See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275259486

Hydrodynamic Experiment of the Wave Force Acting on the Superstructures of

Coastal Bridges

Article  in  Journal of Bridge Engineering · April 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000758

CITATIONS READS
5 230

4 authors:

Anxin Guo Qinghe Fang

Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xiaodong Bai Hui Li

Hohai University Harbin Institute of Technology
5 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    451 PUBLICATIONS   5,650 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shape memory alloy View project

- - (2011318494150) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qinghe Fang on 07 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Hydrodynamic Experiment of the Wave Force Acting on the
Superstructures of Coastal Bridges
Anxin Guo, Aff.M.ASCE1; Qinghe Fang2; Xiaodong Bai3; and Hui Li, Aff.M.ASCE4

Abstract: This paper presents a hydrodynamic experiment that examines the wave forces acting on the superstructure of coastal highway
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bridges to gain insight into the mechanical characteristics of the wave forces caused by the combination of storm surges and huge waves.
The experiment is unique in that the specimen is a full bridge model, including its superstructure, substructure, and neighboring segments.
After introducing the experimental setup and test program, this study analyzes the quasi-static and slamming components of the vertical
wave force, the horizontal wave force of the superstructure in different clearances, wave heights, and wave periods. The test results are
subsequently compared with two theoretical models suggested by Douglass and AASHTO guidelines to provide the experimental vali-
dation of those models. By comparing the test results and the existing models, a number of observations and discussions are produced to
improve the accuracy of those theoretical models further. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000758. © 2015 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Coastal bridges; Hurricanes; Superstructures; Hydrodynamic; Laboratory tests; Wave force.

Introduction
During Hurricanes Ivan (2004) and Katrina (2005), several coastal
bridges suffered severe damages caused by a combination of storm
surges and huge wave action (Douglass et al. 2004; Okeil and Cai
2008), incurring enormous repair costs to retrofit and replace the
damaged structures. The hurricane-generated storm surge and
water wave imposed huge wave loads on the superstructure of the
coastal bridges that had inadequate clearance, and the loads,
consequently, induced the failure of the bearing along with the
displacement and eventual unseating of the bridge decks.
Since the occurrence of those disasters, several researchers and
engineers have performed field inspections to obtain information
regarding the performance of coastal bridges under the impact of
storm surges and extreme wave loads. Douglass et al. (2004),
Eamon et al. (2007), and Okeil and Cai (2008) investigated the
coastal infrastructures on the Mississippi Gulf Coast damaged by
Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Katrina. Padgett et al. (2008)
described the damage patterns observed on bridges that were
1
Professor, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Structural
Dynamic Behavior and Control, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China (corresponding author).
E-mail: guoanxin@hit.edu.cn
2
Ph.D. Candidate, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Structural
Dynamic Behavior and Control, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China. E-mail: 12b933015@hit
.edu.cn
3
Ph.D. Candidate, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Structural
Dynamic Behavior and Control, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China. E-mail: baixd933012@
hotmail.com
4
Professor, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Structural
Dynamic Behavior and Control, School of Civil Engineering, Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China. E-mail: lihui@hit.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 21, 2014; approved
on December 5, 2014; published online on April 15, 2015. Discussion
period open until September 15, 2015; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/04015012(11)/$25.00.
attributed to storm surge, wind, debris impact, scour, and water
inundation in Hurricane Katrina. The field investigation results
revealed that the unseating or drifting of decks and the failure
of bridge parapets were the most typical damages suffered by the
44 bridges surveyed. Additional postevent survey results can
be found in open literature, such as those by Chen et al. (2009),
Douglass et al. (2006), and Fossier (2005).
Because of the complexity of wave actions, conducting labo-
ratory experiments in a wave flume is one major approach to
explore wave forces, surface pressure distribution, and the air
trapped by bridge superstructures. Although numerous laboratory
tests have been conducted on the wave loads acting on harbor
wharfs and offshore platforms (Williams 1985; Boccotti 1995;
Huseby and Grue 2000; Khalil 2001), the tests have seldom add-
ressed the impact of these loads on coastal bridge decks prior to
the 2004 and 2005 hurricane events. Before those events, Denson
(1978, 1980) was the only investigator who reported preliminary
data on the wave loads on highway bridge decks using a 1:24-scale
model after Hurricane Camille in 1969. After Hurricanes Ivan and
Katrina, Bradner (2008) and Bradner et al. (2011) conducted an
experiment based on a 1:5-scale reinforced concrete model of the
I-10 bridge over Escambia Bay to experimentally investigate the
wave forces acting on the bridge under regular and random waves.
Cuomo et al. (2009) reported experimental work on a 1:10-scale
bridge model that measured and analyzed the quasi-static wave
force and impulsive force on the bridge due to trapped air.
Limited theoretical investigations have been conducted on the
wave loads of bridge superstructures. Nevertheless, numerous
works have studied horizontal wave loads on piers (Morison et al.
1950) and jetties (McConnell et al. 2003), whereas other works
study the vertical wave loads on cylindrical components, flat
plates (French 1969), decks (Kaplan 1992; Kaplan et al. 1995),
and offshore platforms. Consequently, the theoretical methods for
calculating the wave loads on other types of structures such as
exposed jetties and platforms were previously extended to estimate
the wave force acting on the bridge superstructure (Aguíñiga et al.
2006, 2008). Douglass et al. (2006) modified the method proposed
on horizontal decks by McConnell et al. (2004) to conservatively
determine the wave loads on bridge decks as an interim guide

© ASCE 04015012-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012

 in 2006. On the basis of the Morison equation, Marin (2010)
developed a theoretical model to compute wave forces based on
a series of hydrodynamic tests on finite-thickness slabs and slab
spans with girder beams. Furthermore, AASHTO (2008) published
a guideline for estimating the wave forces acting on the coastal
bridges based on the physics-based method.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is an alternative approach
to investigate the wave–structure interaction and to compute the
wave loads on bridge superstructures. Huang and Xiao (2009) esta-
blished a numerical wave-load model based on the incompressible
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations and k – ε equations to
estimate the wave loads on the Escambia Bay bridge deck during
Hurricane Ivan. Wave forces on three different deck elevations were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
simulated and compared with the existing empirical methods. The
effects of the submersion depth on the wave lift force acting on the
Biloxi Bay bridge decks were also analyzed by using a similar
method (Xiao et al. 2010). By using the commercial CFD soft-
ware Flow-3D, Jin and Meng (2011) simulated the wave–bridge
interaction of the I-10 bridge over Escambia Bay. In this study, a
two-dimensional (2D) potential flow model was also proposed, and
the comparison results indicated that the AASHTO method gave
higher wave loads. It should be noted that the computation of the
wave loads on bridge decks using CFD methods is very
complicated because of the complex nature of the wave–structure
interaction. More studies should be performed in the future to
provide an effective numerical model and algorithm on this topic.
This paper presents an experiment to investigate the wave forces
acting on the superstructures of coastal bridge models under water
waves. The main contributions of this study are focused on the
following two aspects. (1) Compared with the studies on the offshore
platform, wave action on a bridge deck is still a new topic in the
civil engineering community. Although several hydrodynamic
experiments have been conducted, the basic statistical test data
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1. The test facility: (a) 3D perspective drawing and the interior photos; (b) elevation view of the wave flume
© ASCE 04015012-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012
concerned with this problem are still rare. This study will provide
some basic data for the development of the physical-based wave
force model. (2) The accuracy of several existing models for the
estimation of the wave force of the bridge decks under hurricane
events is still argued by some researchers. This study aims to give
new evidence for the validation of the existing theoretical models.
This study is divided into five sections. First, the test setup, including
the test facility, the bridge model, the data acquisition system and the
test plan, is introduced in the next section. Given the measurements
collected during the experiments, the time series and the amplitude
of the vertical wave force and the horizontal wave force are then
comprehensively analyzed in the section following that. Finally,
the measurements are used to validate two theoretical models sug-
gested by Douglass and the AASHTO guidelines, and a number of
observations and discussions are also given.
Experimental Setup
Test Facility
The experiments were conducted in the Wind Tunnel and Wave
Flume Laboratory at the Harbin Institute of Technology in China.
The test facility features novel equipment, integrating two wind
tunnel test sections and a wave flume. As shown in Fig. 1, Section I
is a common wind tunnel. On the other side, a large wind tunnel
test section embedded with a wave flume at the bottom can be used
to conduct either hydrodynamic tests or coupling tests with wind
and wave loads. The size of the wave flume is 5:0 × 4:5 × 50 m.
The water waves are generated by using a bottom-hinged flap-type
wavemaker installed at the left side of the flume. At the opposite
side of the wave flume, a wave absorber is equipped to dissipate
the wave energy and to minimize the wave reflection. At the
J. Bridge Eng.
 intermediate segment of the wave flume, a deep well is set up with
approximately 28.5 m measured from the wavemaker to the center
of the well. A 5:0 m × 9:0 m lifting platform, embedded with a
turntable with a diameter of 3.6 m, is equipped over the deep well
by using four vertical tracks for motion positioning and a cable
system at the corners for support. During the experiment, the test
model is first mounted on the lifting platform. After that, the lifting
platform is then adjusted to the required submergence depth and
fixed with the tracks by driving the mechanical lifting system and
locking device, respectively.

Bridge Model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The prototype structure was selected from the Standard Drawings

of Highway Bridge of China (JT/GQB008-96 1999), which is
widely used for bridge designs in China. The bridge was a simply
supported reinforced concrete bridge with two columns for each
bent. The span length and width of the deck were 20.0 and 10.0 m, (a)
respectively, and the gap size of the expansion joints was 5.0 cm.
The test model was designed according to the Froude similarity
criteria with a geometric scaling of 1:10. The specimen was com-
posed of a complete middle segment, including the superstructure
and substructure, and a quarter of the neighboring segments so that
the effects of those additional structural components on the wave
field can be considered.
Because of the limited carrying capacity of the lifting platform
and no hoisting equipment for the movement of the test specimen,
lightweight materials, including steel, wood, acrylonitrile buta-
diene styrene (ABS) plastic, and Perspex, were used to fabricate
the specimen for lightening the self-weight of the structure. The
superstructures contained five girders, four diaphragms, and
a deck, as shown in Fig. 2. A steel keel was embedded inside the
superstructure to eliminate the deformation of the specimen under
the wave loads and to achieve the rigid assumption of the speci-
men. The bottom and lateral surfaces of the superstructure were
covered with ABS plastic skin, and the top surface was sealed with
transparent Perspex plates to satisfy the structural configuration (b)
and hydrodynamic characteristics and to observe the possible
leakage of the specimen. The tested superstructure was supported Fig. 2. The test specimen: (a) photo of the experiment setup;
on two bents with four piers with a clearance height of 1.0 m. (b) elevation view of the bridge model
The substructure was fabricated using D = 15 cm circular Perspex
tubes and Perspex plates covered on the inside steel frames.
During the tests, the outside surface of the substructures only resis- and transverse directions, respectively, were installed between the
ted the wave loads acting on the substructure, and the wave loads girders and bent caps to measure the vertical, longitudinal, and
on the superstructures were directly transferred to the steel frames transverse wave forces of the middle segment. In the following
inside the substructure through the load cells, preventing the analysis, the total wave loads applied in the three direc-
damage of the Perspex surface under large wave forces. For the tions of the rigid deck were obtained by summing the measured
neighboring segments, the inner sides of the superstructures forces along the same direction. Nineteen pressure transducers
were installed on the bents, and the outer sides were supported by previously embedded in the girders and deck in two arrays were
two steel pipes with a diameter of 3.0 cm. used to measure the pressure exerted on the specimen.
A specifically designed matching data acquisition system and
a National Instruments PCI Extensions for Instrumentation-based
Data Acquisition System real-time data acquisition system were used to collect the data of
As shown in Figs. 1(b) and 2(a), five capacitance-type wave the water surface elevation, pressure, and wave force, respectively.
gauges were installed along the wave flume to measure the wave In each trial, a 140-s wave was generated by the wavemaker. At
surface elevations. Wave gauges WG1–WG3 were arranged to be the same time, all of the sensors were triggered to measure the test
4.5, 2.5, and 2.0 m upstream of the leading edge of the specimen, signals with a sampling frequency of 200 Hz.
respectively, and they were used to measure the incident and
reflected waves. Wave gauge WG5 was placed 2.0 m downstream
Test Plan
of the trailing edge to measure the transmitted waves. Furthermore,
wave gauge WG4 was positioned in the middle between the lateral The field inspection indicated that hurricane-induced wave forces
side of the specimen and the flume wall. acting on coastal bridges depended significantly on wave condi-
Four three-component underwater load cells (LC1–LC4) with tions and the clearance between the superstructure and the still
the capacity of ± 2, ± 1, and ± 1 kN in the vertical, longitudinal, water level (SWL). From the hindcast numerical simulation and

© ASCE 04015012-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012

 the field inspection results of Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan
(Douglass et al. 2006; Chen et al. 2009), researchers found that the
most significant wave heights and peak periods of hurricane-
induced waves near the site of collapsed bridges ranged from 1.98
to 3.0 m and 3.19 to 6.0 s, respectively. Therefore, a series of
regular waves with five different wave periods T from 1.0 to 3.0 s
with increments of 0.5 s were applied on the specimen after con-
sidering the Froude similarity law. Because the capacity of the
wave generator was strongly related to the wave period and wave
steepness, two to four types of wave heights H between 10 and
30 cm were chosen for the experiment, in accordance with the
difference in the wave period. Five different clearance heights bet-
ween the low chord of the girders to the SWL Z C were experi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mentally investigated in this study, including the subaerial cases of
5.0 and 2.5 cm, the 0.0 cm clearance, the partially submerged case
of − 8:0 cm, and the fully submerged case of − 17:0 cm. All of
the measured wave conditions are shown in Fig. 3.
Because of the deep well and the lifting platform, the water
depth changes at the leading edge of the platform, which would
affect the wave properties. Recognizing this problem, the waves
Fig. 3. Measured wave conditions in different clearances
(a) (b)
(d) (e)
Fig. 4. Time series of the wave force and separated results: (a) vertical force of Z c = 5:0 cm; (b) vertical force of Z c = 0:0 cm; (c) vertical force of
Z c = − 17:0 cm; (d) horizontal force of Z c = 5:0 cm; (e) horizontal force of Z c = 0:0 cm; (f) horizontal force of Z c = − 17:0 cm
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012
used in the experiment were calibrated using a feedback wave
gauge and wavemaker control system before the trials. Further-
more, when the wave passed through the specimen, the elevation
measured by wave gauges WG1–WG3 included the components
of the incident wave, the reflected wave induced by the specimen,
and the re-reflected wave from the wavemaker. If those signals
were used to determine the wave height, the reflected waves
and incident waves should be separated from the wave gauge
records. However, a comparison with the calibration signals
indicated that the wave elevation recorded by WG4 was seldom
affected by the reflected wave. So, the measured wave elevation
of WG4 was used to determine the actual wave heights of the
incident waves. Moreover, during a time window between the two
instances when the waves achieved steady state but the rereflected
waves from the wavemaker had yet to arrive, the leading edge of
the specimen was selected to extract the test signals for analysis to
eliminate the effects of the rereflected waves on the measured
wave forces.
Test Results
The wave loads applied on the superstructure of the bridges gen-
erally include the components of buoyancy, hydrodynamic force,
drag and inertia force, and slamming forces. To obtain more in-
sight into the characteristics of wave forces, the vertical and hor-
izontal wave forces along with the pressures experienced by the
specimen were analyzed.
Vertical Wave Force
By summing the measured forces of the four load cells, Fig. 4
shows three typical time series of the total vertical wave loads
applied on the specimen under the same wave period of 2.0 s and
a wave height of approximately 18 cm for different clearance
heights. Similar to the experimental results of other researchers,
the wave force was observed to be composed of a quasi-static
(c)
(f)
04015012-4 J. Bridge Eng.
 force and a high-frequency slamming force that was manifested
as sharp spikes in the time series for the subaerial and zero
clearance cases. It is commonly believed that the slow-varying
quasi-static force is induced by the waves with long durations,
whereas the slamming force is induced by the compression of
the trapped air and the momentum transmission at the air/water
interface.
In the following, the wave forces acting on the bridge model
were compared in different clearances. It should be noted that the
still water depth of the bridge model was different from the change
of the clearance because of the limitation of the test facility. In
those cases, the comparison of the test results is not suitable if the
same water depth is required. However, the variation of the still
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
water depth in the experiment was compatible with the real status
of the practical bridges, of which the still water depth also increa-
ses owing to the storm surge during hurricanes.
In addition, the vertical wave force was noted to increase
with a decrease in the clearance height for subaerial cases. In
the zero clearance case, a more serious impact phenomenon
was observed from the increases in the amplitude of the slamm-
ing force and wave attack numbers. When the superstructure
was fully submerged beneath the SWL, the slamming force
became smaller or even disappeared because of the weakening
of the trapped air phenomenon. Furthermore, the test results of
the submerged cases indicate that the downward force is larger
than the upward force. Thus, the buoyancy was not included
in the measurement; the green water overtopping the deck
also applied additional weight on the bridge deck in the
submerged case.
A Fourier analysis of the above time series was conducted to
understand the spectrum ingredient of the waveforms. As an ex-
ample, the Fourier spectrum of the case with zero clearance is
shown in Fig. 5. It is found that the spectrum can be divided into
two distinct parts. Within the range of 0–5 Hz, the dominant fre-
quencies are 0.5 Hz, which equals the frequency of the passing
wave. However, a series of higher frequencies, which equal
N times the incoming wave frequency, also appears in the
waveforms. The N‐times frequency wave forces originated mainly
from the nonlinear waves and the higher-order velocity potentials
from the incident and diffracted waves. This phenomenon also
reveals that some of the wave energy of the monochromatic
incident waves is shifting from a low frequency to higher fre-
quencies during the interaction process between the wave and the
structure.
In addition, the slamming force from the neighboring wave
crests of the time series, as shown in Fig. 4, is approximately 8 Hz.
The Fourier spectrum further proves that the frequency of the
slamming force is within 5–10 Hz. In this frequency band, several
prominent frequencies, which are N times the wave frequency, and
some several other wide-range frequency components are obser
ved. This is caused by the complex impact process at the air/water
interface together with the compression of the trapped air and the
formation of the air cushions and bubbles.
From the studies of other researchers, it is indicated that the
hydrodynamic model test would overestimate the slamming force
by using the Froude similarity. Because there is no effective ap-
proach for scaling the slamming forces, the Froude similarity is
still used for the slamming force in this study; it would pro
vide conservative results that are safer for engineering practices.
Moreover, considering the complexity of the slamming force,
dividing the total vertical wave force into two separate parts is
helpful to understand the mechanism of the wave force. To that
end, a low-pass digital filter, in which the cutoff frequency was
set as 5.0 Hz in accordance with the spectrum analysis result
© ASCE 04015012-5
J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012
Fig. 5. Fourier spectrum of the vertical wave force
of this case, was used to separate the lower-frequency wave
force from the time series. The slamming force was then obtained
by subtracting the quasi-static force from the measured data.
The separated quasi-static force and the slamming force for
those rials are also shown in Fig. 4. A comparison between the
separated signals shows that the slamming force has the
same order of magnitude as the quasi-static force for the subaerial
cases. Furthermore, the peak slamming force generally occurs
near the instances when the quasi-static force reaches a maxi
mum. When considering structural safety, the slamming force
should be included in the bridge design when the clearance is
insufficient.
It should also be noted from the above time series that the
vertical wave loads can be applied on the superstructures in either
the upward (positive value) or the downward (negative value)
direction. The field inspection indicates that the damage of the
highway bridge under the wave loads is typically induced by the
combination of the upward wave force and the horizontal wave
force. Therefore, only the upward wave forces were considered in
the following analysis.
The amplitude of the quasi-static wave forces is depicted in
Fig. 6 to clarify the relationships between the wave forces and
wave conditions. In each trial, there were several cycles of
waveforms, and a statistical analysis of the amplitude from the
extracted signals was conducted for each trial. Additionally,
the mean value and standard deviation of the wave forces and
wave height are shown in the figures. From the test results, the
following can be observed: (1) The quasi-static forces are sig-
nificantly affected by, and increase nearly linearly with, the wave
height. (2) The quasi-static force generally becomes larger with a
decrease in clearance height from the subaerial cases to the zero
clearance case. When the specimen is submerged in water, the
quasi-static force in the upward direction decreases as the sub-
mergence depth increases from the case of Z c = − 8:5 cm to
Z c = − 17:0 cm. (3) At the clearance height of 2.5 and 0.0 cm, the
wave force apparently increases from a wave period of 1.5 to 2.0 s
at the same wave height. However, with additional increase of the
wave period, the increase of the quasi-static force is not obvious,
and sometimes the wave force even decreases.
Fig. 6 also shows the amplitude of the separated slamming
force varying with the wave conditions and clearance. The mea-
sured slamming forces are more discrete than the quasi-static
forces because the slamming forces are influenced by more un-
predictable factors. However, the change rate of the momentum
and the trapped air, which are strongly dependent on the clearance
and the wave height, can still be observed as the two main factors
that affect the amplitude of the slamming force. In subaerial cases,
the decrease of the clearance and the increase of the wave height
J. Bridge Eng.
 led to the increase of the slamming force, which became smaller
with the submergence of the bridge model.
Horizontal Wave Force
When analyzing the displacement and unseating of the bridge
superstructures under the waves, the horizontal wave force plays
an important role in pushing the bridge in the lateral direction
when the weight of the superstructure is overcome by the vertical
wave force. The time series of the horizontal forces in the same
trials shown in Fig. 4 are also depicted on the other side to es-
tablish a basis for comparison. Fig. 4 reveals that the slamming
force in the horizontal direction is not prevalent compared with the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
direction became obvious, resulting in an increase of the wave
force in the opposite direction.
Fig. 7 shows the statistical analysis results of the amplitude of
the total horizontal force varying with the wave conditions and
clearance. The figures indicate a tendency similar to that of the
vertical force varying with the wave height. However, two distinct
characteristics are observed from the test results for the horizontal
force compared with those for the vertical force. One characteristic
is that the reduction of the horizontal forces is not obvious from
the case of the zero clearance to the case that is fully inundated.
This characteristic is more clearly depicted in Fig. 8, in which the
variation of the horizontal wave forces versus the wave heights
with different clearances is shown for the specimen under the wave

slamming force in the vertical direction. When the bridge deck was with a period of 2.5 s. The other characteristic is that the wave with
submerged, the effects of water particle movement in the negative a short period would induce a relatively large horizontal force at

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 6. The vertical quasi-static and slamming wave force versus wave conditions: (a) quasi-static force of Z c = 5:0 cm; (b) slamming force of
Z c = 5:0 cm; (c) quasi-static force of Z c = 2:5 cm; (d) slamming force of Z c = 2:5 cm; (e) quasi-static force of Z c = 0:0 cm; (f) slamming force of
Z c = 0:0 cm; (g) quasi-static force of Z c = − 8:5 cm; (h) slamming force of Z c = − 8:5 cm; (i) quasi-static force of Z c = − 17:0 cm; (j) slamming force
of Z c = − 17:0 cm

© ASCE 04015012-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(g)
(i)
Fig. 6. (Continued.)
the same wave height and clearance. At the same wave height,
waves with a shorter period have a larger wave steepness and a
relatively larger particle velocity and acceleration, which would
induce a large drag force and inertia in the horizontal direction.
Comparison with Load Models
Douglass Model
Douglass et al. (2006) recommended an interim guideline for
calculating the wave forces of bridge decks based on the research
results of McConnell et al. (2004) on jetties. This model takes the
equivalent hydrostatic pressure load acting on the bridge surface
as reference loads, and the vertical and horizontal components of
the wave force are linearly proportional to the reference loads as
follows:
Fv = (cv‐va + cv‐im )Fv*

Fh = ½1 + cr (N − 1)ch‐va + ch‐im Fh*
where cv‐va and ch‐va = empirical coefficients of the quasi-static
force in the vertical and horizontal directions; cv‐im and ch‐im =
corresponding empirical coefficients related to the slamming
force; cr = reduction coefficient of the horizontal force consider-
ing the effects of the internal girders; N = number of the girders;
and Fv* and Fh* = reference vertical and horizontal forces. In the
report, the empirical coefficients cv‐va ,ch‐va ,cv‐im ,ch‐im , and cr are
recommended to be 1.0, 1.0, 3.0, 6.0, and 0.4, respectively. More
details regarding this model can be found in Douglass et al.
(2006).
The advantages of this model are its simplicity and conveni
ence without the need for complex calculation; it is also
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012
(h)
(j)
particularly useful for engineering applications. When using this
model, the wave parameters do not directly appear in the formula;
they are implicitly included through the reference force related to
the projection areas and the difference of elevation. When the
wave inundates the deck, the model is clearly defined to calculate
the difference of elevation from the wave crest to the underside of
the bridge deck. However, when the wave crest elevation does not
exceed the top of the bridge in some trials, a reduced area related
to the projection area of the girders and the difference of elevation
between the wave crest and the low chord of the girders are used to
determine the reference vertical force in this study. Furthermore,
because the reference model does not clearly describe when the
slamming force should be considered, two theoretical results with
and without the slamming forces are given in the figures. For the
specimen that is partially or fully submerged in water, the buoy-
ance, which is not measured because of the zero-drift calibration,
is added to the test result to be consistent with the theoretical
(1) model.
Given the above analysis, Fig. 9 shows the comparison bet-
(2) ween the theoretical results using the Douglass model and the test
results. In the figures, the measured forces are shown in the form
of a scatter plot in which the legend of the symbols is consistent
with that of Fig. 6. In Fig. 9, each scatter point represents the
maximum wave force of a trial in the corresponding direction.
From the comparison, the following observations on the vertical
force can be made. (1) For the subaerial and zero clearance cases,
the test amplitude of the vertical force is within the scope of the
upper and lower limits of the theoretical values. The main reason is
that the empirical coefficient cv‐im is suggested to be 3.0 on the
basis of the research results of McConnell et al. (2004), which is
more suitable for the case of the bridge deck being inundated with
a large slamming force. (2) When the specimen is fully submerged
in water, the slamming force becomes smaller. The theoretical
04015012-7 J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 7. The horizontal wave force versus wave conditions: (a) Z c = 5:0 cm; (b) Z c = 2:5 cm; (c) Z c = 0:0 cm; (d) Z c = − 8:5 cm;
(e) Z c = − 17:0 cm

value of the vertical force without considering the impact force
gives a reasonable estimate of the vertical force for the wave with a
smaller wave height. When the wave height increases, the model
would slightly overestimate the vertical force. This error may be
caused by the effects of the green water, which is more significant
for the wave with a large wave height, and is not considered in
this model.
The analysis for the horizontal wave force shows the follow-
ing. (1) For the horizontal force, the model agrees well with
the subaerial cases if smaller values of the empirical coefficient
ch‐im are assigned depending on the measurement of this experi-
ment. (2) In these experiments, the slamming force in the hor-
izontal direction is relatively small. Assigning the value of ch‐im as
6.0 would significantly overestimate the horizontal wave force.
(3) As the clearance is reduced to zero and the bridge deck
becomes fully submerged, the Douglass model would over-
predict the horizontal force by an increasing margin because
the Douglass model is developed and considers the SWL to
be lower than the low chord of the girders. However, when the
SWL exceeds the elevation of the centroid of the projection area
in the horizontal direction, the hydrostatic pressure between the
centroid and the SWL would be included using this model,
resulting in an overestimation of the horizontal wave force. This
topic has been mentioned in Douglass et al. (2006): “This app-
roach also continues to estimate higher and higher loads with
greater levels of submergence below the crest of the wave that
could be due to increased storm surge instead of increased
submergence.”
Model of AASHTO Guidelines
The AASHTO (2008) guideline suggested three design cases for
determining the wave forces of highway bridges. In this study,
the comparison is conducted on Design Case I, which is the
primary case with a combination of the maximum vertical force,
FV‐max , associated horizontal force, FH‐AV , and moment MT‐AV .
In accordance with the AASHTO guideline, the vertical,

© ASCE 04015012-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012

 horizontal, and slamming forces of Design Case I can be where γ w = unit weight of water; Hmax = maximum probable
calculated by wave height; Tp = wave period; λ = wavelength; d s = water
depth; W and W = total and effective bridge width, respectively;
FV‐max = d b = girder height plus slab thickness; ai and bi = coefficients
  related to the geometric profile of the superstructures; and TAF is
Hmax
γ w Wβ −1:3 +1:8 ½1:35+0:35tanh(1:2Tp −8:5) the entrapped air factor that can be calculated by
ds (3)
 
b2 b4 b5 x TAF = AAIR (%AIR) + BAIR ≤ 1:0 (6)
× b0 +b1 x+ +b3 x2 + 2 + +b6 x3 (TAF)
y y y
where %AIR is taken as 100 because the diaphragms and girders
of the specimen have the same height. The other coefficients of
FH‐AV = Eqs. (3)–(6) can be determined according to the method suggested

in the guideline.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

γ w Hmax
2
a0 +a1 x+a2 x2 +a3 x3 +a4 x4 +a5 x5 +a6 lny
  (4) The model proposed in this guideline is a parameterized
W method based on the modification and extension of Kaplan’s
× a7 +a8
λ equations (Kaplan 1992; Kaplan et al. 1995). Because the
coefficients a0 − a8 given in Eq. (4) are specified for the
 B horizontal force of seven special types of superstructures that are
Hmax
Fs = Aγ w Hmax
2
(5) not suitable for the specimen of this experiment, only the vertical
λ
forces are analyzed and compared with the test results in
this study.
Fig. 10 shows some comparison results between the measure-
ment and the analyzed results. Several observations from the
comparison can be obtained. (1) The AASHTO method tends
to slightly underestimate the vertical force at a smaller wave height
when the wave height is smaller than 20 cm for the subaerial
case with a clearance of 5.0 cm. However, compared with the
Douglass model, this method gives a larger estimation of the
vertical wave force when the wave height further increases. As
an example, the theoretical value of the AASHTO model is
approximately twice that of the Douglass model for the case of
a wave with a period of 3.0 s and a wave height of 35 cm. It is
Fig. 8. The horizontal wave force versus wave height and clearance in indicated that the AASHTO model has a tendency to overesti-
wave period of 2.5 s mate the vertical wave force at large wave heights. (2) For the
case of zero clearance, this method gives a reasonable estimation

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 9. Comparison between the results from the Douglass method and the measured forces: (a) vertical force of Z c = 5:0 cm; (b) vertical force of
Z c = 0:0 cm; (c) vertical force of Z c = − 17:0 cm; (d) horizontal force of Z c = 5:0 cm; (e) horizontal force of Z c = 0:0 cm; (f) horizontal force of
Z c = − 17:0 cm

© ASCE 04015012-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012

 (a) (b)
Fig. 10. Comparison of the vertical wave force between the AASHTO guideline results and the measured forces: (a) vertical force of Z c = 5:0 cm;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b) vertical force of Z c = 0:0 cm; (c) vertical force of Z c = − 17:0 cm
of the vertical wave force when the wave height is smaller than
20 cm. The phenomenon of overestimating the vertical wave
force is more obviously observed in this case because of the
rapid nonlinear increase of the predicted values of the AASHTO
model when the wave height is larger than 20 cm. Furthermore,
it is found that the theoretical values of the AASHTO model are
monotonically increased with the increase of the wave period,
which is slightly inconsistent with the measurement in this study.
(3) Similar to the Douglass model, the vertical wave force in this
model is also significantly overpredicted when the specimen is
fully submerged in the water. However, it should also be noted
from the test results that the slamming forces are very small in the
full submergence case. In this case, the AASHTO guideline pro-
vides an excellent estimate of the slamming force by using Eq. (5)
even under large wave height conditions.
Discussion
From the comparison between the test results and the estimated
results using Douglass model, it is shown that the Douglass model
can achieve a relative accurate estimate of the horizontal and
vertical wave forces. Its simplicity is one of the most important
advantages of this model for an engineering application, and it
will provide conservative design values for wave forces. Given
the experimental results of this study, the following suggestions
are presented herein to further improve the accuracy of this
model. (1) The slamming force in the vertical direction should be
included in the model for this type of girder bridge. However, the
empirical coefficient cv‐im should be carefully considered. For the
subaerial or zero clearance case, the value of 3.0 is acceptable for
a conservative estimate. Otherwise, a smaller value of 1.0 is
sufficient for the partially or fully submerged case. (2) When the
SWL is higher than the centroid of the projection area in the
horizontal direction, the difference in the elevation should be
calculated from the elevations of the wave crest to the SWL rather
than from the centroid of the projection area in the horizontal
direction.
The AASHTO model gives a parameterized description of the
wave forces by comprehensively considering the configuration
of the bridge deck, wave condition, and clearance. This model
slightly underestimates the vertical wave forces under small wave
period conditions in the subaerial case, and it significantly over-
predicts the wave forces for the submergence case. Considering
the many factors that could affect the wave force, one possible
reason for the overestimation may be because of the calculation
method of the effective bridge width related to the wetting area
under wave action. In the guidelines, the effective bridge width is
© ASCE 04015012-10
J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012
(c)
computed by
  
λ Hmax
W =λ− Zc + (7)
Hmax 2
The above equation can be given in another form as
λ Zc
W= − λ (8)
2 Hmax
which means that the effective bridge width is calculated by
simplifying the wave shape as a triangle. Using this method, the
wetting area of the bridge deck may be underpredicted for the
subaerial case in a real wave, such as the progressive wave de-
scribed as the sinusoidal or cosine waveform. Furthermore, when
the bridge superstructure is partially or fully submerged in water,
Z c is negative and Eq. (6) would give an erroneous result of the
effective bridge width.
Conclusions
This paper presents a hydrodynamic experiment on the wave force
acting on a bridge superstructure in coastal areas to investigate
the variation in the wave force and to provide basic data to vali-
date theoretical models. A 1:10-scale bridge specimen, including
the superstructure, substructure, and neighboring segments, is used
for the wave test in the wave flume under different wave condi-
tions and clearance heights. From the measurements and the
comparison between the two theoretical models, the following
conclusions can be made:
1. The amplitude of the slamming force is on the same order
as the quasi-static force, and it is at a maximum in the zero
clearance cases. For a bridge with this type of configuration,
the slamming force should be considered in the design, and
the total vertical force can be taken as twice the quasi-static
vertical force.
2. The horizontal wave force is proportional to the wave height.
The slamming component of the wave force is not obvious
in the horizontal direction. The wave with a short wave
period would have a larger horizontal wave force.
3. Both of the existing methods can give a satisfactory estimate
of the wave force for the subaerial and zero clearance cases.
However, the theoretical methods all significantly over-
estimate the wave force when the bridge superstructure is
submerged in water.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Acknowledgments
The financial support from the Technology Project of the Ministry
of Transport of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of
China, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Uni-
versities of China with respective grant numbers 2011318494150,
51222808, and HIT.BRETIV.201320 are greatly appreciated by
the authors.
References
AASHTO. (2008). Guide specifications for bridges vulnerable to coastal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Harbin Institute of Technology on 08/07/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
storms, 1st Ed., AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Aguíñiga, F., Matakis, K., Estrada, H., Sai, J., Leelani, P., and Shelden, J.
(2006). “Report synthesis of wave load design methods for coastal
bridges.” Rep. No. FHWA/TX-08/0-5516-2, Texas A&M Univ.,
Kingsville, TX.
Aguíñiga, F., Matakis, K., Estrada, H., Sai, J., Leelani, P., and Shelden, J.
(2008). “Wave forces on bridge decks: State of the art and state of the
practice review.” Rep. No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5516-1, Texas A&M Univ.,
Kingsville, TX.
Boccotti, P. (1995). “A field experiment on the small-scale model of
a gravity offshore platform.” Ocean Eng., 22(6), 615–627.
Bradner, C. (2008). “Large-scale laboratory observations of wave forces
on a highway bridge superstructure.” Master’s thesis, Oregon State
Univ., Portland, OR.
Bradner, C., Schumacher, T., Cox, D., and Higgins, C. (2011). “Experi-
mental setup for a large-scale bridge superstructure model subjected to
waves.” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
WW.1943-5460.0000059, 3–11.
Chen, Q., Wang, L. X., and Zhao, H. H. (2009). “Hydrodynamic investi-
gation of coastal bridge collapse during Hurricane Katrina.” J. Hydraul.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:3(175), 175–186.
Cuomo, G., Shimosako, K., and Takahashi, S. (2009). “Wave-in-deck loads
on coastal bridges and the role of air.” Coast. Eng., 56(8), 793–809.
Denson, K. H. (1978). “Wave forces on causeway-type coastal bridges.”
Rep. No. PB2893675, Water Resources Research Institute, Mississippi
State Univ., Starkville, MS.
Denson, K. H. (1980). “Wave forces on causeway-type coastal bridges:
Effects of angle of wave incidence and cross-section shape.” Rep. No.
MSHD-RD-80-070, Water Resources Research Institute, Mississippi
State Univ., Starkville, MS.
Douglass, S. L., Chen, Q., Olsen, J. M., and Edge, B. L. (2006). “Wave
forces on bridge decks.” Rep. of Dept. of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Douglass, S. L., Hughes, S. A., Rogers, S., and Chen, Q. J. (2004). “The
impact of Hurricane Ivan on the coastal roads of Florida and Alabama:
A preliminary report.” Rep. of Coastal Transportation Engineering
Research & Education Center, Univ. of South Alabama, Mobile, AL.
Eamon, C. D., Fitzpatrick, P., and Truax, D. D. (2007). “Observations of
structural damage caused by Hurricane Katrina on the Mississippi Gulf
© ASCE 04015012-11
View publication stats J. Bridge Eng., 2015, 20(12): 04015012
coast.” J. Perform. Constr. Fac., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)
21:2(117), 117–127.
Fossier, P. (2005). “Hurricane Katrina accelerated repairs to interstate
10 louisiana twin span bridge.” PCI J., 50(6), 121–125.
French, J. A. (1969). “Wave uplift pressures on horizontal platforms.”
Rep. No. KH-R-19, W. M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water
Resources, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Huang, W. R., and Xiao, H. (2009). “Numerical modeling of dynamic
wave force acting on Escambia Bay bridge deck during Hurricane
Ivan.” J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
950X(2009)135:4(164), 164–175.
Huseby, M., and Grue, J. (2000). “An experimental investigation of
higher-harmonic wave forces on a vertical cylinder.” J. Fluid Mech.,
414(13), 75–103.
Jin, J., and Meng, B. (2011). “Computation of wave loads on the super-
structures of coastal highway bridges.” Ocean Eng., 38(17–18),
2185–2200.
JT/GQB008-96. (1999). “Standard drawings of highway bridge.”
JT/GQB008-96, Chinese Communications Press, Beijing.
Kaplan, P. (1992). “Wave impact forces on offshore structures:
Re-examination and new interpretations.” Proc., Offshore Technology
Conf., OTC, Houston, TX.
Kaplan, P., Murray, J. J., and Yu, W. C. (1995). “Theoretical analysis of
wave impact forces on platform deck structures.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf.
on Offshore Mechanics & Arctic Engineering, ASME, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Khalil, G. M. (2001). “Experimental investigation of wave forces on
submerged horizontal cylinders.” Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci., 8(2),
59–65.
Marin, J. M. (2010). “Wave loading on bridge supersturctures.” Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
McConnell, K., Allsop, W., and Cruickshank, I. (2004). Piers, jetties and
related structures exposed to waves: Guidelines for hydraulic load-
ings, 1st Ed., Thomas Telford, London.
McConnell, K. J., Allsop, N. W. H., Cuomo, G., and Cruickshank, I. C.
(2003). “New guidance for wave forces on jetties in exposed loca-
tions.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Coastal and Port Engineering in
Developing Countries, COPEDEC, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Morison, J. R., O’Brien, M. P., Jonhnson, J. W., and Schaaf, S. A. (1950).
“The force exerted by surface waves on piles.” J. Can. Petrol. Tech-
nol., 2(5), 149–154.
Okeil, A. M., and Cai, C. S. (2008). “Survey of short- and medium-span
bridge damage induced by Hurricane Katrina.” J. Bridge Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:4(377), 377–387.
Padgett, J., et al. (2008). “Bridge damage and repair costs from Hurricane
Katrina.” J. Bridge Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2008)13:1(6),
6–14.
Williams, A. N. (1985). “Wave-forces on inclined circular-cylinder.”
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X
(1985)111:5(910), 910–920.
Xiao, H., Huang, W. R., and Chen, Q. (2010). “Effects of submersion
depth on wave uplift force acting on Biloxi Bay Bridge decks during
Hurricane Katrina.” Comput. Fluids, 39(8), 1390–1400.
J. Bridge Eng.