DESIGN OF SEAWALI.

S ALLOWING FOR WAVE OVERTOPPING

ReportNo. Ex 924
June 1980
CrownCopl'right

H ydraulics ResearchStation
Wallingford
Oxon oxlo 8BA
Telephone0491 35381
ABSTRACT Based mainly on an extensiveseriesof model tests the report presents
design proceduresto evaluate the overtopping dischargewith irregular
waves for existing seawalls, and to determine the seawall profile re-
quired for proposed new seawallsto restrict the overtopping discharge
to a tolerable amount. The procedures are derived for simple and
bermed seawallsof a generalisedprofile which can broadly be describ-
ed as embankments; the methods are not applicable to complicated
seawall geometries, such as those equipped with wave return walls for
which specific model tests will still be required.
The report details the various parameters which are required to
evaluate an existing seawallor design a new one, and outlines some of
the methods available for determining such variables as design still
water level, significant wave height, mean wave period, seawall
roughnessand allowable overtopping discharge. Worked examplesare
included at each stageto illustrate the techniquesinvolved.
This designreport was commissionedjointly by the Central Electricity
Generating Board, the Severn-Trent Water Authority, the Wessex
Water Authority, and the Hydraulics ResearchStation.
CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION

SELECTION OF DESIGN STORM PARAMETERS I

Design still water level I
Significant wave height )

Mean zero-crossingwave period 4

Example Problem I J

Predominant wave direction f,

EVALUATION OF SITE CHARACTBRISTICS 6

Depth of water at toe 6
Foreshore gradient 6
Berm dimensions 6

PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS 6
Deepwaterwave length 6
Deepwatersteepness 6
Wavelengthat seawalltoe 7
Wavelengthon the berm 7
Wave refractionand shoaling 7
BxampleProblem 2 7
Breakingwave height 8
ExampleProblem 3 9
Wavesbreakingon the berm 9

OVERTOPPING OF EXISTING SEAWALLS 10

Dimensionless
freeboardand discharge l0
Simpleseawalls 1l
BxampleProblem4 t2
Bermedseawalls l2
ExampleProblem 5 t4
Compositeseawalls 15
Effect of waveangle l6
ExampleProblem 6 t7
CONTENTS (Cont'd) PAGE

Effect of seawallroughness IE

Example Problem 7 t9

Effect of onshore winds 20

Evaluation of total overtopping volume during a tidal cycle21

Example Problem E 22

Standard cleviationof expectedovertopping discharge 23

Example Problem 9 25
Return period for overtopping discharge 25

DESIGNOF NEW SEAWALLS 26

)1
Designdischarge

Designconstraints 29

Initial seawalldesign 29

Simpleseawalls 29
Bermedseawalls 30

Final seawalldesign 3l

ExampleProbleml0 3l

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 35

CONCLUSION 36

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 36

REFERENCES 36

NOTATION 38

TABLES
I Values of the coefficients A and B for simple seawalls

2 Values of the coefficients A and B for bermed seawalls

3 Roughnessvalues for various types of seawallconslruction

4 Calculation of dischargecurve for Example E

5 Total overtoppingvolume for Example8

CONTENTS(Cont'd)

FIGURES
I Generalisedseawall Profile
2 Example calculation of effective fetch length
3 Dimensionlesswave forecastingcurves
4 Scatterdiagram of wave heightsand periods
5 Wave length in varying water depths
6 Simple wave refraction and shoaling
7 Breaking wave ratio
8 Seawallsof various tYPes
9 Dischargeover simPle seawalls

l0 Coefficients A and B for simple seawalls

ll Dischargeover seawalls:berm width 5m and elevation2m below SWL
12 Dischargeover seawalls:berm width 5m and elevation lm below SWL
13 Discharge over s€awalls: berm width 10m and elevalion 4nr bekrw
SWL
14 Discharge over seawalls: berm width lOm and elevation 2m below
SWL
15 Discharge over seawalls: berm width 10m and elevation lm below
SWL

16 Dischargeover seawalls:berm widlh lOm and elevation at sw|-

l7 Discharge over seawalls: berm width 20m and elevation 2m below

SWL
18 Discharge over seawalls: berm width 20m and elevation lm below
swL
. 19 Discharge over seawalls: berm width 40m and elevation 2m below
SWL

20 Discharge over seawalls: berm width 40m and elevation lm below

SWL
2l Discharge over seawalls: berm width 80m and elevation 2m below
SWL
22 Discharge over seawalls: berm width 80m and elevation lm below
SWL
23 Coefficients A and B: berm elevation at SWL
24 Coefficients A and B: berm etevational lm below SWL
25 Coefficients A and B: berm e|evation at 2m be|ow SWL
26 Coefficients A and B: berm e|evationat 4m be|ow SWL

27 Correction factors for angled wave allack

28 ExamPle 8: TYPical tide curve
29 Example E: Dischargecurve
30 Example 10: ImProved seawall

3l Definilion of zero-crossingwave heighl and period

 INTRODUCTION During 1978and 1979an extensiveseriesof model testswas carried out
at the Hydraulics Research Station to determine the overtopping
discharges for a range of seawall designs subjected to different wave
climates. The seawalls were all of the generalised profile shown in
Figure l, consistingessentiallyof a flat-topped embankment fronted
in some casesby a flat berm. The seawallswere subjected to random
waves,and the testswere designedto determinethe effectson overtop-
ping dischargeof angle of wave attack, seawallslope, berm and crest
elevations,berm width, and wave steepness.A detaileddescriptionof
the test procedures,together with tabulations of measureddata, and
discussionof resultsobtained is given in a separatereport(l). The pur-
pose of this presentreport is to publish the resultsof those and other
studiesin such a way that the designengineercan usethe data either to
calculatethe expectedovertopping dischargeover an existing seawall,
or to design a new seawallof the samegeneralisedprofile.
The studieswere financedjointly by the Central Electricity Generating
Board, the Severn-TrentWater Authority, the WessexWater Authori-
ty, and the Hydraulics ResearchStation. The range of parametersfor
model testing was therefore selectedto cover most of the situations
likely to be encountered by these authorities. Great care should
therefore be taken in extrapolation of the results beyond the ranges
tested,unlesssome specificguidanceis included in the text on the ex-
trapolation of particular parameters.

iELECTION OF DESIGN
PARAMETERS Seawallsare generally assessedon their performance under a given
designstorm, i.e. for given tidal and wave conditions. The parameters
which are required to evaluate the overtopping dischargeof a given
design of seawallare:-
The design still water level, SWL
The significant wave height, H"
The mean zero-crossingperiod of the wave train, T
The predominant wave direction
It is not the purpose of this report to describein detail how each of
these should be evaluated, since this can be a very complex subject
which could alone form the basisof a completereport. However some
guidanceon the methods available is worthwhile.

Design still water level There are now a large number of tide recording stations around the
coastline of the United Kingdom producing records which are suffi-
ciently reliable for detailed analysis. From this data it is usually possi-
ble to calculate,for example, the 100 year High Water Level, i.e. the
High Water Level which is expected to occur on average for once in
every 100 years. There are at present two establishedmethods of carry-
ing out this calculation - the methods of Annual Maxima and of
Surge Residuals.
(a) Annual Maxima. This is the more widely used method, and
involves the selectionof the annual maximum level for each year, i.e.
the highest water level recorded during that year. From the frequency
of occurrence of each annual maximum water level a probability
distribution is fitted to the data, and extrapolated to the required
return period. The work by Suthons(2)and more recently Blackman
and Graff(3) are examplesof this method. The calculationscan be car-
ried out fairly quickly, but severaldecadescjf data are necessaryto ob-
tain a confident forecast of the 100 year water level for example, since
each year's tide recording yields only one data value.
(b) Surge Residuals.This method is mostly used when there is only a
relatively short record of tidal heights in the locality, although it can
be usedwith any record length. For everytide during the record period

I
 a comparison is made between the recorded and predicted irigh water
levels. The difference is termed the High Water Surge Residual, and
probability distributions are fitted to thesesurgeresiduals,and also to
the predicted tidal heights. The two individual probability distribu-
tions are then re-combinedto give the joint probability distribution for
the total water level, i.e. predictedtide plus surgelevel. To achievethis
an assumption has to be made about the correlation between tidal
height and surge residual, which is the main disadvantageof the
method. However the assumption made can be checked fairly easily
againstthe recordeddata, and it is generallyfound that the occurrence
of given surge residualsis independentof tidal height. Apart from its
requirement for lessdata than the method of Annual Maxima (since
700 data points are generatedby each year's tidal records)the second
method has the further advantage that it clearly separatesout the
regular astronomical effects (tides) from random meteorologicalef-
fects (surges).As we shall seelater, it is relativelyeasyto include fur-
ther effects, such as for examplethe occurrenceof waves.The paper
by Ackers and Ruxton(a)gives an example of the application of the
Surge Residualsmethod.
Significant wave height The best method of obtaining the significant wave height is obviously
to set up a wave recording system, either a Waverider buoy or a
pressure transducer, at the site of the proposed seawall, and to
monitor wave heights for as long a period as possible.The prediction
of the designsignificant wave height is then fairly simply obtained by
noting the frequency of occurrenceof given wave heights, fitting a
probability distribution to the data obtained, and then extrapolating
io the return period required.A recentHRS Reporl(5)sn wave heights
recordedin the SevernEstuary givesa good exampleof this approach.
Unfortunately however there are very few localitieswhere such detail-
ed wave measurementsare available. In these casestherefore it is
necessaryto calculatethe wave heights.
Waves can be broadly divided into two categories- locally generated
wind waves,and distantly generatedswell waves.The height of locally
generatedwavesdependson the wind speed,the duration for which it
has been blowing, the effective fetch length over which it has been
blowing, and the averagedepth of water over that fetch. The height of
swell waves dependson all theseparametersmeasuredat the distant
location at which the waves are generatedand also at all intermediate
points on their route to the study site. The prediction of swell wavesis
therefore a mammoth undertaking requiring a large.numerical model
of the sea or ocean, such as the NORSWAM(6) model, or that
developed by the UK Meteorological Office(7). The prediction of swell
waves will therefore not be discussedfurther in this report.

Locally generated waves are of two types - fetch limited or duration

limited. Fetch limited wavesare governed by the wind speedand the
fetch length, no matter how long the wind continues to blow. Dura-
tion limited wavesare governedby wind speedand wind direction, no
matter how long the fetch length is. In order to determine which of
these applies at a particular location it is first of all necessaryto
calculate the effective fetch length for each wind direction. The
method for this calculationis basedon that given in the Shore Protec-
tion Manual(8), and an example is given in Fig 2. For a given wind
direction radials are drawn from the point of interest at angular in-
crementsof 7.5owithin + 45o of the wind direction.Theselinesare ex-
tended until they first intersectthe shoreline, and the length of each
line is measuredin the direction parallel to the wind: this distanceis
then multiplied by the cosineof the anglebetweenthe ray and the wind
direction. The resulting values are then summed over all radials and
divided by the sum of the cosinesto give the effective fetch length'
Using standard forecastingcurves, such as those given in the Shore
Protection Manual for example, the wave heights are then calculated
for a given windspeedand either (a) the given fetch length or (b) the
wind duration. If the wave height for the given fetch is lower than for
the given duration, then the wavesare fetch-limited.If the reverseis
2
true, then the wavesare duration limited. Alternatively Fig 3 can be
used. For the given windspeed,the values of the dimensionlessfetch
length gF/U2 and dimensionlessduration gt/U arecalculated,where F
is the fetch length, t is the wind duration, and U is the windspeed
measuredat lOm above water level.
The valuesof gF/Uz and gt/U are locatedon the horizontal axesof Fig
3 . I f t h e v a l u e o fg t l U i s t o t h e r i g h t o f g F / U zt h e n w a v e s a r e l i m i t e d i n
size by the length of fetch F. If on the other hand gtlU lies to the left
of gF/Uz the waveswill be duration limited.
In order to obtain the wave height we also need to know the water
depth over the fetch area. This is obtained by estimation from
hydrographic charts, averagingthe water depth within the quadrant
covered by the radials drawn for the fetch length calculation. The
water depth will of coursedependon the tidal stage.However sincein-
terest is mainly in the wave conditions at or near High Tide, a water
level equal to Mean High Water Springs is generallyused.
Armed now with the wind speed, direction, water depth and either
fetch-length or wind duration, depending on whether the waves are
fetch or duration limited, the wave heights can be read off standard
shallow-waterwave forecastingcurves, such as the seriesgiven in the
Shore Protection Manual(8).Alternatively use can be nrade of the
universal dimensionlesswave forecastingcurves reproducedin Fig 3.
The dimensionless fetch gFlU2 and dimensionless duration gtlU have
already been calculated:the dimensionlesswater depth gd/U2 is now
found for the given water depth d and windspeedU. For fetch-limited
waves a vertical line is drawn through the calculatedvalue of gF/U2
until it intersectsthe line of calculatedgd/U2. The dimensionless wave
height gH"/Uz is then read off the vertical axis, and convertedback to
give the significant wave height H,. For duration limited wavesa ver-
tical line is drawn through the valueof gt/U until it intersects
the value
of gd/U2, and as before the correspondingvalue of gH"/Uz is read off
the vertical axis.

The foregoing method enableswave heightsto be calculatedwhen the

wind speed,direction and duration are known. However in order to
extend the wave predictionsto long return periods some knowledgeof
the frequency of occurrenceof thesegiven wind conditions must be
available. Fortunately there are many locations around the United
Kingdom where accuratewind measurementshave been obtained for
many years. Tables giving the recorded frequency of occurrenceof
given wind speeds,directions and durations can usually be obtained
from the Meteorological Office. For each class interval used in these
tables the resulting wave height can be calculated as above, and the
percentageoccurrence of a given wave height can be obtained by sum-
ming the percentageoccurrencesof all possible wind speeds/direc-
tions/durations which can give rise to this wave height. A probability
distribution of the y7.16u11(s) or Fisher Tippett(s)type is then fitted to
the wave height occurrences, and then extrapolated to more extreme
return periods. For situationswhere the wavesare mostly fetch-limited
thesecalculationscan be accomplishedfairly easily, qs in the caseof
the upper parts of the Severn Estuary for example(e).However for
duration limited waves the calculations can become extremely com-
plex, and other simplified methods are usually chosen. Perhaps the
simplest of these is to examine all past wind records during major
storms, and to estimate the worst possible wind speedand duration
which could occur with a given return period for each onshore wind
direction. The correspondingwave heightsare then calculatedfor each
direction, and all valuesare retained for future reference.(It could be
that at a particular location a wave height of say 4m strking the seawall
at an angle of l5o givesgreaterovertopping than a wave height of say
5m striking the seawallhead on. The largestwave does not necessarily
therefore give the worst case).

3
Mean zero-crossingwave
period The determination of the mean zero crossing period is closely
associatedwith the determinationof wave heights.Ideally both should
be obtained from lengthy wave recording at the particular site. There
are two methods by which the wave period for extreme waves can be
estimated from these records. The first of these is identical to the
determinationof wave heights- the frequencyof occurrenceof given
wave periodsis noted, and a probability distribution fitted to the data.
This probability distribution is then extrapolated to obtain the wave
period for a given storm return period. However even if the significant
wave height and the mean zero-crossingwave period are each deter-
mined for the same return period it does not necessarilyimply that
they occur simultaneously.The secondmethod thereforeexaminesthe
joint distribution of wave height and period. The recordedwave data
is plotted as a scatterdiagram as shown in Fig 4. Within eachcategory
of wave heightsand periods the figure indicatesthe number of records
having those wave heightsand periods. For example, Fig 4 showsthat
at this particular site there were74 occasionswhen the recordedwaves
had a significant height between 1.0 and 1.25m coupled with a mean
zero-crossingperiod of between 4 and 5 seconds.From this scatter
diagram it can be seenthat for the higher wavesin particular the wave
records are grouped together forming a fairly well defined band of
data. Onto these scatter diagrams are plotted lines of constant wave
steepness,S, where S is defined as the ratio of significantwave height
to mean deepwaterwavelejrgth, H"/L". This is done by plotting the
equation H, : SL. : S . gTz/2zi for different assumedvaluesof S. In
Fig 4 this equation has been plotted for S : 0.035, 0.045, 0.055 and
0.065. After plotting theselines the steepnessvalueswhich define the
band of data are noted: in this example the data, for the higher wave
heightsat least,is banded by the lines S : 0.065and S : 0.035. When
the significant wave height has been determined for a given return
period from the probability distribution, the mean wavelengthcor-
respondingto thesetwo steepnesses is then calculatedfrom S : H"/L-".
The corresponding mean zero-crossing wave periods are then
calculated from L-" : gTz/2tr. For the particular data shown in Fig 4
for example the probability distribution yields a 5 year significant
wave height of 3.04m. With steepness valuesbetween0.035 and 0.065
the 5 year wavelengththereforevariesbetween87 and 47m, giving cor-
respondingwave periods between7.5 and 5.5 seconds.A probability
distribution fitted directly to the recorded wave periods yielded 7.2s,
which is within the range produced by the steepnessmethod. Even
with recordedwave data therefore it is impossibleto determinea uni-
que wave period for a given significant wave height - instead a range
of periods is obtained. Since overtopping dischargeis a function of
wave period, overtopping calculations should be carried out for the
two wave periods at the extremesof the possiblerange: generallythe
longer wave period will give the greater overtopping.
When no wave measurementsare available,then wave periodshave to
be calculated in much the same way as wave heights. The effective
fetch length and the average water depth for the site are calculated,
and the wind speed and duration are noted. After determining as
before whether the waves are fetch-limited or duration limited. the
wave period is read off standard forecastingcurves for the required
windspeed,duration or fetch, and water depth. Alternatively the value
of gT/(Ztr U) can be found from Fig 3 for the calculated values of
gF/Uz or gt/U, and gd/Uz. Most wave forecastingmethodswill give a
value of wave period such that the wave steepness S is uniquely defin-
ed, and most probably lies within the range 0.05 to 0.06.
 To obtain the wave period for more extreme events the tables of fre-
quenciesof occurrence of given windspeed, direction and duration are
again used. For each class interval in these tables the resulting wave
period is calculated and the percentage occurrence of a given wave
period can be obtained by summing the percentageoccurrencesof all
possible windspeeds/directions,/durations which can give rise to the
wave period. A probability distribution is then fitted to this data, and
extrapolated to the required return period. As before, these calcula-
tions can be accomplished fairly easily when the waves are mostly
fetch limited, since in this case the wave height and period are very
closely related. However, for situations where the waves are mostly
durationlimited the calculationsare very much more complicated. In
thesecasessimplified methods are usually taken, as describedin the
previous paragraphsfor determining wave heights in this situation. A
rangeof wave periodswill then be obtained, and eachof theseretained

:r*,*.':'.':'::':'::':::':"i:'::'::'::"'.':..* * * * *,,* *
Example Problem I Examination of the charts shows that at Frampton-on-Severnthe
longest fetch occurs with winds from direction 240"N, and calcula-
tions give an effective fetch length of 3415m (seeFigure 2). At Mean
High Water Springs the averagedepth of water over the fetch area is
about 8 metres.Calculatethe significant wave height and mean period
for a Force 9 gale, direction 240"N, blowing for 2 hours.

Solution: A force 9 gale on the Beaufort scalecoverswindspeedsin the

range 2l to 24m/s, so take a mid-range windspeedof 22.5m/s.
The dimensionlessfetch gFlUz is therefore
g x 3415/22.52
or
g F / U z: 6 6 . 1 8
duration gt/lJ : gx2.3600/22.5= 3139.2
The dimensionless
waterdepthgd/Uz : g x 8/22.52= 0.1550
The dimensionless
Turningto Fig 3 and plotting gF/lJz : 66.18and gt/U : 3139.2,we
find that gtlU lies well to the right of gF/Uz and the wavesare
therefore fetch-limited. To obtain the significant wave height we
thereforeenterFig 3 with EF/U' : 66.l8,randgd/Uz : 0.1550,and
readoff gH,/Uz : 1.83x l0-r. We thereforehave
H " : 1 . 8 3x l o - 2 * I : 0.946m
e
Similarly, with gFlU2 : 66.18and ed/lJz : 0.155we read off
eT/(2rU) : O.236.
a-t r
T:o.236xo!::3.40s
g
F rl. r< * * tf :f ,t tt * rk,k *,t :* * * * *

Predominanl wave direc-

lion With winds blowing from a given direction waves will be generated
within a sector of about +45" of that direction. However in deep
water the predominant direction of locally generatedwaveswill closely
follow the wind direction. At most coastal sitesit is usually fairly ob-
vious from which offshore direction the worst waves are likely to oc-
cur, either becausethe fetch length is significantly greatest in that
direction, or becausethe strong winds most frequently blow from that
direction. If this offshore wave direction makes an angleof more than
about 10" with the normal to the seabedcontours then the wave direc-
tion at rhe shorelineis likely to be significantly affected by refraction.
The calculationof the inshore direction is describedin a later chapter.
5
EVALUATION OF SITE
CHARACTERISTICS The overtopping discharge of either an existing or projected seawall
will dependon the characteristicsof the site; in particular the depth of
water at the toe of the seawall,the foreshoregradient, and the dimen-
sions of any naturally occurring berm all affect the height of the wave
as it strikes the seawall.
Depth of water at toe The foreshore level at the toe of the existing or projected seawall can
be easily obtained by carrying out a survey. The depth of water at the
toe is then obtained by subtraction of the foreshore level from the
designStill Water Level. If the seawallincludesa berm, then the toe of
the seawall is defined by the toe of the berm.
Foreshoregradient The seabedprofile should be surveyed from the seawalleither down to
the point where the water depth is equal to about twice the expected
significantwave height, or for a distanceoffshore which is equal to the
expecteddeepwaterwave length, whichevergives the leastdistanceto
be surveyed (see next chapter for calculation of deepwater wave
length). The mean gradient of the foreshorewill be calculatedat a later
stagewhen the exact design wave period and water depth are known.
Berm dimensions At many sitesthe seawallwill be fronted by saltingsor mudflats which
in effect form a natural berm. The two important dimensionsof a
berm are its width, and the depth of water over such a berm at the
design water level. Generally the surface of natural saltings is very
nearly horizontal: the water depth is thereforesimply obtained by sub-
tracting the general level of the saltings from the design water level.
The width of the saltings is measuredfrom the seawallto the outer
edge of the saltings,in a direction perpendicularto the seawall.Many
saltings terminate at a near-vertical face, and the seaward edge is
therefore easily defined. At other locations however the saltingsmay
gradually merge with a beach or foreshore:in thesecasesthe seaward
edgeof the berm is defined as the approximatepoint at which the sur-
face ceasesto be horizontal.

PRELIMINARY
CALCULATIONS The sectionon selectionof designparametersdealt with the evaluation
of such items as the designstill water level, the designsignificantwave
height, the design mean zero-crossing wave period and the predomi-
nant wave direction. Each of theseparameters are essentiallyoffshore
values, applicable over a fairly wide area. The inshore wave heights
and directions however are likely to be modified significantly depen-
ding on the seabedcontours, the designwave period, and on the water
depth at the toe of the wall. Ideally the inshore wave conditions should
be determined by the application of a numerical wave refraction
medsl(I0'll). In simple situations, however, particularly where the
seabedcontours are relatively straight and parallel, the approximate
inshore wave conditions can be determinedusing theoreticalmethods
derived for regular waves. Firstly, however, certain additional wave
characteristicsneed to be determined.
Deepwaterwave length The mean wave length in deep water, i.e. the averagedistance between
successivewave crests, is obtained from the design mean zero-crossing
wave period by the equation
f" : ffz/2r
Deepwatersteepness The deepwatersteepness is defined as the ratio of the derign significant
wave height the calculated wavelength, i.e. S. : H"/L". Generally S"
to
will lie betweenabout 0.03 and 0.07. A value higher than this probably
indicatesa miscalculationat some stage.A lower value indicatesthat
the waves have been generatedover a considerabledistance,and are
probably distantly generatedrather than locally-generatedwaves.

6
lVavelengthat seawalltoe The wavelength in a depth of water equal to the design water depth at
the seawalltoe is given by the equation

L : r" tanrr
fft
However this is not a particularly,convenientequation, and the value
of wavelengthmay instead be determined from Figure 5 for a given
water depth and wave period.
Wavelenglhon the berm If there is a berm, then the wavelength on the berm is given by
D : t" tanh (2trd",/L) ot obtained from Figure 5.
y'averefraclion and shoal-
Ing As mentioned earlier, the following simplified method of calculating
wave refraction and shoaling should only be used as a very approx-
imate guideto the inshorewave conditions,and should not be usedat
all if the seabedtopographyis complex.
Let d* be the water depth in the wave generatingarea, H"* the signifi-
cant wave height in the generatingarea, T the mean wave period, and
a* the angle in the generatingarea betweenthe normal to the seabed
contours and the direction of wave travel. The first step is to check
whether the generatingarea can be consideredas deeprvater. If the
ratio of the water depth to the deepwaterwavelengthd*/L" > 0'5 then
the generatingarea is in deepwater:the deepwaterwave angle is then
given Uy(1,,io*, and deepwaterwave heighi H..": H.*. lf dr/C" < 0.5
then the generatingarea constitutestransitionalor shallowwater: in
this caseFig 6js usedto estimatethe equivalentdeepwaterconditions.
Using d^ and T one can calculatethe value of d/frt : dr/fi'- Using
this and o : crrthe correspondingpoint is found on Fig 6. The value
of cr.,is then read off the vertical axis, and the wave height coefficient
K * K . , i s i n t e r p o l a t e db e t w e e n t h e l i n e s o f c o n s t a n t K * K " . T h e
equivalentdeepwaterwave height is then given by
H,,, : H../(K*K')
Having thus established the actualor equivalentdeepwaterwaveangle
t1"&nd significantwave height H., the next step is to calculatethe angle
of wave attack and the wave height at the seawall.Using the valuesof
d,/gT2 and of o" the inshore wave angle ai and the wave height coeffi-
cient K*K" are read from Fig 6. The inshorewave height is then obtain-
ed from H", : K"KrH",. The inshore wave angle is the angle between
the direction of wave travel and the normal to the foreshorecontours.
Knowing the angle betweenthe seawalland the foreshorecontours the
angleat which the waveshit the seawall,A,can thus be determined.
rl !.1. * rf rF X * * * :t * * * * * * !t * * * * t' :t
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *,k * * *s * *

Example Problem 2 Waves with a significant height 2.5m and mean period 7.0s are
generatedover an area where the averagewater depth is 8.0m. tf the
wavesmake an angle of 30' with the normal to the contours in the
generatingarea, what will be their height and direction in a water
depth of 2.0m?
Solution:The deepwaterwavelengthis given by
- gTt
t_o :
In
:9!:
)*
: 76.5nt
The ratio d"/l."is rherefore8.O/76.5 : 0.105, which is significantly
less than 0.5. The generating_area cannot therefore be consideredas
deepwater.The value of dr/gTz is equal to 8.0/(9.81x7.02) = 0'017'
Entlring Fig 6, mark this off and draw a verticalline to intersectthe
curveq : 30". At this intersectionread off the valueof the equivalent
deepwalerwave angle front the verticalscale,giving a,, : 43'5"' Also
at the intersectionread off the valueof K^Kr, in this caseinterpolating
betweenthe contours K*K., : 0.80 and K^K" : 0'85, giving a value
just under0.85. The equivalentoffshore waveheightis thereforegiven
by
 H"" : H""/(KRKs)
: 2.5/0.85
: 2.94m

At this inshoresire, d"/gT2 : 2.0/(9.81 x7.02) : 0.004

Re-enteringFig 6 with this value and o. = 43.5o we read off by inter-
polation betweenthe linesa : constantthat oi : 16o,and similarly
K^K5 : 1.00. The inshore wave height is therefore given by H,, :
KRK'H,, : 2.94 x I .00 : 2.94m, and the wavesmake an angle of 16o

< * * * * ,f * * * * ,* ,f _ .:": ::::-:'.'".':'.:":1"::":::: . * * * * ,* * ,f :* * :f *

Breakingwave heighl The designwave heightis determinedon the assumptionthat no wave

breakingoccurs.Howeverit may not be possiblefor that designwave
height to reach the seawallbefore breaking: in that casethe overtopp-
ing at the seawall will be less than expected. In the following
paragraphsa method is describedwhereby the design wave height is
replaced by an equivalent post-breaking wave height H"o which can
then be used in all subsequentovertopping dischargecalculations.It
should be noted that H.o is not necessarilythe wave height which
would be obtained by direct measurement.It is an equivalent wave
height designedto give the correct overtopping dischargeas confirmed
from those testswhere significantwave breakingtook place.
To check for breaking the first step is to evaluatethe ratio of the
designwaveheightto the water depth, H"/d,. Next, for the givenvalue
of the foreshoregradient m, and the previouslycalculatedratio d,/g12
the valueof the breakingwave ratio 7 is determinedfrom Figure7. In
this context ^yis defined as the ratio of the equivalentpost-breakin-e
wave height to the water depth at the toe of the seawall,i.e. H.,,/d..

If the calculateddesignratio H.,/d. is lessthan the breakingratio ]

then the designwave height can indeedstrike the seawall.However if
the designratio is greaterthan the breakingratio then the wave height
is limited by breaking. The new designwave height at the seawallis
thereforegiven by
Hro:?d.
where 7 is the breaking ratio as determinedfrom Figure 7. It is assum-
ed that the mean zero-crossingwave period is unaffectedby breaking.
In carrying out this calculation of wave breaking it is necessaryto ex-
amine closelythe definition of the foreshoregradient, mr. Sincewaves
generally take about I wavelengthto complete the breaking process,
then m, should ideally be defined as the mean gradient of the foreshore
over a distanceof 1.0 L, immediately approachingthe seawall,where
L is the mean wavelengthat the seawalltoe. In situations where the
foreshoreis markedly convex upwards this will probably give a slight
overestimateof the wave height after breaking. Where the foreshoreis
markedly concave there will probably be an underestimateof the
broken wave height,and in this caseit may be worth re-calculating the
foreshoreslope over a distanceof 0.5 L-,,and re-working the broken
wave height to determineits sensitivityto the assumedforeshoreslope.
In situationsshowing marked sensitivityit may well be necessaryto
carry out a short seriesof laboratorystudiesto determineexactlythe
broken wave height.
* t* * * * t*'t * * rt,i * !t * tf !i :N.,t ,k,t,t !t,t * !t rt( !t
* * * * * *,f * *

Example Problem 3 At a specificsite for a new seawalla topographic surveyhas shown the
following water depths over the foreshore:-
Distancefrom Water depth at
seawalltoe design SWL
m m
0 2.0
l0 2.4
20 3.1
30 3.5
40 3.8
Under design storm conditions, waves with a significant height of
2.5m and mean period 7.0s are generatedin a water depth of 8.0m,
making an angleof 30" with the normal to the contours.What is the
design wave height and direction at the seawall.

Solution: Example Problem 2 showedthat after refractionand shoal-

ing the inshorewave height in a water depth of 2.0m was 2.94m, and
the wavesmake an angleof 16" with the normal to the foreshorecon-
tours. However the wave height is based on the assumption that no
breakingoccurs,and this must thereforebe checked.
For a wave heightof 2.94m and a water depth of 2.0m the ratio H.,/d,
:2.94/2.0 : 1.47. This ratio must be compared with the breaking
ratio'y obtainedfrom Fig 7. First we needd,/gTz : 2.0/(9.81 x7.02)
: 0.0O42.

Secondlywe need the foreshoregradient mr. From Fig 5 we seethat for

a 7.0s wave the wavelength in 2.0m of water is 30.0m: we therefore
evaluatethe mean gradient of the foreshorebetween0 and 30m off the
toe of the seawall.This gradientis (3.5 - 2.0)/30,or l:20. From Fig 7,
with d"/gT2 : 0.0042 and rn,, : l:20 we have 7 : 0.8. This is
. significantly smaller than the ratio of incident wave height to water
depth, H.,/d" : 1.47, so the waveswill certainly break. For the design
of the seawalltherefore we take the broken wave height
H',, : 7 d'
: 0.8x 2.0
= l.6m

Since the foreshore is neither markedly convex nor concave, this is

{.,F:f *,* * !,,r* * * . .r:":1'': . . : ::'::'::":'::':'.t:':i:":'::r:'* *****

Waves breaking on the
berm The calculationof the wave height which can occur on the bernt is very
similar to the foreshore calculations. Knowing the water {epth over
the berm at the design water level, d", the ratio d"/gTz can be
calculated.With a berm gradient of 0 (horizontal) Figure 7 is entered
to obtain the breaking wave height ratio y. If the designratio H.,/d" is
less than the breaking ratio then the design wave height can traverse
the berm without breaking. If the design ratio is greater than the
breaking ratio, then the design wave height will break on the berm.
The wave height at the seawall will therefore be limited to the value
7 d". However model testshave shown that the wave-breakingprocess
on the berm occupiesa distanceof about one wavelengthLr. In other
words, if the berm width W, is lessthan the wavelengthLB then the
breaking processis not complete, and the wave height striking the
seawallis greaterthan the broken wave.

9
 OVERTOPPING OF
F]XISTING SEAWALLS With few exceptions, the design of a new seawall is intended to
alleviateflooding which occursor is expectedto occur with an existing
system of sea defences.In order to make a valid judgement on the
benefits to be obtained with the new seawall it is therefore first
necessaryto calculatethe overtopping dischargesunder design storm
conditions for the existing seawall. However it is worth emphasising
that there is no such thing as an absolutedischarge:becausethe wave
heightsand periods exhibit a random distribution about a given mean,
the discharge will also vary randomly. All that can be calculated
therefore is the expectedmean dischargefor a wave sequencehaving a
given significant wave height and period, together with the expected
standarddeviationabout that mean.From standardstatisticaltablesit
is then possibleto find the range of valueswithin which the discharge
is expectedto lie for a given percentageof the time. In the next few
pagesthe main attention is devoted to the evaluation of the expected
mean discharge:calculationof the statisticalrangeof dischargevalues
is dealt with later.
The first step of course is to carry out surveysand measurementsof
the existingwall, particularlywith regardto the crestelevationand the
shapeof the seawardprofile. The seawallwill almost certainly fall into
one of the four main types shown in Fig 8, namely vertical, simple,
compositeor bermed seawalls.Each of thesetypescan also have either
an essentiallyflat-topped crest,or they could be surmountedby a wave
return wall. The presentreport is basedentirely on testscarriedout for
simple and bermed seawallswith flat topped crests,i.e. seawalltypes2
and 4 on Fig 8. However some guidance will be given on the assess-
ment of overtopping discharges for composite seawalls based on
published data of wave run up on composite slopes.Seawallswhich
are surmounted by wave return walls are so variable in geometry from
site to site that it would be impossibleto generalisetheir overtopping
characteristics:for theseseawallsthe only practicablemethod of deter-
mining the overtoppingof a specificseawallis by rnodeltesting.
l)imensionless
freeboard
and discharge Throughout the remainderof this report the heightof the seawalland
the dischargewhich overtops that seawallwill be expressedin terms of
the dimensionlessfreeboard and the dimensionlessdischargerespec-
tively. The dimensionlessfreeboard, R*, iS defined as
n* --
DR.
1rffi
where
R. is the crest elevationabove still water level
T is the mean zero-crossingwave period
and
H" is the significant wave height

The numerical value of Rx is small when a low seawallis attacked by

large wavesor by long period waves.The physicalsignificanceof Rx is
perhapsbest appreciatedif it is re-written in the following form:

^*: R.
D l-s
RJt
where S is the wave steepness.

Substitution of S : H,/1," and t, : gTz/12r\ in this last expression

will confirm that thesetwo definitionsof R* ar€ identical.However
the seconddefinition indicatesthat for wavesof constant steepnessR*
is simply related to the ratio (seawallheight/wave height).

The dinrensionless
dischargeQ* is defined as
n
** - TgH.
nY

l0
 wnere
a is the mean overtoppingdischargein terms of volume/unit
time/unit lengthof seawall,eg m3/s/m.
of Q* is perhapsbestillustratedby re-
Again the physicalsignificance
writing it as
o E
* : v-'""''Jn
a--
making the samesubstitutionsfor s and L".
For wavespropagating onto a beach or up a sloping seawallthe peak
dischargeat the point of wavebreakingis given approximately by

Q,: z!^v
+..,,F.'
where
Q, is the peak wave dischargeat breaking, and
I is the ratio of the wave height to the water depth at breaking.
It can be seentherefore that Q* can be re-written as
-t ls
*:e,'LJt'Ji
a'-Q
or in other words, for constant wave steepnessS and breaking ratio y
the dimensionlessdischargeQ* is simply relatedto the ratio (overtopp-
ing discharge/breakingwave discharge).
Simple seawalls Simple seawallsare preciselydefined by the valuesof
d" the designwater depth at the toe of the seawall
l:m the gradient (vertical:horizontal)of the seawardslope
R. the crest elevation above designstill water level.

ln order to evaluate the overtopping dischargethe design significant

wave height H., mean zero crossingperiod T, and angle of the wave
creststo the seawall/3 are required.
From these values the dimensionless freeboard R./(T/VilH") is
calculated,and Figure 9 is enteredwith this and the measuredseawall
slope. The dimensionlessdischargeQZ_GgH")is then read off the ver-
tical axis, and multiplied through by TgH, to obtain the dimensional
dischgse Q in units of volume/unit time/unit length of seawall(in SI
units Q is in m3,/s/m).Figure 9 givesthe dischargefor wavesattacking
the seawall at normal incidence: if the design waves make an angle
with the seawall then the discharge has to be calculated using the
methods describedlater.

In evaluating the overtopping dischalge it is possible that the

calculated dimensionless freiboardj"(T.r/ffi) will be such that the
expected dimensionlessdischarge Q/GgH") will be less than 1.0 x
- 6.
l0 If this is the casethen extrapolationof the curvesis possible:the
dimensionlessdischargeis relatedto the dimensionlessfreeboardby an
equation of the form

Q* = 4t-BR*
where
Q* : QzGeH,)
R* : R./(T",@.)
and A and B are constantsdependingon the seawallgeometry.Table l
gives the values of A and B for simple seawallsof various seaward
slopes.For seawallslopesof l:1,l:2 and l:4 the valuesof A and B
were determined experimentally for the following range of
parameters:-

0.05<R* <0.30
10-6<Q* <10-2
1.5 <d./H.<5.5
0.035 < H./1.,,< 0.055
lt
 For the other seawall slopes the tabulated values of A and B are inter-
polations based on published data on the run up of waves on simple
slopesof variousgradients(6).In using the constantstabulatedin Table
I it should therefore be remembered that the results are known to be
accurate only for the range of model tests carried out: outside this
range the equation should only be usedto give a broad estimateof the
expectedovertoppingdischarge.In order to determinethe constantsat
intermediateseawallslopes the values of A and B from Table I are
plotted in Fig 10, and smooth curves drawn through the plotted

< * * * * * * * * * * * - -t:t:': * * :* !r * * :k * * ,k ,f * ,r ,* :fr 'r :* 'i ,* :$ !r * * * * * * * *

Example Problem 4 An existingseawallhas the following dimensions

Seawallslope l:2
Crest elevation +5.5m ODN
What is the overtopping dischargewhen
Tide level + 3.0m ODN
Significantwave height 1.75m
Mean wave period 5.0s
Solution: At this tide level, the crest elevation relative to still water
level is 5.5 - 3.0 : 23m. The dimensionlessfreeboard is therefore
n R. 2.5
N*:- - -0.12
Tvf, 5 . 0f f i -
Entering Fig 9, draw a vertical line through the seawallslope of l:2 to
intersect the line R* : 0.12. At this intersection, read off the cor-
respondingvalue of Q* from the vertical axis. In this caseQ* : 9.0 x
-4.
l0
Alternatively we could enter Fig l0 with a seawallslope of l:2 to ob-
tain the values of the coefficients A and B in the equation
Q * : A e - B R * . I n t h i s c a s eA : 1 . 2 6x l 0 - 2 , a n d B : 2 2 . 1 .F o r t h e
given value of dimensionlessfreeboardwe therefore have
Q* : A e-BR*
: ( l ' 2 6x t 0 - 2 ) , - 2 2 ' r x o ' r 2
: 8 . 9x l 0 - a
giving closeagreementwith Fig 10.
To obtain the actual dischargewe have
Q:e*TeH,
: ( 9 x l 0 - 4 ) x 5 . 0x g x 1 . 7 5
Q : 7.7x l0-2 m3/s/m.run of seawall.
* * !t,tr *,f !8 !* * * * rf *,f ,* * * *

Bermed seawalls In order to define a bermed seawallit is necessaryto determine the

valuesof:-
d, the designwater depth at the toe of the seawall
mz the slope of the seawardedgeof the berm
ws the width of the berm (normal to the seawall)
d, the designwater depth over the berm
In1 the slope of the seawardface of the seawall
R. the crest elevationabove designstill water level
All the tests on which this report is based were carried out with the
slope of the seawardedge of the berm, m2, equal to the seawallslope
mr. However it is believedthat in most casesthe exact value of m, is
relatively unimportant in terms of the degreeof overtopping, unless
the berm elevationis above Still Water Level.
t2
The model testswere carried out for three seawallslopes(l: l, l:2 and
l:4) for the berm elevationand berm width combinationsshown below
Berm width: metres
t0 20 40
*4 x
*2 X

elevation: -l x x x x x
m.SWL 0 x

Figures ll to 22 give the variation of overtopping discharge with

seawallslope and crest elevation for each of the berm elevation/width
combinations tabulated above. If by good fortune the dimensionsof
the seawallfor which the overtopping dischargeis required happen to
coincide with one of the conditions tested, then the relevant figure
from I I to 22 is used. For example, if the seawall dimensionsare a
seawallslopeof l:2, a berm elevationof l.0m below SWL, and a berm
width of 20m, thenTigure l8 would be used. From the wave height H,,
the wave period, T, and the crest elevation R., the dimensionless
freeboard R./(TG;-H") is calculated.Entering the Figure with the given
seawallslope and the calculateddimensionlessfreeboard, the dimen-
sionlessdischargeQZGgH.) can then be obtained from the vertical
scale.The actual dischargeis then calculated by multiplying through
bv TgH..

However in nrost casesthe actual seawall will probably have dimen-

sionswhich lie betweenthosevaluestested:in thesecasessomemethod
of interpolation is required. As mentioned earlier, the test results
showed that the dimensionlessdischargefor a given seawallis related
to the dimensionlessfreeboard by an equation of the type

Q* : A e-BR*
where A and B are constants depending on the seawall geometry.
Figures 23 to 26 have been produced from the model results to show
the variations of theseconstantswith seawallslope: each Figure gives
the values of A and B for a fixed berm elevation, and on each figure
curvesare given for different berm widths, including a berm width of
zero, ie a simple seawall. For example, Figures 24(a) and (b) respec-
tively give the valuesof A and B for a berm elevationof lm below Still
Water Level, with berm widths of 0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80m. In these
Figures the plotted points are derived from the model tests for the
seawallslopes,berm elevationsand berm widths tabulated above, and
under the following range of test parameters:
lOm berm.
0.05
l0-6
1.5
0 .0 3 5

5, 20,40and80mberms,
0.10
l0-6
t.75
0.035

The plotted points are connectedby solid lines: dashed lines indicate
values of A and B derived by interpolation from the results of the
model tests.Table 2 liststhe valuesof A and B derivedfrom the model
tests, for bernted seawalls.

l-l
 From Figures23 to 26 interpolation betweenstandardberm widths for
a standard berm elevation is simply achieved. For example Figures
24(a) and (b) show that for a seawallslope of l:2 with a lOm wide
berm at lm below Still Water Level the values of A and B are 3'4 x
l0-2 and 53.2 respectively. If the berm width wasinstead8m, then in-
- 2
terpolation betweenthe lines for 5 and lOm bermsgives2.7 x l0 and
47.0 respectively.For a seawall slope of l:2, a berm elevationof lm
below Still Water Level and a berm width of 8m the dimensionless
dischargeis thus given by the equation
Q * : ( 2 , 7x l 0 - 2 ) e - 4 7 ' o R *
When the berm elevation differs from a standard value tested, inter-
polation is necessarybetweentwo pairs of Figureswhere berm eleva-
tions span the required elevation. For example if a berm elevation of
l.5m is required, it is necessaryto interpolate for A betweenFigures
24(a)and25 (a), and for B betweenFigurs24(b)and 25(b).For B the
interpolationis straightforwardand linear. For A, the interpolationis
linear, but has to be basedon lnA.

To illustratethe way in which Figures23 to 26 are interpolatedcon-

sider the following example.
i<)t*:{<********* * * * * ** * * * :* * ** * *** * * * * **

F-rampleProblem 5 Given: Seawallslope l:2.2

Crest elevation + 5 . 5 mO D N
Berm elevation + l . 7 mO D N
Berm width 8.0m
Find: Overtoppingdischargewhen:
tide level : + 3.0m ODN
significantwave height H.: 1.75m
nlean wave period T : 5.0s

Solution: Berm elevationrelativeto still

w a t e rl e v e l : +3.0m ODN -
l.7m ODN
: l . 3 m b e l o wS W L

betweenFigures24(for - lm) and

Interpolationis thereforenecessary
25 (for - 2m).

EnteringFigs 24(a)and 25(a)with a seawallslopeof l:2.2, and inter-

polating linearly betweenthe curvesfor berm widths of 5 and l0m, we
obtain by interpolation the foltowing valuesof A at a berm width of
8m:-
Berm elevation-1.0m. A : 2.85 x l0-2, ln A : -3.56

2.0m. A :8-2 x 10-3, ln A -4.80

By linear interpolation.onln A,^ye thereforehave

ln A,.,: ln Aro * A z . o- l n A , . s )
[=j8,t"
: l n ( 2 . 8 5x l 0 - 2 ) + 0 . 3 ( l n 8 . 2 x l 0 - 3 - 1 n 2 . 8 5x t 0 - 2 )
g i v i n gl n A , . , : - 3 . 9 3
Al.3=l'96x10-2

To obrain rhe value of B, enrer Figs 24(b) and 25(b) with a seawall
slopeof l:2.2, and interpolatingbetweenberm widths of 5 and l0m,
we have for a berm width of 8m for the berm elevations
- 1 . 0 m .B : 4 9 . 3
-2.0m, B :26.0
In this case,straightforu'ardlinear interpolationgives

l4
 (l 7,
Br.3: Br.o+ - Br.d
(Bz.o
ffi
giving Br, : 42.3

For the given seawallwe therefore have the equation

R*
Q * : ( 1 . 9 6x l 0 - 2 ) e - 4 2 ' 3
For the given tide level, the seawallcrest elevation R. relative to Still
Water Level is 5.5m ODN - 3.0m ODN : 2.5m. The dimensionless
freeboard
R* : R./(T..F")
: z.st(s.oJffi, : o.l2
n * : A e-BR*
U s i n ge q u a t i o Q
xo'r2
Q * : ( 1 . 9 6x r c - \ r - 4 2 ' 3
g i v i n gQ * : I . 2 2 x l } - a
Since Q* : QZ(TgH"),we have
q : e,*TgH"
: ( 1 . 2 x2 l 0 - 4 )x 5 . 0x g x 1 . 7 5
Q : t.05 x l0-2 m3/s per metre run of seawall.
i *'t *,F * * * t< *< * * * * r. * * * *. * t r. * *,1.'k * * *( * * :k d< * * * * * r. r< *'k * * r< {.

As mentionedearlier,the widest berm which was testedin the ntodel

studieswas 80m: if the natural berm is wider than this the the best
solution is to take the 80m valuesof A and B. This method will give a
conservativeanswer, ie an overestimateof overtopping discharge,
sincethe model studiesshowed that dischargewas still decreasingas
berm width increased,evenat 80m.
In past methods of designing seawallswitli a wide berm it has
sometimesbeen the practiceto calculatethe breakingwave height on
the berm, and apply this height to the simple seawallbacking the
berm. The testson which this report is largely basedcovered a wide
rangeof berm width/wavelength ratios, and from the resultsit was ap-
parent that the wave breaking process occupied a distance of just
under one wavelengthon the berm, Lr. For berm widths lessthan one
wavelength(W" < f; ttre effectivewave height al the backing seawall
was somewherebetweenthe incident wave height and the broken wave
height. Former practice would therefore yield an underestimateof
overtoppingdischarge,and should thus not be used.For berm widths
greatei than one wivelength (W' > L]) ttre effective wave height
started at a value approximately equal to the breaking wave height,
but gradually reducedas berm width increased,due to frictional losses
and wave-waveinteraction on the berm. For these berrn widths
therefore the assumptionof breaking wave height yields an
overestimateof overtopping discharge,with the error increasingat
greater berm widths. Although this gives a conservativedesign of
seawall,it is preferableto use the values of overtoppingdischarge
derivedfrom the relevantparts of Figuresll to 26.
ttl evaluate:-
Conrpositeseawatls In order to define a compositeseawallit is necessary
d, the designwater depth at the toe of the seawall
m1 the slopeof the upper portion of the seawall
d, the water depth at which the seawallslope changes(d, can be
negativeif the changein slopeoccursabovethe designstill water
level)
m2 the slopeof the lower portion of the seawall
R. the crestelevationabovedesignstill water level

l5
 Unfortunately there is very little experimentaldata on the run-up and
overtopping of composite seawalls.As far as is--known, the only
(12)in the mid 1950s
systematiciestswere i seriescarried out by Saville
where the run-up and overtopping dischargeswere measuredfor a
range of wave heights, wave periods and crest elevations. Unfor-
tunately however all the experimentswere carried out with regular or
mono-chromatic waves, with a lower slope of l:3 and an upper slope
of l:6, and with the slope changelocated at designstill water level (ie
d, : 0). Plotting Saville'sresultsagainstseawallcrestelevationshows
that the run-up and the overtopping discharge on the composite
l:3/l:6 seawallwere intermediate between the results for the l:3
seawalland l:6 seawallrespectively.In other words, the resultsshow-
ed that the composite seawall was in effect behaving like a simple
seawallof slope somewherebetween l:3 and l:6. Based on these
results.and on similar testswith bermedseawalls,5uu;11.(13) proposed
the method which is now well known for evaluatingthe run-up of
regular waves on composite and bermed seawalls' Later, the
Hydraulics ResearchStation extended this method to obtain the
theoretical run-up of irregular waves on composite and bermed
seawalls(14).Unfortunatelyhoweverno similar methodshave evolved
for the overtopping discharge on such seawalls, even for regular
waves. ln addition, it is not possibleto calculatethe overtopping
dischargefrom the run-up predictions becausethere is no means of
determiningthe volume of water carriedover the seawallcrestby an
overtoppingwave. Expressingthis mathematically,it can be shown
that for seawallsthe dimensionlessovertopping dischargecan be ex-
pressedeither as

Q* : Ae-BR*
or as
Qx : f(N),
wlrereN is the number of waveswhich overtop the seawall,as a pro-
portion of the number of wavesincidentupon the wall. However,the
exact form of the function f(N) changeswith seawallgeometry. For
compositeseawallstherefore,evenif the valueof N can be determined
from run-up calculations,there is no way of knowing whether the
function f(N) should relate to the lower slope, the upper slope, or
someintermediatevalue. Until comprehensiveseriesof model testsare
carried out with irregular waves for a wide variety of composite
seawallsit is therefore not possibleto establishwith any accuracythe
likely overtopping discharge.In the meantimeall that can be stated is
that the overtopping dischargewill lie somewherebetweenthe values
obtained for simple seawallswith slopesequal to the lower and uppe:
slopes respectively of the composite seawalls. Depending on the
relative heights of the two portions of the seawall, the designerwill
then have to make a reasonedguessto determine which end of this
dischargerange is more likely.

Effect of wave angle All the precedingsectionson evaluating overtopping dischargehave

been based on the assumption that the waves strike the seawall or-
thogonally.Howeverin many casesthis will not be so, and someof the
testson which this report is basedwere therefore designedto examine
the effectof the angleof waveattackon the quantityof waterovertop-
ping the seawalls.The testswere carried out for l:l and l:4 simple
seawalls.and also for the sameseawallslopeswith bermsof width l0
and 80m, and a berm elevationof 2m below still water level'

In the absenceof any better information, many seawalldesignersin

the past have made the assumptionthat a wave attackinga seawallof
slope l:m at an angleof p behavesin the sameway as a waveattacking
normally a seawallwith slope l:m/cos B. In other words, a wave hit-
ting a l:2 seawallat 60o givesthe samerun-up and overtoppingas a
wave hitting a l:4 seawallnormally. However the test resultsshowed
that this was a grossover-simplification,and could lead 1o a serious

l6
 under-estimateof the overtopping discharge when the angle is less
than about 35". Although there was some variation from test to test,
the results showed that both for simple seawallsand for seawallswith
narrow berms the overtopping dischargewas greatestat about 15",
and at 30" was very similar to the dischargeat 0". Only for angles
greater than about 40o was there any significant reduction in
discharge.For the seawallswith an 80m wide berm the overtopping
dischargesat 0o, l5o and 30o were all very similar with significant
reduction only occurring at larger angles.
Basedon the results of these tests the following procedure is recom-
mended when the wavesattack the seawallat an angle. Firstly for the
given seawallgeometry, ie, seawallslope, berm width, berm elevation
etc. the values of the constants A and B in the dischargeequation
e* = A-BR* are determined for normal attack as describedin the
previous sections.Then the values of A and B are corrected for the
wave angle. Figure 27 is enteredwith the required angle, and the cor-
recrion factors are read off for A and B. The valuesof A and B at 0"
are multiplied by the relevantcorrection factor at angleB to obtain the

:t1.":o.t;
,.****:fr,fr:i:F***.fi":':': ..
:t:::i":'";'iT".T":':t:i'.0'.".";
Example Problem 6 Given: Seawallslope l:2.2
Crest elevation + 5.5m ODN
Berm elevation + l.7m ODN
Berm width 8.0m

Find: Overtoppingdischargewhen: Tide level : +3.0m

ODN
Significant wave helght H" : 1.75m
Mean wave Period T : 5.0s
Mean wave angle 0 = 25"

Solution: From Example 5 we found that for normal wave attack the
valuesof A and B for this seawallat this tide level were 1.96x l0-2
and 42.3 respectively.
Entering Fig27 with an angleB of 25", we find from the curve for A a
correction factor of 1.4. The value of A for this seawallat an angle of
25' is therefore:
-2 :
A 2 5 " : 1 . 4x 1 . 9 6x l 0 2J4 x l0-2

Entering the same figure 27 with an angle of 25", we find from the
cu.ue for B a correctibn factor of 1.02. The value of B for this seawall
is therefore:
B2s":1.02x42.3:43.t

For the given seawallat an angleof 25o we thereforehave the equation

Q* : Q.74 xl0-2) e-43'lR*
For the given tide level, crest elevation, wave height and wave period
we had from the previous example Rx : 0.12.

For this seawallat thesewave conditions striking at an angle 25" we

therefore have
xo'12
Q* : (2.74x l0-2).-43'l
giving
Q*: l.55xlO-a
since
Q * = Q/(TgH.), we therefore calculate
= Q* TgH.
: ( 1 . 5 5x l 0 - 4 ) x 5 . 0 x g x 1 . 7 5
or
o: 1 . 3 3x l 0 - 2 n r 3 / sp e r m e t r er u n o f s e a w a l l
l1
 Note that for this particular seawalland wave climate waves striking
the seawallat an angle of 25o give approximately 27Vogreaterovertop-
ping dischargethan if the wavesapproachedthe seawallnormally.
, 1 .: * * * r* *,* * * * * * * rt {( tt tk * * * *,F rl. * :t,t,*'t * * * tk * * * * *

As statedearlier, the model testsat different wave anglesshowedsome

variability. However the procedure recommendedabove will give at
worst a conservativeresult, ie, the actual overtopping may well be less
than calculatedfor a particular seawall.

Effect of seawallroughness All the model testscarried out for this report were for smooth faced
seawalls.since the models were constructedof plywood painted with
polyurethane varnish. However full sizesseawallsare constructedof
in-situ concrete. concrete blocks, set stones, or even grassedem-
bankments. and each of thesematerials has a definite texture which
will influence the overtopping of the seawalls.

Examination of all the availableliteratureon seawalldesignshowsthat

there is virtually no information on the effect of surfaceroughnesson
overtopping dischargesfor seawalls,either for regularor random wave
conditions.Howeverthereis a considerable body of data on waverun-
up on simply sloping roughenedseawalls(15) and this can be used to
provide some guidanceon the overtopping dischargeto be expectedin
such cases.
For a given seawall, the dimensionlessovertopping dischargecan be
relatedto rhe number of waveswhich overtop the seawallcrestby an
expressionof the type Q* : f(N)
where
Q* : QZlTgH,)
and
N is the number of waveswhich overtop the seawallas a proportioll
of the number of wavesincidentupon the wall.

The exact form of the function f(N) changesfrom seawallto seawall.

However the degreeof changeis relatively small for minor variations
in seawallgeometry. ln the absenceof any definite information to the
contrary,we will thereforemake the assumptionthat the function f(N)
is unchangedby surfaceroughness.The effect of surfaceroughnesson
overtopping dischargeis thereforeassumedto be limited only to its ef-
fect on N, the number of wavesovertopping the seawall.
Now for seawalls subjected to irregular waves having a Rayleigh
the proportional number of wavesN
distribution of wave heights(8),
which overtop the seawallis given by the equation
N : exp (-2 (R./R"X)
where R. is the crest elevation above still water level and R. is the
height to which the significant wave would run up the seawallif the
crest elevationwas sufficiently high to prevent overtopping. R, will of
course change for different seawall geometries and also for different
wave steepnessvalues. However for a given seawallthe effect of sur-
face roughnesson the wave run-up has beenexpressedin the literature
as a roughnessvalue, defined as
r : R,/R,-
where
r is the effective roughnessvalue
R.- is the height to which a given wave will run up a smooth seawall
R, is the height to which the samewave will run up a rough seawall
By substitutingthe values(RJ' : r(R")"- in the equation for N, we
thereforeobtain as the proportional number of wavesovertoppinga
rough seawall

l8
 N = € x pI - z-\r $ " \ 2',
( - -(R.)"./
This equation c'an be rdwritten in a slightly different way
N: e x p l - 2-(RJ"-/
/*1'\t1 '

which shows that the number of waves overtopping a rough seawall

with crestelevationR. and roughnessvalue r is identicalto the number
overtopping a smooth seawallwith an effectivecrestelevationof R./r.
From the expressionQ* : f(N) with the assumptionthat the function
f is unchanged by surface roughness it therefore follows that the
discharge Q* over a rough seawall with crest elevation R. and
roughnessr is also identical to the dischargeover a smooth seawall
with effectivecrest elevation R./r.
Returning to the more familiar expressionfor Q*,
Q* : A eBR*
we have for smooth seawallsR* : R"/TrF.

and for rough seawallstherefore 11* : (R./r)/G\@,)

or
(R*), : (R*),/r
giving
(Q*)':4.-B(Ra)"/r
or
(Q*)' : 4 t-(B/r)(R*)'

For a rough seawalltherefore the overtopping dischargeis the sameas

for a seawallof effective freeboard R*/r, or in other words the coeffi-
cient B is corrected by a factor 1/r. Table 3 gives a summary of the
published valuesfor the effective roughnessr for a range of comnlon
'ar-
seawall constructions. The Table does not include values for
tificial' roughnesssuch as steppedor ribbed seawalls,sincethesevary
considerablyin their geometries.Referencel2 givesmore information
on this subject. The minimum value of r for theseartificially roughen-

...;;;,.;i;; *********
***'*
.j;i':::":-:T;::ll;:il
Crest elevation + 5.5m ODN
Berm elevation + L7m ODN
Berm width 8.0m
Seawallconstruction: pitched stone
Find: Overtopping dischargewhen Tide level : + 3.0m
ODN
Significant wave height H" = 1.75m
Mean wave period T : 5.0s
Normal wave attack
Solution: From Example 5 we found that for normal wave at-
tack on a smooth seawallthe values of A and B for
this seawallat the given tide level were 1.96 x l0-2
and 42.3 respectively. From Table 3, we see that for
seawallsconstructed in pitched stone the quoted
roughnessvalue varied from about 0.85 to 0.9.
Assumea value of 0.9 which would give the higher
overtopping discharge.

The value of A is unchangedby surface roughness,and therefore re-

m a i n sa t 1 . 9 6x l 0 - ' .
The value of B for this seawallis obtained from
B. : B"^/r
= 42.3/0.9
= 47.O
t9
 For the given tide level, crest elevation,wave height and wave period
we had from the previousexample R* : 0.12. For this rough seawall
at these wave conditions striking the seawall normally we therefore
have
xo'12
Q * : ( 1 . 9 6x l 0 - 2 ) , - 4 7 ' 0
giving
Q*:6.96x10-5
and
Y_ Q*TgH"
: 5.97 x l0-3 m3ls per metre run of seawall

For this particular seawallat thesewave and tidal conditions the effect
of replacinga smooth finish by a pitched stone finish has thus been to
reducethe overtoppingdischargeby43V0.

t<,t( !F* * * * * * *:t * * ** * * * * * * * 'k 'F *':* *' * * ** * *:f ,"t

Note that sincethis method of correctingfor surfaceroughnessis bas-

ed on the assumption that the function f(N) in the expressionQ* :
f(N) is unchangedby surfaceroughness,then the resultscan only give
an approximation of the true overtopping discharge.However, since
f(N), if it changesat all, is likely to reducein value, then this approx-
imate method will give a conservativeanswer, ie the actual overtopp-
ing dischargewill probably be lessthan predicted.

F.ffectof onshore winds Almost all data on wave overtopping has been obtained in laboratory
studieswithout taking wind effects into account. However in nature
large waves will frequently be associatedwith onshore winds. These
winds may influence the overtopping dischargein severalways, in-
cluding:-
l. Raising the still water level (wind set-up)
2. Increasingwave run-up on the seawall
3. Blowing spray over the seawall.
The relativeimportance of each of thesefactors will dependlargely on
the type of seawall being considered.For example a vertical seawall
can result in a considerablevolume of water being thrown into the air
when the waves break against it: with a moderate onshore wind a
significant proportion of this will be blown over the seawall.For the
simple and bermed seawallsdescribedin this report the quantity of
watlr thrown into the air by waves breaking on the wall is relatively
small: here the wind effect would probably be a combination of all
three factors.
Only a very limited number of testshave ever beencarried out to deter-
mine the magnitude of the combined effectsof the wind on overtopp-
ing dischargeand the results have been contradictory. The main dif-
ficulty is involved in the modelling of wind effects, particularly in
repreienting air-borne water, since the droplet size in the model is
almost identical to the droplet size in nature. The other difficulty lies
in reproducingidentical wave conditions both with and without wind,
sincethe addition of wind will usually also affect the laboratory wave
conditions. With these provisos on the usefulnessof model tests for
the study of wind effects, Reference 15 quotes various results of
laboratory investigationsshowing that wind effect reducesfor steep
seawalls,althouglr the slopestestedvaried only frorn about l:7 to l:3.
On the other hand the Shore Protectioll Manual(8)quotes a formula
for wirrd effect which implies that the total wind effect becomeslarger
for steeply sloping seawalls. Although this formula is said to be
unverified,and also no derivationis given,it is statedthat the formula
is "believed to give a reasonableestimate of the effects of onshore
winds of significant magnitude". The fornlula can be applied for
seawallswith slopesup to vertical.
 In the tradition of the Shore Protection Manual, the formula as given
is applicableonly to mono-chromatic waves,and its usefulnessin ran-
dom or irregular wavesis therefore severelyrestricted.However it can
be modified to give an approximate estimate of the maximum and
minimum effects of the wind for a given seawall.The calculatedover-
topping rates are multiplied by a wind correction factor K-, where K-
lies inside the range
t.0 + l.l %sing > K- > 1.0 + 0.1Wrsin0
where
0 is the angular slope of the seawall
-l
ie 0 : tan l/m
or sin* l/JT+mz
and
W is a wind factor, whosevalue dependson the onshorecomponent
of wind speed.
For no wind, $ has a valueof 0: for a windspeedof about l3mls $
is 0.5, and for a speedof about 26m/s $ is 2.0. Valuesof W for in-
termediatespeedscan be derived by interpolation.
From the above formula it can be seen that for a l:l seawallwith a
26m/s wind (Force l0 Beaufort scale)the overtopping dischargemust
be correctedby the factor K-, where 2.66 > K. > 1.14. For a l:4
seawallinthe sameconditions1.53 > K- > 1.05.Within the rangeof
values, the correction factor K* will be lowest for seawallswhere the
dimensionlessfreeboard R* is very low, and will be greatestwhen R* is
very high. In other words, when a substantialamount of water over-
tops the seawallthen the effect of the wind is relatively insignificant.
When only a small quantity of water is overtopping, then the volume
of wind-blown spray becomescomparable with the volume carried
directly by the overtopping waves. ln almost all newly designed
seawallsthe value of K* will probably approach the upper end of the
range of possiblevalues,sincethe seawallwill presumablybe designed
for little overtopping.
Evaluation of total over-
lopping volume during a
tidal cvcle All the calculationsdiscussedso far have related to the overtopping
dischargeat a fixed water level - by implication this is normally at
High Water Level. However in most casesit is necessaryto know the
total volume of water which overtops the seawallduring the complete
tide, since this determines the degree of flooding behind the sea
defences,or the area which has to be designatedfor flood storagedur-
ing severe storms. Several different methods can be derived for
calculating this cumulative volume of overtopping from the data
presentedin this report; the designengineermay thus wish to usealter-
native methods in particular circumstances, rather than the one
describedbelow. However for all methods it will be necessaryto know
the peak tidal level for the design storm, a typical tide shape curve
(preferably for tides of similar range and height to the design tide),
and the design wave height, wave period and wave direction.
In the method now described,the first objectiveis the derivationof a
curve of overtopping dischargeagainst tide level for the design wave
conditions, by calculatingthe overtopping dischargeat a few standard
water levels.These water levelsshould be selectedto cover the range
from High Water Level down to the tide level at which the dischargeis
about I per cent of the overtopping dischargeat High Water. At each
water level, the calculationsfall into three parts:-

2l
 (l) Check to confirm that the design wave height can approach the
seawallwithout breaking. If not, replacedesign wave height by
the equivalent post-breakingwave height. This check is carried
out using Fig 7, and knowing the foreshoregradient mr, the depth
of water at the toe of the seawall,d and the mean wave period
",
T.
(2) Evaluation of the coefficients A and B from Figures 23 to 26
knowing the seawallslope m, and if nec'essary the berm elevation
relativeto the Still Water Level (tide level)dr, and the berm width
w".
(3) Calculation of the overtopping dischargeQ from the equations
Q* : Ae-BR*
R* : R"/(TVF")
Q* : QztTeH"l
knowing the seawallcrestelevationR. relativeto the Still (tide)
Water Level. These values should be modified if necessary,to
take the angle of wave attack, sea wall roughnessand wind ef-
fectsinto account.
A graph is then preparedo_fovertopping dischargeQ againststill water
level SWL, plotting log Q againstlinear SWL. Having derived this
graph, the next stage is to examine the typical tide curve, firstly to
determine over what period the water level is high enough to give
significant overtopping discharge,ie not less than I per cent of the
peak overtopping dischargeat High Water. After selectinga suitable
timestep,the tide levelsare then read off at fixed time intervalsbefore
and after High Water, continuingto the time when the waterlevelfalls
to suchan extentthat overtoppingis insignificant.Using the previous-
ly prepared graph, the overtopping discharge is then estimated for
each water level,and the overtoppingvolume is then calculatedfrom
QAt where At is the selectedtimestep.The total volume of water
which overtopsduring the [dal cycleis thus DQAI, or for a constant
timestepthis becomesA[DQ.
* * * * *,t( * * * * * * r< * * * * * *,t( * * * * * * * i< * * r. * * * * * * * * * * * ;F :i :t

Exantple Problem 8 Given: Seawallslope l:2.2

Crest elevation + 5 . 5 mO D N
Berm elevation + l.7mODN
Berm width 8.0m
Toe elevation 0.0m ODN
Foreshoreslope l: l0
Seawallconstruction: smooth
in-situ concrete
Find: total overtopping volume dur-
ing the tide when:
Peak tide level + 3 . 0 mO D N
Significant wave height 1.75m
Mean wave period 5.0s
Normal wave attack
Typical tide curve as shown in
Fig 28
Solution: Set up a calculation sheet as shown in Table 4. Beginning
with a still water levelequal to the peak tidal level,calculatethe depth
of water at the seawalltoe,
d, : 3.0m ODN - 0.0m ODN : 3.0m
Calculated"/gTz : 3.0/(9.81x 52) : 0.0122
From Fig 7, with d"/gTz : 0.0122, foreshoregradient ffir : l:10, we
have the breakingratio 7, : 0.76. However the ratio of designwave
height to the depth H"/d, is 0.58. Sincethis is lessthan the breaking
ratio, the designwave can approachthe seawallwithout breakingand
we can thereforeuse H, : 1.75mfor all subsequentcalculations.
22
 Next, evaluate the coefficients A and B. At a tide level of +3.0m
ODN, the berm elevation relative to still water level is
da = l.7m ODN - 3.0mODN : - l.3m
-
By interpolation between Figs 24a and 25a, we have A : I .96 x l0 2
for a seawallslope of l:2.2 and a berm width of 8.0m (seeExample 5
for details of the interpolation). Similarly by interpolation between
Figs 24b and 25b we have B : 42.3.In order to calculatethe overtopp-
ing discharge,the crest elevation relativeto still water level is given by
R. = 5.5m ODN - 3.0m ODN : 2.5m, and
hence
R* = R./(Tlffi,1 : 2.5/(5.0Jm) : 0.1207
x0'1207
Q * : A e - B R * : ( 1 . 9 6x t 0 - 2 ) e - 4 2 ' 3
: l.19x l0-a
q : q*TeH" : (1. 19x l0-4) 5.0xg x 1.75
: 1 . 0 2x l 0 - 2 m 3 / s / m
The peak overtopping dischargeis thus 1.02 x l0-zm3/s/m run of
seawall, so that the calculations have to be continued until the
dischargefalls to about I x l0-4m3 /s/m. Choosinga suitablelevelin-
crement(in this case0.25m), the calculationsare repeatedfor different
water levels.until for a tide level of 1.75mODN we find that the over-
topping dischargefalls to 1.00x l0-4. (Note that at this water levelthe
ratio H",/d"is greaterthan the breaking ratio 7: the designwave height
therefore breaks before reaching the seawall, and the breaker wave
height H". : 7d, : 0.93 x 1.75 : 1.63m must therefore be used for
dischargeDcalculations). The calculated dischargesare then plotted
against water level, as shown in Fig 29.
From these discharge calculations we see that the overtopping
dischargebecomesinsignificant when the water level is + 1.75m or
less,ie 1.25mor more below the peak tide level. Figure 28 showsthe
typical tide curve, in this case having a high water level of +2.8m
ODN (It is unlikely that the designtide has ever been recorded).From
this curve we see that water levels 1.25m or less below High Water
Level, (ie above + 1.55mODN on the typical curve) occur from about
I hour before High Water to about 3Ahour after High Water. In other
words overtopping is significant for about I % hours. A timestepof l5
minutes would therefore seem adequate for the overtopping volume
calculations.Starting at I hour before High Water (ie when the water
level is close to 1.25m below High Water Level), the water levels
relative to the peak tide level are therefore read from the typical tide
curve at l5 minute intervals, until the level falls again to about 1.25m
below High Water Level. Knowing the design High Water Level, the
absolutewater levelsare then calculated,and the relevantovertopping
dischargesread off Fig29 and tabulated, Table 5. With a l5 minute
timestep, the volume of water overtopping during the timestep is
t h e r e f o r eQ x 1 5x 6 0 , o r 1 . 0 2 x l 0 - 2 x 1 5x 6 0 : 9 . 1 8 m 3 / mf o r t h e 1 5
minute timestep centred around High Water. The total overtopping
volume during the tide is then simply the sum of all the incremental

':'.':':
volumes, giving 24.09m3/mrun of seawall.Multiplication by the total

. ... .
:":::':'ji':".'
.':":':".':':-:':'::':"'.':':':
;,;";,;;;;,"_
pecled overtopping
discharge Becausewave heightsand periodsexhibit a random distributionabout
a given meanthereis no suchthing as an absolutevalueof the overtop-
ping discharge: the dischargewill also vary randomly. Suppose that
the dischargeaveragedover a duration of l00T is denoted by Q, then
23
over several successivesequencesof l00T the discharge Q will be ex-
pected to vary randomly about some mean value Q. All the_expres-
sions presentedso far in this report relate this mean dischargeQ to the
significant wave height H. and the mean period T for a range of
seawalldesigns.However it is now worth examining the possibility or
chance that the actual dischargeQ for a particular sequenceof l00T
exceedsthe expected mean value Q.
The model tests on which this report is mainly based included
measurementsof the overtopping dischargefor at least5 sequencesof
100 wave periods for each wave condition and seawallconfiguration.
From these individual measurementsit was possibleto calculate not
only a seriesof expressionsrelating mean dischargeto wave condi-
tions, but also the standard deviation of the measured discharges
about the fitted expressions.Becausetheseexpressionstook the form

Q* : Ae-BR*
or
lnQx:lnA-BR*
the standard deviationswere in fact calculatedon the basisof ln Q*.
On the basis the standard deviation oln o* was typically about 0.7: in
other words the dimensionlessdischaigt at one standard deviation
above the mean was typically Q*e+0'7-o.2Q* and at one standard
deviation below the mean was Q*e-u'/ or Q',/2. Alternatively the
dischargesat one standard deviation above and below the mean are
obtained by multiplication and division respectivelyby a factor of
exp (o'-r-,.) : gu'/ : 2. At two standard deviations the factor is
exp 1o,i.,) : el'4 : 4' Assuming that the logarithms of the dimen-
sionles-sbVertopping dischargesexhibit a normal probability distribu-
tion about a mean value, then from statisticaltables it is possibleto
estimatethe chanceor probability that the actual dischargefor a par-
ticular wave sequencewill fall outside certain limits. On this basisthe
following table has been prepared.

Percen I age p ro bab i I i ty Overtopping

of exceedance dischorge factor

50 1.0
20 1.8
l0 2.4
5 3.2
2 4.2
I 5.1
0.5 6.1
0.2 7.5
0.1 8.7

This tableshowsfor examplethat thereis a l9o chancethat the over-

topping dischargein a particularsequence of 100waveswill exceed
5.lQ*, whereQx is the expected meandischarge.Equally,thereis a
l9o chancethat the dischargewill be lessthan Q*,/5.1

24
 Example Problem 9 Given: Seawallslope l:2.2
Crestelevation +5.5m ODN
Berm elevation + l.7m ODN
Berm width 8.0m
Designstorm: Tide level + 3.0m ODN
SignificantwaveheightH" 1.75m
Mean wave periodT 5.0s
Find: Overtoppingdischargeto be expectedwith 9590 con-
fidence
Solution: From Example Problem 5 we found that for this seawall
configuration the overtopping discharge formula was
Q* : (l'96x l0-2)e-42'3R'*
and the expectedmean overtopping dischargeQ for this designstorm
was 1.05 x l0-2m3/s per metre run of seawall.
we now require the overtopping dischargewhich is unlikely to be ex-
ceededfor 9590 probability, in other words the dischargewhich could
be exceededwith only a 590 probability. From the table, we seethat
for 590 probability the discharge factor is 3.2. The overtopping
discharge which is unlikely to be exceededfor 9590 of the time is
therefore 3.2 x L05 x l0:2, or 3.36 x l0-2m3/s per metre run of

."i*i"; * ',." * '* 'k * * "' * *:'! 'F* "' * 'k * 'k * * *
J;";,; ;.:":.,:r.
ping discharge The calculationsso far have assumedthat the overtopping dischargeis
required for a storm of a given return period, say 100 years. Ideally
however a more useful figure would be the 100 year return period
overtopping discharge,which need not necessarilybe generatedby the
100 year storm.
As we have seen, the overtopping dischargefor a particular seawall
dependson the tide level and on the wave height and period. lf the
probability of occurrenceof given wave conditions is totally depen-
dent on the probability of occurrenceof given tide levels, ie the 100
year wave height always occurs simultaneously with the 100 year tide
Ievel,then this condition will alwaysgeneratethe 100year overtopping
discharge.However this is not the caseif the probability of occuffence-
of given wave conditions is totally independentof the probability of
occurrenceof given tide levels.Supposefor examplethat we considera
100year storm: this could be composedof a 5 year tide level with a 20
year wave height, a l0 year tide level with l0 year wave height, a 20
year tide level with 5 year wave height, or any other combination
ieading to a combined return period of 100years. Without calculation
it is usually not possibleto predict which of thesecombinationsis like-
ly to give ihe griatest overtopping discharge,or to predict the value of
overtopping discharge with a return period of 100 years. For this
assu*piion of total independenceof tide levelsand wave heightsthese
calculitions are relatively straightforward although rather tedious,
and for total dependenceof waveson tidal heightsthe calculationsare
trivial. However at most localitiesthe wave heightsand tide heightsare
partially correlated, and research is still continuing into the best
methods of determining overtopping dischargesfor a given return
period in thesecircumstances.
ln principle, the calculations for both independence and partial
deplndence of wave heights on tidal heights are identical. Firstly a
range of possibletide levelsand a range of possiblewave heights are
selected.The ouertopping dischargefor each possiblecombination of
wave height and tide level is then calculated. From analysis of
available tide and wave records the probability of occurrenceof each
possibletide level/waveheight combination is calculated,and this pro-
bability of occurrenceis then attached to the calculatedovertopping
dischaigegeneratedby this particular tide level/wave height combina-
tion. The probability distribution for overtopping discharge is then
obtained by summaiion, and the dischargefor given return periods
read off the resultingplotted curve.
?s
 The difficult step is the evaluationof the probability of occurrenceof
each possiblewave height/tide levelcombination. The difficulties arise
because:-
l. Wave records are very rarely available, and if they are they
generallycover a very short timespan - at most about 5 years.
Wave heights therefore have to be calculated from available
records of wind speedand direction.
2. Simultaneouswind and tide records are rarely available over a
sufficiently long timespanto enablethe probability of occurrence
of extreme eventsto be accuratelyassessed. To obtain the over-
topping discharge even for a 100 year return period requires
severaldecadesof simultaneousdata.
3. Where extremeeventshave not occurredduring the record period
there is no known way of extrapolatingthe data to more extreme
occurrences(unlesswavesand tide levelsare either totally depen-
dent or independent).
To overcomethesedifficulties,the presentmethod is to calculatethe
return period for overtopping dischargeon both of the assumptions
that tides and wavesare totally dependentor are totally independent.
As mentioned earlier, for the total dependencecase the calculations
are trivial, since the 100 year dischargeis causedby the 100 year tide
level occurring simultaneouslywith the 100 year wave height. For the
total independencecase,the available tide records are used to deter-
mine the probability of occurrence of given tide levels, and the
available wind or wave records are used to determine the probability
of occurrenceof given wave conditions. Each of theseprobabilities
can be extrapolatedif necessaryto more extremeevents.The joint pro-
bability of occurrenceof a given combination of wave height/period
and tide levelis then simply the product of the individualprobabilities
of the occurrenceof the givenwaveheight/periodand of the giventide
level respectively.This method has been used in two recent studiesat
g p 5 ( 1 6 ,l 7 ) .
Armed with theseresultsthe designengineerthen hasto make a judge-
ment as to whether at his particular site the wavesand tide levelsare
likely to be relativelydependentor almost independentof each other.
Relatively dependent situations might arise for example where the
wave height reachingthe seawallis always limited by breaking: higher
tide levels therefore allow greater wave heights to reach the seawall.
Similarly in situations where the meteorological system generating
surge tides causesstrong winds from a direction having appreciable
fetch length then here again the wave height and tide levelswould be
fairly strongly dependent.In thesesituationsthereforethe assumption
of total dependence would be adopted, giving a possible slight
overdesignof seawall.Alternatively the surgegeneratingsystemmight
be associatedwith offshore winds at a particular site. In this casethe
assumptionof total independencewould be used,againgiving a slight-
ly conservativedesignof seawallin the sensethat the return period for
a given overtopping discharge is likely to be slightly longer than
calculated.
As mentioned earlier, researchis still continuing in this topic, par-
tiqularly with a view to exploring the possibilityof linking the pro-
babilities of occurrenceof predicted tide levels, surge residuals,and
wave heights.

DESIGNOF NEW SEA

WALLS Many of the stepsand calculationsinvolved in the designof a new
seawallare of coursevery similar to those required for the evaluation
of the performanceof existing seadefences.In fact in many casesthe
new seawallconfiguration will be selectedon the basisof intuition and
experience,and the calculations used to confirm or otherwise the
suitability of the design,in the sameway as the adequacyof an existing
seawallis examined. Most of the detailed stepsin the calculation pro-
cedure will not therefore be repeatedin this chapter: rather, attention
will be devoted to some general guidelinesin the design of new
seawalls.
Design discharge The design parameterswhich have to be selectedare tlre design storm
(still water level, wave height, wave period, and wave direction) and
the allowable overtopping discharge.Selectionof the design storm
parametershas already beendiscussedin somedetail, so attention here
will be devoted to the design value of the allowable overtopping
discharge.
Dependingon the natureof the particularscheme,the selectionof the
allowable overtopping dischargehas to satisfy various requirements,
including:-
l. The stabilityof the crown and backfaceof the seawall
2. The dischargecapacityof drainagechannelsbehind the seawall
3. The total volume availablefor storageof flood watersbehind the
seawalluntil the tide level falls sufficiently for tidal outfalls to
c o n l ei n t o o p e r a t i o n
4. The possibility of damage or injury to buildings, vehiclesor
membersof the public locatedbehind the seawall.
l. The stability of the crown and backfaceof the seawallwill be
most severelytestedat the height of the storm when the overtopping
dischargeis at its peak. The stability will depend on the melhod of
seawallconstruction:for examplea concreteor asphaltseawallwould
be expectedto withstanda considerablyhigherovertoppingdischarge
betore lailure than would a grassedembankment.Tlre only published
infornration relatingbackfacestabilityand overtoppingis a paper by
666u(18)describingwork carriedout in Japan following a very severe
typhoon in 1959which killed 5000people.For eachseawallwhich had
beendamagedduring the typhoon the peak overtoppingdiscltargewas
estimatedfrom the resultsof idealisedmodel tests.By comparingthe
degreeof damagewith the estimatedovertoppingdischargethe follow-
ing values were recommendedfor the design of seawallsfor tro
damas.e:-
T;,pe of seawaI I / co nst t'uct i0 n Th resfutld overt oppi ttg
discharge rrt3/s/ttt run

Seawallwith back slope (embankment):

Crown and back slope unprotected
(eg clay, compactedsoil, grassed) lessthan5xl0-3

Crown protected,back slope unprotected 2 x l0-2

Crown and back slope protected

(eg concrete layer) 5 x l0*2

Seau,allwithout back slope (revetment):

Apron unpaved - sx l 0 - 2

Apron paved 2 x l0-l

For example,an overtoppingdischargeof I x l0-2m3/s/rn run would

be expectedto causedamageto an unprotectedembankment,but no
damage should occur if the crown or crest of the seawallis protected.
2. The dischargecapacityof drainagechannelsimmediatelybehind
the seawallwill also dependmostly on the peak overtoppingdischarge
during the storm. In other words if the dischargeof the drainagechan-
nel is known or can be calculatedthen this definesimmediatelytlre
allowableovertoppingdischargeat the peak of the storm.

27
3 . The volume available for flood storage behind the seawall
dependson the total volume of water which overtopsduring the com-
plete tide. In other rvords,if it is known that the flood waterswill pond
in a certain area and that only a finite depth of flooding can be
tolerated, then the calculatedflood storagevolume defines precisely
the allowable volume of overtoppingduring the tide. However it is not
possibleto designthe seawalldirectly from this information: to do so
it is necessaryto estimatethe peak overtoppingdischargeat the height
of the storm. The seawalldimensionsare then chosento give this peak
overtopping discharge,and calculatiortsof total volume overtopping
are performed for the resulting seawall. The calculatedovertopping
volume is then comparedwith the allowableovertoppingvolume for
flood storage,and the seawalldesignmodified as necessary.In order
to estimatethis peak overtoppingdischargefrom the total allowable
overtopping volume it is necessaryfirst of all to assumea likely dura-
tion of overtopping at rhe new seawall. Dividing the overtopping
volume by the duration then gives the mean overtoppingdischarge
during the overtoppingperiod. The peak overtoppingdischargeat the
heightof the storm is likely to be a factor betweenabout 2 and 5 times
greaterthan the mean overtoppingdischarge.

4 . The possibilityof damagec;r injury to structuresor personnel

behind the seawallwill be greatestat the height of the storm. If it is
possible to obtain an allowable discharge for no damage or ittjury,
then this precisely defines the peak overtopping discharge at the
seawallat the heightof the storm. The difficulty liesin establishingthe
no-damagedischargevalues.The only published information relating
to this concernssome full-scalemeasurementscarried out in Japan on
seawall overtopping(19).Oue.topping dischargeswere measured for
severalstorms, and the overtopping wavesfilmed simultaneouslywith
the measurements.The films were then shown to eight port and har-
bour researchengineersfor their individual assessments of the likely
damageor injury to a walking person,an automobile,and a houseitr
eachcasesituatedeitherimmediatelybehind or about l0m behind the
seawall. Based on the engineer'sassessments and on the associated
measuredovertoppingrates,the following limiting valuesof overtopp-
ing dischargeswere quoted,
l. For a personto walk immediatelybehind the seawallwith a little
discomfort.
Q<4x10-6m3/s/m
2. For a person to walk immediatelybehind the seawallwith little
danger,
Q<3x10-5m3/s/m
3. For an automobileto passimmediatelybehindthe seawallat high
speed
Q<lx10-6m3/s/m
4. For an automobileto passimmediatelybehind the seawallat low
speed
Q<2x10-5m3/s/m
5. For a houselocati,dimmediatelvbehind the seawallto suffer no
damage,
-6m3/s/m
Q < I xl0
6. For a house located immediately behind the seawallto suffer no
substantial flooding or damage although experiencing partial
damage to windows and glazed doors,
Q<3x10-5m3/s/m

28
 When the danger was assessedat a distance of l0 metres behind the
crest of the seawall then it was found that each of these limiting
dischargescould be increasedby a factor of about 10. For example, a
person could walk without danger at a distance of lOm from the
ieawall with overtopping dischargesup to about 3 x l0-am3/s/m.
Each of the limiting dischargesquoted was said to have a 900/osafety
standard: in other words 7 out of the 8 engineersquestionedthought
this to be a safe limit.
The above paragraphs have discussedvarious possible ways in which
the allowable overtopping discharge can be determined. In the
Netherlandsthe maximum overtopping dischargewhich seawallsare
designedfor is said to be 2 x l0-s m3/s/m (ie 2litres/s/m run of
seawall),although no publishedinformation relating to this discharge
value has been found.

The published Dutch practice(2O) is to designseawallsnot on the basis

of discharge,but on the principle of adopting a crest elevation such
that only 2 per cent of the wavesovertop the seawallduring the design
storm. However this gives widely differing values of overtopping
discharge depending on the seawall geometry, and it is believed that
where this '2 per cent' criterion leads to an excessiveovertopping
discharge then Dutch engineers stipulate an upper limit of 2 x
l0-3m3/s/m. No information is availablewhich describesthe reason
for the choice of this value. However in view of the fact that the ma-
jority of seadikes in the Netherlandsare of unprotectedconstruction
it is interestingto note that the allowable dischargeis very similar to
that^ quoted by Goda for unprotected embankments (5 x
-
l0 rm3ls/m).
Finally it is worth examining the conceptof designingthe seawallfor
'nil' overtopping discharge.Before the randomnessof waveswas fully
understoodit was thought possibleto build a seawallsufficiently high
for nil overtopping to occur. However the probability distribution for
wave height, andin examinationof the rllationship Qx - Ae-BR*
shows that however high the seawallthere will alwaysbe a finite albeit
very small overtopping discharge.In the designof seawallsagainstat-
tack by random waves it is therefore always necessaryto define the
allowable overtopping discharge,either by using one of the methods
described previously, or possibly by comparing the overtopping
dischargewith the quantity of water deliveredby an intenserainstorm'
Design constraints As well as thesedesign parameters,at most sites there also exist design
constraints, such as a limitation on the crest elevation which can be
adopted becauseof environmentalor constructionaldifficulties. Also,
where the foreshore is composedof erodible sands or silts it will be
necessaryto consider the effect of the seawallon foreshore bed levels.
Theseconstraintsshould be identified as early as possiblefor the par-
ticular site.
Initial seawalldesign For the initial design of seawall, the best approach is probably to
assumethat the new seawall will closely resemble the form of the ex-
isting seawallor of a nearby seawall.In other words, if there is no ex-
isting berm at the site, assumethat the initial designis a simply sloping
seawall.If there is an existingberm, assumefor the initial designthat
the berm dimensionsare unchanged.The selectionof a suitabledesign
then follows in a seriesof steps,some of which could be omitted in
some cases.
Simple seawalls (a) For the existing seawallslope, evaluatethe coefficientsA and B
by the methods describedearlier, making allowancesif necessary
for the wave direction and the roughness of the seawall.
(b) Check that the design wave height can approach the seawall
without breaking when the tide is at its designstill water level.

29
 (c) Using the design tide, wave and discharge parameters evaluate
the required dimensionlessfree board from the equation
IA
R*:
Bln(q_l
and hence calculate the required seawall crest elevation.
(d) If the resulting crest elevation is impractical, repeat the calcula-
tions for two or three alternative seawall slopes. Generally a flat-
tening of the seawallslopewill lead to a lower requirementfor the
crest elevation for a given overtopping discharge.Under some
conditions however, particularly where a high dimensionless
overtopping dischargeis allowable, or for seawallshaving slopes
betweenabout l:l and l:2, flatter slopesmay sometimesrequire
a higher crestelevation.
(e) As a guide to possibleseawallslopes,Fig 9 may be usedwhen the
waves strike the seawall normally. Knowing the value of crest
elevationwhich is practical, the value of R* is calculatedfor the
designstorm. This value is then used with the calculatedvalue of
Q* to read off the required seawallslope.
(0 Assuming that one or more feasible designsarise out of these
calculations,make a rough assessment of the environmentaland
financial cost of the various possibledesigns.

Bermed seawalls If the existingseawallis bermed,or the above calculationsfail to yield

a suitable design of simply sloping seawall, then similar calculations
have to be carried out for a bermed seawall.
(a) For the existing seawall slope, berm width and berm elevation
evaluatethe coefficientsA and B, making allowancesif necessary
for seawallroughnessand wave direction.
(b) Check that the design wave height can approach the seawall
without breaking.
(c) Calculate the dimensionlessfreeboard from the equation
IA
R*:
Bln(q;l
and hencedeterminethe required crest elevation.
(d) If the resultingcrestelevationis unsatisfactory,then threedimen-
sions can be varied - seawallslope, berm width, and berm eleva-
tion. In a similar way to simply sloping seawalls, a flattening of
the slope of a bermed seawall will generally lead to a lower crest
elevation for a given overtopping discharge. For berm dimen-
sions, the required crest elevationwill usually be lower when the
berm elevation is close to still water level, and also for wider
berms. With berm elevation,the major reduction in crest eleva-
tion occurs when the berm elevation is raised from 2 metresto I
metre below still water level, with only slight improvement by a
further rise. For berm widths, the reduction in requiredcrestlevel
elevation occurs for berms about lOm or wider, and then con-
tinues indefinitely as berm width increases.For berm widths less
than 10m the required crest elevation for a given overtopping
discharge may actually be increased compared with a simple
seawall, the increasedepending on the seawall slope and berm
elevation.
(c) If no berm already exists at the site, then from the above
paragraph it seemslikely that a berm elevation of lm below still
water level and a berm width of lOm should prove a useful star-
ting point for the design of a suitable berm. If the seawall is
reasonably smooth, and the waves strike the seawall near-
normally, then Fig l5 can be usedto assistin the design.If a berm
already exists, then the improvements will have to be based on
the existingdimensions,using the above guidelinesto achievea
30
 suitable design. It will probably prove possible to use one of the stan-
dard berms as the first estimate of an improved design, in which case
the relevant Figures ll to 22 can be used for assistance.Knowing the
allowable dimensionlessovertopping dischargeQ*, either the required
crest elevation R* can be estimated for the preferred seawall slope, or
the required slope can be estimated for the largest practicable value of
R*.
(D Assuming that one or more feasible design arisesout of these
calculations, a rough assessmentis made of the cost of the
various possibleschemes.
Final seawall design After various possibledesignsof seawallhave emergedfrom the initial
design studies, the most promising schemes are selected for more
derailedanalysis.This analysisshould include, but not be limited to,
an assessment of:-
(a) the total volume of water overtopping the seawall during the
design tide. This is calculatedby the method describedearlier.
(b) The overtopping dischargefor the designedseawallunder other,
generally less severe, storm conditions. For example, if the
seawallhas beendesignedfor a specificstorm, then its behaviour
under different wave and tide combinationsshould also be assess-
ed, to confirm that the design is suitable for lesserstorms. This
conclusion is by no means automatic: for example it is possible
that a 1000 year storm having water level +5.2m ODN' wave
height 1.0m, and wave direction 0o will give less overtopping
dischargeat a particular seawall than a 100 year storm having
water level +4.5m oDN, waveheight 1.75m,wavedirectionl5o.
(c) The effect on foreshorelevels. tf the foreshore is composedof
erodible sandsor silt, then wave reflection at the seawallwould
cause significant erosion and hence lowering of the foreshore.
Falling foreshore levels will allow larger waves to reach the
seawall, which could in turn lead to higher overtopping
discharges.Reduction of wave reflection can be achieved by
rougheningthe face of the seawall(with the additional benefit of
reducing overropping) or by adopting a design with a relatively
flat seawallslope (preferably about l:3 or flatter).
(d) Other environmentaleffects,including for examplethe visual im-
pact of high crest elevations.
(e) Financial implications, including capital cost of construction,
easeand cost of any maintenanceetc.
the final designis selectedaccording
On the basisof theseassessments

* *,r * * * *:k * * * * -t:':t-0.":t1tt.t:':"t;t:'jt-t:tl:":':t-ot.tlt-o:t':TTl"jt:'ltt.'-

ExampleProblem10 Given:Existingseawalldimensions:-
Slope l:1.5
Crest elevation + 5.25mODN
Toe elevation 0.0mODN
Foreshoreslope l:20
No berm
ln-situ concreteconstruction
Find: (a) The overtopping dischargeat the existing seawall
when:-
tide level : + 3 . 0 mO D N
Significant wave heighl H" : 1.25m
mean wave period T : 4.0s
normal wave attack
(b) A suitabledesignof seawallto achievean overtopp-
ing dischargeof 2i t0-3m3/s,/mrun for the above
designstorm.
Assumethat for variousreasonsthe seawallcresteleva-
tion cannotbe raisedby more than 1.0 metre.
3l
 Solution:
(l) preliminarycalculations
_
DeepwaterwavelengthL" = ry : 25.0m
z7f
Deepwatersteepness
H"/1": 0.05
Breaking wave height: Water depth at toe : 3.0 - 0.0 : 3.0m
The ratio d"/gfz : 0.019
.'. from Fig 7 for mt : l:20
t : 0.52
:
.'. H"a 0.52 d" : 1.56m
Designwave height is lessthan breaker height .'. designwave can
reach seawallwithout breaking.
(2) overtopping at existingseawall
Dimensionlessfreeboard: Crest elevation R. : 5.25 - 3.0
= 2.25m
R.
R*:1;5[=0.161
Dischargecoefficients:From Fig l0 for simple seawalls,a slope
of l:L5 gives
A : l.02xl0*2.8:20.1
No allowance is necessaryfor seawall roughnessor for wave
angle.
Dimensionless discharg€Qx : Ae-BR*
: ( l ' 0 2 x l 0 - 2 1s - 2 0 ' t x 0 ' l 6 l
= 4.01x l0-a

Absolute dischargeQ : Q*TgH"

: 4 . 0 1x l 0 - " x 4 . 0 x g x 1 . 2 5
: 1.97x lO-2 m3/s/m run of seawall

This- discharge is well above the required discharge of 2.0 x

l0- 3m3/s/m so a new seawallis required.
(3) Alternative seawalldesigns
Designdimensionlessdischarge:allowable discharge

Qo : 2x 10-3m3/s/m
Q, 2 x to-3
V*a:
EH,: 4.oxgxLzs
: 4 . 0 8x l 0 - 5
(i) Assume that seawall slope is unchanged, then required crest
elevationis obtained from
l. A
R* :
Btn.(G)
:
| . / t _) z " t o - 2 \
__lnl
"'\4.08 |
20.0 x t0-5 /
: 0.281
R.:R*Tr/E-F{":3.94m
The absolute crest elevation required is therefore 3.0 + 3.94 :
6.94m ODN. Sincethe existingcrestelevationis 5.25m ODN, the
seawallwould have to be raised by 1.69m: this is more than the
stated practical limit of l.0m for this example.
(ii) Sincea feasibledesignwith the existing seawallslopeis not possi-
ble, try alternativedesignsusing different slopes,either maintain-
ing the existing crest elevation, or adopting the highest prac-
ticable crest elevation ( + 6.25m ODN). With the existing crest
e l e v a t i o nw e k n o w t h a t Q * ; : 4 . 0 8 x l 0 - ) a n d R * : 0 . 1 6 1 .
From Fig 9 these conditionl are satisfied by a slope of about
l:3.4. To checkthis, from Fig l0 we have for a slopeof 1:3.4,A
: 1.75x l0-2, B : 37.4. For the requireddischargewe have
therefore
32
 R. : ;t" ,Ot, : o.t62
wltich is very slightly above the existingseawall(in fact 0.01m
higher).This is thereforea possibledesign- No. l.
Alternativelywith a crestelevationof + 6.25m ODN the dimen-
sionlessfreeboard becomes
p. - 'R.
-c 3.25 - n)7)
"--
With this freeboard, and the design dischargeQ*^ : 4.08 x
-
l0 5, Fig 9 showsthat a seawallslopeof about t :2.4 is possible.
Again as a check, from Fig l0 for a slopeof l:2.4 we have A :
l . 4 l x l 0 - 2 . B : 2 5 . 2 .W e t h e r e f o r eh a v e
^ I, A |./l.4txl0-2\
** : l. : l\,g
B e-* 25.2 x ror/
giving R* : 0.232,which is equal to the value lbr a cresteleva-
tion of 6.25m ODN. This therefore becomesanother feasible
design- No. 2.
(i i i ) The two feasibledesignsobtained so far are therefore
No. I - seawallslope l:3.4, crestelevation + 5.25mODN
No. 2 - seawallslope l:2.4, crestelevation + 6.25m ODN
There are of coursean infinite number of intermediatedesiglts,
of which thesetwo are the exlremes.We thereforewould norv
like to make a rough cost comparisonbetweenthesetwo. Sup-
pose for this examplethat we can assumethat the cost of con-
structingthe seawallis directlyproportional to the volume of fill
malerial required.Supposealso that the completeprofile of the
existingseawallconsistsof the l: l.-5slopingseawardface,found-
ed on the foreshoreat a levelof 0.0m ODN, a 5m wide crestat an
e l e v a t i o no f 5 . 2 5 mO D N , a n d f o u n d e do n d r y l a n d a t + 3 . 2 5 m
O D N , a r r da b a c k s l o p eo f l : 1 . 5 a l s o f o u n d e do n l a n d a t 3 . 2 5 m
ODN. (Fig 30). The volume of the existingseawallis therefore

[ 4 " r . s x ( s . 2 s )+, ] [ s * t ] . [ + x r . 5 x2 , f : 3 3 . 7 m 3 l r n r u n
For designNo. l, assumingthat the backslopeis unchanged,the
volume is 59.9rn3/mrun, and for designNo. 2 is 68.6m3lnlrun.
DesignNo. I thereforerequires26.2m3/mof imported fill, and
design No. 2 requires34.9m3/m,making designNo. 2 approx-
imately 3390 more coslly than No. I <ln the crude yardstick
adopted.
( i v ) In addition to thesedesignsusing simply slopingseawalls,tlrere
are also an infinite series of possible solutions using bermed
seawalls.Supposefor example that we examine the possibility of
retaining the existing crest elevation and seawall slope, and
reducelhe overtoppingby placinga berm in front of the seawall.
W i t h t l r ee x i s t i n gc r e s te l e v a t i o nw e h a v eR x : 0 . 1 6 1 ,a n d a l s ow e
k n o w t l t a t Q * , : 4 . 0 8 x l 0 - 5 . W e n o w s c a nt h r o u g hF i g s l l t o
. t a r t i n gw i t h a b e r m e l e v a t i o t t
l 2 l r x r k i n gf o r - p o s s i b lseo l u t i o n s S
ol __2.0m SWL we seefrom Figs I l, 14 and l7 that berm widtlts
ttt' -5, l0 and 20m respectivelygive too lriglt a dimertsiottless
disclrargeat the existingdimensiortless freeboardRx : 0.161altd
eristing seawallslope l:1.5, whereasFig l9 shows a 40nt bernt
giving too low a discharge.The requiredbernt rvidtlt ftlr a bernt
e l e v a t i o no l ' - 2 . 0 m S W L ( o r + l . 0 m O D N ) w o u l d t h e r e f o r eb e
sonrewhere between20 and 40m - probably around 25m. This is
a possibleberm design - No. | - which can be exarnittedin
more detail when other possibleberm solutitlnsare identified.
R e p e a t i n gt h e s c a n n i n go f F i g s l l t o 2 2 f o r a - l . 0 m S W L b e r n t
clevatiolrwe seefronr Figs 12and l5 that a bertn width bctweett5
arrd lOnt would be required - probably about 8.0m. Sintilarly
lirr a bcrnr at SWL Figs 9 and | | sltow a bernr width betwecll0
ancl lOnr is rcquired- prrlbablyabout -5ttt.
-t -1
 The three possibleberm designswith the existingseawallslopeof
l:1.5 and existingcrestelevation + 5.25m ODN are therefore
No. I Berm elevation - 2m SWL/ + l.Om ODN, Berm width
about 25m
No. 2 Berm elevation -lm SWL/+2.0m ODN, Berm width
about 8m
No. 3 Berm elevation 0m SWL/+3.0m ODN, Berm width
about 5m
If these berms are founded on the foreshore at an elevation of
0.0m ODN then the volume of fill required for No. I is about
25m3/m run. for No. 2 about l6m3/m, and for No. 3 about
l5m3/m. Berm designNo. I is therefore significantlymore costly
than either No. 2 or No. 3 so concentrateon detailingtheselast
two.
The first stage is to establish the exact berm width required,
which necessitates a trial and error process.Taking designNo. 2
as an example,and usingthe estimatedwidth of 8m, from Fig 24
we have for a seawallslope of l:1.5 and a berm elevationof
-1.0m SWL, A : l.96xl0-', B :41.1.

For the existingdimensionless crest elevationthe dimensionless

overtopping dischargewould therefore be
Q* : Ae*BR*
: ( 1 . 9 6x l 0 - 2 1 " * 4 1 ' l x 0 ' 1 6 l
: 2 . 6 2x 1 0 - 5

This is lower than the design dimensionlessdischarge (4.08 x

l0-5) so the berm is unnecessarily wide. Thereforewe try a width
o f 7 m . F r o - mF i g 2 4 , A : 1 . 8 6x l 0 - t , B : 3 8 . 7 ,g i v i n gQ * :
3.66x l0- ). This is still too low, so we try 6.'1m,givingA : 1.83
x l0-2,8 : 37.9andQ* : 4.10x l0-5- Thisis acceptablyclose
to the design dischargeof 4.08 x l0-), so the required berm
width is 6.7m.

By a similar trial and error processwe find that for berm design
No. 3 the requiredberm width is 5.0m. The detailedberm designs
are therefore:
N o . 2 C r e s te l e v a t i o n+ 5 . 5 m O D N , s l o p e l : 1 . 5 , b e r m e l e v a t i o n
2.0m ODN, berm width 6.7m
No. 3 Crest elevation +5.5m ODN, slope l:1.5, berm elevation
3.0m ODN, berm width 5.0m
and the volumes of fill required are 13.4m3/m and 15.0m3/m
respectively,making berm design No. 2 marginally the more
economicalof the two designs.
(v) These berm designsall assumean unchangedseawallslope and
crest elevation. Obviously we could repeat the processto find
alternative designs using differing seawallslopesor crest eleva-
tions. For example,if the maintenanceof the l:1.5 slopeof the
existing seawall was proving troublesome, a decision might be
taken to adopt a slopeof say l:2 for the new seawall.Repeating
the calculationsfor a slopeof l:2 with the existingcrestelevation
would then give the following possibleberm dimensions:-
Berm elevation -2.0m SWL/+ l.0m ODN, Berm width 19.4m
Berm elevation - l.0m SWL/ +2.0m ODN, Berm width 5.3m
Berm elevation 0.0m SWL/ +3.0m ODN, Berm width 4.0m
Again a berm elevationof - l.0m SWL givesmarginallythe most
economical design in terms of the quantity of fill required,
needing l'7.5m3/m run for flattening the seawallslope and con-
structingthe berm.
(vi) After carrying out the necessarycalculations for severalfeasible
designsfor the new seawallit is usuallypossibleto pick out what
promisesto be the most economicaldesign. In this example it
looks as though the leastcostly designwould be:-
34
 Seawallslopel:1.5 (existing), crestelevation+5.25mODN (ex-
isting),Bermelevation+ 2.0m ODN, Berm width 6.7m.The ex-
isting seawalland the proposedimprovementare shownin Fig
30. This designwould thenbe subjectedto a much moredetailed
tlttlt';
* ,r i( * ,r {. :f, ;r * ,} ,r ,} :":'t:tt."t-":tt:t: ,f ,r ,,. * :} ,f * ,r * * * * *

In the above example, a design discharge of 2 x l0-3m3/s/m (2

litres/s/m run) was used. This is the figure which is sometimesused in
the design of seawallsin Holland, as an alternative to the design
method where the seawall is required to limit the number of waves
overtopping to 2 per cent (Seesection on design discharge).

ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS Although the precedingchaptersgive all the information necessaryfor
evaluating existing seawallsor designingnew ones, a few additional
comments may be helpful.
l In situationswhere it is expectedthat even the most severewaves
will approach the seawallwithout breaking it will sometimesbe more
convenientto usethe alternativeforms for the dimensionlessdischarge
Q* and the dimensionlessfreeboard R*, &S
Q,atr
*:
ttPl'' t'/ 2?
and
*-:
*:€
S may be changedfront
This is becausethe value of the wave steepness
storm to storm, and it may thereforebe unnecessary to calculatethe
wave period directly.
2. Where the seawall is subject to breaking waves in all major
storms it is unnecessaryto carry out detailedcalculationsto determine
the offshore wave height: all that is requiredis a checkthat the waves
are sufficiently large that they will break before hitting the seawall.
Howeverin thesecircumstances the derivationof waveperiod retainsa
greatimportance,sincethe overtoppingdischargedependsstronglyon
wave period.

3. Since wave period is such an important parameter in deriving

the overtopping discharge,and since it can vary substantiallyfor a
given wave height, it is probably worth further comment. All cont-
monly used forecastingmethods for predicting wave period are for the
situationwherethe wavesare controlleddirectlyby the wind - the so-
called wind sea. For all these wind seas the wave steepnessS is
reasonably constant, so that the siglificant wave height H. and the
mean zero-crossing wave period T are uniquely related. Most
forecastingmethods predict wave steepnessS valuesof about 0.05. In
practical terms this means that the forecasting methods apply
throughout the growth period of a storm, over the peak, and possibly
for the initial decayof the storm. However during later stagesof the
storm the waves are no longer directly related to the contemporary
windspeed,the so-calledswell sea. For swell seasthere is a wide range
of wave steepnessvalues, so that wave heights and periods are no
longer directly related,and nornral forecastingtechniquescannot be
applied.
lf insteadof using forecastingntethodsthe wavesare measureddirect-
ly, then scatterdiagramssuch as Fig 4 also show a wide rangeof wave
steepnesses. This of course is to be expectedsince the recordedwaves

35
 includethoseoccurringduring the decayof a storm as well as thoseoc-
curring during the growth and at the peak of the storm. Strong tidal
currents can also affect the wave steepness.When such direct wave
measurementsare available then the overtopping discharge should
preferably be calculated for the lowest likely wave steepness,ie the
longest likely wave period. In Fig 4 this steepnesswould probably be
taken as 0.035.
4. In many casesit may be worthwhile taking a few rudimentary
measurements at an existing seawall, and carrying out some
preliminary calculationsbefore embarkingon a full-scalesurveyof the
seawallsand foreshore.Such preliminary calculationsmight for exam-
ple identify whether or not wave breaking was likely to occur, and
henceto determinethe needfor a detailedsurveyof the foreshore.The
exact slopeof the foreshorewill be more important where wave break-
ing occurs.
5. Finally it should be emphasisedthat no laboratory or full scale
measurementsexist to confirm the method proposed for adjusting
overtoppingdischargeswhen the seawallsare rough. This is particular-
ly so for bermed seawalls,where very few measurementsare available
to determinethe effect of roughnessevenon wave run-up, lel alone on
overtopping discharge.The roughnessadjustment should therefore be
used with caution, particularly for bermed seawalls.

CONCLUSION Throughout this report the emphasishas been placed on designing

seawallson the basis of overtopping discharge,rather than by wave
run-up on the wall or by a certainpercentage of wavesovertoppingthe
wall. This approach has been adopted becausethe design engineeris
far more concernedwith the volume of water overtopping the seawall
rather than the number of wavescoming over, sincehe has to deter-
mine the capacity of the drainagesystem,or the possibledepth of
flooding. This approach is a relativelyrecentdevelopment,and fur-
ther studies will undoubtedly extend knowledge of overtopping
dischargesat compositeand rough seawalls,of overtoppingdue to
r v i n d - b l o w ns p r a y , a n d o f t h e u s e o f t h e d a t a t o d e t e r m i n er e t u r n
periodsof given overtoppingdischarges.

In the meantime,the designproceduresoutlined in this report enable

tlre evaluationof the overtoppingdischargewitlr irregularwavesfor
simpleand bermedseawalls,and allow estimatesof the effectsof angle
of wave attack and of seawall roughness.For more complicated
seawallgeometries,such as thoseequippedwith wave relurn walls, it
will probably be necessary for specifichydraulicmodel teststo be car-
r i e d o u t t o d e t e r m i n el h e o v e r t o p p i n gd i s c h a r g eo, r t h e s u i t a b i l i l yo f a
pariicular design.

ACKNOWT,FIDGEMENTS This report was preparedby Mr M W Owen, Sectionleaderin the

Ports and CoastalEngineeringDivisionheadedby Mr W A Price.The
experirnentalmeasurementon which the report is mainly based,altd
the prelirninaryanalysisof the resultswere carriedout by MessrsE A
Smale,A A J Steele,J T Hanley and P D Hodson.
Thanks are due to several engineersof the Central Electricity
GeneratingBoard, Severn-TrentWater Authorily, and WessexWater
A u t h o r i t y f o r t h e i rm a n y h e l p f u l c c l m m e n at sn d s u g g e s t i o ndsu r i n gt h e
d r a f t i n go f t h i s r e p o r t .

RE}'ERENCT'S
Design of seawalls: model tests lo determine overloppillg
discharges,Report No. Ex 923, Hydraulics ResearchStation,
Wallingford.

36
2 C T Suthons, Frequencyof occurrenceof abnormally high sea
Ievelson the east and south coast of England, proc. Inst. Civ.
Engrs., Vol 25, August 1963,pp 443-4y';9.
3 D L Blackman and J Graff, The analysisof annual extremesea
level$ at certain ports in Southern England, proc. Inst. Civ.
Engrs., Vol 65, Part 2, June 1978,pp 339-357.
4 P Ackers and T D Ruxton, Extreme levels arising from
Meteorological surges, proc. l4th Coastal Engineering Conf.
Copenhagen,Denmark, 1974,pp 69-86.
5 The SevernEstuary - Wave climate study, April 1978- March
1979,Report No. Ex 887, Hydraulics ResearchStation, Wdl-
ingford, July 1979.
6 Numerical wave climate study for the North Sea (NORSWAM)
Report No. Ex 775, HydraulicsResearchStation, Wallingford,
September1977.
7 B W Golding, A depth dependentwave model for operational
forecasting in 'Turbulent fluxes through the sea surface, wave
dynamicsand prediction' (A Favreand K Hasslemann,editors),
Plenum Press,New York, 1977,pp 593-ffi4.
8 Shore Protection Manual, US Army Coastal Engineering
ResearchCentre, Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 2206/'l^
(revisedperiodically-latest edition dated 1978).
9 Lower SevernBasinStudy, Wave heightsin the SevernEstuary,
Report No. Ex 738, HydraulicsResearchStation, Wallingford,
July 1976.
l0 C L Abernethy and G Gilbert, Refraction of wave spectra,
Report No. INT l17, HydraulicsResearchStation, Wallingford,
May 1975.
ll A H Brampton, A computermethodfor waverefraction,Report
No. INT 172, Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford,
December1977.
12 T Saville, Laboratory data on wave run-up and overtopping on
shore structures,Tech. Memo No. 64, US Army BeachErosion
Board, October 1955.
13 T Saville, Wave run-up on compositeslopes,Proc. 6th Coastal
EngineeringConference,Florida, 1957,pp 691-699.
14 Hydraulic design of sea dikes, Report No. DE6, Hydraulics
ResearchStation, Wallingford, January 1973.
15 Wave run-up and overtopping, Technical Advisory Committee
on Protection against Inundation, Government Publishing Of-
fice, the Hague, Holland, 1974.
16 North Walescoastroad A55 Llanddulasto Aber, Seadefencesat
Llanddulas. A study of return periods for overtopping discharge
and armour stability, Report No. Ex 808, Hydraulics Research
Station, Wallingford, March 1978.
17 Fleetwoodand Cleveleysseadefences,A study of return periods
for overtopping discharge exceeded, Report No. Ex 871,
Hydraulics ResearchStation, Wallingford, March 1979.
18 Y Goda, Expectedrate of irregularwaveovertoppingof seawalls,
CoastalEngineeringin Japan, Vol 14, 1971,pp 45-51.
19 N Fukuda, T Uno and I lrie, Field observationsof waveovertop-
ping of waveabsorbingrevetment,CoastalEngineeringin Japan,
Vol 17, 1974,pp ll7-128.

37
 20 F Wassing,Model investigationson wave run-up carried out in
the Netherlands in the past twenty years, Proc. 6th Coastal
EngineeringConference,Florida, 1957,pp 7N-714.

NOTATION A,B Coefficientsin the dimensionless equatior Q* = Ae-BR*. The

coefficientsare functions of seawallgeometry.
d Water depth
4 Water depth in the wave generationzone
d, Water depth at the toe of the seawall
d" Water depth on the seawallberm
d, The water depth at which the slope changesin a composite
seawall
F Effective fetch length
g Accelerationdue to gravity
H , Significantwaveheight. In a sequenceof irregularwaves,a zero-
crossingoccurs wheneverthe water surface crossesthe mean
water level. The wave height is then defined as the vertical
distancefrom the lowesttrough to the highestcrestbetweensuc-
cessivezero-downcrossings(seeFig 31). The significantwave
heightis the meanheightof the highest% of thosewaves
H"a The effective value of significant wave height after breaking oc-
curs
fi,e Significant wave height in the wave generationzone
H"o Significant wave height offshore in deepwater
H,i Significant wave height inshore
KR Refraction coefficient: the factor by which offshore waveheights
are modified by wave refraction as they approachinshore
Kr Shoaling coefficient the factor by which overtopping
dischargesare increasedby onshore winds
Kn Wind correction factor - the factor by which overtopping
dischargesare increasedby onshorewinds
t The mean wavelengthof a sequenceof irregular waves
L Mean wavelengthin deep water offshore, y. : gT2/(2r)
"
t, Mean wavelengthat the water depth at the seawalltoe
L" Mean wavelengthat the water depth on the seawallberm
l:m The slopeof the seawardfaceof the seawall(vertical:horizontal)
1:mrThe slopeof the seawardface of the berm, or of the lower por-
tion of a compositeseawall
l:m2The slope of the seawardface of the seawallfor a bermed
seawall,or of the upper portion of a compositeseawall
l:mr The slopeor gradientof the foreshore
N The number of wavesovertopping a seawallas a proportion of
the number of wavesincidentupon that seawall
a Overtopping discharge.In this report all dischargesare the
averagedischargeover a sequenceof 100waves
38
a Mean overtopping discharge: the mean value of several
measurementsof overtopping discharge, each obtained over a se-
quence of 100 waves

Q* Dimensionlessovertopping discharge Q* = Q/(TgH")

R" Seawall crest elevation relative to still water level
R" The height to which the significant wave would run up the
seawallif that seawallwere sufficiently high to preventovertopp-
ing
R"- The height of wave run-up on a smooth seawall
R, The height of wave run-up on a rough seawall
R* The dimensionlessfreeboard, R* : R./(T$F")
r The roughnesscoefficient for a rough seawall
S of a sequenceof irregular waves,S = H"/t
The mean steepness
T The mean wave period. The wave period is the time betweentwo
successivezero down-crossings(Fig 3l). The mean wave period is
the averagevalue for a sequenceof waves. In this report all wave
periods are for deep water
t The wind duration, or the time for which the wind has beenblow-
ing with a given speedand from a given direction

At Time step

U The windspeedat an elevation of lOm above mean water level

WB The width of the seawall berm, measuredperpendicular to the
seawall

W The wind factor, with a value dependingon the onshore compo-

nent of wind speed

ot The angle betweenthe direction of wave travel and the normal to

the seabedcontours

ao The value of a in deep water offshore

als The value of a in the wave generation zone

oti The value of a inshore (after wave refraction)

0 The angle betweenthe direction of wave travel and the normal to

the seawall
'y The ratio of equivalentpost-breakingwave height to water depth
at the seawall toe
ar^a The standard deviation of measuredvalues of lnQ* about a
"'-*mean value in the expression - BR'*,
Q* : Ae or ln Q* : ln A -
BR*

d The angular slope of the seawall,or tan 0 : l/m

DDB Dd 6,5od.49?/41

39
TABLES
TABLE I VALUES OF THE COEFFICIENTSA AND B FOR SIMPLE SEAWALLS

Seawallslope A B

l:l 7.94x lO-3 20.t2

I:l % 1 . 0 2x I 0 - 2 20.r2
l:2 1.25x lO*2 22.06
I:2% 1.45x I0-2 26.I
I:3 I-63x I0-2 3t.9
l:3% 1 . 7 8x I 0 - 2 38.9
l:4 1 . 9 2x l O - 2 46.96
:..
I:4% 2 . 1 5x I 0 - 2 55.7
l:5 2 . 5x I 0 - 2 65.2

Bold type - valuesdeterminedfrom model tests(l)

Itatic type - values derived by inrerpolation based on pubtished run-up data(8)

TABLE 2 VALUES OF THE COEFFICIENTSA AND B FOR BERMEDSEAWALIS

Seauall slope Berm elevation Berm width A B

m SWL m
l:l - 4.0 10 6.40 x l0'3 19.50
l:2 9.ll x l0'3 21.50
l:4 1.45 x lO'2 41.10

l:1 - 2.0 3.40 x 1O3 16.52

l:2 9.80 x l0'3 23.98
l:4 1 . 5 9x l O 2 46.63

l:l - 2.0 l0 4.79 x l0'3 t8.92

l:2 6.78x lO3 24.20
l:4 8.57x l0'3 45.80

l:l - 2.O 20 8.80x 104 14.76

l:2 2.00 x 10'3 24.81
1:4 8.50 x lO3 50.40

l:1 .2.0 40 3.80 x 104 22.65

l:2 5.00 x l0-4 25.93
l:4 4.70 x 103 5r,23

l:l - 2.0 80 2.40 x 104 25.90

l:2 3.80x 104 25.76
l:4 b.so* toa 58.24

l:l 1.0 1 . 5 5x rc-2 32.68

l:2 1.90x rc-z 37.27
l:4 5.00 x rc-z 70,32

l:l - 1.0 10 9.25 x l0'3 38.90

l:2 3.39 x rc-2 53.30
l:4 3.03x rc-z 7950

l:l - 1.0 20 7.50x l0 3 45.61

l:2 3.4Ox 1O3 49.97
l:4 3.90 x l0:3 6l'.57

l:1 - 1.0 40 1.20x 1O3 49.!tO

l:2 2.35x 1O3 56.18
l:4 1.45x lO4 63.43

l:l - 1.0 80 4.10x 10-5 s1.+l

l:2 6.60 x lO5 66.54
l:4 5.40 x l0-5 71.59

l:1 0.0 l0 9.67 x lO-3 4t.90

l:2 2.90 x t02 56.70
l:4 3.03 x 1O2 79.60

All valuesdeterminedfrom model tests(l)

TABLE 3 ROUGHNESSVALUES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION

Seawallconstruction Roughnessvalue
r

Smooth,lmpermeable 1.0
Stoneblocks,pitchedor mortared 0.95
Concreteblocks 0.9
Stoneblocks,granitesets 0.85 to 0"9
Turf 0.85to 0.9
Roughconcrete 0.85
C)nelayerof stonerubbleon im-
permeablebase 0.8
Stonesset in cement,ragstoneetc 0.75 to 0.8
Dumpedround stones 0.6 to 0.65
Two or more layersor rubble 0.5:to 0.6
TABLE 4 CALCULATIONOF DISCHARGECURVE FOR EXAMPLE8

Still Water hvel 3.0 2.75 2.5 2.25 2.O 1.75

m ODN

Berm elevation
relative to SWL -1.3 -1.05 -0.80 -0.55 -0.3 -0.05
dg:m

A 1.96x 102 2.67x lO-2 2.77x lO'2 2.68x lO-2 2.60x l0'2 2.51x l0'

B 42.3 48.1 50.0 51.0 51.9 52.8

Water depth at 3.0 2.75 2.5 2.25 2.0 t.75

toe, dr:m

HJdt 0.s8 o.64 0.70 0.78 0.88 1.0

dJLo o.077 0.070 r 0.064 0.0s8 0.051 0.045

T 0.76 0.79 o.82 0.86 0.89 0.93
Effective H, t.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 r.7s r.63
Crest elevation
relative to SWL 2.5 2.75 3.0 3.25 3.5 3.75
R":m

R*=R"(TVSH,) O.l2O7 0.1327 0.1448 0.r569 0.1689 0.1876

Q* = Ae-BR* l.l9 x lo4 4 . 5 1x 1 O 5 1.99x lO5 8.97x 10-6 4.06 x lO6 1.25x 10

Q = Q*TgH, 1.02x tO2 3.87x lO3 1.71x l0'3 7.70 x 104 3.48x 1O4 1.00x l0-

Seawallslope 1:2.2
Crestelevation +5.5mODN
Berm elevation +1.7mODN
Berm width 8.0m
Toe elevation 0.0m ODN

Significantwaveheight H, 1.75m
Meanwave period T 5.0s
Deepwaterwavelength-L^
o = eT2
2n
TABLE 5 TOTAL OVERTOPPINGVOLUME FOR EXAMPLE 8

Time relalive Still Water Still Water 0vertopping Overtopping

lo High Water Level relative Level Discharge Volume
to High Water o
level:m m ODN m3/s/m m3/m

- lhr 0m - 1.3 + 1.70 7 . 3x l 0 - 5 0.07

-Ohr 45m - 0.8 +2.20 6 . 9x l 0 - a 0.62
-Ohr 30m -0.4 +2.60 2 . 3x l 0 - 3 2.07
-0hr l5m -0.t2 + 2.88 6 . 3x l 0 - 3 5.67
HW 0 + 3.00 1 . 0 2x l 0 - 2 9.18
+ O h rl 5 m -0.15 + 2.85 5 . 6x l 0 - 3 5.04
+ O h r3 0 m - 0.56 +2.44 1 . 4x l 0 - 3 1.26
+ O h r4 5 m - t.t2 + 1.88 2.0 x l}-a 0.18

Total overtopping
Vof ume per tide 24.09m3/m run of seawall
FICURES
 c
-o
|o+.
o,o
E>
()g
o

d) = 2
rF
T .c, o
l-
c g o.
o
E+,
3
r-O o
o> E 3
dlo l-

o a o
trl o
o
E
o
o
o
l-
o
c
o
(D

J
>
!s- EI
a o
o
L

o
3
b
a o
t/|

Fig.l
-c
+t
gl
c
o
-c
u
+t
o
rF

o
+t
u
o
rF
iF
o
rF
o
C
o
+J
g
f
u
o
(J

-9
o.
E
o
x
lrl

Fig.2
 f$ *uottuo, ro sentDA
o
o
o o
F . ;

9
o 3l3E?€
e . lro o o o
S
o
3r
GI

iO
o

(\
rn
o
o
o
t-
J
(\ u
.lt
o of
.g
o
o
(,
o
t-
o
.{'

613 ." E'-l: o

6
3
o
o
_g
C
.9
a
c
o
E
o

o tP
9u1 (\9 (\ G, Tg

',-",lE
Fig.3(o)
 fg luDlsuof,ro sentD^
o OOO
o
999
O
P
O
q ! c- )
ur
9
3F
(\
KtGtr O O O O 9?
io
o

I
o
rnO
l-
f
N(J

39 t-
F
o
o
(,
o
t-
o
ra-
9,lr lc.r
F otlf, 61

Elr -3
6c'

NO
o
<rf=
o
oL-
FO
'6
rnc
o
e
E
(\l
o
b

na (Y)
tP rO Gr t9
Gr

Fis.3(b)
 Volue gives number of
occurrencesin yeor

No. of colm onologues - 102

Hsm

5
T.s

Scotter diogrom of wove heights ond periods

Fig.4
 EEE
o.ro)NFE. EEE
q ! e qSS,.: i 3 E
il fr N EFHH }i 5
fl||l|||illlttlItl
*l
oooooooooo
|nJ ..J J .J J J J J J J

R # $ €3 sp s 3 $ o
I o
I
\ I
\ I
I
\ o
.c,
+t
\ \ o-
o
\ \ \ \\
E
t-
\
o
+t
\\ \\\ o
3

N
E gl

\
\ c,
CL
o
.s
\
\ \ \ !

\\\ I
9-
o o
\ -\--{ \. :-(t
\\
t
\ = .g
\\ \ \ \ -c,
I I I
+,
\\ \ \ \ ol
\ c
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
-9
N\\\
I
\ \ \ \ o

N
\ \ \
\
o
\ \i =
\ \\ \
\ \ \

o
o
\

1-lIJ;qlOuel e^D A
\
\ \
\ \ NN o

F ig.5
 o
tt
co aooo
oo oooo
.DF 5t!trtN

cn
.g
o
o
-c
o
E
C
o
c
.9
+.
u
o
t-
rF
o
t-

o
o
3
o
CL
E
a

oc
oo
Flo

="{/ti
€r

itid#'
o o
o I
I
e
o
3l l/ o
o

Fig6
 .9
g
o
o
3rlt, 3
Ol
c
J
o
o
t-
dl

I' ollDJ a^Drn 6u;1oelg

Fig.7
Seowqllsof vorious types
Fis.8
 3
o
--
o
3
o
e
-oo
-4,
o.
E
tr
o-Ul
c"O
o-L
-U|9 c ,
Eo
:o
d ctl
r4,tD
b
.C,
u
o
o
R

ll

lf
s
IF

s H6 t l o

Fi9.9
 I 234

+ Seowoll slope

Coeff icients A ond B for simple seqwqlls

Fig.10o
 :

,t/

-/^
-,x/
o-x -----o/
o Test results
x Interpolotedvqlues

Seowoll slope (m )

CoefficientsA ond B for simple seqwolls

Fig.10b
 J
=
a
3
o
,6(l,
e-o
E
(\
c
.o
o
e-g
o"o

o
c
o
3E
o lJ)
o

*E 5
o*
p
;3
o
."E
L
o
*
o
3E
3
o
o
o
L
(o
ol
o
C!
@
(\ o
qo o
lo
tl o
II
I 3O gl
IF
L
(r o
-c
u
.q
o

sH6tto

Fig.11
 J
=
(n
3
-9
fro
"-o
C

c
o
+t
o
-o
'o
E
c
o
?F
>.
8.fi
o
o-c
n= +t
N: p

f;=
E
L
o
-o
o
XO
3
o
o
o
L
o
o
_o
3('l
l-
o
-c
u
.9
o

sH6tlo

Fi9.12
 J
=
(n
3
o
o
-o
E
\t
c
.9
+t
o
-g
o
u
c
o
?E
;o
aF
fi-c
=E
:>
t."E
-
l_
o
*
o
o
3
o
o
tn
t-
o
o
o
gl
L
o
?
(J
.9
o

Fig.13
 J
=
tn
3
-9
o
u, -o
C',

E
GI
c
.9
+t
o
o
37,
p
C
o
?E
50 (F
ql

u)l^
E-c <-r
or= E

E;
o
u)E
t-
o
-o
o
:E =
o
o
o
l-
o
,o
roO
;gl
L
o
.C,
(J
.9,
o

s H6 t l o

Fig.14
o
+
J
=
tn
3
-9
o
e-o
(r)

E
c
.9
+,
o
o
36
E
c
o
sE
3.o
o!-
6F

:E €
33
E
l-
o
-o
;
3-o
3
o
o
o
,ol-'
o
roO
;cn
l-
o
-c
(,
.9
o

Fig.15
 J
=
a
c
o
*t
o
o
o
E
c
o
E
I
5-c
oi
gp
:3
o
;E
qt-
vro

e
g
o
=
o
o
o
l-
o
o
o
gl
L
,o
cU
.g
o

sH6tlo

Fi9.16
 J
=
a
3
o
o
-o
E
(\

c
.9
o
-4,
o
E
c
o
2E
go
o C-{
o
*-c+t
ap
i=
(t)
E
L
o
*
g
o
3
o
o
o
l-
o
o
o
gl
L
o
-c
u
.9
o

ttl
ro
sH6tlo

Fig.17
 J
=
(n
=
o
o
-o
5
c
.9
.}.,
o
o
o
E
c
o
trb
tr
{70
g. c!
+t
EE
e;
r/l
E
l-
o
:
l0
o
3
o
GI
9 o
o
o
il
l-
lf o
IE o
;
o
o
l-
o
-c
u
.9
o

Fig.18
 J
=
u)
3
-9
o
-o
E
GT
c
o
F
o
o
o
E
c
o
^E bF
{70
8.\t
o
6c
EE
fi;
{/)
E
t-
o
*
Ul
o
& o
3
o
o
o
L
o
o
o
E
o
-c
u
o
i5

Fig.19
 J
=
a
3
-9
o
g-o
E
C
o
P
o
I
3o
E
c
o
^E
.=o
FL

3--t
-9
oc
*9u
ll)=.P

H'=
6>
E L
o
*
o
o
c'r O
3
o
o
o
t-
o
o
:o
ul
l-
o
.c.
(,
o
o

ss6Ilo

Fig.20
 J
=
u)
3
-9
o
-o
E
(\
c
.9
o
o
o
E
c
o
E
Eo
o @
o
o
roo
-c
N=
E
o .;
3
g
o
u)
E
l-
o
*
o
o
3
o
o
U}
L
o
o
o
ol
L
o
.C,
u
.g
o

sx6tlo

Fig.21
 J
=
(n
3
-9
o
-o
E
c
.9
*t

o
o
o
E
c
o
tr
50
o@
o
o
6g
=+t
9o
H'=
tn-

E
L
o
*
l4
(t
3
o
o
o
l-
o
o
ll
lu roO
li * (tl
l-
IF o
G
-c
(,
.q
o

sH6lto

Fig.22
A
.\

\
\
\,
.,,\,.
:\
\.
..1
\
.- I
t\
J-n-]-:--:*11-
,1-*;--..J.----r+

B e r m etevotio

Coefficients A qnd B : berm elevotionof SWL

Fig.23(o
 t00

90

60

70 .-goEielsvy)

/
60 / /goo-e€--;4--:: /

,::---'2
-t'

--,/'-
-e-2--
Lo:Y-- .'
B
s0

40

30

20

r0

01 3
Seowoll slope (m)

Coefficients A ond B :berm elevotion qt SWL

Fig.23b)
 :
. "t . l

:::.1
, I
-+*

.l
,l
:

. : 1 . : :I . 1 : t: tr ii . . . . . I r , r = iI . , : , , i i , r T . *l -
:-:::=:1 :---::.:-T--1--f-T:-::-- *i-:, r .

=Ti:r:
:i:i::I :: lri,:tr: ] i | : i:r i : i:;: lr:iiii:
-'.';'l ::.1-:=::
,il-,]-l;:::.i.--].: l -:- i::-:,:- rr ' :r:l;;
:::r i r : : l. : r .I i : i

3
Seowoll slope (m )

Coefficients A qnd B : berm elevotionof lm betow SWL

Fig.24(o)
 90

70

B
o

30

20

ri!

2345
Seowoll slope (m )

CoefficientsA ond B : berm elevotionof lm below SWL

F i9.24(b)
A
r63

3
Seowoll slope (m)

Coefficients A ond B:berm elevqtionof 2m below SWL

Fig.25(o)
 100

90

80

70

60 s\

.rtc
50
J"9
40
c "YZtu<"

30
^ 6Um
^ 4Um
20
m
5o,
2o
r0

0
3
Seowoll slope (m)

CoefficientsA ond B :berm elevotion of 2m below SWL

Fis.25(b)
 -a
S e o w o l l s t o p e( m )

Coefficents A qnd B : berm elevqtion of t+m below SWL

Fig.26(o)
 Seowoll slope (m)

CoefficientsA qnd B : berm elevotionof 4m below SWL

Fis.26(b)
 o
ro
\
\
\
\
o\
\
\ I
o (
tn
\
\
c
\ c
\
I c
I c
I o
.t
3
I t
I
I sc
o
(l,
c
I At c
or
I c, L

I o..
E c
rf
d)
@-
,o vL
cn
c c
o
U
o
> c
rF
o
=
c
o
(\l o
''*
| U
I o
t-
col t-
o
U

= o
o
3
o
c,
a

I
(\
tn
9 14
o
g puD v sJoltDl uotlreJJo]

Fig.
 ur : lel€l eprl loed /v\oleq lelel JoIDA
q:
o
o
oo
Y9o9oc.r.t'.oo
ooo:::::
9T
N(\I : iRs
a

o
o GI
o o

o @
o o
ro o
s,
o
o-
o
fol
o
\' E
f.l
.E
C.
Or
o o
x
F
lrl
tl, oE
I t o (\l t-
.-
H
oo
o o
o L
J
J
I crG
o o
YO
tI 3 .. t-
oo J
o .E u
o
#O
o
.t
o
p
oN I
@
o
o
L
+t

o
E o
E
:_ - o GI .g
\t,
I
@
o o-
t-
o
o o
rD @
I o

o
-t
t\
o

o
ol (\
F
9rl r:?@ro.lqto o
rO O tO
Y €pr9fqjo
on n (\ (Yt (\ _L j_
oooo
N 0 o ur : le^el eptl peprof,€u

Fig.28
 E
Ut
(v)

E
to
o
Cn -.
b ro"
s,
(,
|n
E
ql
'a
c
CL
o
o
o

1.8 2.O 2'2 2.4

Woter level m ODN

Exomple8 :dischorgecurve

Fig.29
 EE
ulu}
c1- c?-
E'E
(\t (f)
ro lo

;;
P o I
c\t c!
zl
E
3: 3l
o
0,
o
oto
!
TI =
o
3
'C* 9
ea I
I
o
o
XC o
ul: E
D o (tl
E r.i)
o
ql r') I
.g
t-

c
o
qJ
ro I 'o- E
u
+
I lrl 3
.g o
u o
gl a
.E
o_ E
o o
o
t-
o o
o o-
z
ci
D
E
-E
o
oEta
_Loo c., o
i!+ +

c) o
cnt
+r-
Ol
o-
o E
C! o
x
o9
o L UJ
i93.
r#O
c,
o
a;c
E8g =)
'0
3; z
Lrl

=.e d
aa
E
3i
c.l
L
o
o
c
gl
a
o
o

Fig.30
 a
.9
o
o-
E
c
o
.C,
.9
o
E
A)
o
3
crl
c
'6
o
o
u
o
t-
o
N

o
c
.9
.E
o
o

c
o
At

Fig.