VIFSNet

Wave loading predictions

- Summary of results from the
VIFSNet / CoStructNet Seminar
Edinburgh, 04.02.2004
By:

Gerald Mller, Queens University Belfast &

Tom Bruce, University of Edinburgh
Andreas Kortenhaus (TU Braunschweig)
William Allsop (HR Wallingford)

Violent Interaction of Fluids and Structures

Network
Aim: to provide a forum for researchers /
practitioners working on solid fluid
impact
Members from coastal, offshore and
maritime engineering
Regular meetings, student exchange
VIFSNet: www.qub.ac.uk/VIFSNet

Content

Wave Impact Seminar Edinburgh

Starting point:
variety of formulae and recommendations for wave
impact pressures
In part superseded, contradictory, not generally
applicable
New field measurements / research results available

Aims
establish the state-of-the-art knowledge on wave
impact loads
Present and discuss different formulae / regulations
and new research results (Field measurements
Alderney and Schiehallion)

Wave impact

Load types
Breaker types
Wave impacts
Impact pressure prediction formulae
Recommendations
Outlook

Wave loads on vertical breakwaterssummary of structural responses

Overtopping
Downfall
pressure

Stability

Strength
Internal
pressures

Integrity

General requirements for wave

impact pressure prediction
distinction of breaker / impact types (function
of seabed slope)
magnitude of pressures and forces
duration of impacts and dynamic soil-waterstructure-interaction
Wave - structures interaction = f (type: vertical
walls, seawalls, breakwaters, decks, piles,
etc.)
Structural requirements (stability, strength,
integrity)

Waves and load classification

Reflected wave
Breaking wave
Broken wave

? pulsating wave load

? wave impact load
? broken wave load

Classification:
Wave height (Hb / ds > 0.7 ? breaking waves)
Chart (GODA)
Parameter map (PROVERBS)

The PROVERBS parameter map

Pulsating loads

Caused by reflected waves

sinusoidal, following water surface elevation
Pos. (landward) and neg. (seaward) pressures
Prediction:
SAINFLOU (CEM, BS 6349, EAK)
GODA (implicit)

Characteristics: quasi static loads, do not

exceed hydrostatic head of wave

Wave impact loads

400

Pressure [kPa]

300
200
100
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Time [seconds]

0.4

Pressures high, but localised

Function of seabed slope
Typical impact pressure
(Alderney, P = 400 kN/m,
t = 15 - 30 ms)
Dynamic, stochastic load
Impacts: horizontal,
downward, upward (jetties),
seaward pressures
0.5 Broken wave pressures:
similar, but smaller

Load prediction methods

Variety of semi-empirical formulae:
GODA / TAKAHASHI (CEM, BS 6349, EAK)
MINIKIN (CEM)
BLACKMORE & HEWSON (B & H, BS 6349)
PROVERBS (EAK)

Model tests
Scale effects?
Seawater / freshwater?

GODA / TAKAHASHI
Set of empirical formulae
Developed to determine the stability of caissons
TAKASHI: added breaking wave impact

GODA type formulas

Stability consideration
Continuous load regime pulsating impact
broken waves
F = f (berm geometry, wave steepness)
Coefficients developed from
hindcast wave conditions
failure loads of breakwater caissons (mostly
sliding failures)
Model tests

Idealised impact:

P max
tr
P hydr

Breakwater caisson on (elastic) rubble mound

? dynamic system, TN = 0.1 1.0 sec

Peff  T/4
f dyn Pmax

2 tr

Natural period of breakwater caissons: 0.3 1.0

seconds
Rise times of impact pressures: < 0.02 seconds
? TN / tr > 15
Effective (i.e. GODA) pressures significantly
smaller than actual dynamic pressures
GODA ? equivalent fictitious static pressures /
forces
Can only be used to determine overall stability
(sliding / tilting) of compact large structures
Limitations not mentioned in recommendations

2.0
max. fdyn = 1.44

1.5

fdyn = 5.13

1.0
fdyn = 1.0
0.5
0.0
0.4

10

TN / tr [1]

50 100

Time

Phydr  7 g H

Assessment

Dynamic pressure = Peff / Pmax [1]

GODA: breaking conditions should be

avoided
TAKAHASHI: improved coefficients for
breaking waves (CEM, BS 6349)
BUT: very low freeboard of Japanese
breakwaters ? reduced load
More important still: dynamic aspects

Dynamic aspects of wave loadings

Pressure

GODA type formulas

Dynamic response
/ amplification

The MINIKIN Formula

Gives maximum pressure
Recommended in CEM, EAU
Perceived to give excessive pressures

Pmax 101 . w
where

Hbds
LD D

D
d 
s

Hb : Breaker height at the structure

ds : Water depth at the structure
D : Water depth at distance L
L : Wave length at depth D.

Assessment MINIKIN

The BS 6349 formula

1/L term leads to high pressures for short

waves

Developed by BLACKMORE & HEWSON,

1984
Requires aeration factor ?:

Rouville measured 690 kPa for T = 7 seconds

101 factor contains error

shallow slope ? high pressures;
contradicts experience and model tests
No information about pressure rise time or
duration

Assessment

Pmax  O U w v c2 T
w : Specific density of water
vc : Shallow water velocity of the wave
T : Wave period

Example CEM: Wave load design methods

CEM Draft version (fundamentals of design)

Aeration factor: 0.3 for sand, 0.6 for rocky

beach
Derived from momentum theorem:
P = f (v2 )
Seabed slope not considered
Does not give pressure rise time or
duration
Extended version in PROVERBS to
estimate loadings

Wave impact pressures in the CEM

MINIKIN: taken out of the draft version;
replaced by TAKASHI
BUT: if, on the other hand, severe
breaking wave pressures can occur then
MINIKIN should be used (? SPM)
Inconsistency

Example EAK: procedure for breaker type

PROVERBS parameter map
(1) Quasi-standing waves
(2) Slightly breaking

(3) Impact loads

(4) Broken waves

yes

PFh < 1%
no

Quasi-static loads

Dynamic loads

EAK procedure for impact loads

Related aspects

Seaward impact loads

No vertical breakwaters in critical areas with impact
breakers

Use high mound breakwaters or HMCB as alternative

Provide damping layers (high costs!)
In case of impact breakers of high frequency

Feasibility study

Preliminary
design

Detailed design

Takahashi
extension of
Goda method

PROVERBS
method

Hydraulic model
tests

Current situation - recommendations

GODA formula widely accepted
But: limited area of application (stability calculations);
this is usually not mentioned

MINIKIN still recommended, but unreliable

B & H extended (PROVERBS)
PROVERBS method recommended, but
complicated
Little information on return periods, safety
factors, risk,
Wave loads:
assumed to act horizontally;
downfall, seaward, interior pressures not mentioned
Interaction with structure not considered

Wave loads on vertical breakwaterssummary of structural responses

Overtopping
Downfall
pressure

Stability,
Peff << Pmax

Internal
pressures

Strength,
Peff Pmax

Integrity,
Peff < - Pmax

Other effects of impact pressures (not included

in any recommendation):

Model tests:

downfall pressures (green water slam)

seaward pressures
pressure propagation into cracks
Upward impacts (jetties)
Solid body impact
unknown scale factors
qualitative (comparative) assessment of impact
loads.

No measurements of broken wave loads

known

Current situation - design

Relies on engineering judgement
Impact pressures ? high, dynamic, localised
loads
Horizontal / vertical
Design for
Overall stability (sliding / tilting of rigid block)
Strength (structural strength of individual members)
Integrity (possibility of pressure pulses to enter
structure)

Outlook
Wave impacts: dynamic, stochastic loads
Field measurements give new insights
Interaction problem
Seabed topography ? breaker type
Properties of structure determine effect of
wave loads (magnitude, damage type,
dynamic properties)
Reality not necessarily described by formulae
and numbers

VIFSNet: www.qub.ac.uk/VIFSNet