Chapter 5.1: Wave Impact Loads - Pressures and Forces

CHAPTER 5.
1: WAVE IMPACT LOADS

- PRESSURES AND FORCES -
A. KORTENHAUS1); H. OUMERACI1); N.W.H. ALLSOP2); K.J. MCCONNELL2);

P.H.A.J.M. VAN GELDER3); P.J. HEWSON4); M.WALKDEN4); G. MÜLLER5);
M. CALABRESE6); D. VICINANZA6)
1)
Leichtweiß-Institut, Technical University of Braunschweig, Beethovenstr. 51a, DE-38106
Braunschweig, Germany
2)
HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, GB-Wallingford OX10 8BA, U.K.
3)
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Stevinweg 1, NL-2628 CN
Delft, The Netherlands
4)
University of Plymouth, School of Civil and Structural Engineering, Palace Street, GB-Ply-
mouth PL1 2DE, U.K.
5)
Queens University of Belfast, Department of Civil Engineering, Stranmills Road, GB-Bel-
fast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland
6)
Università degli Studi di Napoli 'Frederico II', Dipartimento di Idraulica, Via Claudio n. 21,
IT-80125 Naples, Italy
ABSTRACT
The tentative procedures for both impact and uplift loading proposed by Oumeraci and
Kortenhaus (1997) have been brought together and amended by many partners in PROV-
ERBS. This paper proposes a procedure to calculate time-dependent pressures, forces and le-
ver arms of the forces on the front face and the bottom of a vertical breakwater. For this pur-
pose, (i) the data sets on which this method is based are briefly described or referred to; and
(ii) a stepwise procedure is introduced to calculate the wave loading supported by some back-
ground and data information. Suggestions for estimating the forces on a caisson in feasibility
studies are also given.
-1-
LWI / HR / DUT / UE / UoN / UoP / QUB A. KORTENHAUS ET AL.
2. INTRODUCTION
Wave impacts on vertical breakwaters are among the most severe and dangerous loads this
type of structure can suffer. Whilst many design procedures for these structures are well estab-
lished worldwide recent research in Europe has shown that some of those design methods are
limited in their application and may over- or underpredict the loading under important condi-
tions. This will then lead to overdesigned and very expensive structures or, even more danger-
ous, to underdesign and consequently to danger to personnel and properties.
Within PROVERBS engineering experience from various fields (hydrodynamic, foundation,

structural aspects) concerned with vertical breakwaters has been brought together. Further-
more, data available from different hyraulic model tests, field surveys and experience from
numerical modelling were collected and analysed to overcome the aforementioned limitations.
Engineers from both universities and companies were working together to derive new meth-
ods for calculating forces and pressures under severe impact conditions taking into account
the influence of salt water and aeration of the water. This new approach was then further
optimized by taking into account the dynamic properties of the structure itself and the founda-
tion of the breakwater (see Volume I, Chapter 3.4). The multidirectionality of the waves ap-
proaching the structure (Vol. I, Chapter 2.5.3) has also been considered.
The intention of this paper is to describe a procedure to calculate both impact and uplift load-
ings under 2D conditions and to give references to more detailed work on the different aspects
of the steps described in here. For sake of completeness and easier understanding of the whole
method some parts had to be repeated from other sections within Vol. II of the PROVERBS
report. This was considered to be more useful rather than giving too many references to other
sections.
Geometric dimensions and a sketch of a typical caisson breakwater are given in Fig. 1.
-2-
CHAPTER 5.1 WAVE IMPACT LOADS: FORCES AND PRESSURES
4. OVERVIEW OF RECENT WORK
There are a number of formulae available for different types of waves breaking at the struc-
ture. These formulae generally include magnitudes of maximum pressures, their distributions
and forces. In some cases, uplift pressures are given as well. All formulae are fully empirical
or semi-empirical as the process of wave breaking at the structure is still not fully explained.
Tab. 1 summarizes the most important methods in a chronological order, details are given in
the respective references.
Tab. 1: Overview of design methods for wave loading
Pres-
Author Year Forces Uplift Comments
sures
Quasi-Static Waves
yes, but
Sainflou 1928 yes no vertical wall, no berm
difficult
1944
Miche-Rundgren yes yes no design curves from SPM, 1984
1958
most-widely used design
Goda 1985 yes yes yes
method
Impact Waves
Hiroi 1919 yes yes no vertical wall
Bagnold 1939 - - - conceptual model only
sometimes incorrect dimen-
Minikin 1963 yes yes no
sions!
Ito 1971 yes yes yes
Blackmore &
1984 yes yes no
Hewson
Partenscky 1988 yes not given no air content of wave needed
1990
Kirkgöz yes yes no vertical wall only
1995
Takahashi 1994 yes yes yes extension of Goda model
Allsop et al. 1996 no yes yes
Walkden et al. 1996 no yes no relation of forces and rise time
Oumeraci &
1997 yes yes yes time-dependent approach!
Kortenhaus
-3-
Pres-
Author Year Forces Uplift Comments
sures
McConnell 1998 no yes no amendment of O&K, 1997
Hull & Müller 1998 yes yes no amendment of O&K, 1997
Vicinanza 1998 yes yes no amendment of O&K, 1997
Broken Waves
SPM 1984 yes yes no vertical walls only
Camfield 1991 yes yes no amendment of SPM, 1984
Jensen 1984 yes yes yes Crown walls
Bradbury &
1988 yes yes yes Crown walls
Allsop
Pedersen 1997 yes yes yes Crown walls
Martín et al. 1997 yes yes yes Crown walls
This paper is concentrated on calculation of pressure distribution and related forces under
impact conditions. Furthermore, the dynamic characteristics of impact forces were considered
essential for the behaviour of the structure subject to this type of loading. The design
procedure is therefore based on the approach by Oumeraci and Kortenhaus, 1997 which was
derived from solitary wave theory but amendments were made to many details like the
statistical distributions of impact and uplift pressures, the vertical pressure distribution at the
front face, and the relation between rise time and duration of impact forces.
6. OVERVIEW OF DATA SETS
Different hydraulic model tests have been carried out and analysed to obtain the design
method proposed in this paper. These tests are summarized in Tab. 2 where the most
important information is given. Furthermore, references are added where more detailed
information on these tests is available.
-4-
Tab. 2: Overview of hydraulic model tests (random waves)
Co
fsam No.
Tests Year n- Scale Waves Slope Imp.2) Upl.2) References
[Hz] tests
fig.1)
Oumeraci et
WKS 1993 1 1:15 600 90 1:50 121 10 6
al., 1995
GWK 1993/94 1 1:5 100 100 1:50 62 10 5 McConnell
& Korten-
HR94 1994 10 1:20 400 500 1:50 217 8 4 haus, 1996
Oumeraci et
PIV 1994 1 1:50 400 1 1:20 77 7 -
al., 1995
1:50
McConnell
1:20
HR97 1997 1 1:20 1000 1000 9 - & Allsop,
1:10
1998
1:7
Kortenhaus
QUB 1997 3 1:30 1000 800 1:50 12 1 4 & Löffler,
1998
1)
number of configurations tested; 2) number of transducers
It may be assumed from the differences in the number of waves per test and the acquisition
rate that results of pressure distributions and forces might also differ significantly.
Nevertheless, data analysis has confirmed that most of the data sets fit well to each other
which will be explained in more details in the successive sections.
8. PREPARATORY STEPS
-5-
8.2. Identification of wave impact loading
A simple method is needed to distinguish between:

(b) quasi-standing loads for which available formulae (e.g. Goda, see Vol. I, Chap-
ter 2.4.1) without any account for load duration can be used (Fig. 2a);
Hb
Fh Fh Fh
3.0
Fh
2.0 2.0
2 T=wave period
D·g·H
b
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.0 t/T 0.2 0.4 t/T 0.1 0.2 t/T
(a) Standing wave (b) Slightly Breaking wave (c) Plunging breaker
"Pulsating load" Impact load

(Goda-formula applicable) (Goda-formula not applicable)
Fig. 1: Pulsating and impact load - problem definition
(d) slightly breaking wave loads which already consist of some breaking waves but not
significantly exceeding the Goda loads (Fig. 2b);
(f) an impact load for which new formulae including impact duration are to be used
(Fig. 2c); and
(h) broken wave loads, i.e. the waves already broke before reaching the structure.
For this purpose the PROVERBS parameter map (Fig. 3) was developed which is in more
detail described in Chapter 2.2 of Volume IIa. Input for this map are geometric and wave
parameters which in combination yield an indication of a certain probability that one of the
aforementioned breaker types will occur.
-6-
"Vertical" Composite Crown Walls

Breakwater Breakwater Rubble Mound Breakwater
h*b < 0.3 0.3 < h *b< 0.9 h*b > 0.9
L
SWL Low Mound High Mound SWL
Breakwater Hsi d Breakwater
hs
hs d 0.3 < h *b< 0.6 B eq
hb
0.6 < h *b< 0.9
Small waves Large waves Small waves Large waves Small waves Large waves
H *s< 0.35 0.35 < H * 0.1 < H s*< 0.2 0.2 < H *s< 0.6 0.1 < H s*< 0.2 0.25 < H *s< 0.6
s
Narrow berm Moderate berm w. Wide berm

* 0.12
0.08 < B < 0.12 < B *< 0.4 B* > 0.4
Quasi-standing wave Slightly breaking wave Impact loads Broken waves
Fh Fh* Fh* Fh*

8.0 8.0 8.0 Fhmax 8.0
6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Fhmax Fhmax
Fhmax Fhq Fhq Fhq Fhq
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 t/T 0.0 0.1 0.2 t/T 0.0 0.1 0.2 t/T 0.0 0.1 0.2 t/T
hb Hs B eq * Fh
with h*b= ; H *s= ; B* = ; F= 2
hs hs L h D·g·H b
Fig. 2: PROVERBS parameter map
8.4. Breaker height at the structure
A breaking criterion which accounts for the reflection properties of the structure has been sug-
gested by Calabrese (1997) (see Chapter 2.3 of Volume IIa) based on extensive random wave
tests in hydraulic model tests and previous theoretical works (Oumeraci et al., 1993):
1 & Cr
Hbc ' Lpi @ 0.1025 % 0.0217 @ (1)
1 % Cr
where Lpi is the wave length in the water depth hs for the peak period Tp which can be calcu-
lated iteratively by:
hs
Lpi ' L0 @ tanh 2 B @ (2)
Lpi
-7-
where L0 is the wave length in deep water which can be taken as:
g
L0 ' @T2 (3)
2B p
or can be approximated using the method given in Fenton (1990):

3/4 2/3
hs
Lpi ' L0 @ tanh 2 B @ (4)
L0
The reflection coefficient Cr in Eq. (1) may be estimated as follows (Calabrese and Allsop,
1998):
Cr = 0.95 for simple vertical walls and small mounds, high crest
Cr = 0.8 + 0.1@Rc / Hsi for low crest walls (0.5 < Rc / Hsi < 1.0)
Cr = 0.5 to 0.7 for composite walls, large mounds, and heavy breaking
The empirical correction factor kb can be estimated as follows:

kb ' 0.0076 @ Beq / d 2
& 0.1402 @ B eq / (5)
where Beq is the equivalent berm width which is defined as:

hb
Beq ' Bb % (6)
2 tan "
and Bb is the berm width in front of the structure. Further details on this approach are given in
Section 2.3 of Volume IIa.
-8-
8.6. Probability of occurrence of impacts
The parameter map as given in Fig. 3 results in different branches where the probability of the
respective breaker type is not known in advance. The branch of 'impact breakers' proposes to
use an impact loading formulae which generally yields much higher forces than any other
approach for quasi-standing waves, slightly breaking waves or broken waves. Hence, it is
necessary to know how many of the waves approaching the structure will break at the wall
(thus causing impulsive forces) and how many will not break at the wall (inducing non
impulsive Goda forces).
The aforementioned method by Calabrese and Allsop (1998) described in Chapter 2.3 of Vol-
ume IIa also gives a simple formula for the probability of broken waves Pb based on the idea
that every wave with a higher wave height than the breaking wave height Hbc (as calculated in
Section 4.2) is already broken or will break as an impact breaker at the wall. The probability
of occurrence of breaking and broken waves can therefore be calculated as follows:
Pb ' exp & 2 @ Hbc / Hsi 2
@ 100% (7)
The maximum wave height Hbs which describes the transition from impact breakers to already
broken waves can be described by Eq. (1) where Beq/d and Cr are set to zero which then yields:
hs
Hbs ' 0.1242 @ Lpi @ tanh 2 B (8)
Lpi
The proportion of impacts can then be derived from:

Pi ' exp & 2 @ Hbc / Hsi 2
& exp & 2 @ H (9)
The magnitude of the horizontal force itself is strongly related to the type of breakers at the
wall which are essentially depth limited. It can be expected that the magnitude is related to the
relative wave height at the wall Hsi/hs.
Eq. (9) can be regarded as a filter in the 'impact' domain of the parameter map. For very low
percentages of impacts (smaller than 1%) the problem can be reduced to the quasi-static
problem and the Goda method can be used to calculate pressures and forces (see Chapter 4.1
of Volume IIa). In all other cases the method as described in the successive sections has to be
used.
-9-
10. WAVE IMPACT LOADING
10.2. Initial calculation of impact forces
Allsop et al. (1996) have investigated a large data set (10 different structure geometries, see
Tab. 2) to predict horizontal wave forces on vertical breakwaters. The relative wave
height Hsi/d has been found to most significantly influence the wave forces non
dimensionalized by the water depth over the berm. All forces were given at a 1/250 level thus
taking the mean out of the highest two waves (500 waves per test were measured). The
magnitude of the horizontal impact force can then be estimated from:
Fh, 1/250 ' 15 @ DW g d 2 @ Hsi / d 3.134
(10)
This formula has been derived from data sets with a 1:50 foreshore slope and checked against
other slopes where it also seems to fit the data reasonably well. In Fig. 4 data from three dif-
ferent model tests have been plotted and compared to the prediction method given in Eq. (10).
Random waves
45.0 GWK 1993/94
WKS 1993
HR 1994
30.0
A&V prediction
15.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

H si /d [-]
Fig. 3: Relative wave force Fh,max/(Dgd2) plotted vs. relative wave height Hsi/d and
comparison to calculation method given by Eq. (10)
It can be seen from the graph that Eq. (10) gives an upper bound to the data and is only
exceeded by some data points. Allsop et al. (1996) give the validity range of the method as
Hsi/d in between 0.35 and 0.6 whereas here the graph in Fig. 4 shows that it can be used up to
- 10 -
relative wave heights Hsi/d = 1.3. It is not possible to take into account the structural response
(dynamic load factor) as rise time and duration of the force is not calculated. Hence, Eq. (10)
provides a quick estimation of the expected horizontal force to the structure but cannot predict
the length of its duration.
Furthermore, problems occur when tests were performed with a low water depth over the
berm resulting in unreasonably high relative values for the forces and wave heights. For any
occurrence probabilities of impacts higher than 1% it is therefore recommended to also use
the method described in the sucessive section.
10.4. Statistics of relative wave forces
A statistical distribution of the relative impact forces F*h,max is needed in order to allow for a
choice of exceedance or non exceedance values for the relative impact forces. Following dis-
cussions and exchange of data within PROVERBS, a Generalized Extreme Value distribution
(GEV) is proposed (see example for small-scale data in Fig. 5). The cumulative distribution
function (cdf) of the GEV distribution can be written in its standard form as follows (Johnson
and Kotz, 1995):
1 with
(
exp & 1 & ( @ x̃
F ( x̃ ) ' or (11)
exp & exp & x̃ with
- 11 -
28.0
24.0
20.0
GEV
16.0 Parameter (ME):
n = 260
" = 3.7816
ß = 8.7819
12.0 ( = 0.0381 *)
s = 0.0917
Kolm.-Sm. Test:
8.0 Dn = 0.000
" = 0.01 (%)
" = 0.025 (%)
" = 0.05 (%)
4.0
*) scales x-axis
0.1 10.0 50.0 80.0 90.0 95.0 97.5 99.0 99.5 99.9 99.99
Non exceedance probability
Fig. 4: Statistical distribution of relative impact forces observed in the WKS for random
waves
In Eq. (11) the standardized x-parameter x̃ can be written as follows:

x & $
x̃ ' (12)
"
The probability density function (pdf) of the GEV in its standardized form can be given as:
1
& 1
(
1 & ( @ x̃ @ exp & 1 & (
f ( x̃ ) ' (13)
exp & x̃ @ exp & exp & x̃
where parameters ", $ and ( can be taken from model tests similar to the structure to be
designed or can generally be estimated as " = 3.97; $ = 7.86; and ( = -0.32. The latter values
were derived from large-scale tests with a 1:50 foreshore slope and almost non-overtopping
conditions (GWK, 1994) and are used in PROVERBS for all probabilistic calculations of
structures where impact waves are considered. Further advice for different bed slopes have
been given by McConnell and Allsop (1998) so that the following parameters for further use
can be suggested:
- 12 -
Tab. 3: Values of ", $, and ( for GEV distribution of relative horizontal force
Bed slope no. waves scale " $ (
1:7 116 .1:20 / HR97 2.896 6.976 -0.526

1:10 159 .1:20 / HR97 10.209 12.761 -0.063
1:20 538 .1:20 / HR97 3.745 7.604 -0.295
1:50 3321 .1:20 / HR94 1.910 3.268 -0.232
For details on HR94 and HR97 tests see Tab. 2
In Kortenhaus (1998) the influence of the number of waves on statistical parameters of the
various distributions available has shown that the number of data points should be not less
than about 250. The values given in Tab. 3 for bed slopes of 1:7 and 1:10 should therefore be
considered carefully. More details on the influence of geometric and wave parameters on
statistics of wave impact forces can also be found in Kortenhaus (1998).
Furthermore, Eq. (11) has been used to plot data from other wave flumes where significant
differences were observed resulting in much higher relative forces (McConnell and Allsop,
1998). These differences are assumed to be mainly due to the differences in logging fre-
quencies (GWK: 100 Hz; WKS: 600 Hz; HR94: 400; HR97: 1000 Hz), the different number
of waves per test (GWK: 100; WKS: 100; HR94: 500; HR97: 1000) and the different total
number of impacts as given in Tab. 3.
Eq. (11) can be transformed using Eq. (12), yielding the force as a function of the probability
of the horizontal impact force:
(
( " ( (14)
Fh, max ' 1 & & ln P F̂h, % ß
( max
where P(F*h,max) is the probability of non exceedance of relative impact forces which generally
may be taken as 90% and F*h,max is the relative horizontal force at the front face of the structure
non dimensionalised by DgHb2. The maximum horizontal force can then be calculated by :
( 2
Fh, max ' Fh, max @ D g H b (15)
- 13 -
where Hb is the wave height at breaking (Eq. (1)) and D is the density of the water.
10.6. Calculation of impact force history
A full impact force history is needed to account for the temporal variation of the forces and
pressures induced by the breaking wave. For practical reasons the typical impact force history
may be reduced to a triangle1) (Fig. 6) which is described by the rise time tr and the total dur-
ation of the force td as discussed below.
10.6.2. Rise time tr
Following considerations derived from solitary wave theory (Oumeraci and Kortenhaus,
1997) a relationship between relative impact force peak F*h,max = Fh,max/DgHb2 and the rise time
trFh can be derived. It is proposed to use the following equation for trFh:
d eff / g
trFh ' k @ 8.94 (16)
(
Fh, max
The effective water depth in front of the structure deff can be assumed to be identical to the
water depth in which the wave breaks and may be calculated as follows:
deff ' d % Brel @ mrel @ h s & d (17)
1)
The triangular shape is derived from the actual force history based on the equivalence of
breaking wave momentum and force impulse.
- 14 -
F F
h h
F h,max
I
dFh
I I
rFh I rFh
dFh
t rFh t tr
t
t dFh td
Fig. 5: Substitution of actual force history by an equivalent triangular load
where Brel is the part of the berm width which influences the effective water depth (Brel = 1 for
no berm width):
1 for smaller
(18)
Brel ' Bb
1 & 0.5 · for larger
L
and mrel is the part of the berm slope influencing the effective water depth (mrel = 0 for simple
vertical wall):
1 for steeper slopes

mrel ' 1 (19)
for flatter slopes
m
- 15 -
b) Deterministic approach
The k-factor used in Eq. (16) is dependent on the breaker type and the fluid mass directly
involved in the impact process and can be expressed as follows:
Mimp IrFh
k ' ' (20)
Mtot IdFh
where Mimp is the mass part involved in the impact; Mtot is the total mass of the breaking wave
moving towards the structure and IrFh and IdFh are the corresponding force impulses. This
approach is based on solitary wave theory again and thus is regarded as preliminary for
random waves. Detailed investigations on pressure impulses on vertical walls and breakwaters
have been performed by Bristol University and references are given in Vol. I, Section 2.5.5.
Specific details on the most relevant parameters involved can be found in Cooker and
Peregrine (1990).
Preliminary analysis by early PIV measurements in 1994 (Oumeraci et al., 1995) and more
detailed analyses of breaker types at University of Naples (Vicinanza, 1998) together with
University of Edinburgh derived from random wave trains have shown that
@ even though there is some scatter the k-parameters for waves breaking over low and
high berms are in the same range;
@ a mean value of k = 0.205 ± 20% (standard deviation of 11%) can be assumed for all
plunging breakers regardless the relative height of the berm.
Eq. (16) is compared to random wave data from three different model tests in Fig. 7. All data
sets have been re-analysed where the following filters were applied:
@ the highest 10 waves of each test;
@ only breaking waves of the highest 10 waves (following the criteria as given by
Kortenhaus and Oumeraci, 1997);
@ the total duration td is shorter than 6 times the rise time tr (to avoid unreasonable results)
These filters reduce the scatter considerably and will lead to some other formulae than
indicated by previous papers (Oumeraci and Kortenhaus, 1997). Fig. 7 shows that the
proposed formula represents a curve fitted to most of the random data sets whereas an even
better fit is obtained for solitary waves (Oumeraci and Kortenhaus, 1997). Data from
McConnell and Allsop (1998) have not yet been plotted using the aforementioned filters but it
is assumed that the high values found in these data are reduced considerably as well.
- 16 -
Random waves
45.0 GWK 1993/94
WKS 1993 No. of tests = 239
HR 1994
30.0
15.0 McConnell & Allsop, 1998
Eq. (16), k = 0.205
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Relative rise time t rFh /%(d eff /g) [-]
Fig. 6: Comparison of prediction formula to large-scale measurements (random waves)
The equivalent 'triangular' rise time tr (see Fig. 6) is assumed to be much shorter for breaking
waves, especially when rise times are very short. For longer rise times it is expected that trian-
gular rise time tr and measured rise time trFh are in the same range. For non breaking waves it
may be expected that the rise time is no longer than a 1/4 of the wave period whereas for
breaking waves much shorter relative rise times can be assumed. It is, however, extremely
difficult to derive a clear relationship between both values so that the ratio trFh/tr was derived
for the GWK, WKS and some of the HR94 data and a statistical distribution was plotted
(Fig. 8).
- 17 -
Fig. 7: Probability distribution for triangular rise time ratio for horizontal forces
This best fit was achieved by a log-Normal distribution with a mean value of 1.487 and a stan-
dard deviation of 0.667. The mean value is higher than what was found in Oumeraci and
Kortenhaus (1997) which is most probably due to that only breaking waves are included in the
present analysis.
d) Probabilistic approach
For probabilistic calculations the aforementioned uncertainties in the relations of rise time to
triangular rise time and triangular rise time to relative impact force were considered together.
This was achieved by defining a factor k' which summarizes k*8.94 (right side of Eq. (16))
and the relation of the measured rise time trFh (left side) and the 'triangular' rise time tr (assum-
ing a constant relationship). Eq. (16) will then read:
- 18 -
d eff / g
tr ' k) @ (21)
(
Fh, max
From statistical analysis of the unfiltered data the factor k' can best be described by a
LogNormal distribution with a mean value of 0.086 and a standard deviation of 0.084 (Van
- 19 -
Gelder, 1998). These values are again based on results from large-scale hydraulic model tests
which are believed to best represent the situation under prototype conditions.
10.6.4. Total duration td
The relationship between rise time and total duration of the impact is dependent on the
breaker type. The aforementioned filter which was applied to the data sets has led to a new
approach describing the total duration of impact forces:
td ' tr @ 2.0 % 8.0 @ exp & 18 @ t r / Tp (22)
In Fig. 9 this relation is examplarily plotted for random wave tests. According to what was
expected the total duration is rarely smaller than 2.0, i.e. the decay time of the impact is
usually longer than the rise time. For longer relative rise times the total duration is close to 2.0
whereas for shorter rise times the factor can increase significantly. When ignoring very sharp
peaks (and thus very high ratios of td/tr) Eq. (22) gives a good estimate of the upper bound of
these data.
Random waves
No. of tests = 239
10.0
GWK 1993/94
WKS 1993
HR 1994
5.0
Eq. (22)
t d = 2*t r
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Relative rise time t r/T p [-]
Fig. 8: Triangular impact duration td vs. relative triangular rise time tr for random waves
- 20 -
Upper bound approaches as given in the previous section are not applicable for probabilistic
design. Therefore, a relation of rise time and total duration was derived by Van Gelder (1998)
where td can be calculated from tr by:
&c
td ' (23)
ln ( t r )
Eq. (23) is dimensionally incorrect but has given the best correlation of the data. In Eq. (23) c
is a random variable (dimension: [-s@ln(s)]) with a Gaussian distribution which can be given
by its mean value (c = 2.17) and its standard deviation (F = 1.08). Again, these values
correspond to large-scale measurements without any filtering of the data. Different parameters
were found from other (small-scale) tests which indicates that filtering of the data as indicated
above would be useful for this statistical approach as well.
10.6.6. Force impulses Ihr and Ihd
Force impulses are more relevant to the response of the overall structure than the impact
forces and should therefore be calculated and probably used for the selection of the worst
design situation of the brakwater. Since rise time (or total duration, respectively) and the
maximum force are known (Eqs. (21) and (23)), the force impulse over the rise time Ihr can be
obtained from:
1
Ihr ' @F @t (24)
2 h,max r
and the horizontal force impulse over the total duration Ihd can be calculated as follows:
1
Ihd ' @F @t (25)
2 h,max d
- 21 -
10.8. Pressure distributions at the wall
Two types of pressure distributions were proposed and discussed within PROVERBS one of
which is based on extensive large-scale testing of waves breaking at a vertical wall whereas
the other is derived from small-scale tests of a composite breakwater with extensive variation
of geometric and wave conditions. Both distributions start with the maximum force at the wall
as the dominant input parameter so that the overall loading of the structure is identical in both
cases. It should be noted that results from these pressure distributions are not used for
probabilistic calculations. Both approaches are described in the following.
10.8.2. Distributions from vertical wall tests
Based on the analysis of almost 1000 breakers of different types hitting a vertical wall, the
simplified distribution of impact pressure just at the time where the maximum impact force
occurs, can tentatively be determinated according to Fig. 10. Three or four parameters need to
be calculated in order to describe the pressure distribution: (a) the elevation of the pressure
distribution 0* above design water level; (b) the bottom pressure p3; (c) the maximum impact
pressure p1 which is considered to occur at the design water level; and (d) the pressure at the
crest of the structure if overtopping occurs.
Fh(t)
DWL = Design Water Level
R c = Freeboard p4 0 = 0.8@ H b
*
F h,max
p
1
Rc
DWL
F
h,max
l d
F (t) Fh
h
dc
t
tr t p = 0.45 p
3 1
td
Fig. 9: Simplified Pressure Distribution at a Vertical Wall
- 22 -
b) Elevation of pressure distribution 0*
The elevation of pressure distribution 0* may be calculated from the following tentative
formula (see Fig. 10):
0( ' 0.8 H b (26)
d) Bottom pressure p3
The bottom pressure p3 may be derived as a function of the maximum pressure at the height of
the still water level as follows (see Fig. 10):
p3 ' 0.45 p1 (27)
f) Maximum pressure p1
The maximum impact pressure p1 can be calculated directly from the equivalent force history
(Fig. 10), since Fh(t) represents the area of the pressure figure at any time of the history
(assuming an infinitely high wall):
1
Fh( t ) ' p ( t ) @ 0.8 @ H b % d % dc (28)
2 1
Substituting Eq. (27) in Eq. (28) yields:

Fh ( t )
p1 ( t ) ' (29)
0.4 @ Hb % 0.7 @ d % d c
h) Pressure at the crest of the structure p4
If the waves in front of the structure are high enough, overtopping is expected to occur. This
will reduce the total impact force as parts of the energy of the wave will get lost. This effect
can be taken into account by cutting off the pressure distribution at the top of the structure
(Fig. 10) so that the pressure at the crest of the structure can be described as follows:
0 für 0( < Rc
p4 ' 0( & Rc (30)
p1 für 0( $ Rc
0(
- 23 -
The horizontal impact force1) is then reduced to:

1
Fh,max,ov ' Fh,max & @ 0( & R c @ p4 (31)
2
10.8.4. Pressure distributions from breakwater tests
Very recently, Hull et al. (1998) proposed a different pressure distribution based on the HR94
data set (see Tab. 2). This distribution is given in a non dimensionalized form only dependent
on the maximum pressure observed at still water level, pmax, the height of the berm, hb, and the
height of still water level at the toe of the foundation, hs. Fig. 11 shows this pressure
distribution which is separated into three areas: pulsating, impact, and wave runup.
This distribution has been derived (0 / 1.2)

1.0
from all composite type breakwaters Wave run-up
tested (10 different configurations) 0.5 (8 / 0.4)
and can therefore be used for any (40 / 0.17)
DWL (100 / 0)
structural configuration. The z- 0.0
Impact
coordinate at the wall is obtained for a Pulsating
(40 / -0.25)
very high wall (no overtopping) as -0.5
follows: (0 / -0.9)
y @ hb 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0
z ' (32)
P / P max [%]
hs2
Fig. 10: Vertical pressure distribution after Hull
et al. (1998)
where hb is the height of the berm, hs is the water depth at the toe of the foundation, and y is
the vertical distance above or below still water level (positive upwards). All points of the dis-
tribution may be calculated using the coordinates given in the graph. The relative pressures in
this graph are only dependent on the maximum pressure pmax, and the vertical coordinate is
only dependent on two known variables. Hence, the integration of this distribution is straight-
forward for a very high wall with no overtopping and relatively deep water over the berm. The
summation of areas of the relative pressure distribution then yields:
1)
Consequently, the statistical distribution given in Fig. 5 is no longer valid for this
reduced force as the statistical distribution was determined for relatively high caisson
structures and almost no overtopping.
- 24 -
hs2
Fh,max ' 0.5112 @ pmax @ if R c( > (33)
hb
where Rc* is defined as relative crest

height (= Rc@hb/hs2) and d* is the
relative water depth at the structure
(= d'@hb/hs2), d' being the distance from
the bottom of the caisson to the still
water level. The maximum
pressure pmax and the lever arm of the
resultant force z can graphically be
estimated from Fig. 12 using as input
the relative water depth at the wall.
For calculation, a distinction of cases

will be necessary, if all types of wall
Fig. 11: Relative maximum pressure at SWL and
shall be considered. The maximum lever arm of forces as a function of
pressure at the wall, pmax, has to be relative water depth at the structure (Hull
calculated from Fhmax to obtain the full et al., 1998)
pressure distribution. Therefore, the
following steps are needed:
2) find equations to describe the integration of pressure distribution to give the maxi-
mum horizontal force dependent on
@ crest height Rc, and
@ water depth d';
4) rearrange these equations such that the maximum pressures can be derived from the
maximum horizontal force.
Regarding the first point Eq. (33) can be expanded to three equations where the first gives a
reduction due to low crest level (still assuming that d* > 0.9):
- 25 -
hs2
pmax @ @ 0.5112
hb
hs2
Fh,Rc ' pmax @ @ 0.4632 % 0.04 R c( (34)
hb
hs2 (
pmax @ @ 0.3832 % 0.24 R c
hb
The second equation calculates a further reduction due to lower relative water depths 0.25 <
d* # 0.9:
h s2
pmax @ @ 0.3312 % 0.2 d (
hb
h s2
Fh,d ) ' pmax @ @ 0.2832 % 0.04 Rc( % (35)
hb
h s2
pmax @ @ 0.2032 % 0.24 Rc( %
hb
and the third gives the force for low water levels over the berm (d* < 0.25):
h s2
pmax @ @ 0.2062 % 0.7 d (
hb
h s2
Fh,d ) ' pmax @ @ 0.1582 % 0.04 Rc( % (36)
hb
h s2
pmax @ @ 0.0782 % 0.24 Rc( %
hb
The case where Rc* is smaller than 0.17 is not considered here as this is very unlikely to hap-
pen. For this case it can be assumed that no impacts will occur as the crest height is too low
(waves will heavily overtop the structure).
From Eqs. (34) to (36) the maximum pressure can be easily calculated by solving these equa-
tions for pmax. For all cases the pressure distribution can then be calculated using the relative
coordinates of Fig. 11 and considering the relative crest height and the relative water depth,
respectively.
- 26 -
10.10. Lever arm of horizontal force
Finally, the lever arm for the horizontal impact force can be calculated from the pressure dis-
tribution as given in Fig. 10 at the wall as follows:
p1@02ov % 3@p1@d ) @0ov % 3@p4@0ov@d )
lFh ( t ) ' (37)
6 @Fh (
In Eq. (37) 0ov is defined in relation to the height of the wave crest to the wall (see Fig. 10):
0ov ' min 0( ; R c (38)
and d' is defined as:

d) ' d % dc (39)
In case of the second pressure distribution described under Section 5.4.2 the analytic calcu-
lation of the lever arm of the horizontal force is rather complicated and very much dependent
on the relative water depth and crest height. For simplicity reasons it may be either assumed
that the force attacks at the height of the still water level or the height may be taken from
Fig. 12.
12. WAVE UPLIFT LOADING
The procedure for calculating the uplift pressures and forces is similar to the procedure for
calculation of horizontal components in Section 5. A Generalized Extreme Value (GEV)
distribution was also found to fit the data and is consistent to the method used for impact
forces (see example for small-scale test in Fig. 12). The GEV distribution function has already
been defined in Eqs. (11) and (13).
Parameters for application of the GEV to relative uplift forces can be taken from large-scale
tests (for quasi-non overtopping conditions " = 2.17; $ = 4.384; ( = -0.11). The same
procedure as already used for horizontal forces can be applied to derive the relative uplift
force resulting in:
- 27 -
(
( " ( (40)
Fu, max ' 1 & & ln P F̂u, % ß
( max
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0 GEV
Parameter (ME):
n = 255
8.0 " = 2.5100
ß = 5.6278
( = 0.0457 *)
6.0 s = 0.0784
Kolm.-Sm. Test:
Dn = 0.000
4.0 " = 0.01 (%)
" = 0.025 (%)
" = 0.05 (%)
2.0 *) scales x-axis
0.1 10.0 50.0 80.0 90.0 95.0 97.5 99.0 99.5 99.9 99.99
Non exceedance probability
Fig. 12: Statistical distribution of relative uplift forces observed in the WKS for random
waves
12.2. Calculation of uplift force history
Similar parameters are needed to describe the uplift force history than already used for the
impact forces (see Figs. 6 and 17):
(b) tru = triangular rise time;
(d) tdu = triangular total duration of maximum uplift force;
It should be stressed that the times listed above are not necessarily identical to the times for
the impact loads. If it is assumed that t0 is identical for both impact and uplift loading the time
difference between the peaks can be calculated as follows (McConnell and Kortenhaus,
1997):
dtFu ' trFu & t r (41)
- 28 -
12.2.2. Rise time tru
The following relationship between relative uplift force peak F*u,max = Fu,max/(DgHb2) and rise
time tr was derived from Fig. 14 following the procedure for impact loads:
deff / g
trFu ' k u @ 8.94 (42)
(
Fu, max
Random waves
GWK 1993/94
45.0 WKS 1993 No. of tests = 239
HR 1994
30.0
15.0
Eq. (42), k = 0.205
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Relative rise time t rFu /%(d eff /g) [-]
Fig. 13: Relative uplift force versus relative rise time (GWK data)
The effective water depth deff can be assumed to be identical to the water depth in which the
wave breaks and may be estimated by the procedure described for impact loads (Eq. (17)).
The ku-factor used here is dependent on the breaker type and the part of the mass taking part in
the impact process, and will be set to ku = k = 0.205 ± 20% identical than for the impact
forces. From Eq. (42) the total duration trFu can then be calculated as follows:
d eff / g
trFu ' 1.83 @ @ D @ g @ H b2 (43)
Fu, max
- 29 -
The relation between tru and trFu was derived as a probability distribution again (see sec-
tion 5.3.1 for horizontal forces). For uplift forces, however, the distribution is no longer a log-
Normal distribution but better described by a Generalized Extreme Value distribution
(Fig. 15). The mean value of this ratio is 1.11, thus again larger than the value proposed by
Oumeraci and Kortenhaus (1997). This is again due to the filtered values where only breaking
waves are taken into account.
Fig. 14: Probability distribution for triangular rise time ratio for uplift forces
For probabilistic design the same equation than for horizontal forces (Eq. (21)) was used for
uplift forces as well. The k'u parameter (for uplift forces) corresponds to k' (for impact forces)
and has a mean of 0.16 and a standard deviation of 0.17.
- 30 -
12.2.4. Total duration tdu
The triangular total duration of the uplift force tdu can be obtained from the rise time tru by
using the following relationship similar to Eq. (22) for horizontal forces:
tdu ' tru @ 2.0 % 8.0 @ exp & 18 @ t ru / Tp (44)
This relation was obtained from all data sets again (Fig. 16) and shows a large scatter. Eq. (44)
gives the upper bound of this relation which might be used as a conservative approach.
Random waves
GWK 1993/94
No. of tests = 239
WKS 1993
10.0 HR 1994
5.0
Eq. (44)
t d = 2*t r
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Relative rise time t ru /T p [-]
Fig. 15: Relative triangular total duration versus relative triangular rise time (GWK data)
- 31 -
Again, Van Gelder (1998) has proposed the same formula than for impact duration and rise
time (see Eq. (23)).
& cu
tdu ' (45)
ln ( t ru )
where cu is again normally distributed with a mean value of 1.88 for large-scale tests and a
standard deviation of 0.99.
Given the rise time of the uplift force and the total duration, the force history can be calculated
for each time step by interpolating the times between t0 and the uplift force maximum at the
time tru and the total duration tdu (Fig. 17).
12.4. Pressure distributions
Uplift pressures underneath vertical breakwaters should generally be calculated using the
approach described in Section 3.5.3 where the instantaneous pore pressure development
underneath the breakwater is described.
However, a very simple approach was derived empirically from the data available and is based
on hydraulic model test data using 'upper bound' envelopes which may lead to conservative
estimates. Therefore, all results should be compared to the pressures derived by using the
Goda model (see Vol. I, Section 2.4.1) and are expected to be larger than those. It was
observed from hydraulic model tests that the uplift pressure distribution (Fig. 17) should at
least be digitized in three points (Kortenhaus and Oumeraci, 1997):
@ pressure at the seaward edge of the structure pu;
@ pressure at the shoreward edge of the structure pru (as it is not necessarily zero); and
@ pressure at about 25% of the structure width from the seaward edge pmu (as the maxi-
mum of the uplift force was observed to occur when the shock wave traveling under-
neath the structure has reached this point).
- 32 -
Fu(t)
DWL = Design Water Level Bc
R c = Freeboard
F u,max
Rc
DWL
F (t) d
u
dc
t
tru t p p
u ru
p
mu
t du l Fu
Fu
0.25@B c
Fig. 16: Approximate pressure distribution for temporal development of pressure distribu-
tion
For impact forces the pressures were given as functions of the impact force itself and the pres-
sure distribution was assumed to remain constant in itself. A similar principle will be followed
here but the number of points to form the pressure distribution is reduced to only two for sim-
plicity reasons. Furthermore, the pressure underneath the landward side of the structure will
be calculated using relative wave parameters. The pressure distribution is assumed to be con-
stant in itself over the time.
12.4.2. Pressure at the shoreward edge of the structure pru
Different pressure heads underneath the shoreward edge of the structure were reported from
model tests and prototype conditions in PROVERBS where many times pressures up to the
same magnitude than at the seaward side were measured (rectangular pressure distribution).
Explanation of the processes involved have been provided by Van Hoven (1997), Hölscher et
al. (1998), and Peregrine (1997) which indicates that the most relevant parameters responsible
for non zero pressures are the exit area, the foundation material and the water depth behind the
structure. However, most of these parameters were kept constant over the tests so that analysis
of the data did not take this into account.
- 33 -
The inital analysis of available data for pressures underneath the shoreward edge of the break-
water related these pressures to the wave parameters by applying an upper envelope to the
data for the time of the maximum uplift force (Fig. 18). From this the following empirical
formula was achieved:
pru Hb
' & 0.1 (46)
D @ g @ Hb hs
GWK
0.90
0.72
0.54
0.36
0.18
0.00 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.80

H b/h s [-]
Fig. 17: Uplift pressure underneath the shoreward edge of the breakwaters in GWK and
WKS
which can easily be transformed to:

Hb
pru ' D @ g @ Hb @ & 0.1 (47)
hs
For all times 0 # tru # tdu the respective values may be interpolated from the above following
the same principle than already used for the uplift force history (Fig. 17).
- 34 -
12.4.4. Pressure at the seaward edge of the structure pu
Since the pressure at the shoreward side of the structure is known the pressure underneath the
seaward edge pu can be calculated as follows:
2 @ Fu,max
pu ' & pru (48)
Bc
where Bc is the structure width, Fumax is the maximum uplift force and pru is the pressure at the
shoreward side of the structure.
12.6. Lever arm of uplift force
Finally, the lever arm for the uplift force can be calculated from the pressure distribution
underneath the structure for each time step as follows:
Bc2 @ pru % 2 @ p u
lFu ( t ) ' (49)
6 @ Fu,max
14. AERATION OF IMPACT WAVES
All results discussed so far have been achieved from model tests at different scale using fresh
water. These results are very difficult to directly apply to prototype conditions as there are a
lot of additional factors which should be taken into account. One of these phenomena which is
most difficult to account for is the aeration of both non breaking and impact waves.
Crawford et al. (1997) have reported field and model measurements performed with both
fresh and sea water. The different behaviour of air bubbles in the breaking process of waves
hitting a (almost) vertical breakwater is described, as well as effects of this behaviour:
@ for non breaking waves, similar results were obtained for fresh and sea water when gen-
erally very little aeration was observed in the reflected waves;
@ for impacting waves, field measurements have shown that high aeration levels coincide
with long rise times and lower pressures whereas short duration high peaked pressures
were also observed, but do occur at lower aeration levels;
@ comparing results with fresh and sea water under laboratory conditions has shown that
pressures are generally higher with longer rise times and vice versa, thus following the
observations made in the field;
- 35 -
These results have led to some simple guidance on estimating the aeration of impact waves
and its influence on the impact force (Hewson et al., 1998) which might be adopted for design
purposes. The aeration in impact waves can be calculated to:
Pa ' 2.0 % 5.3 @ Ni (50)
where Ni is the number of breaking waves per minute and Pa is the percentage of aeration in
the breaking wave given in percent. The number of breaking waves per minute, however, is
not known in advance but may be estimated for model tests using the percentage of breaking
waves in a test Pi (Eq. (7)):
NW
Ni ' Pi @ (51)
ttot
where NW is the number of waves in a test, and ttot is the total length of the test given in min-
utes. Under prototype conditions NW may be replaced by the number of the waves in a storm
whereas ttot is the duration of the design storm.
From the aeration percentage obtained by Eq. (50) a force reduction factor kfa according to
Hewson et al. (1998) can be calculated as follows:
7.726
kfa ' (52)
0.372
2.5 % P a 97.5 & P a
It has also been shown that the total force impulses seemed to remain independent from the
aeration level of the breaking wave. Assuming this impulse to be more or less equal to the tri-
angular impulse as given by Eq. (24) longer rise times due to aeration can be calculated as the
inverse of the force reduction factor:
1
kta ' (53)
k fa
Since uplift and impact loading are strongly coupled it can be expected that the uplift force
will be dependent on the aeration in the same way though no data supporting this are yet
available. The working assumption therefore is to use Eqs. (50) to (53) for uplift forces as
well.
- 36 -
16. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The extremely complex phenomena of wave breaking at a vertical wall has been investigated
in PROVERBS. Hydraulic model tests, numerical modelling, field measurements and desk
studies have been performed to improve the physical knowledge of the phenomena involved.
Significant progress has been achieved related to this problem and eventually have led to
improved design procedures for impact loading which are summarized in this and other
sections of Chapter 5 in Volume IIa ('Breaking Wave Loads'). The calculation process within
this section is graphically summarized in Fig. 19.
- 37 -
- 38 -
Geometric Conditions Wave Conditions

Fig. 1 Vol. IIa, Chapter 2
Parameter Map H bc
Fig. 3 Eq. (1)
Impact Filter Pi
Section 4.3 Eq. (9)
Quasi-Static Impact
Loading Loading
Horiz. Force Uplift Force

Volume IIa
@ initial force calc.
Chapter 4.1 (Eq. (10))
@ statistics of rel. force @ statistics of rel. force
(Fig. 5, Eq. (14)) (Fig. 11, Eq. (43))
@ calc. of force history @ calc. of force history
(Eqs. (21), (23)) (Eqs. (21), (45))
@ reduction by aeration @ reduction by aeration
(Eqs. (50) to (53)) (Eqs. (50) to (53))
Press. Distr. Press. Distr. Press. Distr.

Vert. Wall Breakwater Uplift
(Eqs. (26) to (30)) (Eqs. (32) to (36)) (Eqs. (46) to (48))
Parameter Output
p1(t) to p (t)
4 , p u(t), p (t)
ru , F h(t), F (t)
u ,M h
(t), M (t)u , l Fh
, l Fu
Fig. 18: Overview of calculation scheme for impact loading (probabilistic approach)
- 39 -
This section therefore summarizes and updates two tentative procedures for calculating time-
dependent pressures and forces at the front face and underneath vertical breakwaters subject to
impact breakers. The performed improvements as compared to previous versions of this
method (Oumeraci and Kortenhaus, 1997) are as follows:
@ updated method to calculate the breaking wave height in front of vertical breakwaters
following the formulae proposed by Calabrese and Allsop (1997);
@ new procedure to calculate the percentage of impacts for given geometric and wave
conditions following the same method as described above;
@ simple calculation method to estimate relative wave impact forces for feasibility and
preliminary design studies (Allsop et al., 1996);
@ use of updated relative wave impact and uplift forces to be used for statistical dis-
tributions;
@ new distribution type to present the statistics of both impact and uplift forces (Gener-
alized Extreme Value (GEV) Distribution);
@ new results of k-values to estimate the part of the water mass involved in the impact
taken from analysis of PIV-measurements (Vicinanza, 1998);
@ application of method to different bed slopes and improvement of statistical parameters
used for calculating the relative forces (McConnell and Allsop, 1998);
@ implementation of new results regarding aeration of impact waves as reported by
Crawford et al. (1996) and Hewson et al. (1998);
@ new statistical relation between total duration of wave forces and rise times for both
impact and uplift loadings (Van Gelder, 1998);
@ new vertical pressure distribution as proposed by Hull et al. (1998).
The dynamic loading described in this section cannot be directly compared to a quasi-static
loading as described in Section 4.1 of Volume IIa. To allow for any comparison the
- 40 -
dynamic loading has to be transformed into a quasi-static loading which has the same effect to
the structure than the dynamic loading. This can principally be done by using the dynamic
load factor concept which is in more detail described in Chapter 3 of Volume IIb.
The 3D character of waves in nature has been ignored in describing the methods to calculate
the loading. However, it is believed that especially for impact breakers there is a very
significant difference between 2D and 3D cases as impacts do occur very locally. A detailed
description of model tests performed within PROVERBS and results to reduce the magnitude
of the loading due to these effects are described in Section 5.3 of this volume.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been compiled under the European Union funded PROVERBS project
(Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters) under contract no. MAS3-CT95-0041
and other additional national funding sources.
Many partner institutions have contributed to this section by performing the model tests,
analysing and providing the data, and giving comments and proposals for improving the work.
All these contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
ALLSOP, N.W.H.; VICINANZA, D.; MCKENNA; J.E. (1996): Wave forces on vertical and
composite breakwaters. Strategic Research Report. Hydraulic Research Wallingford,
SR 443, Wallingford, U.K., 94 pp.
CALABRESE, M. (1997): Onset of breaking in front of vertical and composite breakwaters.
Proceedings 2nd Task 1 Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic
Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Edinburgh, U.K., Annex 1.0.4.
CALABRESE, M.; ALLSOP, N.W.H. (1997): Impact loadings on vertical walls in directional
seas. Proceedings 2nd Task 1 Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic
Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Edinburgh, U.K., Annex 1.2.7, 16 pp.
CALABRESE, M.; ALLSOP, N.W.H. (1998): Effects of obliquity on wave loads on vertical
walls. Proceedings International Conference Coastal Engineering (ICCE), ASCE,
Copenhagen, Denmark, no. 26, 2 pp.
COOKER, M.J.; PEREGRINE, D.H. (1990): A model for breaking wave impact pressures.
Proceedings International Conference Coastal Engineering (ICCE), ASCE, Delft, The
Netherlands, no. 22, Volume 2, pp. 1473-1486.
- 41 -
CRAWFORD, A.R.; BULLOCK, G.N.; HEWSON, P.J.; BIRD, P.A. (1997): Wave impact
pressures and aeration at a breakwater. Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis, Waves
'97 Proceedings of International Symposium, Virginia, USA, no. 3, 14 pp.
FENTON, J.D.; MCKEE, W.D. (1990): On calculating the length of water waves. Coastal
Engineering, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., vol. 14,
pp. 499-513.
HEWSON, P.J.; CRAWFORD, A.R.; WALKDEN, M.J.A. (1998): Effect of aeration on wave
impact forces. Proceedings 2nd Overall Project Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-
Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Naples, Italy, Chapter
1.5a), 5 pp.
HÖLSCHER, P.; ZWANENBURG, C.; DE GROOT, M.B.; LUGER, H.J. (1998): Hindcast
Hannover breakwater. Research Report, Delft Geotechnics, Part IV: Evaluation,
CO-364920/103, Delft, The Netherlands, 64 pp., Annexes.
HULL, P.; MÜLLER, G.; ALLSOP, N.W.H. (1998): A vertical distribution of wave impact
pressures for design purposes. Research Report, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project:
Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 16 pp.
JOHNSON, N.L.; KOTZ, S.; BALAKRISHNAN; N. (1995): Distributions in statistics. II.
Continouus univariate distributions, New York: Wiley, 2nd edition, 719 pp.
KORTENHAUS, A.; OUMERACI, H. (1997): Wave uplift loading for impact breakers -
tentative formulae and suggestions for the development of final formulae. Proceedings
2nd Task 1 Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for
Vertical Breakwaters, Edinburgh, U.K., Annex 1.0.3, 14 pp.; 2 Annexes.
KORTENHAUS, A. (1998): Statistics of impact and non impact waves. Discussion Note,
MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters,
Braunschweig, Germany, 13 pp.; 1 Annex.
KORTENHAUS, A.; LÖFFLER, A. (1998): Analysis of new model experiments on uplift
underneath vertical breakwaters. Research Report. MAST III, PROVERBS-Project:
Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Braunschweig, Germany, 51 pp., 4
Annexes.
MCCONNELL, K. (1998): Revetment systems against wave attack - a design manual.
London, U.K.: Thomas Telford, 168 pp.
MCCONNELL, K.J.; KORTENHAUS, A. (1996): Analysis of pressure measurements from
hydraulic model tests and prototype measurements - discussion note. Proceedings
Task 1 Workshop Belfast, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools
for Vertical Breakwaters, 2nd Draft, Annex 19, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 13 pp., 5
Annexes.
MCCONNELL, K.J.; KORTENHAUS, A. (1997): Analysis of pressure measurements from
hydraulic model tests and prototype measurements. Proceedings 1st Overall Project
Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical
Breakwaters, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Annex C3, 14 pp., 1 Annex.
- 42 -
MCCONNELL, K.J.; ALLSOP, N.W.H. (1998a): Prediction of wave impact forces and
durations: further considerations and discussion. Proceedings 2nd Overall Project
Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical
Breakwaters, Naples, Italy, Class 2 Report, Chapter 1.5a), 8 pp.
MCCONNELL, K.J.; ALLSOP, N.W.H. (1998b): Wave forces on vertical and composite
breakwaters. Strategic Research Report. Hydraulic Research Wallingford, SR 509,
Wallingford, U.K.
OUMERACI, H.; KLAMMER, P.; PARTENSCKY, H.-W. (1993): Classification of breaking
wave loads on vertical structures. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, ASCE, vol. 119, no. 4, pp. 381-397.
OUMERACI, H. (1994): Classification of breaking wave loads on vertical structures. In:
MAST Advanced Study Course "Probabilistic Approach to the Design of Reliable
Coastal Structures", Bologna, Italy, 16 pp.
OUMERACI, H.; BRUCE, T.; KLAMMER, P.; EASSON, W.J. (1995): PIV measurement of
breaking wave kinematics and impact loading of caisson breakwaters. Proceedings
International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing Countries
(COPEDEC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, no. 4, Volume 3, pp. 2394-2410.
OUMERACI, H.; KORTENHAUS, A. (1997): Wave impact loading - tentative formulae and
suggestions for the development of final formulae. Proceedings 2nd Task 1 Workshop,
MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters,
Edinburgh, U.K., Annex 1.0.2, 13 pp; 3 Annexes.
PEREGRINE, D.H. (1997): Pressure at the back of a caisson on a permeable foundation. Pro-
ceedings 2nd Task 1 Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design
Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Edinburgh, U.K., Annex 1.3.1c, 3 pp.
VAN GELDER, P.H.A.J.M. (1998): Analysis of task 1 force data. Discussion Note, MAST III,
PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Delft, The
Netherlands.
VAN HOVEN, A. (1997): Hindcast of pore pressures underneath Porto Torres breakwater.
Proceedings 2nd Task 1 Workshop, MAST III, PROVERBS-Project: Probabilistic
Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters, Edinburgh, U.K., 1st Draft, Annex 2.2, 19 pp.; 8
Annexes.
VICINANZA, D. (1998): Azioni impulsive di un' onda frangente su una diga a paramento
verticale di tipo composto. XXVI Convegno di Idraulica e Construzioni Idrauliche,
Catania, Italy, 12 pp. In Italian.
- 43 -
File MAST_III\FIN_REP\IMPACT\impact.wp5 (last changes: 15. January 2001)
- 44 -
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. OVERVIEW OF RECENT WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. OVERVIEW OF DATA SETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. PREPARATORY STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Identification of wave impact loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Breaker height at the structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Probability of occurrence of impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. WAVE IMPACT LOADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5.1. Initial calculation of impact forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Statistics of relative wave forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Calculation of impact force history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. Rise time tr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3.2. Total duration td . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3.3. Force impulses Ihr and Ihd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Pressure distributions at the wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.1. Distributions from vertical wall tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.2. Pressure distributions from breakwater tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.5. Lever arm of horizontal force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. WAVE UPLIFT LOADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.1. Calculation of uplift force history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1. Rise time tru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.2. Total duration tdu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Pressure distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.2.1. Pressure at the shoreward edge of the structure pru . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2.2. Pressure at the seaward edge of the structure pu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.3. Lever arm of uplift force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. AERATION OF IMPACT WAVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8. CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 5.1: Wave Impact Loads - Pressures and Forces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chapter 5.1: Wave Impact Loads - Pressures and Forces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5.1: Wave Impact Loads - Pressures and Forces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 5.

1: WAVE IMPACT LOADS

A. KORTENHAUS1); H. OUMERACI1); N.W.H. ALLSOP2); K.J. MCCONNELL2);

Within PROVERBS engineering experience from various fields (hydrodynamic, foundation,

4. OVERVIEW OF RECENT WORK

Tab. 1: Overview of design methods for wave loading

6. OVERVIEW OF DATA SETS

Tab. 2: Overview of hydraulic model tests (random waves)

8.2. Identification of wave impact loading

A simple method is needed to distinguish between:

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

"Pulsating load" Impact load

Fig. 1: Pulsating and impact load - problem definition

"Vertical" Composite Crown Walls

Narrow berm Moderate berm w. Wide berm

Quasi-standing wave Slightly breaking wave Impact loads Broken waves

Fh Fh* Fh* Fh*

4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fig. 2: PROVERBS parameter map

8.4. Breaker height at the structure

or can be approximated using the method given in Fenton (1990):

The empirical correction factor kb can be estimated as follows:

where Beq is the equivalent berm width which is defined as:

8.6. Probability of occurrence of impacts

The proportion of impacts can then be derived from:

10. WAVE IMPACT LOADING

10.2. Initial calculation of impact forces

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

10.4. Statistics of relative wave forces

exp & exp & x̃ with

In Eq. (11) the standardized x-parameter x̃ can be written as follows:

exp & x̃ @ exp & exp & x̃

Bed slope no. waves scale " $ (

1:7 116 .1:20 / HR97 2.896 6.976 -0.526

10.6. Calculation of impact force history

10.6.2. Rise time tr

Fig. 5: Substitution of actual force history by an equivalent triangular load

1 for steeper slopes

15.0 McConnell & Allsop, 1998

Eq. (16), k = 0.205

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Fig. 6: Comparison of prediction formula to large-scale measurements (random waves)

10.6.4. Total duration td

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

10.6.6. Force impulses Ihr and Ihd

10.8. Pressure distributions at the wall

10.8.2. Distributions from vertical wall tests

Fig. 9: Simplified Pressure Distribution at a Vertical Wall

b) Elevation of pressure distribution 0*

Substituting Eq. (27) in Eq. (28) yields:

h) Pressure at the crest of the structure p4

The horizontal impact force1) is then reduced to:

10.8.4. Pressure distributions from breakwater tests

This distribution has been derived (0 / 1.2)

y @ hb 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0