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

net/publication/269126997

EXPOSED JETTIES: INCONSISTENCIES AND GAPS IN DESIGN METHODS FOR

WAVE-INDUCED FORCES

Conference Paper · March 2003

DOI: 10.1142/9789812791306_0142

CITATIONS READS

28 8,097

4 authors, including:

William Allsop

209 PUBLICATIONS   3,152 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

EurOtop View project

FloodSite View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Allsop on 09 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 EXPOSED JETTIES: INCONSISTENCIES AND GAPS
IN DESIGN METHODS FOR WAVE-INDUCED FORCES

Matteo Tirindelli1, Giovanni Cuomo2, William Allsop3 and Kirsty McConnell4

Abstract: This paper reviews existing methods to evaluate wave loading on

exposed jetties and related structures. This work aims to address inconsistencies
and gaps in these methods. It was motivated by the increasing demand from UK
designers and contractors for clear guidance on prediction formulae for the
hydraulic design of these structures, and particularly for guidance on wave forces
on decks and beams. A series of flume tests to measure wave-induced forces on
a model of a jetty structure was carried out at HR Wallingford. Horizontal and
vertical wave forces on beam and deck elements were measured. Initial results
and comparisons with some of the existing models for evaluation of wave
loading on jetty structures are presented here. The paper provides initial
guidance on wave forces on exposed jetties and fills gaps in present design
methods through analysis of these new experimental data.

INTRODUCTION
Marine trade with coastal nations requires jetties against which vessels may berth to
discharge or accept cargo. For small vessels, these facilities are often constructed in
sheltered locations where hydraulic and other loadings are relatively small, but for some
island communities, supply jetties may still be exposed to hurricane or cyclone attack. Over
the last 10-15 years, demand for larger vessels has required longer jetties in deeper water.
In such locations, construction of protective breakwaters becomes more expensive, so
increasingly jetties are being constructed without breakwaters in ‘exposed’ locations (recent
examples have been in Oman, Kuwait, India and Caribbean). This has therefore extended

1 PhD Student, University of Bologna, c/o Facoltà di Scienze Ambientali, via dell’Agricoltura 5,
48100 Ravenna, Italy. mtirindelli@ambra.unibo.it.
2 Visiting Researcher (University of Rome 3), c/o HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford,
OX10 8BA, UK.
3 Technical Director, Maritime Structures, HR Wallingford; Professor (associate), University of
Sheffield, c/o HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OX10 8BA, UK.
4 Senior Engineer, Ports, Estuaries & Industry Dept, HR Wallingford, Howbery Park,
Wallingford, OX10 8BA, UK.

1 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

their exposure beyond the bounds of most general experience. Similar slam and uplift
forces may also be experienced by temporary structures close to water, and may be critical
even where waves are relatively small. Existing European Standards like BS6349-Marine
Structures 2000 (Parts 1 & 2) or EAU 1996 do not adequately address design requirements
for such structures. The main need is for robust prediction methods, formulae and
coefficients to determine wave forces on decks and beams or similar elements.

This research was developed within a project at HRW supported by the UK Department
of Trade & Industry under DTI PII Project 39/05/130 cc 2035 to develop design guidance
for exposed jetties. The objectives were to: reduce design costs; construction costs; and
uncertainties; improve safety; and to support development of more appropriate designs.

WAVE-IN-DECK FORCES
Many wave loads must be considered in the design of coastal and offshore structures
including platforms / dolphins / jetties / piers. The extreme responses of concern vary
significantly between structure types. The main responses to be considered are:
• wave loads on piles (not considered here);
• horizontal wave loads on beams, fenders or other projecting elements;
• wave uplift loads on decks;
• wave uplift loads on beams, fenders or other projecting elements;
• wave downward loads on decks (inundation and suction).

These forces, with the exception of pile loading, are called “wave-in-deck forces”. This
term defines all wave-induced forces applied to a platform or deck and to projecting beams
when the wave hits and/or inundates the platform, see Figure 1.

Inundation deck load

Horizontal
beam load

Wave surface

Uplift deck and beam load

Fig. 1. Wave-in-deck forces

Several methods have been developed to evaluate wave-in-deck forces. El Ghamry

(1965) and Wang (1970) measured wave pressures on horizontal platforms in wave flumes,
and identified the nature of typical wave-in-deck loads as a short duration / high magnitude
impulsive impact superimposed on a longer slowly-varying (pulsating) component of lower
intensity. Much recent work was motivated by the Ekofisk platform complex subsidence,

2 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

see Broughton & Horn (1987), who performed basin model tests (scale 1:50) on three
platform configurations, finding results that seem to agree with French (1971), (despite
rather slow data sampling at 20 Hz).

Further work to describe wave forces on platforms and projecting elements by Kaplan
(1992), Kaplan et al. (1995) and Murray & Kaplan (1997) has led to a model of forces on
vertical and horizontal elements based on an extension of Morison’s equations, with small-
scale experimental data. The latest formulation of Kaplan’s equation for vertical force on
a horizontal platform is given by Equation (1).

2
1 l 
1+  
π bl 2 π ∂l 2b ρ
Fv = ρ


+ ρ bl

+ blC d



+ ρg (bal ) (1)
8 1 4 ∂t  3 2
l  l 
2 2 2 2
1 +    1 +   
  b     b  

where: b is the width of the deck; η is the wave surface; l (platform length) and ∂l/∂t are
determined from the relative degree of wetting of the flat deck underside on which
loading occurs; a is the thickness of the deck; Cd is the drag coefficient.

Shih & Anastasiou (1992) derived very simple empirical formulae for wave uplift
pressures on horizontal platforms. They distinguished between impulsive and pulsating
pressures, as well as between regular and random waves, see Equations (2-4).

Impulsive, regular Pmax = (1.8 – 7.6) ρgH (2)

Impulsive, random Pmax = (4 – 8) ρgHs (3)
Pulsating , regular / random P+ve = 0.65 ρg (ηmax – cl) (4)
where ηmax is max crest elevation and cl is clearance between the deck and swl.

Recently, Bea et al.(1999) noted that wave-in-deck loadings need “… an integrated

approach (…) to develop an engineering analysis procedure that is consistent with how
platforms have performed in the past when their decks have been struck by wave crests”.
Bea’s description of wave-in-deck forces addresses both horizontal and vertical forces
through an integrated approach. The total wave-in-deck force (Ftw) imposed on a platform
deck is treated as an extended version of Morison’s Equation:

Ftw = Fs + Fd + Fl + Fi + Fb (5)
where: Fs = slamming forces (impulsive); Fd = drag (velocity dependent) forces; Fl = lift
forces (velocity-dependent, normal to the wave direction); Fi = inertia forces (acceleration-
dependent); Fb = (vertical) buoyancy forces.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Tests were conducted in the absorbing flume of HR Wallingford. The frame of the model
jetty was bolted to the flume floor (Figure 2). A partially absorbing slope with 1:5 slope
covered with absorbing matting and rocks, was installed to reduce reflections. Three
wave gauges (numbered 0, 1 and 2 in Figure 2) correlated wave heights and loads on the

3 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

deck. One probe (0) near the wave generator displayed the wave height away from the jetty.
The second probe (1) measured incoming waves just before the model structure. The last
one (2) behind the model provided a measure of transmission past the jetty.

1:5 shingle absorbing beach 2 1 0

model structure
paddle

swl SW

1.50 m

Fig. 2. Experimental set-up in the wave absorbing flume at HR Wallingford

The model design was based on analysis of example jetties in the UK, Middle East
and Far East. The example structure (Figure 3) consists of a long pier or trunk section,
generally normal to the wave attack, with a “T” or “L” head at the outer end.

1.5 / 2 / 2.5
10 / 15 / 20
4/6/8
4/6/7 3/4/6 15 / 30 / 60
8 / 12 / 16
4/6/8

15 15
/ 30
/ 30// 60
60

1 / 1.5 / 2.5 0.5 / 1 / 1.5

0.5 / 0.6 / 1

2/4/6
1 / 1.5 / 2.5 5 / 18 / 25

≈ 0.1
Pile dia = 0.9 / 1.2 / 1.5 / 4.5 (extreme)
Fig. 3. Typical jetty dimensions: min / most likely / max (in metres)

The model based on the structure above was designed for an upper range of wave height
typified by Hs = 5m. The initial model design considered an upper limit wave height in the
flume of Hs = 0.22m, suggesting a Froude scale ratio of 1:25. At this scale, the waves are
large enough to avoid any scale effects on pulsating wave forces. These waves are also
larger than those used by Allsop et al. (1995) and Howarth et al. (1996) who determined
that wave impact pressures in model tests are slightly conservative. It was therefore

4 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

concluded that the model would reliably quantify pulsating forces, and that scale effects on
short-duration impact loads would be conservative. Later in the study design, it was noted
that this model also simulates example “offshore” conditions at around 1:50-75.

External Internal

Fig. 4. Down-standing frame of beams with testing elements + support pile structure

Initial design of the model defined measurement sections / devices to quantify loads
specified in the previous section. The main test device structure (Figure 4) consists of:
• wooden jetty head, dimensions 1.00 x 1.10 x 0.02 m;
• down-standing frame of cross (1.0 x 0.06 x 0.06 m) and longitudinal beams (1.0 x 0.10
x 0.10 m);
• testing elements: 2 beam (0.195 x 0.055 x 0.075 m) and 2 deck elements (0.195 x 0.195
x 0.02 m), formed from aluminium/steel;
• supporting piles mounted on base frame (steel).

sm = 0.06
0 .3 5
d = 0 .7 5 m sm = 0.04
0 .3 0 d = 0 .6 0 m
0 .2 5

0 .2 0 sm = 0.01
Hs (m)

0 .1 5

0 .1 0

0 .0 5

0 .0 0
0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5
T m (s)
Fig. 5. Wave matrix

Four force transducers measuring vertical and horizontal loads were mounted onto a
single longitudinal beam with two beam elements and two deck elements on those
transducers. Measurements were sampled at 200 Hz, fast enough to represent the full force

5 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

signal. Random sea states (Figure 5) were defined by scaling typical wave conditions for
exposed jetty locations using JONSWAP spectra. Three wave steepnesses represented two
storm and one swell conditions. Water depths (model) were 0.60 and 0.75 m.

No panels Flat deck

Panels

Fig. 6. Tested configurations

Three different structure configurations were tested (Figure 6). The original
configuration had the supporting beams downward. A second configuration used large side
panels to limit 3-dimensional effects over and under the deck. The last configuration
inverted the deck to give a flat underside. Four different values of clearance cl were tested:
cl = 0.01, 0.06, 0.11, 0.16 m, varied by raising or lowering the deck assembly over the piles.

INITIAL RESULTS
Whilst both slowly varying (pulsating) and short-duration impulsive forces have been
measured, this paper primarily considers the slower acting forces, see example in Figure
7. The key pulsating force characteristics were derived after smoothing the force signal to
eliminate resonant oscillations of the measurement element. The main force plotted here
is F1/250 (average of the four highest forces from each 1000 wave test).

40
Hs = 0.1m; Tm = 1s
20
d = 0.75m; c = 0.06m
Force (N)

-20

-40
47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.6 47.7 47.8 47.9 48 48.1 48.2

t (s)

Figure 7: Example of slowly-varying forces

Horizontal Positive Forces on Beams

Positive horizontal forces (i.e. directed shoreward) on the external beam are plotted in
Figure 8 versus nominal significant wave height Hs for the three tested configurations (No
Panels (NP), Panels (P), Flat Deck (FD) as shown in Figure 6).

6 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

 20
NP
18
P
16 FD
14
F1/250 (N)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
H s (m)

Fig. 8. Horizontal forces on external beam

As expected, horizontal forces on the external beam increase with Hs , but the data are
quite scattered. No significant differences can be identified for the three test configurations.

Vertical Positive (Uplift) Forces on Deck and Beam Elements

Vertical uplift forces on both external beam and the adjacent deck are plotted vs. Hs for
the base configuration (No Panels) in Figure 9.

80
Beam
70 Deck
60

50
F1/250 (N)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Hs (m)

Fig. 9. Uplift forces on external beam and deck elements

7 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

 With the exception of few outlying points, data in Figure 9 appear to follow a simple
linear trend where the slope of the lines fitted to beam or deck data is in the ratio of the
areas of the two elements. This suggests that average uplift pressures on these elements are
relatively consistent, with uplift forces depending on element size, but not shape.

Vertical Negative (Downward) Forces on Deck and Beam Elements

Another major load case is caused by green water on the deck giving downward loads,
perhaps supplemented by suction loads as the wave detaches. Downward (here termed
negative) forces on seaward deck and beams (again no panels, so subject to local 3-d wave
effects) to shown in Figure 10 are of the same magnitude as the uplift loads in Figure 9.

-60
Beam
-50 D eck

-40
F1/250 (N)

-30

-20

-10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

H s (m )

Fig. 10. Downward forces on external beam and deck elements

The same trends noted for uplift forces can be recognised. Again the ratio between deck
and beam forces is in the same ratio as the plan areas of those elements. These loads are
essentially due to the weight of water inundating the deck. As the incident wave lengths
were significantly larger than the measurement element, wave loads are distributed
relatively uniformly.

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING MODELS

Pulsating uplift forces on the seaward deck element were compared with prediction
models by Kaplan (1992) and Shih & Anastasiou (1992). Data from tests with the No
Panel configuration are compared with Kaplan’s method in Figure 11. Predictions of
pulsating loads were obtained by removing the slam impact contribution (first term in Eqn.
1). These comparisons suggest that Kaplan’s model will underestimate uplift loads
consistently.

Kaplan’s model also seems to provide unsafe predictions when downward forces are
considered, see Figure 12. Both measured and predicted data follow an increasing trend
with Hs. The underestimation of Kaplan’s predictions is clear from the plot.

8 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

 80
Measured
70 Kaplan
60

50
F1/250 (N)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Hs (m)

Fig. 11. Measured uplift forces on external deck and Kaplan’s predictions

-60
Measured
-50 Kaplan

-40
F1/250 (N)

-30

-20

-10

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

H s (m)

Fig. 12. Measured downward forces on external deck and Kaplan’s predictions

Even when applied to the much smaller external beam element, Kaplan’s method as
described by Equation 1 proves to be unsatisfactory for correct evaluation of vertical
pulsating loads, see Figure 13.

9 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

 -18
-16 Measured
-14 Kaplan

-12
F1/250 (N)

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Hs (m)

Fig. 13. Measured downward forces on external beam and Kaplan’s predictions

Measured up-lift forces on the seaward deck compared with Shih & Anastasiou’s
predictions in Figure 14 seem also to be generally underestimated. These comparisons were
made by assuming that pressures from Shih & Anastasiou’s model could be taken as
uniformly distributed over the horizontal area of the measuring element (A). Forces could
then be calculated from Equation 4 simply by F = P x A.

80
M easured
70 Shih
60

50
F1/250 (N)

40

30

20

10

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
H s (m )

Fig. 14. Measured uplift forces on external deck vs. Shih’s predictions

10 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

CONCLUSIONS
A review of methods to predict wave forces on deck and beams on exposed jetties,
offshore platforms, dolphins and related structures has identified prediction methods by
Kaplan, Bea, and Shih. The review also identified significant inconsistencies and gaps of
knowledge requiring considerably more information and improved prediction methods.
Using information on existing exposed jetties, the study team designed a new set of random
wave flume tests at HR Wallingford. Wave forces were measured on decks and beams in
a model of a typical jetty structure. Initial model test results are presented in this paper.

Horizontal forces on external beams increase with increasing Hs, as may be expected.
The force / wave height relationship is relatively linear, with no significant differences
between the three tested configurations.

Over the parameter ranges tested here, significant wave height Hs also seems to provide
a linear trend for vertical forces on deck and beam elements. Other parameters, both
geometrical and hydraulic, should nevertheless be considered as important for a correct
interpretation of wave-in-deck loading (clearance of the deck, cl; wave steepness, s; max
crest elevation ηmax; wave celerity, …).

Among the existing prediction models, one of the most complete for evaluation of
horizontal and vertical wave loading on jetties and projecting elements is that developed
by Kaplan (1992). When compared with the new experimental data, Kaplan’s model
however under-estimates uplift forces on a deck surrounded by down-stand beams.

Inundation loading on the platform and green water on the deck can cause downward
forces of the same order of magnitude as uplift forces, but again Kaplan’s model gives
unsafe prediction for these forces.

Shih & Anastasiou’s model (1992), also provides results which are closer to the new
data than Kaplan’s predictions, but are still generally lower than the new measurements of
uplift forces.

Further work is required to analyse the new data by separating the effects of the three
tested configurations and identify differences among wave loading applied to the three
different cases. The effects of down-standing beams and of a strictly 2D wave attack will
therefore be considered. Forces applied to internal elements (sometimes rather larger than
for the seaward or external elements) will also be analysed.

Further analysis is moreover needed with the aim to perform a parametric study of
wave-induced forces on exposed jetties structures. Various dimensionless parameters, such
as Hs/L, cl/Hs, (ηmax – cl)/Hs will be taken in account, in order to obtain stable and consistent
relations with dimensionless forces. New prediction formulae will be investigated to fit this
set of new experimental data, with the aim to fill the described gaps and inconsistencies in
some of the reviewed methods.

11 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

 Finally, a complete description of the whole process of wave-in-deck loading, impulsive
forces due to slam loading should also be taken into account.. Relative importance of
impact versus pulsating loads should be investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of people who helped with this
analysis:
Steering Committee of DTI PII Project 39/5/130 cc2035;
Prof. Alberto Lamberti, University of Bologna;
Prof. Leopoldo Franco, University of Rome 3;
Ian Cruickshank, HR Wallingford;
Amjad-Mohammed Saleem and Oliver de Rooji, visiting researchers.
The first author’s studentship was funded by University of Bologna, EU Marie Curie
Fellowship, and HR Wallingford. The second author’s studentship was supported by EU
Marie Curie Fellowship, HR Wallingford and University of Rome 3.

REFERENCES
Allsop N.W.H., Vann A.M., Howarth M., Jones R.J. & Davis J.P. (1995) “Measurements
of wave impacts at full scale: results of fieldwork on concrete armour units” pp287-302,
ICE Coastal Structures and Breakwaters Conf., ISBN 0 7277 2509 2, publn. Thomas
Telford, London.

Bea R.G., Xu T., Stear J. & Ramos R. (1999) “Wave Forces on Decks of Offshore
Platforms” Jo. Waterway, Port, Coastal & Ocean Eng., Vol. 125, No 3, Proc. ASCE,
New York.

British Standards Institution (2000) “British Standard Code of Practice for Maritime
structures, Part 1. General Criteria” BS 6349: Part 1: 2000 (and Amendments 5488 and
5942), British Standards Institution, London.

Broughton P. & Horn E. (1987) “Ekofish Platform 2/4C: Re-analysis Due to Subsidence”
Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs., Pt 1,82, Oct., pp. 949-979

El-Ghamry O.A. (1965) “Wave Forces on a Dock” Technical Report HEL-9-1, Hydraulic
Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Engineering Research, University of California.

Howarth M.W., Vann A.M., Davis J.P., Allsop N.W.H. & Jones R.J. (1996) “Comparison
of Wave Impact Pressures on Armour units at Prototype and Model Scale” Proc. 25th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Orlando, ASCE, New York.

French J.A. (1971) “Wave Uplift Pressures on Horizontal Platforms” Proc. of the speciality
conf.: Civil Engineering in the Oceans IV, Vol. I, pp 187-202

Isaacson M. & Bhat S. (1994) “Wave Forces on a Horizontal Plate” International

Symposium: Waves- physical and numerical modelling, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.

12 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

Kaplan P. (1992) “Wave Impact Forces on Offshore Structures: Re-examination and New
Interpretations” Paper OTC 6814, 24th OTC, Houston, Offshore Technology
Conference.

Kaplan P., Murray J.J. & Yu W.C. (1995) “Theoretical Analysis of Wave Impact Forces
on Platform Deck Structures” Volume 1-A Offshore Technology, OMAE Copenhagen,
June 1995, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference

Murray J.J, Winsor F.N & Kaplan P. (1997) “Impact Forces on a Jacket Deck in Regular
Waves and Irregular Wave Groups” Paper OTC 8360, OTC, Houston, Offshore
Technology Conference

Recommendations of the Committee for the Waterfront Structures, Harbours and

Waterways, EAU (1996) 7th ed. publn. Ernst & Sohn.

de Rooij O. V. (2001) “Wave Impact on Horizontal Platforms” Final Graduation Project,

Civil Engineering, TU Delft, the Netherlands

Shih R.W.K. & Anastasiou K. (1992) “A Laboratory Study of the Wave-induced Vertical
Loading on Platform Decks” Proc. ICE, Water Maritime and Energy, Vol. 96, No 1, pp
19-33, publn Thomas Telford, London

Toumazis A.D., Shih W.K. & Anastasiou K. (1989) “Wave Impact Loading on Horizontal
and Vertical Plates” in Proc. IAHR 89 Conf., Ottawa, Canada, 21-25 August, c209-c216

Wang H. (1970) “Water Wave Pressure on Horizontal Plate” Journal of the Hydraulics
Division, Oct.1970

13 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

 EXPOSED JETTIES: INCONSISTENCIES AND GAPS IN DESIGN
METHODS FOR WAVE-INDUCED FORCES

Matteo Tirindelli , Giovanni Cuomo , William Allsop and Kirsty McConnell

Keywords

Jetty
Wave Forces
Impact
Pulsating
Physical Model

14 Tirindelli, Cuomo, Allsop and McConnell

View publication stats