Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wave in Deck Loads On Exposed Jetties
Wave in Deck Loads On Exposed Jetties
Wave in Deck Loads On Exposed Jetties
www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roma TRE, Via Vito Volterra 62, Roma, 00146, Italy
Coast & Harbor Engineering, 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 608, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA
Maritime Structures, HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OX10 8BA, UK and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Southampton, UK
b
Received 8 February 2006; received in revised form 4 January 2007; accepted 12 January 2007
Available online 12 April 2007
Abstract
This paper presents results from research on the hydraulic loadings of exposed (unsheltered) jetties (open pile piers with decks and beams). The
work presented here focuses on results from physical model tests on wave-induced loads on deck and beam elements of exposed jetties and similar
structures. These tests investigated the physics of the loading process, and provided new guidance on wave-in-deck loads to be used in design.
Wave forces and pressures were measured on a 1:25 scale model of a jetty head with projecting elements. Structure geometry and wave conditions
tested were selected after an extensive literature review (summarised in the paper) and consultation with the project steering group. Different
configurations were tested to separate 2-d and 3-d effects, and to identify the effects of inundation and of down-standing beams.
Results presented in this paper have been obtained by re-analysing wave loads using wavelet analysis to remove corruption from the dynamic
responses of the instrumentation. Both quasi-static and impulsive components of the loading were identified. Previous methods to predict wave
loading on jetty elements (decks and beams) were tested against these new data and clear inconsistencies and gaps were recognised. New
dimensionless equations have been produced to evaluate wave forces on deck and beam elements of suspended deck structures. The results are
consistent with the physics of the loading process and reduce uncertainties in previous predictions.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wave-in-deck loads; Jetty; Pier; Wave impacts; Wavelet
1. Introduction
1.1. Definitions of a jetty
In this paper a jetty has been taken to be an open structure
with deck and perhaps beams, supported on piles. The deck (and
beams) are suspended well clear of normal water levels, so are
only at risk of direct wave effects under infrequent combinations
of surge and wave condition. Such jetties may be quite long
(perhaps 0.55 km), orientated approximately normal to the
shoreline/bed contours, and carry pipes or conveyors to load/
unload gas, liquid/bulk granular cargoes from vessels moored at
the jetty head. Similar structures include leisure and passenger
piers, mooring dolphins and some highway bridges. Selected
results of this work may possibly be applied to large culverts,
Corresponding author. Fax: +39 06 55173469.
E-mail addresses: cuomo@uniroma3.it (G. Cuomo),
matteo@coastharboreng.com (M. Tirindelli).
0378-3839/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2007.01.010
658
Notation
A
area of the element exposed to wave action
a, b
experimental coefficient
bl
length of structural element
bw
width of structural element
bt
thickness of structural element
c
wave celerity
C
damping
cl
clearance (i.e. vertical distance between an element and swl)
Cd
drag coefficient
d
water depth
E
error
F
force (generic)
Fc
force (corrupted component)
Ff
force (filtered)
Fs
force (smoothed)
F tot
force (response)
Fmax
maximum value reached by the signal within each event
Fqs 1/250 quasi-static component of the force (at 1/250 level)
Fqs+1/250 maximum value of the quasi-static component of the signal (at 1/250 level)
Fqs 1/250 minimum value of the quasi-static component of the signal (at 1/250 level)
F
dimensionless force (generic)
F1/250 force at 1/250 exceedance level
FD
configuration flat deck
g
gravitational acceleration (= 9.81 m/s2)
G
Fourier transform of w
h
vertical wetted length
d
h
time derivative of h
Hmax
max wave height during a storm
Hs
significant wave height
K
stiffness
L
wave length
L0
deepwater wave length
l
horizontal wetted length
d
l
time derivative of l
M
mass
Nz
number of wave within a storm event
NP
configuration without side panels
Nt
number of tests
P
configuration with side panels
Pqs1/250 quasi-static component of the pressure (at 1/250 level)
s
scale dilatation parameter
se
standard error of the estimate
sm
wave steepness (= Hs / L0) for T = Tm
t
time
T
wave period (generic)
Tn
n-th resolved equivalent period
Tn, min minimum period corrupted by the dynamics of measurement instrument
Tn, max maximum period corrupted by the dynamics of measurement instrument
Tsmooth cut-off period of low-pass filter
T0
natural period of resonance of the structure
Tm
mean wave period
tr
rise time of the force signal
u
velocity vector
u
acceleration vector
ux
uy
x
x
x
yi
i
WT
max
659
horizontal velocity
vertical velocity
displacement
velocity
acceleration
measured load (generic)
predicted load (generic)
wavelet transform coefficient
mother wavelet
water density
wave surface elevation
time derivative of
time derivative of
max wave surface elevation
translation parameter
660
k
q c u y bw l
2 w
FH qw c ux bw h
2
3
PV 4:0 8:0 qw g Hs
661
Fig. 3. Model test device. a) Down-standing frame of cross and longitudinal beams with testing elements connected to force transducers housed into a longitudinal
beam ( plan view); b) supporting structure with piles and tubular frame.
3. Experimental setup
3.1. Model design
Wave flume tests were carried out in a wave absorbing flume
at HR Wallingford, UK. The flume was 40 m long, 1.5 m wide,
with a maximum water depth of 1.2 m at the paddle. Waves
were generated by a piston-type paddle at one end of the flume
:
k
bw l 2
k
2 1=2 g qw 4 bw l l
8
1 blw
2
1 12 blw
qw
2 3=2 g 2 bw l Cd g jgj qw
1 blw
FV qw
g gcl bw bl
FH
:
2
qw
4
2 :
bt Cd ux jux j qw h h ux bw
q h ux
2
k w
k
10
Fig. 4. Model structure in the absorbing flume during a test. The testing
elements, formed of metallic elements are visible as well as two of the wave
probes (one before and one after the model) used to monitor the wave field.
662
Fig. 5. Structural configurations tested: from left to right, no panels (NP), panels (P) and flat deck (FD).
663
Fig. 9. Force time history on the whole set of monitored elements during same
loading event. From top to bottom: horizontal force on external beam, vertical
force on external beam, vertical force on external deck, horizontal force on
internal beam, vertical force on internal beam, vertical force on internal deck.
664
The first contact between the water and the element causes
an abrupt transfer of wave momentum from the water to the
structure, generating the impact force. Such high intensity
forces acting on limited areas, even over a short time, may cause
severe local damage, local yielding and fatigue failure.
Impulsive loads vary substantially in both magnitude and
duration even under nominally identical conditions, confirming
previous observations from research on wave impacts. A
comprehensive review is given in Cuomo (2005).
As the wave propagates along the underside of a deck, jets of
water may shoot out sideways as the contact area moves along
the deck (unless otherwise restrained). These lateral jets
generally disappear as the free surface rises above soffit level.
A difference between water levels under the deck and that
alongside the structure gives rise to the pulsating or quasi-static
positive force. The magnitude of this force is consistently lower
than any initial impact, but its duration is of order 0.25Tm.
Finally, the wave surface falls below soffit level and moves
inward below the deck, reducing the contact area with the wave
(referred to as wetted length). A quasi-static negative force
(suction) may then act on the deck. This may be substantially
increased when the wave inundates the deck, adding the weight
of green water above the deck, sometimes leading to the
downward (negative) force reaching the same order of intensity
as the quasi-static uplift (positive) force.
Horizontal loads on beam elements often exhibit different
characteristics from vertical loads. The magnitude of the first
Fig. 10. Vertical time-history load on deck element: recorded time history (left model units) and wavelet transform in the time-period domain (right).
665
trapping wave crests underneath a soffit between downstanding beams may result in local amplification of applied
loads;
phase differences between positive and negative loads may
increase as the wave travels along the structure;
rise time of wave loads (tr, see Fig. 7) may be comparable to
the characteristic periods of oscillation of structural elements, therefore the resulting loading process depends
strongly on the dynamic response of the structure.
Observing force histories during the experiments, large
variations in both magnitude and shape of the signal were
noticed, even for similar test conditions. Despite this variability,
an idealised time history has been developed to represent the
general shape drawn by the force signal during the loading. The
suggested idealised time history, superimposed on a measured
one for the external deck element in Fig. 7, consists of a shortduration triangular pulse (linear increase from zero to its peak
value), followed by the quasi-static component. The proposed
model is characterised by:
Fig. 11. Filtering out corruption of signal due to dynamic response of measuring
instruments. From top to bottom: time-history load on deck element (solid line)
and reconstructed signal by mean of inverse wavelet transform (circles), inverse
wavelet transform using only energy components corresponding to resonance
period of measuring instrument, cleaned signal after filtering.
Fig. 12. Finite element model of the test structure (right) and deck element (left), shape deformed according to the first mode of oscillation (vertical direction).
666
period, Tm. For tests of 1000 waves, the 1/250 value was
therefore evaluated by simply averaging the top 4 loads.
4.3. Impacts and quasi-static loads
Distinguishing between impulsive and quasi-static wave
loads is not straightforward. Although much research has been
V2 T0 impacts
N2 T0 quasistatic loads
where tr is the load rise time and T0 is the resonant period for the
mode corresponding to the applied load.
In analysing measurements in the model, dynamic characteristics of the instrument and of the jetty model must be taken
into account. In particular, defining any value of an impulsive
wave load to be used later in design (either as a statically
equivalent load for feasibility studies; or as time-history loads
for dynamic analysis of more complex structures) requires
filtering out corruptions from the dynamic response of the
model setup (see Cuomo et al., 2003 and Cuomo, 2005).
Fig. 14. Comparison of vertical quasi-static forces on deck elements with existing prediction methods.
667
periods between 0.03 s and 0.07 s on the left hand side of the
amplitude contour graph.
The oscillating signal after the impact in Fig. 11 (top panel)
suggests that the measurement element was responding dynamically to the wave loading. De-noising of the recorded signal is
easily accomplished with the inverse wavelet transform by eliminating or reducing coefficients for components that are related to
low energy processes or noise. Editing components affected by
the dynamic response of instrumentation is possible, but more
difficult, as it requires identifying dynamic characteristics of the
test elements. This was assessed here by modelling the dynamic
response of the instrument using finite element models (Fig. 12).
The period of oscillation of the model structure (left hand side of
Fig. 12) was found to be far enough from the characteristic periods
of the loading (the slowest mode in the vertical direction has
period equal to 0.005 s) and therefore not to significantly affect the
measurements. The model of the deck element is shown on the
right hand side of Fig. 12, superimposed on the deformed shape
corresponding to its first mode of vertical oscillation,
corresponding to a period of resonance of approximately 0.05 s.
The equation of motion for a dynamic system can be generalised as:
M t x t C t x t K t xt F t
11
668
xt fF t M t x t C t x t g=K t :
ts
1
ws;b t;s;s p w
:
s
s
12
14
15
Fig. 16. Comparison of vertical impact forces on deck elements with existing prediction methods.
1
C
WTt;s;b
ws;b t;s;s ds ds
s2
l
16
Rl
where C 1 l Gx=x dx and G() is the Fourier
transform of .
the filtered signal F f(t), that is the sum of components from
all resolved (equivalent) periods Ti but those affected by the
dynamics of measurement instrument;
the smoothed signal F s(t), that is the sum of components having
(equivalent) periods larger than Tsmooth (this can be easily seen
as a low-pass filter). The choice of Tsmooth depends on both the
dynamic characteristics of the measurement instrument and the
time-history loads; an initial estimate for Tsmooth is 2T0.
The suitability of Morlet wavelet as a base for the transformation of signals recorded during physical model tests is shown
in Fig. 11, with the original time-series (top) superimposed to its
inverse transform derived using Eq. (16) and extending the
integral operator to cover respectively the whole range of
resolved (equivalent) periods. The filtered signal Ff(t), obtained
by integrating Eq. (16) over all resolved periods but those in the
range [Tn,min b Tn b Tn,max] is also shown in the bottom panel of
Fig. 11. In this case, filtering out the corrupted component does
not affect significantly the impact load magnitude or duration.
For the sake of completeness, Fig. 11 also shows the part of
the signal affected by the dynamics of the measurement
instrument F c (t) = F tot (t) F f (t) (central panel), confirming
that the dynamic response of the measurement element has
corrupted the recorded signal.
It is worth noticing that since the maximum duration of
wave-in-deck loads is comparable with the incident wave
period, the whole loading process develop within a relatively
limited range of (short) periods, and thus the cone of influence
of the wavelet transform (Torrence and Compo, 1998) is
extremely narrow and almost no information is lost.
To minimize corruption due to dynamic response of measurement instruments on the extraction of meaningful parameters defined in Section 4.2 from recorded signals, the
following procedure has been adopted:
669
670
Fig. 18. Relative importance of Hs on wave-in-deck loads. From left to right: horizontal (seaward) forces on beams, vertical (uplift) forces on beams and vertical
(uplift) forces on decks. From top to bottom: quasi-static forces (NP), quasi-static forces (P), impacts (NP) and impacts (P). All data refer to experiments carried out
with d = 0.75 m.
values falling within the unsafe regions (upper left corner for
positive loads on the left hand side and lower right corner for
negative loads on the right hand side). This is particularly true
for horizontal loads on internal elements, where Kaplan suggests
assuming only the drag component of the hydrodynamic force to
act, resulting in a general under-estimation of total loads.
Vertical (upwards) impulsive loads measured during these
tests are compared with predictions by the existing methods
in Fig. 16 for both external and internal deck elements. Scatter
around predictions is large over the range of measurements
for almost all methods in the comparison. Predictions of impact loads have improved significantly in recent times, at least
partially due to improvements in measurement and data acquisition methods.
Impacts on external and internal elements are compared with
predictions by Kaplan in Fig. 17 for both vertical and horizontal
loads. In general, slam forces on suspended elements are underestimated by Kaplan's model, but predictions of slam (both
vertical and horizontal) were compared satisfactorily with
measurements (at 1/250 level) on the seaward face of the
external beam, where severe impacts were rarely recorded during
the experiments. Differences between predictions and measurements are greater for internal elements, probably because the
model assumes wave flows not to be affected by the presence of
the structure. Kaplan's simple method cannot therefore include
local amplification of pressures by trapping wave crests
underneath the structure, or by 3-dimensional flows above.
671
Fig. 19. Quasi-static horizontal (seaward) pressures on external beam, solid line
obeys Eq. (19) with a = 1.186 and b = 0.429.
672
Fig. 21. Horizontal (seaward) forces on external beam, solid lines obey Eq. (18) with coefficients a and b given in Table 2.
Fig. 22. Quasi-static vertical (upward) forces on deck elements solid lines obey Eq. (18) with coefficients a and b given in Table 1.
F1=250
P1=250
g c
Fqs 1=250
l
a max
b
qw g Hs A
d
g c
Pqs 1=250
l
a max
b
qw g Hs
d
18
19
673
Fig. 24. Vertical force time-history loads on external (dashed line) and internal
(solid line) deck element (no-panel configuration).
Fig. 23. Quasi-static vertical (downward) forces on deck elements, solid lines obey Eq. (18) with coefficients a and b given in Table 2.
674
Fig. 25. Comparison of measured quasi-static forces and pressures with proposed new prediction method.
Eq. (19) provides good estimates of the pressures for the three
configurations. The relatively high scatter is due to inherent spatial
variability; the pressure transducers only give a local view rather
than spatially averaged. For configurations without side panels,
strong 3-dimensional effects increased spatial effects. Where wave
Table 1
Coefficients a and b for fit lines and values of R2 for Eqs. (18) and (19), positive loads; s in model units: pressure [kPa] and force [N]
Parameter
Direction
Element
Position
Configuration
R2
se
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Beam Pa and Pb
Beam Pa and Pb
Beam Pa and Pb
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Int
Int
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
FD
P
NP
1.19
1.19
1.19
0.56
1.74
0.71
1.10
1.36
2.31
1.23
1.57
0.83
0.58
1.57
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.75
0.14
0.57
0.46
0.46
0.05
0.51
0.52
0.13
0.19
0.73
0.90
0.87
0.96
0.90
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.89
0.95
0.96
0.84
0.69
0.67
0.95
0.34
0.22
0.17
6.84
1.68
1.24
1.61
2.27
6.78
7.28
7.64
9.80
6.57
11.21
675
Table 2
Coefficients a and b for fit lines and values of R2 for Eq. (18), negative loads; se in model units: pressure [kPa] and force [N]
Parameter
Direction
Element
Position
Configuration
R2
se
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Int
Int
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
FD
P
NP
0.77
0.56
0.84
0.00
1.89
0.00
0.04
0.23
1.95
0.00
0.66
0.52
0.08
1.35
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.12
0.49
0.48
0.29
0.03
0.51
0.36
0.05
0.06
0.29
0.87
0.91
0.75
0.47
0.86
0.69
0.69
0.87
0.94
0.72
0.61
0.89
0.94
0.89
2.15
0.86
1.08
1.35
1.90
1.74
2.25
0.76
7.80
7.57
8.74
2.24
0.81
4.90
Fig. 26. Peak forces versus quasi-static vertical (upward) forces on deck elements, solid lines obey Eq. (22) with coefficient a given in Table 3.
676
Table 3
Coefficient a for fit lines and values of R2 for Eq. (22); se in model units:
pressure [kPa] and force [N]
Parameter Direction
R2
se
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
0.90
0.89
0.94
0.48
0.32
0.93
0.64
0.85
0.69
0.98
0.88
0.96
1.10
25.62
5.38
1.24
3.41
15.81
7.28
20.41
8.36
21.32
6.57
26.60
Horizontal
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Int
Int
Int
All
NP
FD
P
NP
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
2.45
3.35
2.87
1.74
2.28
2.35
1.99
2.22
2.59
2.35
1.84
2.29
Fig. 27. Peak forces versus quasi-static forces on beams: horizontal (left) and vertical (right), solid lines obey Eq. (22) with coefficient a given in Table 3.
677
Table 4
Comparison of error E between predictions and data for existing methods and new formulae for quasi-static uplift forces on the external deck element
N
P
FD
All
El-Ghamry (1965)
Wang (1970)
Broughton and
Horn (1987)
Shih and
Anastasiou (1992)
Suchithra and
Koola (1995)
(min)
(max)
0.120
0.144
0.192
0.084
0.130
0.149
0.153
0.082
0.080
0.095
0.584
0.155
0.104
0.087
0.252
0.083
0.135
0.157
0.592
0.169
0.344
0.364
1.362
0.393
1=250
Fqs
1=250
qw g Hs A:
20
21
Fmax
1=250 a Fqs1=250
22
Kaplan et al.
(1995)
Present formulae
0.131
0.137
0.116
0.094
0.050
0.058
0.074
0.034
s
Nt
X
yi yi 2
:
yi
1
23
678
Cuomo, G., Tirindelli, M., Allsop, N.W.H., 2004. Experimental study of wavein-deck loads on exposed jetties. Proc. XXIX IDRA, Trento, Italy, vol. 3,
pp. 541547.
Cuomo, G., Allsop, N.W.H., McConnell, K.J., 2003. Dynamic wave loads on
coastal structures: analysis of impulsive and pulsating wave loads. Proc.
Conf. Coastal Structures 2003. ASCE/COPRI, Portland, pp. 356368.
El-Ghamry, O.A., 1965. Wave forces on a dock. Technical Report HEL-9-1,
Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Engineering Research.
University of California.
Emery, W.J., Thomson, R.E., 2001. Data Analysis Methods in Physical
Oceanography, 2nd Rev edition. Elsevier Science. 658 pp.
Goda, Y., 2000. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. World
Scientific, Singapore.
Hanssen, A.G., Trum, A., 1999. Breaking wave forces on tripod concrete
structure on shoal. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 125 (6), 304310
(Nov/Dec).
Howarth, M.W., Allsop, N.W.H., Vann, A.M., Davis, J.P., Jones, R.J., 1996.
Scale effects of wave impact pressures on cob armour units. In: Billy L.,
Edge (Ed.), Proc. 25th ICCE, Orlando, Florida, USA, September 26.
ASCE, New York, pp. 25222531.
Isaacson, M., Allyn, N., Ackermann, C., 1994. Design wave loads for a jetty
at Plymouth, Montserrat. International Symposium: Waves Physical
and Numerical Modelling. University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
pp. 11531162.
Isaacson, M., Bhat, S., 1994. Wave forces on a horizontal plate. International
Symposium: Waves Physical and Numerical Modelling. University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, pp. 11841193.
Kaplan, P., 1992. Wave impact forces on offshore structures: re-examination and
new interpretations. Paper OTC 6814, 24th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, pp. 7998.
Kaplan, P., 1979. Impact forces on horizontal members of an offshore test
structure. Proc. of Civ. Eng. in the Oceans IV, San Francisco, CA, USA.
ASCE, New York, pp. 716731.
Kaplan, P., Silbert, M.N., 1976. Impact forces on platform horizontal members
in the splash zone. TX OTC, Huston, Proc. of the Offshore Technology
Conference, pp. 749758.
Kaplan, P., Murray, J.J., Yu, W.C., 1995. Theoretical Analysis of Wave Impact
Forces on Platform Deck Structures. Offshore Technology OMAE, vol. I A.
ASME, pp. 189198.
Kjeldsen, S.P., Myrhaug, D., 1979. Breaking waves in deep water and resulting
wave forces. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers (Ed.), Proc. of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Ritchardson, TX, pp. 25252532.
Lundgren, H., 1969. Wave shock forces: an analysis of deformations and forces
in the wave and in the foundation. Proc. Symp. On Research in Wave
Action. Delft Hydraulics Lab. Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 120.
Massel, S.R., 2001. Wavelet analysis for processing of ocean surface wave
records. Ocean Eng. 28 (8), 957987.
McConnell, K.J., Allsop, N.W.H., Cuomo, G., Cruickshank, I.C., 2003. New
guidance for wave forces on jetties in exposed locations. Paper to Conf.
COPEDEC VI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 20 pp.
McConnell, K.J., Allsop, N.W.H., Cruickshank, I.C., 2004. Piers, Jetties and
Related Structures Exposed to Waves Guidelines for Hydraulic Loadings.
Thomas Telford Publishing, London. ISBN: 0 7277 3265 X.
Morison, J.R., O'Brien, M.P.O., Johnsen, J.W., Schaff, S.A., 1950. The Forces
Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles. Petrol Trans., vol. 189. AIME, pp. 149157.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., 1994. Analysis of dynamic response of caisson
breakwaters. Special issue on vertical breakwaters. Coast. Eng. 22, 159183.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., Allsop, N.W.H., De Groot, M.B., Crouch, R.S.,
Vrijling, J.K., Voortman, H.G., 2001. Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical
Breakwaters. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN: 90 580 248 8, 392 pp.
Shih, R.W.K., Anastasiou, K., 1992. A laboratory study of the wave induced
vertical loading on platform decks. Proc. Conf. ICE. Water Maritime and
Energy, vol. 96, 1. Thomas Telford, London, pp. 1933.
Suchithra, N., Koola, P.M., 1995. A study of wave impact on horizontal slabs.
Ocean Eng. 22 (7), 687697.
Tirindelli, M., McConnell, K., Allsop, N.W.H., Cuomo, G., 2002. Exposed
jetties: inconsistencies and gaps in design methods for wave-induced forces.
Proc. 28th ICCE, Cardiff, UK. ASCE, pp. 16841696.
679
Torrence, C., Compo, G.P., 1998. A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79 (1), 6178.
Toumazis, A.D., Shih, W.K., Anastasiou, K., 1989. Wave impact loading on
horizontal and vertical plates. Proc. of IAHR 89 Conf., Ottawa, Canada,
pp. c209c216.
Wang, H., 1970. Water wave pressure on horizontal plate. Journal of the
Hydraulic Division. ASCE, pp. 19972016. No.HY10 Oct.1970.