, and 0.8 m/s. The authors utilized
three different approaches to estimate the impact force and to for-
mulate an equation for the impact force; Contact-Stiffness, Im-
pulse-Momentum, and Work-Energy approach. Out of the three,
only Contact-Stiffness Approach formulation is applicable to the
small-scale flume tests. The obtained force results from the ABA-
QUS models are compared fairly well against the Contact-Stiffness
formulation and the individual recorded experimental results.
In terms of numerical force results, two of the obtained forces
are within 13% and 26% of the expected values based on the Con-
tact-Stiffness formulation, as presented in Table 2. Haehnel and
Daly [18] observed that the flume tests exhibited some scatter
and the Contact-Stiffness formulation overestimated force for val-
ues less than 10 kN (which is the case in the small scale experi-
ments). This observation matches the numerical results, as
illustrated in Fig. 6. The numerical results are within the range of
experimental results, thus the validation of the approach is con-
firmed prior to conducting the parametric studies on the full-scale
wall panels.
4. Results and discussion
As previously mentioned, several important parameters are var-
ied during the analyses of the interior and exterior panels. The con-
structed analysis matrix shown in Table 3 summarizes the varied
parameters in addition to other parameters that are kept constant
during the analyses. Two numerical models are constructed in or-
der to simulate interior and exterior wall panels. A general over-
view of the physical behavior during an analysis of an exterior
panel is illustrated in Fig. 7.
Fig. 13. Impact force on interior panel grouped by velocity.
4.1. Time history of panel forces/stresses
Normal stress time history is obtained for the highest stress
point at the debris impact zone on the wall panel. Illustrative
examples for interior and exterior panel stresses are shown in
Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. For the interior panel, water is not per-
mitted to go through or around the panel, therefore, after initial
impact, there are several peaks (smaller than initial impact), which
could signify secondary water impacts after the initial contact. For
the exterior panel, the general pattern signifies that the stress re-
duces significantly after the initial impact and continues to de-
crease as water is allowed to flow around one of the panel edges.
4.2. Impact load versus augmented velocity
Haehnel and Daly [18] and FEMA P646 [1] both recommend an
impact force formulation which varies linearly with the aug-
pffiffiffiffiffi
mented velocity expressed as u m. The impact forces obtained
numerically are plotted against the augmented velocity for both
interior and exterior panels. In addition to the force at the time
of impact, the overall maximum registered force at the impact zone
is plotted for the two panels, as shown in Fig. 10. Resulting slopes
for each numerical model at time of impact and overall maximum
impact force for both types of panels are presented in Table 4.
While the impact force for the exterior panel exhibits an overall
increasing trend, the impact force at time of impact decreases for
the interior panel. In order to analyse this behavior, the results
are grouped initially based on water height and velocity (and deb-
ris velocity), and then according to the debris masses.
 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261
4.2.1. Effect of debris velocity and water height
Numerical results for impact force at time of impact for interior
and exterior panels are presented in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively.
For the interior panel, as water height and velocity increase while
keeping mass constant, a reduction in impact force is observed.
This effect can be explained due to the flexibility of the interior pa-
nel. Specifically, the third water height corresponds to the middle
of the wall height where the panel is most flexible. As a result,
since water and debris hit at a higher point compared to the other
two water heights, the panel is able to deform more and attract less
force. Therefore, as panel stiffness at point of contact decreases, a
reduction in impact force is exhibited.
For the debris impact force on the exterior panel in Fig. 12, one
of the panel studs is fixed to simulate an exterior edge. In this case,
the wall panel is more rigid in comparison to the interior panel.
These boundary conditions bring the exterior panel closer to the
ideal conditions of a rigid structure. As a result, an increase in im-
pact force is noticed overall with the increase of water height and
velocity, as it is expected for a rigid structure. While the force in-
creases in each case with increase in water height, the rate of force
increase is not always positive; this can be attributed to the com-
plex interaction between the wall and water as the water flows
past the wall.
4.2.2. Effect of debris velocity
The effect of debris (and water) velocity is also studied from the
limited number of numerical analyses. Impact force is plotted
against augmented velocity while velocity is kept constant and
debris mass is varied. Force results for the interior panel are pre-
sented in Fig. 13, while results for the exterior panel are shown
Fig. 14. Impact force on exterior panel grouped by velocity.
1259
in Fig. 14. For the interior panel with an initial water height of
0.4 m, the increase in debris mass results in increase in impact
force. However, in the other two water heights, 0.8 m and 1.2 m,
the debris mass appears to have little effect on the impact force.
It can be observed that the increase in water height is contributing
significantly more to the overall impact force in these two cases
than the debris mass. In general, the overall force exhibits a posi-
tive trend.
For the exterior panels, the same observations are confirmed; in-
crease in debris mass resulted in overall impact force increase.
While for the first two water heights (0.4 m and 0.8 m) the impact
force due to debris and overall force at impact zone are almost iden-
tical, for the third water height it can be noticed that water height
and velocity have a more significant effect on the overall force at the
impact zone. It is important to note, however, that impact force due
to debris keeps increasing. Additionally, the exterior panel exhib-
ited much closer results to the recommended force equation, since
its rigidity is much higher than the rigidity of the interior panel.
4.3. Impact force results summary
A summary of the impact force due to debris at the time of im-
pact is shown in Table 5. Impact force is normalized in order to
rank the cases with respect to the level of force impact. As ex-
pected, the highest force is encountered at the exterior panel with
the highest debris mass and highest water height and velocity. In
general, the exterior panel attracts the higher forces, while the
interior panel exhibits smaller impact loads, mainly due to its flex-
ibility. The highest loads for interior panels are generally observed
for the lower water heights, as previously mentioned.
1260 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261

Table 5
Normalized impact force results.

Panel Water height (m) Debris mass (kg) Panel location Normalized impact force
1 1.2 25.49 Exterior 1.00
2 0.8 25.49 Exterior 0.91
3 0.8 16.99 Exterior 0.79
4 1.2 13.59 Exterior 0.66
5 1.2 16.99 Exterior 0.61
6 0.8 13.59 Exterior 0.61
7 1.2 4.25 Exterior 0.61
8 1.2 6.37 Exterior 0.59
9 0.8 3.40 Exterior 0.57
10 0.4 25.49 Exterior 0.53
11 0.4 25.49 Interior 0.47
12 0.4 16.99 Interior 0.47
13 0.4 16.99 Exterior 0.47
14 0.4 13.59 Interior 0.46
15 0.4 6.37 Exterior 0.43
16 0.8 6.37 Exterior 0.42
17 0.4 13.59 Exterior 0.41
18 0.8 4.25 Exterior 0.37
19 0.4 3.40 Exterior 0.36
20 0.8 3.40 Exterior 0.35
21 0.4 4.25 Interior 0.35
22 0.4 4.25 Exterior 0.34
23 0.4 6.37 Interior 0.34
24 0.4 3.40 Interior 0.28
25 0.8 3.40 Interior 0.26
26 0.8 25.49 Interior 0.24
27 0.8 4.25 Interior 0.24
28 0.8 16.99 Interior 0.21
29 0.8 6.37 Interior 0.20
30 1.2 25.49 Interior 0.14
31 0.8 13.59 Interior 0.14
32 1.2 16.99 Interior 0.12
33 1.2 6.37 Interior 0.10
34 1.2 4.25 Interior 0.10
35 1.2 13.59 Interior 0.10
36 0.8 3.40 Interior 0.09

5. Conclusions
5.2. Large-scale parametric study
Contribution of tsunami generated debris impact loads on resi-
dential structures can be very significant. Debris impact can cause
substantial damage or weaken structural components, which in
turn can result in system collapse. Determination of structural
loads due to debris impact from tsunami events is still a work-
in-progress and systematic and unified methodologies are needed
in order to determine these impact loads accurately.
A numerical model was constructed and verified against exist-
ing small-scale experimental results. Following model verifica-
tions, a parametric study was conducted to estimate the impact
loads on wooden residential structures by modeling interior and
exterior wall panels for typical residential structures. The paramet-
ric study was conducted by varying debris mass and water height
(velocity) resulting in a total of 36 analyses. The results were com-
pared against current recommendations for debris impact loads
due to tsunami events. In general, the following conclusions are
made based on analyses results:
5.1. Small-scale verification
 While the results for an exterior panel exhibited similar trends
to the recommended equation, significant changes were
observed for the impact loads on an interior panel.
 For the exterior panel, increasing impact loads were observed
with the increase of both water height (velocity) and debris
mass.
 The overall slope compared to the force equation for wooden
logs was lower, but that is attributed to the not-fully rigid
boundary conditions of the exterior panel.
 For the interior panel, with the increase of water height and
debris velocity, the impact force decreased due to the panel
flexibility.
 For the interior panel, when water height and debris velocity
were kept constant and debris mass was varied, it was noticed
that for the lower water height debris impact force increased,
while the contribution of debris mass was not as significant
for the two greater water heights.

 Numerical results and the Contact-Stiffness force equation var-

ied from 13% to 54%.
 Haehnel and Daly [18] observed that the proposed Contact-
Stiffness force equation did overestimate the load for lower
force values. This observation was validated when numerical
results were plotted against experimental results from Haehnel
and Daly [18] and the numerical results are shown to fit reason-
ably well within the scatter of the experimental results.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. R. Haehnel for providing the
experimental flume data and for his comments and suggestions.
Thanks are also due to Mr. J.E. Daniell for allowing the authors to
use some of his images and Dr. M. Criswell for his advice on typical
residential wood construction on the West Coast.
 A. Como, H. Mahmoud / Engineering Structures 56 (2013) 1249–1261 1261

References of coastal engineering. Japan Society of Civil Engineering; 2001. p. 48 [in

Japanese].
[17] Ikeno M, Tanaka Y. Experimental study on impulse force of drift body and
[1] Applied Technology Council. Guidelines for design of structures for vertical
tsunami running up to land. In: Proceedings of coastal engineering, Japan;
evacuation from tsunamis. FEMA P-646, 2nd ed. Redwood City, California;
2003.
2012. <https://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=3463> [accessed
[18] Haehnel RB, Daly SF. Maximum impact force of woody debris on floodplain
07.06.13].
structures’’, technical report TR-02-2. Engineer Research and Development
[2] Ishiguro R, Kitamura S. Japan quake’s economic impact worse than first feared.
Center, US Army Corps of Engineers. February 2002, Springfield, Virginia.
Reuters; 2011. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/us-japan-
[19] Chock GYK, Robertson I, Riggs RH. Tsunami structural design provisions for a
economy-idUSTRE73B0O320110412> [accessed 25.03.13].
new update of building codes and performance-based engineering. Solut Coast
[3] Daniell JE, Vervaeck A, Wenzel F. A timeline of the socio-economic effects of
Disasters ASCE 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41185(417)38.
the 2011 Tohoku earthquake with emphasis on the development of a new
[20] City & County of Honolulu. Regulations within flood hazard districts and
worldwide rapid earthquake loss estimation procedure. In: AEES 2011
developments adjacent to drainage facilities. Revised Ordinances of Honolulu,
conference, Barossa Valley, SA, Australia, November 18–20.
Chapter 16: Building Code, Article 11; 1990.
[4] Graumann A, Houston T, Lawrimore J, Levinson D, Lott N, McCown S, et al.
[21] ICC. International building code. International Code Council, Inc., Country Club
Hurricane Katrina, a climatological perspective. National Oceanic &
Hills, Illinois; 2012.
Atmospheric Administration. National Climatic Data Center, technical report
[22] American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and
2005-01; October 2005. <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/tech-report-
other structures. ASCE/SEI Standard 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers,
200501z.pdf> [accessed 25.03.13].
Reston, Virginia; 2010.
[5] Blake ES, Kimberlain TB, Berg RJ, Cangialosi JP, Beven II JL. Tropical cyclone
[23] Chock G. ASCE 7 and the development of a tsunami building code for the U.S.
report: hurricane sandy. National Hurricane Center; 12 February 2013. <http://
Applied Technology Council. ASCE Tsunami Loads and Effects Subcommittee;
www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf> [accessed 25.03.13].
2012. <https://www.atcouncil.org/files/ATC-15-13/Papers/
[6] Wallace T, Kaleem J. Hurricane Sandy vs. Katrina: infographic examines
06_CHOCKpaper.pdf> [accessed 25.03.13].
destruction from both storms. Huffington Post; 11 November 2012. <http://
[24] Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM. Multidimensional performance limit state for
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/hurricane-sandy-vs-katrina-
hazard fragility functions. J Eng Mech ASCE 2011;137:47–60. http://dx.doi.org/
infographic_n_2072432.html> [accessed 25.03.13].
10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000201.
[7] Palermo D, Nistor I. Tsunami-induced loading on structures. Structure
[25] SIMULIA. Coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian analysis with Abaqus/explicit; 2012.
Magazine; 10 March 2008.
<http://www.3ds.com/products/simulia/services/training-courses/course-
[9] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Principles and practices of planning,
descriptions/coupled-eulerian-lagrangian-analysis-with-abaqusexplicit/>
siting, designing, constructing, and maintaining residential buildings in coastal
[accessed 07.06.13].
areas. Coastal construction manual, 4th ed. August 2011.
[26] Smojver I, Ivancevic D. Bird strike damage analysis in aircraft structures using
[10] Kong L, Robertson I, Yeh H. Structural response to tsunami loading [Lecture];
Abaqus/explicit and coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian approach. Compos Sci
2006. <http://escweb.wr.usgs.gov/share/mooney/SriL.V6.ppt> [accessed
Technol 2011;71:489–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
11.06.13].
j.compscitech.2010.12.024.
[11] Ramsden J. Forces on a vertical wall due to long waves, bores, and dry-bed
[27] Qiu G, Henke S, Grabe J. Application of a coupled Eulerian–Lagrangian
surges. J Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng 1996;122(3):134–41. http://
approach on geomechanical problems involving large deformations. Comput
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1996) 122:3(134).
Geotech 2011;38:30–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.09.002.
[12] Arikawa T. Structural behavior under impulsive tsunami loading. J Disaster Res
[28] Cengel Y, Cimbala J. Approximate solutions of the Navier–Stokes equation. In:
2009;4(6):377–81.
Fluid mechanics: fundamentals and applications. McGraw Hill Series in
[13] Linton D, Gupta R, Cox D, van de Lindt J, Oshnack ME, Clauson M. Evaluation of
Mechanical Engineering; 2006. p. 473–6.
tsunami loads on wood frame walls at full scale. J Struct Eng 2011. http://
[29] Abaqus Analysis Users Manual. Version 6.11. Linear Us  Up Hugoniot form
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000644.
Section 24.2.1. Dassault Systèmes; 2011.
[14] van de Lindt J, Gupta R, Cox DT, Wilson J. Wave impact study on a residential
[30] Abaqus Analysis Users Manual. Version 6.11. Formulation of Eulerian–
building. J Disaster Res 2009;4(6):419–26.
Lagrangian contact Section 14.1.1. Dassault Systèmes; 2011.
[15] Matsutomi H. A practical formula for estimating impulsive force due to
[31] Gruber JJ. Reliability and effect of partially restrained wood shear walls.
driftwoods and variation features of the impulsive force. In: Proceedings of the
Wayne State University dissertations; 2012. Paper 442. <http://
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 621; 1999. p. 111–27 [in Japanese].
digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/442/> [accessed 25.03.13].
[16] Ikeno M, Mori N, Tanaka Y. Experimental study on tsunami force and
impulsive force by a drifter under breaking bore like tsunamis. Proceedings