MWWD 2006 - 4th International Conference on Marine Waste Water Discharges

and Coastal Environment

IEMES 2006 2nd International Exhibition on Materials Equipment and Services
for Coastal Environment Projects

Improved Environmental Loading Design Criteria For

Nearshore Structures
Dov S. Rosen

(1)

Summary
The damages to coastal structures due to the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami as well as the
September 2005 Katrina hurricane, raised public awareness to need for proper design against hazards. It
appears that in most parts of the world, including Europe and the Mediterranean, coastal structures are
routinely not designed to withstand loading due to tsunamis, sea-level rise and meteo-marine climate
change. The design standards of nearshore structures in respect to environmental loading are defined by
various standards and design manuals. These usually refer to loading induced by currents, waves, wind and
water level. Usually such design of marine structures, including those of intakes and outfalls located
nearshore, refer to two critical loading conditions. The first referes to the ultimate service state and the
second to the ultimate survival state. The first design state appears to be properly defined. However, for
structures near the surf zone edge, particularly for these close but beyond the "normal" surf zone, present
standards of survival design state seem to lack proper consideration of an important loading factor, even
without tsunamis. The insufficient definition of design loading criteria due to longshore current in a number
of international standards will be shown and an assessment of the resulting loading in the ultimate design
state without tsunamis will be presented. For such state, simultaneous loading by extreme wind induced
currents, near-breaking/breaking waves and large longshore currents (structures now near/in breakers
zone) results in significantly increased velocities and accelerations, hence increased loads. Finally, the
impact of wave climate change, sea level rise and tsunamis will be addressed.

Keywords
design criteria, ultimate state, longshore current, sea level rise, waves, tsunami,
intakes, extreme states, nearshore structures
Introduction
Recent damages to coastal structures encountered in December 2004 in the Indian Ocean due to
the Sumatra earthquake generated tsunami event and those encountered in September 2005 in
the New Orleans and its neighbourhoods by the hurricane Katrina, raised the public awareness to
the necessity for proper design against hazards.
It appears that in most parts of the world, including Europe and the Mediterranean, coastal
structures have usually not been designed to withstand loading due to tsunamis, forecasted sealevel rise and meteo-marine climate change. In this presentation it is our intention to draw
attention to loadings due to the above mentioned environmental parameters which seem that are
usually dismissed or not properly accounted for, potentially exposing the designed structures to
loadings beyond the operational and/or survivability designed capacity. We will address
separately the aspects of sea level rise, tsunamis and combined wave and wind loading. The
latter two are addressed both in respect to the impact of climate change on the extreme statistics
of winds and waves, as well as in respect to the adequate assessment of the loading induced in
the survival design conditions. For the latter subject, a case study uses as example for the
assessment of the integral extreme loading.
1

Dov S. Rosen, Mr., MSc. P.E., Sea-Shore-Rosen Ltd., 2 Hess

Tel:+972.52.2844174, Fax:+972.4.8374915 - rosenssr@netvision.net.il

St.,

Haifa

33398

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 1 of 15

Israel

Design aspects due to global warming and its effects

In the 3rd assessment report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC),
established by UNEP and WMO (Church et al. [1], McCarthy et al. [2], Metz et al. [3]), it is
presented a forecast of the global climate changes and of the influences of climate change based
on various scenarios for the 21th century and beyond due to global warming induced by the
"greenhouse effect" and other natural and anthropogenic activities in the past, present and in the
future.
One of the influences of climate change is the forecasted sea level rise, resulting due to the
global temperature rise. The global warming is assessed to accelerate in the 21th and coming
centuries. The temperature rise induces sea level rise first by the steric effect of oceans' water
volume expansion, and secondly by melting of the ice caps and glaciers.
According to McCarthy et al. [2], for a business as usual scenario, the assessed average global
sea-level rise due to global warming induced by the "greenhouse effect, for year 2025 is
between 3 and 14cm, for 2050 between 5 and 35 cm and for 2100 between 9 and 88 cm, see
Fig. 1. Similar estimates were reported by Douglas et al. [4]. According to IPCC reports
mentioned, even if the amount of damaging gases released (CO2, methane, etc.) will be
completely stopped, the greenhouse effect will continue for many centuries. In spite of the
forecasted global average sea level rise, the regional and/or local relative sea level change will be
different at different places on earth, as one has to account the place position on earth as well as
the regional plate tectonic movements, groundwater withdrawal, glacial rebound, sedimentation
or erosion loading, glacier melting. Hence, it is agreed by the professional bodies involved with
this assessment that regional sea-level rise can differ from the above depending to the location
on the globe. Confirmation of sea-level rise due to global warming is yet difficult, being masked
by other factors like seasonal warming and cooling of the sea-water (steric effect), wind induced
sea-level rise during storms (storm surge), wave induced sea-level set-up in the surf zone,
atmospheric loading by passing of high and low atmospheric systems.
Figure 1. Sea level rise for business as usual scenarios from 6 models by IPCC TAR Group 1

2025: +3cm to 14cm

2050: +5cm to 35cm
2100: +9cm to 88cm

In a recent position paper, Woodworth et al. [5], state "We report on potential changes in
extreme sea level over the coming decades. Changes in the number, path and strength of
atmospheric cyclonic storms, may alter the formation and evolution of storm surges. Extreme

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 2 of 15

water levels will also increase as time-average sea levels rise in the future, so predictions of the
regional change in time-mean sea level will also be necessary for predicting changes in extreme
water levels a few decades ahead."
While the above quotation covers major aspects of climate change, there are additional
interrelated aspects to be dealt with. These involve not only long term sea level rise and changes
in extremes but also additional hazards such as extreme wave setup, storm surge, and tsunamis.
Following the tragic outcome of the December 2004 earthquake, the question of the vulnerability
of other areas of the world to tsunamis has been posed loudly. Based on past history, the
Mediterranean (including the Black sea) is considered to face a 25% risk of tsunami encounter
on the global scale, compared to the about 1% for the North-East Atlantic. Recognizing this
hazard,in July 2005, the UNESCO General Assembly formed 3 new regional International
Coordination Groups (ICG) responsible to establish early tsunami warning systems in the new
recognized tsunami prone areas, namely the Indian Ocean, the Carribean and the North-East
Atlantic, Mediterranean and connected seas. The latter ICG started working November 2005 to
establish a prototype tsunami early warning system for this region by the end of 2007.
i. Aspects related to sea level change (rise)
Since the sea level is an important parameter for the design of nearshore structures, it has to be
properly established, both for normal operational conditions and for ultimate survival state
conditions. It appears however, (as much as we could find), that in the standards we have seen
Figure 2. Sea level changes 1992-2000 based on Topex-Poseidon satellites altimeters (after
Fenoglio-Marc, 2002)

(DNV, API, EUROCODE, etc.) there is no account recommendations related to the expected sea
level rise, not even in the new Draft International Standard ISO/DIS 216 regarding "Actions from
waves and currents on coastall structures" [6]. Even the assessment for increased sea level due
to storm surge in the existing standards is recommended to be based on past data and extreme
statistics without requirement for consideration of possible sea level rise due to global warming,
MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006
P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 3 of 15

possible changes in storm surge pattern and in extreme wave statistics affecting wave induced
setup.
Responsible studies, in particular for large structures and/or with a long economic lifetime should
account for these changes, for example in regards to storm surge by using input from simulations
of global climate models and in regards to sea level rise from global warming by sensitivity
testing with the range of changes assessed by IPCC or more regional sea level rise models.
Cazenave et al. [7] based on satellite altimetry data assessed a present rate of sea level rise in
the Mediterranean of +2.6mm/year 0.4mm/year. Figure 2 taken from Fenoglio-Marc [8] shows
the sea level rate of change in the mentioned period over the Mediterranean and Figure 3 from
Rosen [9] shows the sea level changes measured at the GLOSS station 80 (Hadera, central
Israeli coast) since 1992, confirming the results of Fenoglio-Marc [8]. The sea level
measurements in Figure 3 as well as those from satellite altimetry measurements indicate that
the sea levels in the Eastern Mediterranean rose at a rate of about 1cm/year in the last 13 years,
while a lowering has been measured in the Ionian Sea during this period. The changes seem to
be due not only to the global warming effect but also due to fluctuations in the formation and
circulation of the deep Levantine basin waters between the Adriatic and the Aegean during this
period, which apparently are related to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) with decadal scale
fluctuations.
Figure 3. Recent sea level rise measured at Hadera, central Israeli coast

ii. Aspects related to change of extreme wave and wind statistics

Woodworth et al. [5] discuss also available information on changing wind and wave statistics
which caused by climate change. Among these are changes in the frequency of extreme storms,
and potential change in the directional distribution which may induce changes in the sediment
transport and coastal erosion or deposition rates and trends. Increased wave heights were clearly
confirmed around the coasts of UK in the last 2 decades. Woodworth et al. [5] indicate that the
recent increase in wave height is highly correlated (>0.8) with an increase in the positive phase
of the NAO for a large area west of the Hebrides (Woolf et al.[10]).Wang et al. [11]) assumed the
relationship will continue to hold and suggested that the occurrence of the positive phase of the
NAO will be more frequent under global warming. Caires et al.[12] provided return value

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 4 of 15

st

estimates of significant wave height up to the end of the 21 century using projections of the sea
level pressure under three different forcing scenarios by the Canadian coupled climate model.
Their methodology employed regression methods linking climate model pressure simulations to
wave heights. In all forcing scenarios, significant changes are forecasted in different regions of
the globe, with the larger and more significant changes occurring under the more severe
greenhouse gases emission scenarios. In all future scenarios considered, the forecasts showed
significant positive trends in the North Pacific. Similar patterns were found in a study using
different climate models (Wang and Swail, [13]). In another recent study, Wolf and Woolf [14]
used a dynamic wave model approach to show how different climate change effects (e.g. increase
in wind speed or change in wind direction) are likely to alter wave conditions in the water around
the United Kingdom.
Again, the existing standards, including the most recent draft version of the standard developed
by ISO [6] does not include recommendations to account for wave statistics changes due to
climate change. The usual recommendation for the selection of the design wave height is for that
corresponding to an average return period of 100 years (e.g. DNV [15,16], ISO [6]). However, it
is well known that proper design must account for the economic lifetime of the designed structure
and for the risk percentage to encounter the design wave height or larger during the economical
lifetime.
Because that for an average return period R (expressed in years) of the design wave height equal
to the lifetime of the structure (L in years) there is a risk (r in %) that the design wave height
will be exceeded during the economical lifetime of the structure of about 64% (unacceptable),
one has to select the design wave height with a much lower risk of encounter. This is possible to
compute by formula [1]. Table 1 presents a number of cases for various r, L and R values.

R ( years) =

(1)

1 (1 r ) L

Table 1 Design wave height versus encounter risk and economical lifetime of the marine structure
Risk to Encounter of Design Wave
[percentages]

1
5
10
20
50
64

200
39
19
10
4
2

Economical Life Time of Structure (years)

4
6
8
10
15
Average Return Period to be Used
398
597
796
995
-78
117
156
195
293
38
57
76
95
143
18
27
36
45
68
6
9
12
15
22
4
6
8
10
15

20
-390
190
90
29
20

In spite of this classic approach, the standards do not recommend it in general but are satisfied
with the design wave for a 100 year average return period. One reason is of course the lack of
sufficiently large wave data sample, leading to extrapolation of the 100 year value based of a
small sample (ISO[6] recommends at least 15 years of data). Nevertheless, in view of the
forecasted global change impact on wave statistics, the selection should be done taking global
climate impact into account as well as gathering a largely enough data sample via numerical
wave model hindcasting (now available in many places over the globe).
iii. Design aspects due to tsunami events
The recognition of tsunami risk must be taken properly into account. Present studies for the
assessment of tsunami risk of encounter are available for a number of areas and will become
available for all tsunami prone areas within the next few years. Numerical models of tsunami
propagation and flooding are already available and are being further improved, enabling to
assess the risk of encounter and the runup elevation at a particular coastal site. For the
Mediterranean region, Figure 4 provided by Prof. G. Papadopoulos [17] shows the Mediterranean
MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006
P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 5 of 15

area at risk by tsunamis, and the relative risk of encounter as a color scale.
Figure 4. Tsunami prone areas and the tsunami risk in the Mediterranean (Papadopoulos[17])

This potential encounter of tsunami needs to be accounted in the design. It is worth to commend
that the new ISO standard draft [6] includes recommendations to account for tsunamis at locations
where it is not negligible and indicates the imacts it may induce. Furtehrmore, implementation of
changes in design codes are presently discussed by the Intergovernmental Coordination Group of
IOC/UNESCO on tsunami warning and mitigation systems, to be based on new risk assessment
studies presently underway.
Design aspects related to currents in extreme states
The present guidance for the design of nearshore structures (ISO [6], DNV [15], DNV[16])
recommend to account for the extreme combined loading of currents and waves as follows:
If sufficient information is available on joint probability of waves and current, then the
combined wave and steady current with 100 year recurrence interval should be used. If
inadequate information is available on the joint probability of waves and current, then the
following are suggested for the operational condition:
Waves : 100 year return condition of near bottom

wave-induced particle velocity

If waves forces dominates

normal to the pipeline

Current : 10 year return condition.

If current forces dominates

Waves : 10 year return condition.

Current : 100 year return condition.

This recommended practice in our view is not right anymore, in view of the feasibility of numerical
hydrodynamic models and of long term atmospheric and wind forcing, which can provide reliable
current statistics in most places on the globe.
Furthermore, the practice (except ISO [6]) does not yet call for accounting of the wind induced
currents during extreme conditions, which in shallow water may be an important loading factor.
Design aspects due to longshore currents in extreme states
As mentioned previously, the design of marine structures, including those of intakes and outfalls
located nearshore, usually refers to two critical loading conditions. The first one referres to the
ultimate service state and the second one to the ultimate survival state. The first design state

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 6 of 15

seems to be properly defined in the reviewed standards. However, for marine structures (e.g.
intake heads and outfall difussers) near the surf zone edge, particularly for those close but
beyond the "normal" surf zone, present standards of survival state lack proper consideration of
an important loading element. It is due to very large currents developing in the ultimate design
state as due to extreme wind and wave induced longshore currents.
Here we refer again to the usually recommended desing sea state condition in the standards,
with an average return period of 100 years. The existing guidance is in author's opinion
inproperly defined, even though general guidance is available by a number of reputable design
manuals (e.g. Goda, [18], Mei [19], 1992; C.E.M. [20]), but even these are insufficiently
detailed. For such sea state, simultaneous loading by extreme wind induced currents, nearbreaking/breaking waves and wave induced large longshore currents if the waves approach
obliquely to the coast (as the structures are now near/in breakers zone) result in significantly
increased velocities and accelerations, hence increased loads.
The design and construction of 3 marine intakes for the world largest reverse osmosis
desalination plant which was recently built at Ashkelon, Israel for OTID Desalination Partnership
(Figures 5 and 6), serves to show the importance of consideration of longshore currents
developing during extreme (ultimate) state and to indicate a relatively simple method of
assessment and choice of the design current speed in the ultimate state.
Figure 5. General location map of the Ashkelon desalination plant

Ashkelon

The intake heads were planned and built on the -15m water depth contour off the Ashkelon
shore, at the southeastern Mediterranean coast of Israel. The coast has an orientation of Az
34deg. Top of the heads are 5m below MSL.
3 HDPE pipelines, outer diameter of 1.6 m serve as intake pipelines from the 3 intake heads to
the pumping sump onshore.
Maximum total discharge 35,200 m3/h, i.e. 308 M m3/year
Economical lifetime of the intake system - 25 years.
The design and build contract was awarded to and carried out by O.G. Pipeline Partnership
MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006
P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 7 of 15

Figure 6. Plan of the desalination intake at Ashkelon

The design and construct tender technical specifications required the intakes to be designed for
the most critical conditions arriving for:
(a) a design wave height of Hmax associated with a sea state with a deep water characteristic
(significant) wave height sea state with a 100 year average return period or
(b) the maximum depth limited wave height (at the site of the structures) with an average
return period of 100 years and identified a deep water significant wave height of 8.7m for a
100 year average return period.
A schematic of the intake suction heads at Ashkelon designed by the contractor is shown in
Figure 7 together with a schematic of a more usual shape of intake suction head.
Figure 7. Schematic intake head at Ashkelon (left) and schematic of usual intake head (right)

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 8 of 15

Statistical data regarding sea level, wind, waves and currents are presented to demonstrate the
normal selection of environmental loading for these intake structures.
i. Sea levels
The tidal (astronomic) range on the Mediterranean coast of Israel is characteristic of the low-tide
range of the Eastern-Mediterranean basin, being induced by the combined effect of the attraction
forces of the moon and of the sun, and by the location of this area on the globe. The tide usually
varies between 0.40m during spring tides (occurring in spring and autumn), and 0.15m during
neap tides (occurring in winter and summer). The tide contribution exhibits the usual semidiurnal periodicity (twice a day highs and lows) and fortnight (14 days) periodicity. Extreme sea
levels may occur in combination with extreme meteorological conditions. Low sea-levels occur in
winter during February-March months, while high sea-levels occur in August-September, with a
second maximum in December.
The average return periods of extreme sea levels (excluding sea level rise) are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Average recurrence of extreme wind gust velocities at Israel coast
Average Return
Low Sea Level
High Sea Level
Period
[years]
[m]
[m]
1
-0.38
0.64
50
-0.74
1.04
100
-0.87
1.10

ii.

Wind

~77% of the fresh winds blow from directions W to N through NW.

~77% of the strong winds blow from directions SW to W trough WSW.
Table 3 presents the recurrence of high wind velocities as estimated using the Weibull distribution
while the extreme gusts statistics is shown in Table 4. The directional distribution is shown in Fig. 8.
Table 3. Average recurrence of high wind velocities at Israel the coast
recurrence
Wind speed (average of 10 highest minutes in 1 hour)
once/year
23.6 m/sec
46 knots
once/50 years
31.5 m/sec
61 knots
once/100 years
32.6 m/sec
63 knots

Average

Figure 8. Weibull Extreme Directional Statistics of Hourly Wind Speeds

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 9 of 15

Table 4. Average recurrence of extreme wind gust velocities at

Average recurrence
Upper gust wind speed
once/year
34.7 m/sec
once/50 years
46.3 m/sec
once/100 years
47.9 m/sec

Israel coast
67 knots
90 knots
93 knots

iii. Waves
The year may also be divided in only two wave seasons with a transitional type beginning and
end. In such a case the following division is obtained
- extended winter season ranging from mid November through mid April (5 months);
- extended-summer season ranging from mid April through mid November (7 months).
The winter wave climate is characterized by alternating periods of high sea states (storms) and
low sea states (calms). The storms are in general induced by cyclones passing slowly over the
Mediterranean from West to East. The strongest storms usually occur in the period between mid
December through the first week of March. Lower sea states occur at the beginning and at the
end of that season. The prevailing wave direction is WNW, but the predominant wave direction is
W, corresponding to the longest wind fetch.
During the summer season the wave climate is characterised by relatively calm seas with waves
induced by the weak local winds (mainly by the breeze). Therefore, the waves are usually of
"sea" type, which direction usually varies during the day in a clockwise direction from WSW in
the early morning to WNW at noon and to N-NW in the afternoon.
The average yearly directional deep water significant wave distribution is characterized by:
-All moderate and higher sea states come from WSW to NNW through W
-66% of all waves approach from W trough WNW directions.
-The highest sea states approach from W direction, but storm development occurs by veering
from WSW to NW through W directions.
Peak wave periods range between 3 and 16 seconds. During high sea states they range usually
between 10 and 13 seconds, and very high sea states have peak periods between 12 and 16
seconds.
Extreme sea states and average return periods are presented in Table 5 below:
Table 5 Recurrence of extreme deep water significant wave heights at Israel coast
Average Return Period
Deep Water Significant Wave Height
[ years ]
[ meters ]
2
5.15
4
5.95
5
6.15
6
6.25
8
6.60
10
6.80
15
7.15
20
7.40
50
8.20
100
8.70
500
10.15

iv. Currents
Detailed general current statistics were gathered for a period of 1 year on the -27m contour at
10m below surface. It indicated weak currents of 5-10 cm for most of the time. However,
measurements carried out off Ashdod (about 15km north to the site) with an ADCP on the -24m
contour and on the -15m contour showed strong currents during wave storms associated with
strong local winds. An extreme value of 1m/s current was recorded at Hadera, some 65 km north
to the site on the -27m contour at -11m below surface during a high sea state with deep water
significant height of about 7.2m. Later on, strong currents of about 0.8m/s were recorded off the

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 10 of 15

Tel-Aviv coast with an ADCP during a relatively low sea state, clearly being induced mainly by
wind. This record is shown in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12. Record of current speed vertical profile off Tel Aviv in December 2003.

In the following we will try to show the insufficient definition of design loading criteria in a
number of international standards under the ultimate design state. Under such environmental
conditions, simultaneous loading due to extreme wind induced currents in combination with near
breaking/breaking wave loading and with large wave induced longshore currents in certain cases
such as that at Ashkelon where the deep water angle of the Westerly waves with the coast make
an angle of 34 degrees (and because the structures are now near or within the breaking zone)
lead to significantly increased resultant velocities and accelerations and consequently increased
loading on the structures.
For the Ashkelon intakes the contractor assessment of the wave and current loading was based
on:
The 100 year design wave was specified to have a significant wave height of Hs,o = 8.7 m.
An increased sea level due to sea level rise and storm surge of 1.25m was agreed to be used.
The maximum wave height for this scenario was derived as depth limited of Hmax-15=12.40 m.
The maximum wave height will depend on the angle between wave direction and coast normal.
In the design it was assumed that the wave height is reduced by the square of the cosine of the
angle.
The associated peak wave period was assumed between 10 to 15.3 seconds. It was concluded
that the linear Airy theory is under the present circumstances equally applicable as the nonlinear Stokes 5th order theory in determining the wave induced velocity and acceleration field
around the intake structure.
A maximum current speed of 0.75m/s was initially assessed at the intake site, which was
changed later to 2 m/s, following the design review carried by the author, which identified the
lack of consideration of the joint wind induced current and wave induced longshore current
developing in the ultimate (design) sea state as the intake heads became near the surf zone
edge.
It should be mentioned that in a recent paper by Kunitsa et al. [21], stating to deal with

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 11 of 15

continental shelf wind-driven currents, have assessed at this location a maximum current value
induced by wind of 1.28m/s for an average return period of 100 years. However, the current
values of Kunitsa et al. were obtained without considering important modelling problems of wave
and wind hindcasting indicated by Cavalleri and Bertoti [22]. In this way, unaware engineers
may be lead to believe that the extreme currents assessed include also the wave contributions,
when in fact these are completely discarded.
The total current during the 100 year average return period sea state for the case study was
assessed by a number of numerical models (Rosen [23], Sladkevitch et al. [24]), leading to
speeds of 2m/s and more, significantly larger than the original value used by the contractor
(0.75m/s), or that assessed by Ronaess and Nestergard [25] using DNV[15] and discarding extreme
wind induced currents, or those assessed by Kunitsa et al. (1.28m/s).
Rosen [23] used the NMLONG model developed by US Corps of Engineers, part of the CEDAS
software package using both basically monochromatic waves equivalent to the significant and
maximum wave heights assessed as well as wind induced current (see Figures 8 and 9).
Figure 9 Wave induced current speeds at intake site without wind for various conditions.

Sladkevitch et al. [24] used both monochromatic and irregular waves derived to correspond to
the Hrms of the design sea state and with wind induced current, see examples in Figure 11a,b.
One of the usual problems encountered by numerical models for the assessment of the wave
induced currents is that most of them use the Hrms wave height to assess the average currents
induced by a sea state. However, the use of Hrms is correct for assessing the average currents
(radiation stresses), used to transport sediments or polluting materials. It is incorrect when
assessing extreme wave induced currents and their loading for design at ultimate survival state.
Goda [26] published results and empirical formulations for the computation of the distribution of
the wave induced longshore current due to wave spectra and the position of the maximum
longshore current speed. However, his method does not account for the wind induced currents in
MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006
P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 12 of 15

the extreme sea state, when it was estimated that strong winds will blow over the study area.
Nevertheless, using Goda's formulation, similar values of the wave induced current to those
assessed by the author were obtained. Nevertheless since the Goda formulations were calibrated
for relatively low wave conditions another method for rapid assessment was seek by the author.
Figure 10 Wind and wave induced current speeds at intake site for various conditions.

Figure 11. Current velocity (left) and Hrms (right) fields at sea bottom; random waves; CAMERI
3D HD model. Hs=8.7m (Hrms=6.2m), Tp=16.1s, waves direction 284.6,; Result U=1.7m/s

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 13 of 15

It is obvious that the maximum current velocity to be used in the Morison loading formula in the
survival state is the vectorial summation of the geostrophic current, wave induced current and
wind induced current (and tide if relevant).
Thus it is found that assessment of the combined wind induced and wave induced current by the
recommended practice in extreme sea states is not accounted. Furthermore, the proper
assessment of the maximum longshore current speed to be used in the survival state is yet
difficult to assess because the usual model assessments based on the Longuett-Higgins formula
uses the Hrms height value, which derives an average, not maximum current speed and because
the Goda formulas were developed and calibrated against low height waves (2m).
To correctly assess the total loading one needs to assess resulting current vector and magnitude
which includes the joint contribution due to the wind induced current and to the longshore
current and the orbital velocities. In this case a numerical hydrodynamic model is necessary.
However, a simpler assessment of the loading by a different approach is proposed, not involving
a full hydrodynamic model, but merely analytic computations. This method integrates the local
longshore current contributions due to each wave in the refracted waves spectrum, and selects
the design longshore current speed as that due to the average of the highest 13.6% of all
currents occurring during the ultimate sea state at the structure site as described shortly below.
It is proposed to assess the maximum longshore current velocity at a site located within or near
but beyond the normal surf zone for loading assessment in the ultimate (survival) state as
follows:
(a) Determine local Hs or Hb in the survival state.
(b) Use Beta- Rayleigh wave height distribution to assess the various wave heights at the site for
the survival state.
(c) Compute the local longshore current speed for each wave height
(d) Compute the local maximum longshore current speed as the average of the highest 13.6%
current values, in a similar way to the evaluation of Hs in the Rayleigh distribution.
(e) Compute the resulting total current vector and magnitude by vectorial summation of the
wind induced current assessed via NMLONG model using almost zero wave height and the
extreme wind speed selected with the extreme wave induced longshore current.
Conclusion
Improved guidance on the selection of the values of the potential loading environmental
parameters (sea level, wave statistics, wind statistics, tsunami and extreme lonshore currents) is
provided. It is expected that some/all of the suggested guidance will be integrated in new versions
of design standards of nearshore structures.
Acknowledgements
Part of the data used were gathered during the consultance provided by the author to OTID
Desalination partnership for the Ashkelon desalination plant. Permission to use these data for the
present paper from OTID Desalination Partnership and the assistance provided by Eng. A. Kaplan,
Project Manager of the Ashkelon Desalination plant are acknowledged with thanks.

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 14 of 15

References

[1] Church, J.A. et al.: "Changes in Sea Level", in Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis", ed. J.T.
Houghton, IPCC TAR Working Group I, Cambridge University Press., Cap. 11, pp. 639-694., (2001).
[2] McCarthy J.J., Canziani O.F., Leary N.A., Dokken D.J., and White K.S., Ed.: "Climate Change 2001,
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability", IPCC TAR Working Group II, Cambridge Univ. Press, (2001).
[3] Metz B., Davidson O., Swart R., Pan J., Ed.: "Climate Change 2001, Mitigation", IPCC TAR Working
Group III, Cambridge Univ. Press, (2001).
[4] Douglas B.C., Kearney M.S., and Leatherman S.P.: "Sea level rise history and consequences",
Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, 232pp., (2001).
[5] Woodworth P.L., J.A. Lowe, T. Knutson, R.E. McDonald, K. McInnes, K. Woth, H. Von Storch, J. Wolf, V.
Swail, N. Bernier, S. Gulev, K. Horsburgh, A.S. Unnikrishnan and J. Hunter: "Past and Future Changes
in Extreme Sea Levels and Waves", Position Paper in Proc. WCRP Workshop Understanding Sea-level
Rise and Variability, UNESCO, Paris, 6-9 June, (2006).
[6] International Standards Organization:"Actions from waves and currents on coastal structures", Draft,
ISO/DIS 216, ISO/TC 98/SC 3, (2006).
[7] Cazenave, A. and Nerem R.S.: "Present-day Sea Level Change: Observations and Causes",
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 5, 08353, 2003, 64pp., (2003).
[8] Fenoglio-Marc L.: "Long term sea level changes in Mediterranean sea from multi-mission altimetry and
tide gauges", EGS XXVI General Assembly, Nice, France, March 2001,Session G4.01, (2002).
[9] Rosen D.S.: Assessment of the impact due to sea level rise and wave climate change on the state of
the Israeli beaches", Beaches 2004, Yearly Journal of the Israel Society for the Protection of Nature,
6p, in Hebrew, (2004).
[10] Woolf, D.K., Challenor, P.G. & Cotton: "Variability and predictability of the North Atlantic wave
climate", Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(C10), (2002).
[11] Wang, X. L., Zwiers, F.W. & Swail, V.R.: "North Atlantic Ocean Wave Climate Change Scenarios for the
Twenty-First Century", Journal of Climate, 17, 2368-2383, (2004).
[12] Caires, S., Swail, V. & Wang, X.: (2006). "Projection and analysis of extreme wave climate", Journal of
Climate, (2006).
[13] Wang, X. & Swail, V.: "Climate change signal and uncertainty in the projections of ocean wave
heights", Climate Dynamics, 26, 109-126, (2006).
[14] Wolf, J. & Woolf, D.K.: "Waves and climate change in the north-east Atlantic", Geophysical Research
Letters, (2006).
[15] Det Norske Veritas: "DNV-RP-E305 On Bottom Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines", October, 1998.
[16] Det Norske Veritas: "DNV Offshore Standard F101 Submarine pipeline systems", Jan. 15, 2000, 166p.,
amended October 2005 (2005).
[17] Papadopoulos G.: "Hazard Assessment", Powerpoint presentation at 1st Intergovernmental Coordinating
Group for the Tsunami Early Warning and Mitigation System in the Northeastern Atlantic, the
Mediterranean and Connected Seas (ICG/NEAMTWS), Rome, Italy, November, (2005).
[18] Goda Y.: "Random seas and design of maritime structures", 2nd ed., Adv. Ser. on Ocean Engineering,
Vol. 15, World Scientific Publ. Co. Pte., Singapore, (2000).
[19] Mei C.C.: "The applied dynamics of ocean surface waves", 2nd printing, Adv. Ser. on Ocean Engineering,
Vol. 1, World Scientific Publ. Co. Pte., Singapore, (1992).
[20] U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center: "Coastal Engineering Manual", Ver. 2.01 Pro.
Edition, Very-Tech Inc., Vicksburg, USA, (2004).
[21] Kunitsa D., Rosentraub Z., Stiassnie M.: "Estimates of winter currents on the Israeli continental shelf",
Coastal Engineering, Vol. 52 pp.93102, (2005).
[22] Cavaleri L., and Bertotti L.: Accuracy of the modelled wind and wave fields in enclosed seas, Tellus,
56a, 167-175. (2004).
[23] Rosen D.S.: "Coastal & marine engineering general review of the design of the marine part of the
Ashkelon desalination intake, progress Report no. 8, Longshore current velocities for computation of
design forces on intake heads and pipelines", Sea-Shore-Rosen Ltd., August 2004, Haifa, Israel,
(2004).
[24] Sladkevich M., Kit E., Drimer N.: "Hydraulic model study to assess Longshore current at Ashkelon",
CAMERI Report P.N. 605/ 04, August, Haifa, Israel, (2004).
[25] Ronaess M., Nestergard A.: "Ashkelon desalination plant water intake-Independent calculations of
environmental loading", DNV Report 2004-1076, (2004).
[26] Goda Y.: "Computation of setup and longshore currents by directional spectral waves ", Proc. Coastal
Dynamics, ch. 41, (2005).

MWWD-IEMES 2006-Antalya, Nov. 06-10, 2006

P06_Rosen_Design Criteria for Nearshore-MWWD 2006 Proc - page 15 of 15