Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019

Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad

Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in

view of future sea level rise for Terengganu Coast, Peninsular Malaysia
N.A. Awang1, N.M. Anuar2, M.R.A. Hamid1, and M.F. Mohamad1
1
National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia, Malaysia.
email: aslinda@nahrim.gov.my
2
iCORE Consultant PLT, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia.

Abstract
Global warming and climate change cause sea level to rise, which will result in the coastline being impacted
by higher waves and higher tide levels. The increase in waves and tide level will influence the design,
effectiveness and stability of the coastal structures. To ensure that the coastal structures are adequately
designed and perform satisfactorily during their design lifespan, it is necessary to have an understanding of
the extent of sea level rise (SLR) and the increased forces that the structures will be subjected to. A study was
carried out to assess the design parameters for the existing and the year 2100 conditions by means of
numerical models for the coast of Terengganu, Peninsular Malaysia. A design comparison is then carried out
between previous sea level condition (assuming SLR=0) and that with the 2100 projected sea level rise
condition (SLR = 0.35m) at Kuala Terengganu, to represent the coast Terengganu. The results indicate that
the range of increase in the structure crest level is from 0.30 to 0.37 m, hence the structure crest level has to
rise by a magnitude that is larger than the corresponding increase in mean sea level. The increase crest level
is largely controlled by an increase in wave run up caused by the nearshore wave height increase due to SLR
The design comparison shows that the armour rock size will also need to be increased by 2 to 5 percent, to
withstand the increased in wave forces. Results from this study can be used by coastal engineers, planners,
and elected representatives at various levels of the government and interested community stakeholders in
coastal planning, design and sustainable risk management in adapting to future sea level rise impact.

Keywords: sea level, design, coastal structures

1. Introduction regarding climate changes and sea level rise (SLR)

Modern design practice places much emphasis on
attempting to hold a healthy beach on the shoreline
as the primary means of protection, since it is
considered as a ‘soft’ solution and environmentally
friendly. However, where human life may be at risk
and high density, high value conurbations exist, the
use of hard elements of a defence may be
unavoidable. Apart from the beach, hard elements,
as in structures are one of the dominant elements
within a coastal defence system (Thomas, 1994).
However, rising sea levels will increase the
frequency of the most damaging coastal floods,
therefore increase the risk of coastal defence
vulnerability to failure (NRC, 2010). The stability of
coastal defence structures is very likely to be at
gradually increasing risk of damage from flooding,
hydrodynamic pressure from storm surge, and wave
impact because of sea level rise (Klein et al., 1998;
Sutherland and Wolf, 2002; Okayasu and Sakai,
2006; Torresan et al., 2008; Cheon and Suh, 2014;
Xie et al., 2019). In order to beat the circumstances,
it will likely require hardening or elevation through
retrofit, relocation, or even abandonment. Sea level
rise (SLR) will stress this structure physically
because the additional wave force induced by SLR
may affect the structural integrity and/or
functionality, reducing its effective functional life and
may require accelerated maintenance or even
replacements. Since there will always be demands
for coastal defence works to protect property,
natural processes are inevitably interrupted. Data
suggest that these natural processes will accelerate
during the 21st century and this will place greater
pressure on both available finance and engineering
solutions.
Scientific understanding of observed and future
climate-induced SLR are suggested to advance the
present uncertainties in protecting the coastline
(Nicholls and Cazenav, 2010). It can be approached
either physically, numerically or theoretically.
Several studies have related coastline vulnerability
during the last decades with SLR (Klein and
Nicholls, 1999; Sutherland and Gouldby, 2002;
Yasuhara et al., 2007; Devoy, 2007; Sterr, 2008;
Smith, 2009; Sahin and Mohamed, 2012;
Mahapatra et al., 2013; Hunter et al., 2013; Boateng
and Bray, 2014). Other relevant processes have
also been identified and these include oceanic
forcing by wave climate and storms (Sutherland and
Gouldby, 2002; Thead, 2016; Enriquez et al., 2017).
Rao et al., (2008) assessed the vulnerability of the
coast of interest using Graphic Information System
(GIS) in the absence of available observation data.
Sterr (2008) assessed the vulnerability of German
coastline through analytical approach to suit their
national and regional economic agenda to improve
and/or maintain the defence structures.
Over recent decades, amplification of SLR, has led
to a significant increase in coastal defence failures
either due to instability or under designed approach,
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad
especially in the east coast Peninsular Malaysia
(ECPM). But the distressing findings mostly point to
under evaluating the consequences of SLR impact
on the design parameters. The reason being that
sea level rise impact varies depending, among other
factors such as the beach materials and coastline
geography. A coastline of sandy material responds
to two processes, namely inundation through waves
overtopping and run-up and erosion. Erosion rates
is speculated to increase twice the rate of SLR for
sandy beach due to SLR-induced waves and high
surges penetrated further landward (Zhang et al.,
2004). Although the ECPM is well equipped with
long sandy beaches, however, in this study the
beach erosion has not been considered. What is
assessed here is the percentage increase in
structural crest level and the increase in the size of
armour rock when subjected to the rise in water
level. This assumption is further discussed later.
Some earlier studies have explored the potential of
future SLR on the protection structures via physical
test (Harrison and Cox, 2015; van Gent et al., 2019),
desk study approach (Esteban et al., 2011;
Burcharth et al., 2014; Sergent et al., 2015, Koftis et
al., 2015) and numerical model (Suh et al., 2013;
Arns et al., 2017). Overall, there is a great deal to
understand about how to respond effectively without
creating serious unintended consequences and,
where possible, creating multiple co-benefits. Here,
in line with works in Sutherland and Gouldby (2002)
and Koftis et al. (2015), we address both effects on
the design parameters of coastal structures based
on numerical model results and methodological
approach. To do so, we have used local tide level
projection, combined with the increment of SLR for
year 2100 retrieved from earlier study by National
Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM)
(2010). A historical data of offshore hindcasted
waves were also used as an input for wave
propagation model simulations.
The aim of this study is to instigate some worthy
reflections to national policy makers and
implementer to seriously develop more effective
responses to SLR and its risks to coastal protection
structures. This paper examines the physical
components of coastal vulnerability in ECPM under
sea-level rise, coupled with the influences of waves,
both in existing and future year 2100 SLR
projections using numerical models.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is
devoted to the description of the study areas, the
characteristics of the wave climate, the data
available and the numerical approach. Section 3
describes the wave propagation model results
under existing and future year 2100 scenarios.
Finally, a summary and some conclusions are
presented in Section 4.
2. Data and Method
2.1 Description of study area
Terengganu State is located on the east coast of
Peninsular Malaysia, and has 244 km length of
shoreline (EPU, 1985). Many settlements and
industrial areas in Terengganu are located close to
morphologically active areas [within 5 km from
Mean High Water Level (MHWL)] (NPP-CZ, 2010),
therefore vulnerable to erosion and storm surge
especially during northeast monsoon (Ariffin et al,
2017; NPP-CZ, 2010). Coastal protection structures
have been built to defend some of these areas,
which are also prone to coastal flooding due to
astronomical tides, storm surges, wave
overtopping, riverine flooding and sea level rise
(NPP-CZ, 2010). Figure 1 shows the study area and
the ranking of coastal erosion index for the coast of
Terengganu.
2.1.1 Tidal Climate
Water level along the coast of Malaysia are mainly
influenced by astronomical tides, which co-oscillate
from the Pacific and Indian Ocean basins. Thus, the
region has considerable variation of tide types. The
common tides are semi-diurnal and mixed type.
Northern and western coast of Peninsular Malaysia
have been spearheaded by the semi-diurnal tides,
while western Sabah is dominated by mixed tide
with dominant diurnal, Sarawak and east coast of
Sabah experience mixed tide with dominant
semidiurnal tide type (EPU, 1985). Most of the
northern coast of Terengganu experiences mixed
tide with dominant semi-diurnal, while some parts in
the southern coast experience mixed tide with
dominant diurnal (EPU, 1985).
In this study, a series of tide level data acquired from
Malaysian Survey and Mapping Department
(JUPEM) span over five (5) years have been used
to generate tidal constituents for tide stations
located in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
This is to identify if there are any difference or trends
in the major constituents (M2, S2, K1 and O1) which
may indirectly influence the changes in tide levels
that will exert wide range implications to coastal
flooding, navigation, sediment dynamics and
ecology. Table 1 shows the Tidal Constituents
analysed for data collected from JUPEM Station in
the East Coast Peninsular Malaysia from Jan 2008
to Jan 2014.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad

Figure 1: The location of the study area and the coastal erosion index of Terengganu coast (Source from RFN3, 2017).

Table 1: Tidal Constituents analysed for data collected from JUPEM Station in the East Coast Peninsular Malaysia
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad

2.1.2 Wave Climate In contrast, during the SW monsoon, the main

The predominant waves acting along the east coast
of Peninsular Malaysia is governed by the Northeast
(NE) Monsoon (EPU, 1985). Wave heights during
the NE Monsoon are generally less than 1.8 m but
they can go up to 3.7 to 4.8 m during severe storm
with average period of 6 to 9 seconds. A deep-water
significant wave height of 5.33 m has been
determined to have a 100-year occurrence interval
for this area (EPU, 1985). Storm waves affect the
east coast of Peninsular Malaysia regularly, causing
damage of various magnitudes to the beaches and
whatever features and structures within its vicinity,
be it coconut or pine trees, fishing jetties, boats, and
houses.
offshore wave direction is 160 o N with a maximum
height of about 1.5 m. The wave transformation
process tends to bend the waves to become slightly
more perpendicular to the shoreline with reduced
wave heights as the higher waves tend to break
offshore. The main nearshore wave (Figure 3)
direction for the NE monsoon is between 50 - 70o N
with a maximum height of more than 3.5 m. For the
SW monsoon, the main nearshore wave directions
are between 150 to 160o N with a maximum height
of more than 1.0 m.

On the other hand, during the Southwest Monsoon

around April to September, the South China Sea is
generally calm since the winds have been
weakened by Banjaran Barisan of Sumatera and
Banjaran Titiwangsa of Peninsular Malaysia.
However, winds from south of the Equator that
blows south-easterly across Kalimantan do
generate north-westerly propagating waves off the
coast of Johor and Pahang and up to Terengganu.
This is readily noticeable when one observes the Figure 2: Offshore Wave rose for significant wave height
approaching waves, coming from the south- for sea only (Hm0, sea)
southeast or south (150o to 180o N); whilst during the
inter-monsoons periods the weather is rather
unsettled.

Wave data at specific area are collected and

analysed statistically in order to determine the wave
characteristics for various directions and return
periods. These data are then used as input to the
numerical models to determine the nearshore wave
climate.

Since the beach regime is seasonal, which is

affected by each rough and calm conditions that
occur within four to six months repetitively, this
seasonal regime of the waves is an important factor
to note in design. To represent the wave climate
along Terengganu coast, an almost 15 years (1999
- 2014) of wave data taken from UKMO offshore
Kuala Terengganu is derived.
From the wave rose plot in Figure 2, the main
offshore wave direction for the NE monsoon is
between 50 - 80o N with a maximum height of more
than 3.5 m. However, a wave height of more than
4.5 m is recorded two years in a row, at the end of
2005 and 2006. Thus, it is likely that a projected
100-yr Return Period could easily reach up to more
than 5.0 m wave in offshore areas. Upon reaching
nearshore where open coast such as southern
Terengganu and Kelantan has no offshore islands
acted as wave barriers, these waves shall likely
impose serious coastal hazard if coupled with
higher tide and sea level rise.
Figure 2: Nearshore wave rose
2.2 Numerical approach
The processes involved in two-dimensional
numerical modelling works for this study are:
a) General modelling concepts and
procedure;
b) Defining the hydrodynamic model;
c) Data collection and field investigation;
d) Setting up the hydrodynamic (HD) model;
and
e) Calibrating and verifying the HD model.
The foremost important element in modelling work
is to define the model area that needs to be set up.
This is to ensure that simulation runs can be
undertaken in conformity with the numerical model
requirements and also taking into consideration the
availability of the computer hardware, project
requirement and the time schedule. This includes
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad
specifying the grid spacing and time steps required
for the simulation works. The numerical model has
to be set up within the area of interest to represent
the real hydrodynamic conditions to simulate tidal
currents and changes in water levels. In this study,
the task was accomplished by modelling the
designated boundary areas using the MIKE 21
model.
All input data required for the modelling works have
to be collected so that the model can be calibrated
and verified. The coarse model is first calibrated and
verified from the predicted tide table and the
predicted water level data. The process is repeated
for the medium, fine and local grid model. In this
study, two levels of model i.e. the coarse grid and
medium grid level have been used.
"Setting up the model" means transforming real
world events and data into a format which can be
represented by the numerical model MIKE 21. All
data collected have to be resolved on the spatial
grid selected including the time step required. The
modelling setup has to be carried out for both the
NSW wave model as well as the hydrodynamic (HD)
model.
2.2.1 Hydrodynamic (HD) Modelling
The HD model is the basic module of the entire
MIKE 21 system. It provides the hydrodynamic
basis for the computations performed in most of the
other modules. It simulates water level fluctuations
and flows in response to a variety of forcing
functions in lakes, estuaries, bays and coastal
areas. The water levels and flows are resolved on a
rectangular grid covering the area of interest when
provided with the bathymetry, bed resistance
coefficients, wind and wave field and hydrographic
boundary conditions.
The grid size for the coarse model used for this
study is 555 x 2,100 with 90 m grid spacing and
oriented to 310°N. The bathymetry data was
digitized from Admiralty Charts No. 1374, 3691,
MAL5 and MAL664 and Mike C-Map. The numerical
modelling works have been carried out to cover the
state of Kelantan and Terengganu coastline.
However, description of the model results will only
be focused on the Terengganu coast.
The calibration was carried out by tuning the
Manning roughness coefficient until the simulated
water levels in the model agree (within the limits set
by the acceptance criteria) with the water levels
predicted from tidal constituents at the Chendering
Station shown in Table 1. The bed roughness used
in this model have a Manning’s Coefficient, M = 50
(i.e. n = 0.02). Figures 4 and 5 show the calibration
plots for water level and current speed at P1 – Kuala
Terengganu, respectively.
These modelling works were carried out for the
present conditions and compared with that in the
year 2100. The numerical model for the present
conditions were simulated based on a mean sea
level value of 0.0 m, whereas the numerical model
for the year 2100 uses a higher Mean Sea Level
(MSL) value based on the sea level rise projections
by NAHRIM (2010) i.e. 0.35m. Figure 6 shows the
maximum current speed plots for the present
condition; future Scenario (year 2100); and the
difference in maximum current speed along
Kelantan and Terengganu coast
2.2.2 Wave modelling
MIKE 21 NSW was used to transform the offshore
waves into the nearshore environment. The model
takes into account the effects of refraction and
shoaling due to varying depth, local generation of
wind waves, the influence of directional spreading
and energy dissipation due to wave breaking and
bottom friction.
The MIKE 21 NSW model inputs include
bathymetry, wave conditions along the offshore
boundary of the model, wind speed and direction,
bottom roughness, water level, and wave breaking
parameters. The model output comprises of wave
heights, mean directions, directional spreading,
mean period, and radiation stresses for generating
wave driven currents in MIKE 21 HD (optional).
Figure 7 shows the numerical model wave
propagation from the north-east towards
Terengganu and Kelantan coastlines. The
simulations indicated an agreement with the
offshore and nearshore wave rose projection with
dominant wave directions coming from north-
easterly directions. Presence of islands offshore
Terengganu coasts provide mild protection against
high waves especially during NE monsoon hence
erosion is an ongoing threat along the Terengganu
and Kelantan coastlines.
Figure 8 shows the difference in wave height
between the present and the future at Kuala
Terengganu (P1) indicating that there would be an
increase in wave height of about 0.1 to 0.2m in
future scenario.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad

Figure 4: Water level comparison at point P1 – Kuala Terengganu

Figure 5: Current speed level comparison at Point P1 – Kuala Terengganu

Figure 6: HD Model result plots for Maximum current speed: A- Present condition; B-Future Scenario; and C-Difference in
Maximum Current (Present – Future) along Kelantan and Terengganu coast
.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad
Figure 7: Modelled maximum wave height in present
condition for Kelantan and Kuala Terengganu
Figure 8: Difference in wave height between present and
future at Kuala Terengganu (P1) indicates increase in
wave height of about 0.1 to 0.2m in future scenario.
3. Results and Discussion
From model simulation, one location has been
chosen to represent the tide changes for
Terengganu coast. Table 2 shows the results of
water level, wave height and tidal flow in Kuala
Terengganu. The first two results of water level and
wave height show an increment in magnitude from
present to future hydraulic conditions. However, a
decrease in current speed is found in Kuala
Terengganu as water level rises.
Terengganu coast is facing an open sea (South
China Sea) making the increment in water level and
wave height are likely simultaneous to the increase
in sea level (see Figure 7). Though offshore islands
are present along Terengganu coastline, the
sheltering effect provided by the islands are
insufficient due to the wide distance from the
mainland.
Table 2: Hydraulic parameters obtained from the models
Terengganu
Parameters Kuala Terengganu
Present water level (mCD*) 3.23
Future water level (mCD*) 3.54
Difference (%) 8.8
Present wave heights (m) 3.08
Future wave heights (m) 3.14
Difference (%) 1.9
Present tidal flows (m/s) 0.50
Future tidal flows (m/s) 0.42
Difference (%) -16.0
*meter relative on Chart Datum
Isobe (2013) as reported by Diab et al. (2017)
summarizes the effects of sea-level rise on the
design standards of facilities, including wave run-
up, overtopping, weight of amour blocks, and
stability of breakwaters. A primary effect of sea-level
rise is an increase in the water depth in front of the
structures, which, in turn, increases the wave height
and makes the wave breaking point closer to the
structures.
Terengganu coastline has a conglomeration of
various facilities, including ports, fishery harbors,
and tourism facilities. The existing coastal
structures were designed based on the local mean
sea level, design storm surges and waves. Although
previous design processes have already made
allowance for sea level rise, the earlier allowances
were too small in hindsight. Therefore, when these
conditions change, it is logical to revise the design
standards to reflect this. These changes in design
conditions could have enormous effects on both
social safety and economic burden. It is also
worthwhile to consider that there will be further
revision of sea level rise allowance in the future
which could increase these risks even further
In the model area, the extraction point (P1 represent
Kuala Terengganu) is located in between two
prominent artificial headlands or breakwater heads;
one is the extended runway of Kuala Terengganu
Airport in the north and the other is Kuala
Terengganu breakwater in the south (Figure 9).
These two prominent breakwaters though widely
spaced out (around 6 km apart) are likely to alter the
current profiles and littoral trappings within the gap.
Investigation conducted by Muller et al. (2006)
indicated that sediment and beach profile changes
within an embayment and do not occur
simultaneously which some area will gain and some
will lose. This phenomenon is true in the span
between both headlands in Terengganu. An
accretion is experienced at the southern side of the
airport whilst the northern side of breakwater is
eroded and presently still active with each
monsoonal event. Thus shown that the beach within
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad
may not have reached equilibrium yet although both
headlands have been built for more than 5 years
(Kuala Terengganu Airport extension was
completed in 2009 while the Breakwater was
completed in 2006).
Figure 9: Modelled Current Speed – difference in
maximum flows between present and future (left) and
maximum flows in present condition (right) – K.
Terengganu (P1). Map shows the location of the Kuala
Terengganu Airport in the north and Kuala Terengganu
breakwater in the south.
As wave and current play important roles in
transporting sediments to or away from the beach,
the increase in both parameters likely encouraged
changes in coastal bed levels and triggered
unstable tidal current, be it lower or higher current
flows. In this case, the surge in water level decrease
the current flows and the higher wave would likely
exaggerate the erosion problem at more serious
levels.
3.1 Design Comparison
Sea level rise would result in the coastline being
impacted by higher waves and higher tide levels. In
return, it will adversely affect the design of coastal
structures as they would have to withstand
increased wave forces and increased overtopping.
In this section, the difference in design of a simple
coastal rock revetment are compared for the current
condition and that in the year 2100.
The design is carried out using the Hudson Formula
given by:
W= ɣr H3
KD Δ3 cot θ (1)
Where:
• W is the design weight of the riprap armour
(Newton)
• ɣr is the specific weight of the armour blocks
(N/m3)
• H is the design wave height at the toe of the
structure (m)
• KD is a dimensionless stability coefficient,
deduced from laboratory experiments for
different kinds of armour blocks and for very
small damage (a few blocks removed from the
armour layer) (-):
KD = around 3 for natural quarry rock
KD = around 10 for artificial interlocking
concrete blocks
• Δ is the dimensionless relative buoyant
density of rock, i.e. (ρr / ρw - 1) = around 1.58
for granite in sea water
• ρr and ρw are the densities of rock and
(sea)water (-)
• θ is the angle of revetment with the horizontal
3.2 Adopted Design Approach
The adopted design procedure is as follows:
i) Determination of Design Water Level (DWL)
- DWL = MHHW + Wind Set-up + Wave Set-up
ii) Determination of rock armour size using Hudson's
Formula with the following assumptions:
- Design Wave Height is based on H10 = 1.27 Hs
- The slope of rock revetment is assumed as 1:3
- Kd = 2.0
- Density of rock = 2,640 kg /m3
iii) Determine Armour thickness and Crest Width
- The armour thickness is given by 2 x armour
size (2 layers)
- The minimum crest width is given 3 x armour
size
iv) Determine the Crest Level
- Crest Level = DWL + Wave Run Up
The significant wave height (Hs) is extracted from
the numerical model at 10 m depth contour.
The design is carried out for two cases, i.e.:
i) SLR = 0, to represent present condition
ii) SLR = 0.3m to represent the 2100 condition
The differences in the design of coastal rock
revetment works are now compared to obtain the
optimum design parameters for Kuala Terengganu.
The main design parameters and design output that
will be the main focus of the comparison are the
DWL, Design Wave Height, Crest Level and Armour
Stone Size.
The changes in the design parameters and design
output at Kuala Terengganu are as shown in Table
3.
Table 3: Changes to Design Parameters and Design
Output at Terengganu Coast
No. Description Current Year Difference
Condition 2100
(m) (m)
1 MSL 1.45 1.75 0.30
(mCD*)
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad
2 MHHW 2..67 2.97
/MHWS
(mCD*)
3 DWL 3.49 3.79
(mCD*)
4 Design 4.77 4.79
Wave
Height (m)
5 Crest Level 7.89 8.20
(mCD*)
6 Crest Width 5.00 5.05
(m)
7 Armour 12.10 12.40
Size (tons)
*meter relative on Chart Datum
A sketch of the coastal revetment design for the
current condition and that in the year 2100 is shown
in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Design of rock revetment at Terengganu Coast
4. Conclusion
Sea level rise will result in the coastline being
impacted by higher waves and higher tide levels.
This will shape the design of coastal structures, as
the increased levels and wave forces will influence
the effectiveness and stability of these structures. In
order to ensure that the coastal structures are
adequately designed to perform satisfactorily during
their design lifespan, it is necessary to have an
understanding of the extent of sea level rise and the
increased forces that the structures will be
subjected to.
In this study, an attempt was made to predict design
conditions and wave forces for the year 2100 for
Terengganu coastline by means of numerical
models. A design comparison is then carried out
between current condition and that with the future
2100 projected sea level rise condition. The results
indicated that the range of increase in the structure
crest level is from 0.30 to 0.37 m, hence the
structure crest level has to be increased by a similar
magnitude to the corresponding increase in mean
sea level. Although the increased value is very
much of the same order, it is important that the
designer to always be alert of any further revision
for SLR allowances in the future, since the rate of
sea level change is very dynamic. The increase
crest level is largely controlled by an increase in
wave run up caused by the nearshore wave height
increase due to SLR. The design comparison also
shows that the armour rock size will also need to be
0.30 increased by 2 to 5 percent, to withstand the
increase in wave forces.
0.30 5. References
0.02 [1] Arns, A., Dangendorf, S., Jensen, J., Talke, S.,
Bender, J., and Pattiaratchi, C. (2017), Sea-Level Rise
Induced Amplification of Coastal Protection Design
0.31 Heights, Scientific Reports, 7:40171,
doi:10.1038/srep40171.
0.05
[2] Boateng, I. and Bray, M. (2014), Comparative Merits
0.30 of Policies of Sea Level Rise and Their Potential Impacts
on Coastal Settlements in Developing Countries, Coastal
Zone Management and Environmental Issues, TS 7B,
pp1-16.
[3] Burcharth, H. F., Anderson, T. L., and Lara, J. L.
(2014), Upgrade of Coastal Defence Structures against
Increased Loading Caused by Climate Change: A First
Methodological Approach, Coastal Engineering, 87 pp
112-121.
[4] Cheon, S. H., and Suh, K. D. (2014), Change of
nearshore Significant Waves in response to sea Level
Rise, Coastal Engineering, pp 1-12.
[5] Devoy, R. J. N. (2007), Coastal Vulnerability and The
Implications of Sea-Level Rise for Ireland,
https://doi.org/10.2112/07A-0007.1
[6] Diab, H., Younes, R. and Lafon, P. (2016). “Survey of
research on the optimal design of sea harbours,
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean
Engineering (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnaoe.2016.12.004.
[7] Enríquez, A. R., Marcos, M., Álvarez-Ellacuría, A.,
Orfila, A., and Gomi, D. (2017), Changes in beach
shoreline due to sea level rise and waves under climate
change scenarios: application to the Balearic Islands
(western Mediterranean). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
17, 1075–1089, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1075-2017
[8] Esteban, M., Takagi, H., and Shibayama, T. (2011),
Sea Level Rise and The Increase in Rubble Mound
Breakwater Damage, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Coastal
Structures, Yokohama, Japan, pp 1-13.
[9] EPU (Economic Planning Unit, Malaysia) (1985).
National Coastal Erosion Study – Final Report; Stanley
Consultants, Inc., Moffat & Nichol and Jurutera
Consultant (SEA) for Government of Malaysia. 2:318p.
[10] Harrison, A. And Cox, R. (2015), Physical and
Economic Feasibility of Rubble Mound Breakwater
Upgrades for Sea Level Rise, Coasts & Ports Conference,
Auckland, N.Z., pp 1-7.
[11] Hunter, J. R., Church, J. A., White, N. J., and Zhang,
X. (2013), Towards A Global Regionally Carrying
Allowance for Sea Level Rise, Ocean Eng., 71, pp 17-37.
[12] Isobe, M. (2013). “Impact of global warming on
coastal structures in shallow water”. Ocean Eng. 71,
pp.51-57.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Modification of design parameters for coastal protection structures in view of future sea level rise for east coast Peninsular Malaysia N.A.
Awang, N.M. Anuar, M.R.A. Hamid, and M.F. Mohamad
[13] Koftis, T., Prinos, P., Galiatsatou, P., and Karambas,
T. (2015), An Integrated Methodological Approach for The
Upgrading of Coastal Structures Due to Climate Change
Effects, E-Proceeding of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
The Hague, Netherland, pp 1-10.
[14] Klein, R. J. T., Smit, M. J., Goosen, H., & Hulsbergen,
C. H. (1998), Resilience and vulnerability: coastal
dynamics or Dutch dikes? Geographical Journal, 164(3),
259-268. https://doi.org/10.2307/3060615
[15] Klein, J. T., and Nicholls, R. J. (1999), Assessment of
Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change. AMBIO A
Journal of the Human Environment, 28(2), pp 182-187.
[16] Mahapatra, M., Ratheesh, R. and Rajawat, A. S.
(2013), Sea Level Rise and Coastal Vulnerability
Assessment: A Review. International Journal of
Geology, Earth & Environmental Sciences ISSN: 2277-
2081 (Online) An Online International Journal Available
at http://www.cibtech.org/jgee.htm 2013 Vol.3 (3)
September-December, pp.67-80/Mahapatra et al.
[17] NAHRIM (2010). The Study of the Impact of Climate
Change on Sea Level Rise in Malaysia, Report submitted
to the National Hydraulic Institute of Malaysia, Ministry of
natural Resources and Environment.
[18] National Research Council (2010), Advancing the
Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/12782.
[19] Nicholls, R. J., and Cazenav, A. (2010), Sea-Level
Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones, Sciemce 328,
1517, doi:10.1126/science.1185782.
[20] Okayasu, A., and Sakai, K. (2006), Effect of Sea
Level Rise on Sliding Distance of a Caisson Breakwater -
Optimization with Probabilistic Design Method,
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812709554_0409
[21] Rao, K. N., Subraelu, P., Rao, P. V., Hema Malini, B.,
Ratheesh, R., Bhattacharya, S., Rajawat, A. S., and Ajai
(2008), Sea-level rise and coastal vulnerability: an
assessment of Andhra Pradesh coast, India through
remote sensing and GIS. J Coast Conserv. 12, pp 195–
207. DOI 10.1007/s11852-009-0042-2
[22] Sahin, O., and Mohamed, S. (2012), Modelling
Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation to Sea Level Rise.
International Congress on Environmental Modelling and
Software. 190.
http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/iemssconference/2012/Str
eam-B/190
[23] Sergent, P., Prevot, G., Mattaralo, G., Brossard, J.,
Morel, G., Mar, F., Benoit, M., Ropert, F., Kergadallan, X.,
Trichet, J-J, and Mallet, P. (2015), Adaptation of Coastal
Structures to Mean Sea Level Rise, La Houille Blanche,
doi:10.1051/lhb/2014063.
[24] Smith, A. O. (2009), Sea Level Rise and the
Vulnerability of Coastal Peoples: Responding to the Local
Challenges of Global Climate Change in the 21st Century,
InterSections, Publication Series of UNU-EHS, No.7.
[25] Sterr, H. (2008), Assessment of Vulnerability and
Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise for the Coastal Zone of
Germany. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(2), pp 380–
393.
[26] Suh, K. D., Kim, S. W., Kim, S., and Cheon, S. (2013),
Effect of Climate Change on Stability of Caisson
Breakwaters in Different Water Depths, Ocean
Engineering, 71, pp 103-112.
[27] Sutherland, J., and Gouldby, B. (2002), Vulnerability
of Coastal Defences to Climate Change, Proc. Institution
of Civil Engineers, Water & Maritime Engineering 156,
Issue WM2, pp 137-145.
[28] Sutherland, J., and Wolf, J. (2002), Coastal Defence
Vulnerability 2075. Report SR 590, HR Wallingford,
Wallingford, UK.
[29] Thead, E. A. (2016), Sea Level Rise: Risk and
Resilience in Coastal Cities. The Climate Institute,
Washington, DC.
[30] Thomas, R. S. (1994). Breakwater and coast
defence. Coastal defence structures. Technical Note.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water,
Maritime and Energy. ISSN 0965-0946 | E-ISSN 1753-
7819, Volume 106 Issue 4, DECEMBER 1994, pp. 377-
380
[31] Torresan, S., Critto, A., Dalla Valle, M., Harvey, N.,
and Marcomini, A. (2008), Assessing Coastal
Vulnerability to Climate Change: Comparing
Segmentation at Global and Regional Scales,
Sustainabillity Science, 3, pp 45-65.
[32] van Gent, M. R. A., de Almeida, E. and Hofland, B.
(2019), J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 7(60), pp 1-15,
doi:10.3390/jmse7030060.
[33] Xie, D., Zou, Q.-P., Mignone, A., MacRae, J. D.
(2019), Coastal flooding from wave overtopping and sea
level rise adaptation in the northeastern USA, Coastal
Engineering,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2019.02.001.
[34] Yasuhara, K., Murakami, S., Mimura, N., Komine, H.
and Recio, J. (2007), Influence of Global Warming On
Coastal Infrastructure Instability, Sustain Sci., 2, pp 13-
35, doi:10.1007/s11625-006-0015-4.
[35] Zhang K, Douglas B. C., and Leatherman S. P.
(2004), Global warming and coastal erosion. Climatic
Change 64, pp 41–58.