, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 37–53 | Cite as

On the effects of landslide deformability and initial submergence on landslide-generated waves

  • S. Yavari-RamsheEmail author
  • B. Ataie-Ashtiani
Original Paper


This paper represents a numerical study on the effects of landslide initial submergence and its geotechnical and rheological properties on the characteristics of landslide-generated waves (LGWs) and landslide deformation. A number of 117 numerical experiments are performed using a two-layer Coulomb Mixture Flow (2LCMFlow) model on a real-sized numerical flume as a simplified cross section of the Maku dam reservoir, located in the Northwest of Iran. Three different initial locations are considered for landslide representing a subaerial (SAL), a semi-submerged (SSL), and a submarine (SML) landslide. Based on the numerical results, the majority of SMLs and in some cases SSLs generate tsunami waves with a larger wave trough than the wave crest. The maximum negative wave amplitudes of LGWs caused by SMLs (SMLGWs) can be up to 55% larger than that for SALs. LGWs caused by SALs (SALGWs) commonly have a higher wave crest than the wave trough. In 70% of cases, the maximum wave crests of SALGWs are larger than that for LGWs caused by SSLs (SSLGWs) and SMLGWs. While, in the rest 30% of simulations, the maximum SSLGW crests are up to 60% larger than SALGWs. Due to the landslide inter-phase interactions in combination with its basal and internal friction resistances, only 10–40% of the SAL initial mass contributes in LGW generation process. Energy transfer from landslide into water is about 0.5–7.5% for SMLs, 6–17.2% for SSLs, and 5–15% for SALs. The final deposit of SMLs generally has a short and thick profile while SALs and SSLs elongate more and travel longer distances. Finally, a Coulomb mixture product parameter, PCM, is defined to relate the maximum LGW heights to the considered landslide properties.


Landslide-generated wave Tsunami Dam reservoir Numerical simulation Coulomb mixture Energy transfer 



Jacobean matrix


Landslide volume per unit width


Negative wave amplitude


Positive wave amplitude


Coupling term matrix


Bottom level


Characteristic wave velocity


Diagonal matrix of eigenvalues


Energy conversion ratio


Total energy


Numerical flux matrix


Slide Froude number


Generalized numerical flux


General function


Gravitational acceleration


Wave height




Still water depth


Water layer depth


Landslide thickness


Maximum thickness of landslide deposit


Front thickness of landslide at impact


i-th grid cell


Earth pressure coefficient


Kinetic energy


Matrix of local eigenvectors


Landslide initial length


Horizontal length of landslide deposit


Relative slide mass


Moment magnitude of earthquake




Number of time steps




Roe correction term


Corrected part of the projection matrixes


Coulomb mixture product parameter


Impulse product parameter


Normal pressure


Potential energy


Flow discharge (hu)


Coefficient of determination


Relative density ρ2/ρ1




Source term matrix


Relative slide thickness


Coulomb friction matrix


Landslide initial thickness




Averaged velocity in x direction


Landslide impact velocity


Landslide thickness at impact


Landslide volume




Vector of unknowns


Water body width


Total length of computational domain


Cartesian coordinate horizontal component


Horizontal coordinate of runup surface


Averaged location of landslide deposit


Front location of landslide deposit


Rear location of landslide deposit


Cartesian coordinate vertical component


Landslide initial submergence depth


Basal friction angle


Angle of repose


Modified δ


Landslide porosity


Water surface fluctuations


Slope angle


Parameter (λ1 + K(1 − λ1))


Parameter (2 + K(1 − 2))


Empirical parameter


Constitutive coefficient


Constitutive coefficient


Water density


Landslide bulk density


Landslide solid grain density


Basal critical stress


Internal friction angle

Coulomb friction term


Basal critical friction


Time step


Grid size in x direction


Local eigenvalues


Landslide fluid phase


Landslide solid phase

\( \overline{} \)

Roe intermediate state

Predicted value of a parameter


Landslide property


Wave property



Two-layer Coulomb mixture flow model






Earthquake-generated tsunami


Landslide-generated wave


Subaerial landslide


Subaerial landslide-generated wave


Submarine landslide


Submarine landslide-generated wave


Semi-submerged landslide


Semi-submerged landslide-generated wave



The authors would like to thank the Civil Engineering Department of the Sharif University of Technology for their support during the completion of this research. The authors are also grateful for the constructive comments of the editor and two anonymous reviewers, which helped improving the final manuscript.


  1. Abadie S, Harris J, Grilli S, Fabre R (2012) Numerical modeling of tsunami waves generated by the flank collapse of the cumbre volcano (La Palma, Canary Islands): tsunami source and near field effects. J Geophys Res 117(C05030). doi:
  2. Andersland OB, Ladanyi B (2004) Frozen ground engineering. John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2 edition, 363 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Malek-Mohammadi S (2007) Near field amplitude of sub-aerial landslide generated waves in dam reservoirs. Dam Eng XVII(4):197–222Google Scholar
  4. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Najafi-Jilani A (2007) A higher-order Boussinesq-type model with moving bottom boundary: applications to submarine landslide tsunami waves. Int J Numer Meth Fluid 53(6):1019–1048. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Najafi-Jilani A (2008) Laboratory investigations on impulsive waves caused by underwater landslide. Coast Eng 55(12):989–1004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Nik-khah A (2008) Impulsive waves caused by subaerial landslides. Environ Fluid Mech 8(3):263–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ataie-Ashtiani B, Yavari-Ramshe S (2011) Numerical simulation of wave generated by landslide incidents in dam reservoirs. Landslides 8:417–432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernard EN (1998) Program aims to reduce impact of tsunamis on Pacific states. Eos Trans AGU 79(22):262–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berndt C, Brune S, Nisbet E, Zschau J, Sobolev V (2009) Tsunami modeling of a submarine landslide in the Farm Strait. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 10:Q04009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bregoli F, Bateman A, Medina V (2017) Tsunamis generated by fast granular landslides: 3D experiments and empirical predictors. J Hydraulic Res 55(6):743–758. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corona N, Ramírez-Herrera MT (2015) Did an underwater landslide trigger the June 22, 1932 tsunami off the Pacific coast of Mexico? Pure Appl Geophys 172(12):3573–3587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Risio M, De Girolamo P, Beltrami GM (2011) Forecasting Landslide Generated Tsunamis: a Review. Morner NA (ed.), The Tsunami Threat - Research and Technology, Chapter 6:81-106, IntechOpen.
  13. Fernández-Nieto ED, Bouchut F, Bresch B, Castro Díaz MJ, Mangeney A (2008) A new savage–Hutter type model for submarine avalanches and generated tsunami. J Comput Phys 227:7720–7754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fine IV, Rabinovich AB, Thomson RE, Kulikov EA (2003) Numerical modeling of tsunami generation by submarine and subaerial landslides. In: Yalciner AC, Pelinovsky EN, Okal E, Synolakis CE (eds) Submarine landslides and tsunamis. NATO science series (series IV: earth and environmental sciences), Vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 69–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fritz HM, Hager WH, Minor HE (2001) Lituya Bay case: rockslide impact and wave run-up. Sci Tsunami Hazards, Int J Tsunami Society 19(1):3–22Google Scholar
  16. Fritz HM, Hager WH, Minor HE (2004) Near field characteristics of landslide generated impulse waves. J Waterway Port Coastal Ocean Eng 130(6):287–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geersen J, Voelker D, Behrmann JH, Reichert C, Krastel S (2011) Pleistocene giant slope failures offshore Arauco peninsula, southern Chile. J Geol Soc Lond 168:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geist EL (2000) Origin of the 17 July, 1998 Papua New Guinea tsunami: earthquake or landslide. Seismol Res Lett 71:344–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gisler GR (2008) Tsunami simulations. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 40:71–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grilli ST, Watts P (1999) Modeling of waves generated by a moving submerged body, applications to underwater landslides. Eng Analysis Boundary Elemt 23:645–656. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grilli ST, Shelby M, Kimmoun O, Dupont G, Nicolsky D, Ma G, Kirby JT, Shi F (2016) Modeling coastal tsunami hazard from submarine mass failures: effect of slide rheology, experimental validation, and case studies off the US East Coast. Nat Hazards 86(1):353–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harbitz CB, Lovhølt F, Bungum H (2014) Submarine landslide tsunamis: how extreme and how likely? Nat Hazards 72:1341–1374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heinrich P, Piatanesi A, Hébert H (2001) Numerical modelling of tsunami generation and propagation from submarine slumps: the 1998 Papua New Guinea event. Geophys J Int 145:97–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heller V, Hager WH (2010) Impulse product parameter in landslide generated impulse waves. J Waterw Port C-ASCE 136(3):145155–145155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heller V, Spinneken J (2015) On the effect of the water body geometry on landslide–tsunamis: physical insight from laboratory tests and 2D to 3D wave parameter transformation. Coast Eng 104:113–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heller V, Bruggemann M, Spinneken J, Rogers BD (2016) Composite modelling of subaerial landslide-tsunamis in different water body geometries and novel insight into slide and wave kinematics. Coast Eng 109:20–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hornbach MJ, Braudy N, Briggs RW, Cormier MH, Davis MB, Diebold JB, Dieudonne N, Douilly R, Frohlich C, Gulick SPS, Johnson III HE, Mann P, McHugh C, Ryan-Mishkin K, Prentice CS, Seeber L, Sorlien CC, Steckler MS, Symithe SJ, Taylor FW, Templeton J (2010) High tsunami frequency as a result of combined strike-slip faulting and coastal landslides. Nat Geosci 3(11):783–788. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber A (1980) Schwallwellen in Seen als Folge von Bergstürzen. VAW-Mitteilung 47, Vischer D (ed.), Versuchsanstalt für Wasserbau, Hydrologie und Glaziologie, ETH Zürich, Switzerland (in German).
  29. Hungr O (2008) Simplified models of spreading flow of dry granular material. Can Geotech J 45:1156–1168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iverson RM, Denlinger RP (2001) Flow of variably fluidized granular masses across three-dimensional terrain 1. Coulomb mixture theory. J Geophys Res 106(B1):537–552. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kafle J, Pokhrel PR, Khattri KB, Kattel P, Tuladhar BM, Pudasaini SP (2016) Landslide-generated tsunami and particle transport in mountain lakes and reservoirs. Ann Glaciol 57:232–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kamphuis JW, Bowering RJ (1970) Impulse waves generated by landslides. Proc 12th Coastal Eng Conf, vol 1. ASCE, NY, pp 575–588.
  33. Koloski JW, Schwarz SD, Tubbs DW (1989) Geotechnical properties of geologic materials. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78:19–26Google Scholar
  34. Korup O, Clague JJ (2009) Natural hazards, extreme events, and mountain topography. Quat Sci Rev 28(11–12):977–990. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lax PD, Wendroff B (1960) Systems of conservation laws. Commun Pure Appl Math 13(2):217–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindstrøm EK (2016) Waves generated by subaerial slides with various porosities. Coast Eng 116:170–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. López-Venegas AM, Horrillo J, Pampell-Manis A, Huérfano V, Mercado A (2014) Advanced tsunami numerical simulations and energy considerations by use of 3D–2D coupled models: the October 11, 1918, Mona passage tsunami. Pure Appl Geophys 172(6):1679–1698. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Løvholt F, Bondevik S, Laberg JS, Kim J, Boylan N (2017) Some giant submarine landslides do not produce large tsunamis. Geophys Res Lett 44:8463–8472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lynett P, Liu PLF (2002) A numerical study of submarine landslide generated waves and runup. Proc R Soc Lond A 458:2885–2910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ma G, Kirby JT, Hsu TJ, Shi F (2015) A two-layer landslide model for tsunami wave generation: theory and computation. Ocean Model 93:40–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mahab Ghods Inc (1999) Final report of the Maku dam reservoir project. (in Persian)Google Scholar
  42. Martínez ML, Intralawan A, Vázquez G, Pérez-Maqueo O, Sutton P, Landgrave R (2007) The coasts of our world: ecological, economic and social importance. Ecol Econ 63:254–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McFall BC, Fritz HM (2016) Physical modelling of tsunamis generated by three-dimentional deformable granular landslides on planar and conical island slopes. Proc R Soc A 427:20160052. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McMurtry GM, Watts P, Fryer GJ, Smith JR, Imamura F (2004) Giant landslides, mega-tsunamis, and paleo-sea level in the Hawaiian islands. Mar Geol 203:219–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meng Z (2018) Experimental study on impulse waves generated by a viscoplastic material at laboratory scale. Landslides 15:1173–1182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller DJ (1960) Giant waves in Lituya Bay Alaska. USGS Professional Paper 354C:51–86Google Scholar
  47. Mohammed F, Fritz HM (2012) Physical modeling of tsunamis generated by three-dimensional deformable granular landslides. J Geophys Res 117:C11015. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pope EL, Talling PJ, Urlaub M, Hunt JE, Clare MA, Challenor P (2015) Are large submarine landslides temporally random or do uncertainties in available age constraints make it impossible to tell? Mar Geol 369:19–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pudasaini SP (2014) Dynamics of submarine debris flow and tsunami. Acta Mech 225:2423–2434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pudasaini SP, Hutter K (2007) Avalanche dynamics: dynamics of rapid flows of dense granular avalanches. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  51. Raichlen F, Lee JJ, Petroff C, Watts P (1996) The generation of waves by a landslide: Skagway, Alaska: a case study. Proc 25th Coastal Eng Conf, ASCE, Orlando, Florida, pp 1478–1490.
  52. Ruff LJ (2003) Some aspects of energy balance and tsunami generation by earthquakes and landslides. Pure Appl Geophys 160:2155–2176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sassa K, He B, Miyagi T, Strasser M, Konagai K, Ostric M, Setiawan H, Takara K, Nagai O, Yamashiki Y, Tutumi S (2012) A hypothesis of the Senoumi submarine megaslide in Suruga bay in Japan-based on the undrained dynamic-loading ring-shear tests and computer simulation. Landslides 9(4):439–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schaub Y, Haeberli W, Huggel C, Künzler M, Bründl M (2013) Landslides and new lakes in deglaciating areas: a risk management framework. In Margottini C, Canuti P, Sassa K (Eds.), Landslide science and practice 7:31-38.
  55. Singh VP (1996) Dam break modelling technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Small C, Gornitz V, Cohen JE (2000) Coastal hazards and the global distribution of population. Environ Geosci 7(1):3–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sue LP, Nokes RI, Davidson MJ (2011) Tsunami generation by submarine landslides: comparison of physical and numerical models. Environ Fluid Mech 11:133–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Synolakis CE, Bardet JP, Borrero JC, Davies HL, Okal EA, Solver EA, Sweet S, Tappin DR (2002) The slump origin of the Papua New Guinea tsunami. R Soc Lond 458(A):763–789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tappin DR, Watts P, Grilli ST (2008) The Papua New Guinea tsunami of 1998: anatomy of a catastrophic event. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:243–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tappin DR, Grilli ST, Harris JC, Geller RJ, Masterlark T, Kirby JT, Shi F, Ma G, Thingbaijam KKS, Mai PM (2014) Did a submarine landslide contribute to the 2011 Tohoku tsunami? Mar Geol 357:344–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. ten Brink US, Lee HJ, Geist EL, Twichell (2009) Assessment of tsunami hazard to the US East Coast using relationships between submarine landslides and earthquakes. Mar Geol 264:65–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. ten Brink US, Chaytor JD, Geist EL, Brothers DS, Andrews BD (2014) Assessment of tsunami hazard to the U.S. Atlantic margin. Mar Geol 353:31–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tralli DM, Blom RG, Zlotnicki V, Donnellan A, Evans DL (2005) Satellite remote sensing of earthquake, volcano, flood, landslide and coastal inundation hazards. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 59:185–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Watts P (2000) Tsunami features of solid block underwater landslides. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 126(3):144–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Ashtiani B (2009) Simulation of wave generated by landslides in Maku dam reservoir. Prediction and simulation methods for Geohazard mitigation, chapter 14. In: Oka F, Kimoto S, Murakami O (eds) CRC Press. doi:
  66. Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Ashtiani B (2016) Numerical simulation of subaerial and submarine landslide generated tsunami waves - recent advances and future challenges. Landslides 13(6):1325–1368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Ashtiani B (2017a) Subaerial landslide-generated waves: numerical and laboratory simulations. 4 world landslide forum, may 29-June 3, Ljubljana, Slovenia. In: Sassa K, Mikos M, Yin Y (eds) Advancing culture of living with landslides. Springer, Cham, pp 51–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Ashtiani B (2017b) A rigorous finite volume model to simulate subaerial and submarine landslide generated waves. Landslides 14(1):203–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yavari-Ramshe S, Ataie-Ashtiani B, Sanders BF (2015) A robust finite volume model to simulate granular flows. Comput Geotech 66:96–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.National Center for Groundwater Research and Training and School of the EnvironmentFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations