Tentative New Formula for Maximum Horizontal Wave Forces

Acting on Perforated Caisson

El-Hafid Tabet-Aoul1 and Eloi Lambert2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper summarizes a part of the work carried out in the framework of the European research program MAST III-
PROVERBS. It deals with the evaluation of pressure distribution and forces acting on the different faces of a perforated caisson
breakwater. Various 2D model tests were performed at LeHavre and Caen Universities, and field measurements were made on the Dieppe
breakwater. The aim of the study was to improve common knowledge and design of this type of dissipative monolithic breakwater. A new
method for the calculation of maximum horizontal wave forces is proposed. The method is tested for more than 120 force estimates
derived from various experimental sources, and it proves to be fairly good and reliable for engineering applications.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-950X共2003兲129:1共34兲
CE Database keywords: Caissons; Breakwaters; Coastal structures; Pressure distribution; Wave forces; Offshore structures.

Introduction ⫽0) or to the top of the wall 共pressure p 4 ) in the case of over-
topping waves. Fig. 1 shows the pressure distribution for a perfo-
Limited literature exists for the determination of horizontal forces rated caisson case.
acting on perforated caissons. The Goda-Takahashi formula 共Ta- Pressures p 1 , p 3 , and p 4 are functions of wave conditions,
kahashi and Shimosako 1994兲 is currently the most used formula depth, and wall geometry. These are defined as
for caisson design. The present work was carried out in the frame-
work of the European research program MASTIII-PROVERBS p 1 ⫽0.5共 1⫹cos ␤ 兲共 ␭ 1 ␣ 1 ⫹␭ 2 ␣ * cos2 ␤ 兲 ␥ 0 H D (1)
共De Gerloni 1998兲. Experimental data have been collected from
2D model tests performed at LeHavre 共Case A兲 and Caen 共Case p 3 ⫽␣ 3 p 1 (2)
B兲 Universities and field measurements of the Dieppe caisson and
breakwater. The model caisson tests were done with or without a
toe berm, 共Figs. 1共a,b兲, under monochromatic waves. The experi- p 4 ⫽␣ 4 p 1 (3)
mental results led to the development of new formulas for more
precisely predicting wave forces on perforated caisson structures. where
External data were used to test the validity for different wave and
structure conditions. ␩ * ⫽0.75共 1⫹cos ␤ 兲 ␭ 1 H D (4)

␣ 1 ⫽0.6⫹0.5关共 2kh/sinh共 2kh 兲兲兴 2 (5)

Wave Forces on a Perforated Caisson ␣ 2 ⫽min兵 共 1⫺d/h b 兲共 H D /d 兲 2 /3,2h/H D 其 (6)

Goda-Takahashi Model ␣ 3 ⫽1⫺ 共 h ⬘ /h 兲关 1⫺1/cosh共 kh 兲兴 (7)

One of the most commonly employed formulas for predicting ␣ 4 ⫽1⫺h *

pressures on a vertical wall was developed by Goda 共1985兲 and
modified by Takahashi 共1994兲 for perforated vertical structures. In
this model, pressures are assumed to be linear from the bottom
共pressure p 3 ) to the mean water level 共pressure p 1 ), and from the
mean water level 共pressure p 1 ) to the crest level 共pressure p 4
1
Lecturer, Le Havre University, 25 rue P. Lebon BP540 76058 Le
Havre Cedex France. E-mail: htabet@noos.fr
2
Lecturer, Rouen IUFM 25 rue P. Lebon BP540 76058 Le Havre
Cedex France. E-mail: eloi.lambert@univ-lehavre.fr
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 2003. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on July 14, 2000; approved on July 10, 2002. This paper is
part of the Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering,
Vol. 129, No. 1, January 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X/2003/1-
34 – 40/$18.00.
c /␩ * (8)
Takahashi and Shimosako 共1994兲 noted that different values of
maximum forces occur at different times on different walls. These
situations are denoted as Crest I, Crest IIa, and Crest IIb in Fig. 2.
In the Crest I case, the wave force on the front perforated wall
reaches a positive peak. This case does not allow for a good
estimate of the maximum forces on two walls, because modifica-
tion factors 关Eqs. 共1兲 and 共4兲兴 for the rear wall are zero (␭ 1 ⫽␭ 2
⫽0), which leads to nil pressures on that wall. In the Crest IIa
and Crest IIb cases, wave forces on the rear wall may either reach
an impulsive peak or a lower peak, following the impulsive force.
Therefore, the maximum total force determination requires a good
knowledge of the wave behavior along the caisson. If this knowl-
edge is lacking, it may be impossible for engineers to calculate
the total force for the three cases 共Crest I, Crest IIa, Crest IIb兲 and
thus to find the maximum of these three forces in the design of a
breakwater.

34 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Peak pressure diagrams and resultant forces on the caisson

Experimental Set up and Data Analysis

Experimental Conditions
Regular waves were generated in a wave flume 共0.80-m wide,
1.00-m deep and 25.0-m long兲 where wave periods ranged from
T⫽1.03 s to T⫽7.20 s, incident wave heights from Hs⫽2 cm to
Hs⫽20 cm, and two water depths; d 1 ⫽40 cm, d 2 ⫽50 cm were
used. In these tests, we had single chamber width, Fig. 3共a兲, B
⫽54 cm and perforation of wall 共circular holes ␾ 40 mm兲 with a
total porosity ␧⫽0.28. Thus, nondimensional wave parameters in
our tests ranged as
0.066⬍B/L⬍0.35 and 0.04⬍Hs/L⬍0.057
Two resistive gauges were used for measuring run-up on the
screens and a mobile gauge for reflection analysis. The pressures
were recorded using pressure cells distributed at 11 locations on 3
faces of caisson walls, Fig. 3共a兲, for Case A, and at 9 locations for
Case B, Fig. 3共b兲.
For Case A 共caisson without a berm兲, the 11 locations were
• Four pressure cells on the front of the perforated wall, called
Ext1 (z⫽20.5 cm from the bottom兲, Ext2, Ext3, Ext4 共6.7 cm
between each cell兲. Fig. 3. 共a兲 Model of caisson without a berm, 共b兲 Model of caisson
• Four pressure cells on the back of the perforated wall, called with a berm
Int1, Int2, Int3, Int4 at the same elevation as above.
• Three pressure cells on the rear wall, called PO1 (z
⫽20.5 cm), PO2 (z⫽33.5 cm), PO3 (z⫽46.5 cm).
The sampling frequency was 100 Hz. Incident wave height H s
was calculated from the reflection coefficient using partial nodal
Experimental Results
and antinodal standing waves developed in the flume.
In Fig. 4, time series of horizontal forces versus reference force
Data Analysis F 0 (F 0 ⫽␳ 0 gH s d), F ext /F 0 , F int /F 0 , Fr/F 0 , F tot /F0 and rela-
Forces on the walls have been computed by integrating pressure tive wave height H/H s are plotted (H⫽wave height recorded 5
distribution for a 1-m wide breakwater. Pressure distribution was cm in front of the perforated wall兲. This shows phase differences
assumed to be linear between two gauges; it is constant between between the occurrence of maximum F ext , F int , and Fr. These
the bottom and the lowest gauge and between the still water level phase differences vary with the wave period and B/L ratio, and
共SWL兲 and the upper gauge. From SWL to free surface, the pres- disappear for the longest waves (B/L⬍0.06). For short waves,
sure varies from its SWL pressure value to 0. The following maximum forces appear after wave crests pass the external side of
forces have been obtained 共Fig. 1兲: 共1兲 horizontal force on both the perforated wall and before wave crests arrive on the plain
sides of the perforated wall, F ext 共seaward兲 and F int 共backward兲; wall. Therefore, the position of the maximum total force in the
共2兲 horizontal force on the rear wall, Fr; and 共3兲 total force on the time series depends on wave period, wave length, and width of
caisson F tot , calculated as algebraic sum of F ext , F int , and Fr. the chamber.

Fig. 2. Goda-Takahashi model; phases for pressure diagram calculation

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 35

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Measured phase differences of the forces acting on the caisson

Calculated Wave Forces Using the Goda-Takahashi New Method for the Prediction of Horizontal Wave
Model Forces

Taking into account the phenomenon described above, resultant
forces derived from Le Havre University model tests 共ULH兲
are compared with the calculated forces using Goda’s pressure
formulas modified by Takahashi 共1994兲. Using this model,
the ratio of total force on the caisson calculated using the
Goda-Takahashi model over measured maximum force is plotted
in Fig. 5 for three crest types. It shows that this method
underestimates calculated forces 共Crest I兲 but overestimates
them for the two other cases 共Crest IIa and Crest IIb兲. As a
consequence, and because of difficulties in its application,
the Goda-Takahashi model lead to overestimate in certain cases
loading on a caisson structure, thus overestimating the caisson
cost.
Taking into account the phase delay phenomenon between the
occurrence of positive peak wave forces on the two faces of the
perforated wall as well as on the rear one, we attempted to derive
a new calculation method for estimating forces on perforated cais-
sons.
Description of New Formulas Presentation
Our method is based on Takahashi formulas 共1994兲 for pulsating
waves. It uses some new modification factors involved in the
calculation of forces on each wall, and introduces a new ␹ factor
that accounts for the phase delay. This improvement allows to
avoid choosing between the three cases of maximal force instants
共Crest I, Crest IIa and Crest IIb兲 defined by Takahashi 共1994兲. It

36 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured horizontal force and calculated force using Goda-Takahashi model

gives, as shown above, an underestimation for the Crest I case and

and an overestimation for the Crest IIa and IIb cases. In general,
the maximum total force appears between these cases, and its
time of occurrence is strongly linked to B/L 共Fig. 4兲. The new
calculation method proposed in this paper is summarized as fol-
lows.
Pressure Parameters
Our pressure parameters are the same as those given by Goda’s
formulas, but we provide a different definition of the wave run-up
parameter ␩ * as:
⫺␩ * ⫽0.32共 1⫹cos ␤ 兲 H D for the perforated wall
p r4 ⫽␣ 4 p r1 (16)
where p r1 , p r3 , and p r4 ⫽pressure values on, respectively, SWL,
the bottom, and the top of the rear wall 共Fig. 1兲
Determining Maximum Horizontal Forces
Peak force on the perforated wall is calculated as
c /2兴 ␧ ⬘
F p ⫽ 关共 p p1 ⫹p p3 兲 d/2⫹ 共 p p1 ⫹p p4 兲 h * (17)
where ␧ ⬘ ⫽1⫺␧ 共␧ is porosity of the perforated wall兲
(9) Peak force on the rear wall is calculated as

⫺␩ * ⫽0.75共 1⫹cos ␤ 兲共 0.7⫺B/L 兲 H D for the rear wall

2 共 Fr⫽ 共 p r1 ⫹p r3 兲 d/2⫹ 共 p r1 ⫹p r4 兲 h *
c /2 兲 (18)
(10) Total peak force is calculated as
F tot⫽␹ 共 F p ⫹F r 兲 (19)
Pressure Diagrams
where

冉 冊冉 冊 冉 冊 冉 冊
We calculate the pressures as follows: 2 3 4
Perforated wall 9 B 11 B B 10 B
␹⫽1⫺ ⫹ ⫺ 4 ⫹ (20)
25 L 4 L L 3 L
p p1 ⫽ 共 1⫹cos ␤ 兲关 0.21␣ 1 ⫹ 共 B/4L 兲共 1⫹␣ * 兲 cos2 ␤ 兴 ␥ 0 H D (11)
The ␹ factor in Eq. 共20兲 can be considered as a ‘‘phase adjust-
p p3 ⫽␣ 3 p p1 (12) ment factor.’’ It is obtained from 2D model tests as the ratio of
and total peak horizontal force versus the sum of peak forces acting
on the two walls 共Fig. 4兲. The ␹ value is obtained as a tendency
p p4 ⫽␣ 4 p p (13) curve of this ratio in the interval 0⬍B/L⬍0.35 共where B/L gives
where p p1 , p p3 , and p p4 ⫽resultant pressure values on, respec- the most frequent values for the perforated breakwaters兲. For B/L
tively, SWL, the bottom, and the top of the perforated wall 共Fig. ratio greater than 0.35, the value of ␹ is assumed to be equal to 1.
1兲.
Rear wall Validation of the New Method
p r1 ⫽0.5共 1⫹cos ␤ 兲关共 0.7⫺B/L 兲 2 ␣ 1 ⫹ 共 0.43⫺B/L 兲
Data from different sources were used to validate the proposed
⫻ 共 1⫹␣ * 兲 cos ␤ 兴 ␥ 0 H D
2
(14) method 共Tabet-Aoul 1998兲 including
• 2D tests of the perforated caisson with a berm
p r3 ⫽␣ 3 p r1 (15) • Field measurement on the new Dieppe breakwater 共France兲

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 37

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.

 range of conditions, it has been tested for other types of geometry
and for different wave conditions.

Dieppe Field Data

The first data source was from a field measurement study of the
new perforated Dieppe breakwater. This device was instrumented
in 1996 with pressure cells as described in Fig. 6. During caisson
construction in 1991, seven pressure cells had been installed in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the bottom of the sixth caisson 共Tabet-Aoul et al. 1999兲. In 1996,

Fig. 6. Sketch of prototype perforated Dieppe caisson and pressure
cells location
• 3D Dieppe model carried out by SOGREAH 共France兲
• 2D model of Porto Torres perforated breakwater performed by
ENEL 共Italy兲
• Perforated caisson 3D model tests performed by Delft Hydrau-
lics 共The Netherlands兲.
Rhe 2D model tests, field measurements, and 3D SOGREAH
model tests had the same geometry. Therefore, the comparison of
results for these three sources will test the validity of our method
versus scale effects and wave spectrum. The two last sources,
ENEL and Delft Hydraulics 共Franco 1996兲 will show its sensivity
to the geometry of the structure.
Verification of the Proposed Method by 2D Tests
of the Caisson with a Berm
To verify the new method, a series of tests was done using a
model of the caisson placed on a berm 关Fig. 3共a兲兴 simulating the
Dieppe breakwater prototype. Under different wave conditions,
32 tests have been carried out. Maximum forces were computed
with two methods: 共1兲 F meas is the resultant horizontal peak force
derived from pressure recordings; and 共2兲 F calc is the horizontal
peak force calculated using the proposed method. Because of the
values of the ratios (h⫺d)/h⫽0.33 and B b /L⬍0.2, breaking
waves occur without impacts 共confirmed during our 2D model
tests兲. Thus, the impact pressure coefficient is ␣ I ⫽0.
The F calc /F meas ratios for the 92 values 共30 for the caisson with a
berm, 60 for the caisson without a berm兲 provided an average
value of 1.05 and a standard deviation of 0.094. Therefore, the
method seems to be reliable. To verify its validity in a wider
similar cells were mounted on the vertical faces of the sea-side
chamber 共Fig 6兲 using the caving technique. A data recorder was
installed in 1997 in the lighthouse situated at the head of break-
water. The link with the sensors was made by about 100 m of
cables. Each signal from the 11 pressure cells was sampled at 3
Hz over a period of 10 min. Data analyzed here was from two
significant storms that occurred on 11 and 13 February 1997.
During these storms, the wave recorder was not operational, and
wave heights were derived from correlation between pressure
data and wave observations provided by the National Meteorol-
ogy Office. The SWL data are drawn from a tide range recorded
inside Dieppe harbour. Therefore, the following data are used in
this section:
• Hs 1 ⫽5.18 m and L 1 ⫽73 m offshore and water depth d 1
⫽8.50 m in front of the structure
• Hs 2 ⫽2.30 m et L 2 ⫽58 m with d 2 ⫽9 m
Because of lack of a pressure cell at the rear wall toe and the
inability to extend pressure values to the mean water level and
run-up, calculation of forces on the caisson is based on three
pressure cells placed at the same altitude, z⫽⫹5.60 m. Peak val-
ues of the algebraic sum of wave pressure recorded by the three
sensors are the following for the two storms:
• p 1 /␥ 0 Hs 1 ⫽0.566 for the 11 February storm
• p 2 /␥ 0 Hs 2 ⫽0.489 for the 13 February storm
Peak values of horizontal wave forces, F meas1 and F meas2 , are
the resultant forces derived from p 1 and p 2 at 1-m elevation—
F meas1 ⫽291.4 kN/m and F meas2 ⫽107.3 kN/m. On the other hand,
the calculated forces by the proposed method are F calc1
⫽291.1 kN/m and F calc2 ⫽95.1 kN/m. The ratio F meas /F calc is, re-
spectively, 1.00 and 1.13 for two storms, showing a fairly close
correlation between the measured and calculated forces.
SOGREAH Dieppe 3D Model
The perforated Dieppe breakwater 3D model tests, scaled at 1:40,
were performed by SOGREAH, using regular waves as well as
spectral waves. Results of six test sequences at prototype scale
共Canel 1994兲 are listed in Table 1. Horizontal forces were mea-

Table 1. SOGREAH 3D Dieppe Model Tests

Measured force Calculated force Calculated versus
Test Wave characteristics T 共s兲 H i 共m兲 B/L 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲 measured force
CP605 Regular 11.7 1.4 0.107 111.8 92.5 0.83
CP606 Spectral 11.5 3.8 0.109 202.1 271.0 1.34
CP603 Regular 9.6 3.4 0.137 233.5 206.5 0.88
CP604 Spectral 9.7 3.9 0.135 184.4 248.4 1.35
CP601 Regular 7.1 1.6 0.205 68.7 62.0 0.90
CP602 Spectral 7.0 3.0 0.207 96.1 126.0 1.31
Note: Source Canel 共1994兲.

38 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.

 Table 2. 2D Porto Torres Model, Conditions of Tests and Results
H D 共m兲 T 1/250,os 共s兲 L D 共m兲 B/L Calculated force 共kN/m兲 Measured force 共kN/m兲 Calculated versus measured forces
3.96 6.22 59.0 0.172 269.8 246.8 1.09
5.21 8.27 94.5 0.107 509.2 428.6 1.19
6.24 9.15 109.3 0.093 687.3 531.8 1.29
3.75 9.37 112.9 0.090 396.9 284.2 1.40
5.11 7.13 74.8 0.136 425.6 392.8 1.08
8.08 11.25 143.4 0.071 1095.9 631.6 1.74
7.84 7.89 87.9 0.115 779.1 583.8 1.33
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

5.00 7.88 87.8 0.116 463.0 465.2 1.00

6.40 8.97 106.3 0.096 695.2 563.8 1.23
3.71 9.06 107.8 0.094 380.9 288.8 1.32
7.38 11.12 141.4 0.072 976.5 636.8 1.53
Note: Source ENEL 共1998兲

sured using a dynamometer. A comparison is shown in Table 1
between our method and the SOGREAH data for B⫽13.50 m,
h⫽13.20 m, and h ⬘ ⫽7.20 m.
Unfortunately, this data did not report the incident wave height
values. Therefore, H i values were assumed to be H 1/250 . Results
are presented in Table 1 and show that the new method overesti-
mates forces by about 30% for spectral waves. For regular waves,
the calculated forces are about 15% lower than measured forces.
ENEL Data
Eleven conditions of random wave tests performed in the 2D
model of the Porto Torres perforated caisson, scaled at 1:20, were
considered by De Gerloni 共1998兲. It must be emphasized that this
structure 共a three chamber caisson with decreasing chamber
depth兲 has been considered in the calculations as a single chamber
with a width B equivalent to the sum of the three chambers. In
these tests, both pressure and dynamometer measurements were
available, but for calculation, only the latter were considered as
more reliable. In these tests, perforations were vertical slots
(1.90⫻0.90 m on prototype兲 giving porosity ␧⫽0.30. Results of
11 data are presented in Table 2 on scale 1:1 for F meas⫽F 1/250
共mean of the highest 1/250 measured horizontal forces兲 and F calc ,
calculated with the following conditions:
• H D ⫽H 1/250,os : mean of the highest 1/250 wave heights mea-
sured at h⫽21 m
• L D got from T⫽T 1/250,os : wave period associated to H 1/250,os
• d⫽14 m h⫽21 m, B⫽10.15 m
The results of the calculations are given in Table 2. The rela-
tive overestimation of 34% for calculated forces is probably due
to the multichamber structure of Porto Torres. Such a structure
would dissipate more energy than a one-chamber structure. This
is especially true given that the B/L ratio is close to the optimum
working conditions for the caisson.
Other Data from Perforated Caisson 3D Model Tests,
LIP-DH
Other results are given in Table 3, calculated from data of 3D
model tests performed at Delft Hydraulics using random waves
共Franco 1996兲. The perforated caisson model was scaled 1:31 and
simulated as a perforated caisson with a single chamber of B
⫽12.40 m 共prototype兲. Water depth parameters were h⫽18.9 m
and the water depth above the berm was d⫽14.8 m. The data
from three test runs relate to the following type of caissons:
• Perforated wall with circular holes 共CH兲 or rectangular holes
共RH兲, and the same original porosity with open ceiling 共OC兲 or
closed ceiling 共CC兲
• Offshore wave height H 1/250,os is calculated as H 1/250,os
⫽1.8 Hs,os where Hs,os is the offshore significant wave
height
Table 3 shows the comparison between calculated and mea-
sured forces. Our new model does not take account of the pres-
ence of a ceiling nor the shape of the perforations. These two
parameters seem to have a great influence on wave loading, but
the experimental results should be confirmed by numerous other
tests.
Discussion of Results
Fig. 7 shows a summary of our results in which we provide a
comparison of our method to various types of measured data. The
results are presented in a nondimensional ratio, F tot /␳0gHsd in
order to obtain homogeneous values for different sources of data.
The synthesis of the 122 data values in Fig. 7 gives the following
correlation parameters—mean value of F meas /F calc⫽0.94; and the
standard deviation⫽0.114. Therefore, our method gives a fairly
good correlation for a large part of the data. Three points out of
the seven considered from ENEL data are overestimated by our

Table 3. Perforated Caisson 3D Model Test Data and Results

Measured force Calculated force Calculated versus
Test Caisson sketch H D 共m兲 L P 共m兲 共kN/m兲 共kN/m兲 measured forces
602 C.H-C.C. 6.81 112.7 577.6 788.6 1.37
702 R.H-C.C. 6.81 112.7 743.8 788.6 1.06
802 R.H-O.C. 6.86 112.7 518.0 795.2 1.54
Note: Source Franco 共1996兲.

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003 / 39

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF TECHNOLOGY - CHENNAI on 04/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Synthesis of calculated and measured forces using different data sources
force calculation method. These points correspond to the largest
wave periods. This is certainly due to its specific three-chamber
structure that probably dissipates more energy than a single-
chamber caisson. This would be especially true for the longest
waves that could penetrate easier into the caisson.
Conclusions
A new method is presented here for predicting horizontal wave
forces on a caisson structure. In this method, we use the average
ratio F meas /F calc to show that the peak horizontal forces are over-
estimated by our new method approximately 7 to 10% for differ-
ent data types available from laboratory and field studies. Consid-
ering the complexities and variations of the measured data we
have used from different sources, and despite difficulties of ho-
mogenization of these results due to different types of structures
and model test experimentation conditions, our method agrees
reasonably well with the data. Overall, the standard deviation
between our predicted results and data is approximately 0.1.
Therefore, the results derived from our proposed method to
calculate horizontal forces on caisson structures can be consid-
ered as sufficiently reliable for engineering applications. The
method is easy to apply for design and may significantly reduce
project costs.
Acknowledgments
This work was partly supported by the European Commission
within the research program MAST III-PROVERBS, PRObabilis-
tic design tools for VERtical BreakwaterS, and partly from the
French Ministry of Research and Technology.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B ⫽ caisson width
d ⫽ water depth in front of the caisson
40 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL AND OCEAN ENGINEERING / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2003
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2003.129:34-40.
H D ,L D ⫽ wave height and wave length applied to
calculate design wave forces 共Goda 1985兲
H s ⫽ incident wave height
h b ⫽ offshore water depth at a distance five times
the significant wave height H 1/3
h c ⫽ emerged height of the caisson
h*c ⫽ min兵␩*,hc其
h ⬘ ⫽ water depth including the armor layer on
the berm
␣ 1 ⫽ impulsive pressure coefficient 共Takahashi
and Shimosako 1994兲
␣ * ⫽ max兵␣1 ,␣2其
␤ ⫽ wave direction incidence
␥ 0 ⫽ ␳ 0 g: specific weight of sea water
␧ ⫽ porosity of the perforated wall
␭ 1 ,␭ 2 ,␭ 3 : ⫽ modification factors depending on structural
and wave characteristics
References
Canel, M. 共1994兲. ‘‘Dissipative monolithic breakwaters.’’ Some aspects of
hydrodynamics—MAST II—coastal structures report, E.C. Publica-
tions, Grenoble, France.
De Gerloni, M. 共1998兲. ‘‘Forces on perforated structures: Proposal for a
Goda modified formula.’’ MAST III-PROVERBS-CT95-0041 Overall
Workshop, E.C. Publications, Grenoble, France.
Franco, C. 共1996兲. Wave overtopping and loads on caisson breakwaters
under three-dimensional sea-states. Full final report, Delft Hydraulics,
Delft, The Netherlands.
Goda, Y. 共1985兲. Random seas and design of maritime structures, Uni-
versity of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, Japan.
Tabet-Aoul, E. H. 共1998兲. ‘‘Etude du fonctionnement hydraulique des
digues à paroi perforée,’’ PhD thesis, Le Havre University, Le Havre,
France 共in French兲.
Tabet-Aoul, E. H. et al. 共1999兲. ‘‘Analysis of horizontal forces on the
vertical walls of perforated breakwater-ISOPE’99.’’ International
Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Brest, France.
Takahashi, S. and Shimosako, K. 共1994兲. ‘‘Wave pressure on a perforated
wall.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Hydro-Technical Engineering for Port and
Harbor, Japan.