The Influence of Wave Overtopping on the Stability Analysis of Vertical Breakwaters
Li-Hung Tsai1, Hung-Chu Hsu2, Cheng-Jung Hsu3, Meng-Syue Li2
1Harbor and Marine Technology Center, Institute of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
2
Tainan Hydraulics Laboratory, National Cheng Kung University, Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
3Department of Marine Environment and Engineering, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to perform an analysis of the structure
stability of a breakwater concerning the effect of wave overtopping.
First, a COBRAS model of Taichung Harbor breakwater structure is
created. Secondly, the model is verified with experimental data, and
reasonable agreement is shown between the two. Finally, the
breakwater stability analysis under 50 to 250-year-return-period
typhoon wave conditions as well as extreme wave conditions is
discussed. The result shows that the failure of sliding is more dangerous
than the failure of overturning in Taichung harbor breakwater. Under
the extreme wave more than 100 year-return-period, the breakwater is
unstable in sliding, whereas that is safe in overturning. The influence of
Wave Overtopping on the Stability Analysis is dominated by the force
on rear side of caisson and the phase difference on the two ends of
caisson. If the impulse force happens at the moment of the minimum of
the front force, the safety factor might decrease significantly and the
failure of sliding might cause breakwater damage.
KEY WORDS: wave-structure interaction, vertical breakwater,
structure stability, wave overtopping, porous media, RANS
modeling.
INTRODUCTION
Wave-structures interaction is a typical occurrence in engineering
practice for either coastal protection or harbor structure design. Many
previous wave-structure interaction studies had discussed the effect of
wave overtopping but some of which in structure stability analysis
assumed seaward loads were static. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate the influence of wave overtopping induced seaward loads
on structure stability.
In theory, there are some idealized theoretical models which had been
presented (e.g., Sollitt and Cross 1972; Vidal et al. 1988; Liu and Wen
1997). However, all of analytical approaches became more complicated
and inconvenient due to complex geometric practical problem. In
different laboratories, hydraulic physical models had been used to study
the problem (e.g., Allsop et al. 1985; Owen 1994; Franco et al. 1994;
Van der Meer and Janssen 1995; Pedersen 1996; Hedges and Reis 1998;
Franco 1999; Besley 1999). Nevertheless, it may be hard for the
hydraulic physical model studies to overcome either scaling problem or
high-cost.
On the other hand, the numerical approach becomes more flexible and
efficient because of the rapid growth of the computer performance. At
an early stage, there were many studies that developed shallow water
equations to simulate wave-structure interaction in coastal processes,
especially porous media structure (e.g., Kobayashi and Wurjanto 1989a,
1989b; Mingham and Causon 1998; hu et al. 2000; Hubbard and Dodd
2002; Stansby and Feng 2004). Sulisz (1985) developed a boundary
element method to describe wave transmission and reflection by a
multilayer breakwater with arbitrary shape. Kobayashi and Wurjanto
(1990) developed a finite-difference model to study wave-structure
interaction. Lin and Liu (1998) developed COBRAS model to study
wave-structure problem. In order to validate COBRAS model, Hsu et al.
(2002) compared numerical results of elevation and pressure with
laboratory measurements related to a hydraulic physical model of a
composite breakwater by Sakakiyama and Liu (2001). After that, Hsieh
et al. (2008) used COBRAS model to investigate the wave-structure
interaction of quarter-circular shape breakwater. Losada et al. (2008)
modified COBRAS to investigate the functionality of rubble mound
breakwaters with special attention focused on wave overtopping
processes. Then Guanche et al. (2009) followed to carry out an analysis
of wave induced loads corresponding to a low-mound and a rubble-
mound breakwater with both regular and irregular incident wave
conditions. Good agreement was found between COBRAS numerical
result and experimental data so that Guanche et al. (2009) suggested
that this numerical model had a high potential to become a
complementary tool to analyze the hydraulic response of structures.
Nonetheless, Walkden et al. (2001) investigated the seaward loads
induced by wave overtopping on a caisson breakwater. First, this study
reviewed literature related to evidence of seaward movement of
prototype breakwater. Then it focused on mechanisms that may cause
such seaward movement loads. Last, it commented that seaward loads
should be considered as failure mode of breakwater designs. Since most
of structural analysis ignored seaward loads force such as Losada et al.
(2008), this study is to perform the stability analysis of breakwater
concerning the effect of wave overtopping. First, there is a literature
review about wave-structure interaction problem. Second, a model
based on scaling Taichung Harbor breakwater is set up, and numerical
solutions are validated with hydraulic physical model data. Third, in
prototype model of Taichung Harbor breakwater the load analysis
concerning the effect of wave overtopping is calculated, then the
stability of breakwater considering seaward loads in dynamic is
discussed. Last, the summary of analysis result and suggestion is
described in conclusion.
MODEL VALITAION

The breakwater at Taichung harbor is a composite vertical breakwater

which is composed of impermeable vertical caisson and permeable
rubble foundation. At a length scale of 1:36, Lee (2006) conducted a
physical model testing of Taichung harbor wave-breakwater interaction
in general wave condition (H=0.19m and T=1.67s) and typhoon wave
condition (H=0.25m and T=2s). To validate numerical model result, a
COBRAS model is built based on Lee (2006) as Fig. 1. There were four
wave gauges marked g1~g4 to measure elevation and nine load cells
measured pressure, five load cells along front face of the caisson and
four load cells on the bottom of the caisson. The five load cells in front
marked U1~U5 and the four load cells on the bottom marked V1~V4.
For permeable rubble foundation, the effect diameter is 0.7 cm and the
porosity is 0.1. Lee (2006) only exposed the measurements of elevation
in general wave condition and the measurements of pressure in typhoon
wave condition.

Fig. 2 Comparisons of the elevation in general wave condition between

numerical results (dash) and experimental data (line).

Fig. 1 Experimental setup (Lee 2006).

The comparisons of elevation data between numerical results and

experimental data in general wave condition are shown as Fig. 2.
Obviously, the agreement between numerical results and experimental
data are good except the position of g2, where is at the vicinity of a
node caused by the standing wave which is generated by the incident
wave and reflection wave. Furthermore, the comparisons of pressure
data between numerical results and experimental data in typhoon wave
condition are shown as figure 3 and Fig. 4. Fig. 3 is the time histories of
dynamic pressure along the front face of the caisson (U1~U5). Fig. 4 is
the time histories of dynamic pressure along front face of the caisson
(V1~V4). Overall, the agreement between numerical results and
experimental data are good, therefore, the agreement of pressure along
front face are better than those on the bottom. To quantify the
comparisons, a validation method proposed by Willmott (1981) is used
as Eq. 1.

(1)

In Eq. 1, is numerical result, is experimental data and the

“ ” is averaging operator. The index of validation ( ), ranging from 0
to 1, represents the degree of agreement between numerical predictions
and experimental data, and the unit is dimensionless. The validated
results are shown as table 1. The value of validated index, ranging from Fig. 3 Comparisons of the pressure along the front face of the caisson in
0.63 to 0.96, is reasonable, despite the validation of elevation is better typhoon wave condition between numerical results (dash) and
than pressure. Generally, the average of all validated index is 0.8, experimental data (line).
which indicates that COBRAS result and experiment data are consist,
consequently, the comparisons results provide confidence in the
subsequent application of the model to prototype scale, and which is
described in the next section.
 denotes the upward force acting on the bottom of the caisson. The fixed
reference point of moment for landward overturning is denoted by s1,
while that for seaward overturning is denoted by s2. The moment of f1
about s1 is equal to that about s2, so they are both denoted by m1. For
the same reason, the moments of f2 about s1 and about s2 are both
denoted by m2. Due to non-uniform pressure distribution on the bottom
of caisson, the moment of f3 about s1 is denoted by m3, whereas that
about s2 is denoted by m4. Because of asymmetry of parapet, the
moment of W about s1 is denoted by mw1, but that about s2 is denoted
by mw2.

60
n=0.49 / D50=11.8 cm
40 n=0.53 / D50=38.7 cm

y [m]
impermeable materials
20

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
x [m]
40
(625.0 ,34.0) (622.5 ,34.0)
(644.0 ,31.0)
30
(625.0 ,31.0)

y [m]
20

10 (609.0 ,9.0) (622.5 ,9.0) (644.0 ,9.0) (657.5 ,9.0)

(595.0 ,1.0) (609.0 ,6.0) (657.5 ,6.0)
(601.0 ,1.0) (666.5 ,1.0) (671.5 ,1.0)
0
590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680
x [m]
Fig. 4 Comparisons of the pressure on the bottom of the caisson in
typhoon wave condition between numerical results (dash) and Fig. 5 The wave-structure interaction model setup of Taichung harbor
experimental data (line). setup (Cheng et al. 1999)

Table 1. The index of validation Table 2. The wave condition

case φ case φ case φ case H (m) T (sec) return period (year)

g1 0.960 U1 0.723 V1 0.714 1 7.77 11.30 50

g2 0.638 U2 0.777 V2 0.741 2 8.46 11.70 100

g3 U3 0.772 V3 0.739 3 9.24 12.20 200

0.873
g4 0.920 U4 0.888 V4 0.708 4 9.45 12.30 250

-- -- U4 0.895 -- -- 5 12.87 14.13 50*

6 13.70 14.63 100*
LOAD ANAYLSIS 7 14.47 15.25 200*
8 14.63 15.38 250*
A prototype wave-structure interaction model of Taichung harbor is
setup as Fig. 5 based on the original design report (Cheng et al., 1999). *represents the climate change effected extreme wave condition (Hsu,
There are two parts of breakwater, the rubble foundation and vertical 2013)
caisson with parapet. In fact, the vertical caisson is installed on a rubble
foundation, which has a thin filter layer between caisson and
foundation. The corresponding porous parameters of rubble foundation
and filter layer are shown in Fig. 5. In additional, the breakwater is
placed on a foreshore slope of 1 on 100. The total eight wave
conditions considering different return period of typhoon wave from 50
years to 250 year (Tsai et al., 2016) and climate change induced
extreme wave effect which proposed by Hsu (2013) are listed as Table
2. According to Hsu’s report, he studied the effect factor of climate
change in Taiwan then proposed that in future the incident wave height
might increase 65% and the corresponding wave period might increase
25%. Fig. 6 Free body diagram of load analysis

Following the setup model and those wave conditions, the wave-
structure interaction was simulated. In order to calculate the structure
stability focused on the influence of wave overtopping, a free body
diagram shown as Fig. 6 is used to analyze the relative force acting on
the caisson of breakwater. In Fig. 6, W denotes the weight of caisson, f1
denotes the horizontal force acting on the front face of the caisson, f2
denotes the horizontal force acting on the rear face of the caisson, and f3
The relative force and its moment acting on a structure can be
calculated by integrating the pressure field. For instance, Fig. 7 presents
the time histories of the forces and their moments on caisson in case 1.
It is obvious that the rear force f2 and its moment m2 began to oscillate
after wave overtopping, moreover, the oscillations occasionally appear
some short time duration peaks which might be caused by
instantaneous wave overtopping jet. The physical processes governing
these short-duration peaks need further investigation to be clarified. In
addition, the differences between the water level on the front face of
caisson and that on the rear side of caisson can influence the pressure
distribution on the bottom of caisson. Therefore, the corresponding
upward force f3 and its moments (m3 and m4) vary with the water level
difference of wave overtopping. In case 1, which is the lowest wave
height in Table 2, wave overtopping happens, indicating that all cases
in Table 2 are necessary to investigate the influence of wave
overtopping on the structure stability.
Fig. 7 The time histories of COBRAS model simulated forces and their
moment acting on caisson in case 1.
STABILITY ANAYLSIS
For coastal protection, the upright of a vertical breakwater must be
designed to be safe against sliding and overturning. The safety factors
against sliding and overturning are utilized for engineering design and
the value of those must not be less than 1.2 in practice. The safety
factors against sliding and overturning are reviewed by the following:
The safety factor against sliding for caisson SFs can be defined by Eq. 2.
(2)
Where μ is the coefficient of friction between the caisson and the
foundation, V is the total vertical force acting on the bottom, and p is
the total horizontal force acting on the caisson.
The safety factor against overturning for caisson SFo can be defined by
Eq. 3.
(3)
Where V and p are described above in Eq. 2, t is the lever arm of the
total vertical force V about s1, and h is the lever arm of the total
horizontal force p about s1.
Using empirical formula to calculate the safety factors against sliding
and overturning, the assumption of the force acting on rear side of
caisson was usually taken to be static for simplicity's sake. For
example, Goda (1973) neglected consideration of wave overtopping, so
the force of rear side on caisson is static as still water. Here, the safety
factor against sliding in static can be presented as Eq. 4; while the
safety factor against overturning in static can be presented as Eq. 5.
(4)
(5)
Where W denotes the weight of caisson, fb denotes the buoy force in
still water, fp denotes the maximum horizontal force along the front side
of caisson, fu denotes the upward force on the bottom, mp denotes the
moment of fp about s1, mu denotes the moment of fu about s1, mb denotes
the moment of fb about s1, and mw denotes the moment of W about s1.
As above mentioned, since all cases in Table 2 are necessary to
investigate the influence of wave overtopping on the structure stability,
the safety factors against sliding and overturning are adapted by the
free body diagram in Fig. 6. Now that wave overtopping might increase
the seaward force and moment, the safety factor against seaward sliding
and overturning should be accounted. Consequently, the corresponding
safety factor against landward sliding is presented as Eq. 6; while that
against seaward sliding is presented as Eq. 7. Furthermore, the
corresponding safety factor against landward overturning about s1 is
presented as Eq. 8; while that against seaward overturning about s2 is
presented as Eq. 9.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
For example, the time histories of the safety factors against sliding
( ) in case 1 are shown as Fig. 8, and that against overturning
( ) in case 1 are shown as Fig. 9. Fig. 8 shows that the effect
of wave overtopping will cause the sliding safety factor and overturning
safety factor to oscillate. Moreover, since the minimum of is lower
than that of , and both the minimum of and are greater than
1.2, the caisson is regarded in stable against sliding in the condition of
case 1. In contrast to Fig. 9, the effect of seaward in overturning is
inconspicuous. The distribution of and show it is stable against
overturning in the condition of case 1. Overall, the caisson of Taichung
harbor breakwater has sufficient stability against sliding and
overturning on the influence of wave overtopping in the condition of 50
year-return-period.
Fig. 8 The time histories of the safety factors against sliding among
(˙), ( × ) and (---) for case 1.
Fig. 9 The time histories of the safety factors against overturning
among (˙), ( × ) and (---) for case 1.
RESULT moment m2 on the influence of wave overtopping is less than that in
static, the corresponding safety factor against overturning is lower.
To investigate structure stability on the influence of wave overtopping,
the safety factors against sliding and overturning considering the water In summary, the risk of sliding is greater than that of overturning in
level fluctuates on the rear side of caisson are calculated under 50 to Taichung harbor breakwater. Under the extreme wave more than 100
250-year-return-period typhoon wave conditions as well as extreme year-return-period, the breakwater is unstable due to sliding, but that is
wave conditions. The represented safety factors against sliding and safe from overturning. The influence of Wave Overtopping on the
overtopping on the influence of wave overtopping are determined by Stability Analysis is dominated by the force on rear side of caisson and
the minimum, and those are denoted by and . The comparisons the phase difference on the two ends of caisson.
of the safety factors against sliding are shown as Fig. 10. Generally, the
safety factors following the severe wave conditions get lower, and case
6~8 are less than 1.2, indicating the risk of sliding failure might occur
in the extreme wave condition. However, is closed to but
varies due to the influence of wave overtopping.

The safety factors against overturning are shown as Fig. 11. All of case
are greater than 1.2, therefore, Sliding failure is more dangerous than
the overturning failure in Taichung harbor breakwater. Comparing
between Fig. 10 and Fig 11, the tendency of safety factors between
sliding and overturning are similar.

Fig. 10 Comparisons of the safety factors against sliding among the

minimum of (O), ( × ) and safety criteria 1.2(—).

Fig. 12 Comparisons of time histories of the safety factors against

sliding and their loads for case 1. (a) The safety factors against sliding
among (˙), ( × ) and (---); (b) The forces f1 (—); (c) The
forces f2 in static (---) and in dynamic (—); (d) The forces f3 (—).

Fig. 11 Comparisons of the safety factors against overturning among

the minimum of (O), ( × ) and safety criteria 1.2(—).

To focus on the influence of wave overtopping on the stability analysis

of vertical breakwaters, the load analysis of case 1, an example of
, are shown as Fig. 12. When time is 190 seconds, the
minimum safety factor against sliding on the influence of wave
overtopping is greater than the safety factor against sliding
in static . At 190 seconds, the force f1 in Fig. 12 (b) is 3800
kN, the force f2 in Fig. 12 (c) in dynamic is 2200 kN; while that in static
is 2000 kN, and the force f3 in Fig. 12 (d) is 5100 kN. Because the force
on the rear side of caisson on the influence of wave overtopping is
greater than that in still water, so the corresponding greater safety factor
against sliding is reasonable. In fact, the safety factor is influenced by
not only the force on the rear of caisson but also the phase difference of
the two ends of caisson. There are some impulses happens in the time
histories of rear force, if the impulse force happens at the moment of
the minimum of the front force, the safety factor might drop
significantly and the failure of sliding might cause breakwater damage.
Furthermore, the load analysis of case 4, an example of , are
shown as Fig. 13. At 190 seconds, the minimum safety factor against Fig. 13 Comparisons of time histories of the safety factors against
overturning on the influence of wave overtopping is less overturning and their moments for case 1. (a) The safety factors against
than the safety factor against overturning in static . At the overturning among (˙), ( × ) and (---); (b) The moment m1
time point, the moment m1 in Fig. 13 (b) is 42000 kNm, the moment m2 (—); (c) The moment m2 in static (---) and in dynamic (—); (d) The
in Fig. 13 (c) in dynamic is 12000 kNm; while that in static is moment m3 (—) and the moment m4 (---).
14000kNm, and the moment m3 in Fig. 13 (d) is 70000 kNm. Since the
CONCLUSION
To perform the structure stability of breakwater concerning the effect of
wave overtopping, a wave-structure interaction of Taichung harbor is
simulated by a numerical model. First, a COBRAS model of the
Taichung Harbor breakwater structure is created, then the model is
verified with experimental data, and reasonable agreement is shown
between the two. According to the numerical result, the pressure
distribution along the rear side of caisson can be calculated in dynamic,
moreover, the load analysis including the force and its moment can be
analyzed. Second, as a result, the risk of sliding is greater than that of
overturning in Taichung harbor breakwater. Under the extreme wave
more than 100 year-return-period, the breakwater is unstable due to
sliding, but that is safe from overturning. The influence of Wave
Overtopping on the Stability Analysis is dominated by the force on rear
side of caisson and the phase difference on the two ends of caisson. If
the impulse force happens at the moment of the minimum of the front
force, the safety factor might decrease significantly and the failure of
sliding might cause breakwater damage. The study establishes an
evaluating procedure concerning wave-structure interaction on extreme
wave and the influence of wave overtopping to provide ports and other
authorities with an appropriate assessment and evaluating strategy of
harbor stability analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support under Grant No. MOTC-IOT-104-H2DB004a from the
Harbor and Marine Technology, Ministry of Transportation and
Communications and Grant Nos. MOST MOST105-2621-M-110-005-
and MOST 105-2911-I-006-301 from the Ministry of Science and
Technology, Taiwan, is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Allsop, N.W., Hawkes, P.I., Jackson, F.A., Franco, L. (1985). “Wave
Run-up on Steep Slopes—model Tests under Random Waves”, Report
No. SR2. Hydraulics Research Station, Wallingford, England.
Besley, P. (1999). “Overtopping of Seawalls: Design and Assessment
Manual”, R&D Technical Report No.W178, Hydraulics Research Ltd,
Wallingford.
Cheng, K. G., Chien, C. C., Su, C. H., Tseng, H. M. Chen, G. Y., Chen,
Y. C. (1999). “Taichung harbour extension design phase II –
primary”, Institute of Transportation, MOTC.（In Chinese）
Franco, L., de Gerloni, M., van der Meer, J.W. (1994). “Wave
overtopping on vertical composite breakwaters,” Proceedings of the
24th International Coastal Engineering Conference, 1, 1030-1045.
Franco, C., Franco, L. (1999). “Overtopping formulas for caisson
breakwaters with nonbreaking 3D waves,” Journal of Waterway, Port,
Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 125, 2. 98-108.
Guanche, R., Losada I.J., Lara. J.L. (2009). “Numerical analysis of wave
loads for coastal structure stability,” Coastal Engineering, 56, 543-558.
Hedges, T.S., Reis, M.T. (1998). “A random wave overtopping of simple
sea walls. A new regression model,” Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers. Water Maritime and Energy, 130, 1-10.
Hubbard, M.E., Dodd, N. (2002). “A 2-D numerical model of wave run-
up and overtopping,” Coastal Engineering, 47, 1–26.
Hsieh, C. M., Hwang, R. R., Yang, W. C. (2008). “On studies of wave
interaction with porous structures,” Proceeding of the 30th Ocean
Engineering Conference in Taiwan, National Chiao Tung University,
373-378.（In Chinese）
Hsu, T. J., Sakakiyama T. and Liu, P. L.-F. (2002). “A numerical model
for wave motions and turbulence flows in front of a composite
breakwater,” Coastal Engineering, 46, 25-50.
Hsu, T. W. (2013). “A Study of Adaptation Capacity of Coastal Disasters
due to Climate Change in Order to Strengthen Northwest and
Northeast Areas of Taiwan (2/2)”, Water Resources Agency, MOEA.
（In Chinese）
Hu, K., Mingham, C.G., Causon, D.M. (2000). “Numerical simulation of
wave overtopping of coastal structures using the non-linear shallow
water equations,” Coastal Engineering, 41, 433-465.
Kobayashi, N., Wurjanto, A. (1989a). “Wave transmission over
submerged breakwaters,” Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, 115, 662-680.
Kobayashi, N., Wurjanto, A. (1989b). “Wave overtopping on coastal
structures,” Journal of Waterways Port Coastal, and Ocean
Engineering, 115, 235-251.
Kobayashi, N. and Wurjanto, A. (1990). “Numerical model for wave on
rough permeable slopes,” Journal of Coastal Research, 7, 149-166.
Lee, J. Y. (2006). “Influence of Seabed Change on the Dynamic Behavior
of Vertical Breakwater, Master Thesis”, Nation Taiwan Ocean
University. (In Chinese)
Lin, P. and Liu, P.L.-F. (1998). “A numerical study of breaking waves in
the surf zone,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 359, 239-264.
Liu, P. L.-F., and Wen, J. (1997). “Nonlinear diffusive surface waves in
porous media,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 347, 119-139.
Losada, I. J., Lara, J. L., Guanche, R, and Gonzalez-Ondina, J. M. (2008).
“Numerical analysis of wave overtopping of rubble mound
breakwaters,” Coastal Engineering, 55, 47-62.
Mingham, C.G., Causon, D.M., (1998). “High-resolution finite-volume
method for shallow water flows,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
124, 6, 605–614.
Owen, M.W. (1980). “Design of Seawalls Allowing for Wave
Overtopping”, Report EX924. HR Wallingford.
Pedersen, J. (1996). Experimental Study of Wave Forces and Wave
Overtopping on Breakwater Crown Walls, Series paper, 12, Hydraulics
& Coastal Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aalborg University, Denmark.
Sakakiyama, T. and Liu, P.L.-F. (2001). “Laboratory experiments for
wave motions and turbulence flows in front of a breakwater,” Coastal
Engineering, 44, 117-139.
Sollitt, C. K. and Cross, R. H. (1972). “Wave transmission through
permeable breakwaters,” Proceedings of 13th International Conference
on Coastal Engineering, New York, 1827-1846.
Stansby, P.K., Feng, T. (2004). “Surf zone wave overtopping a
trapezoidal structure: 1-D modelling and PIV comparison,” Coastal
Engineering, 51, 483-500.
Sulisz, W. (1985). “Wave reflection and transmission at permeable
breakwaters of arbitrary aross-section,” Coastal Engineering, 9, 371-
386.
Van der Meer, J.W., Janssen, J.P.F.M. (1995). “Wave Run-up and Wave
Overtopping at Dikes. In: Wave Forces on Inclined and Vertical
Structures”, ASCE — Task Committee Reports, 1–27.
Tsai, L. H., Hsu, H. C., Li, M. S., Hsu, C. J. (2016). “The Impact
Analysis of Coastal and Harbor Structure on Extreme Waves (2/3)”,
Institute of Transportation, MOTC.（In Chinese）
Vidal, C., Losada, M. A., Medina, R. and Rubio, J. (1988). “Solitary
wave transmission through porous breakwaters,” Proceedings of 21th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, New York, 1073-
1083.
Walkden M. J.,Wood D. J., Bruce T., Peregrine D.H. (2001). “Impulsive
seaward loads induced by wave overtopping on caisson breakwaters,”
Coastal Engineering, 42, pp. 257-276.
Wilmott, C. J. (1981). “On the validation of models,” Physical
Geography, 2, 184-194.