Aalborg Universitet

Wave Forces and Overtopping on Crown Walls of Rubble Mound Breakwaters

Pedersen, Jan

Publication date:
1996
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication from Aalborg University

Citation for published version (APA):

Pedersen, J. (1996). Wave Forces and Overtopping on Crown Walls of Rubble Mound Breakwaters: an
Experimental Study. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag. (Series Paper; No. 12).

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access to
the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: March 09, 2016

ISSN 0909-4296

SERIES PAPER 12

Jan Pedersen

Wave Forces and Overtopping on

Crown Walls of Rubble Mound
Breakwaters
- An Experimental Study -

Hydraulics &t Coastal Engineering Laboratory

Department of Civil Engineering
Aalborg University

August 1996

Hydraulics & Coastal Engineering Laboratory

Department of Civil Engineering
Aalborg University
Sohngaardsholmsvej 57
DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark

ISSN 0909-4296
SERIES PAPER No. 12

Wave Forces and Overtopping on Crown

Walls of Rubble Mound Breakwaters
- An Experimental Study -

by

J an Pedersen

August 1996

Published 1996 by
Hydraulics & Coastal Engineering Laboratory
Aalborg University
Printed in Denmark by
Centertrykkeriet, Aalborg University
ISSN 0909-4296
SERIES PAPER No. 12

Preface
The present report Wave Forces and Overtopping on Crown Walls of Rubble
Mound Breakwaters - An experimental Study is submitted as one of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. according to notice no. 9~9 of 11th December
1992 from the Danish Ministry of Education and Research. The thesis has been
publicly defended at Aalborg University on 31st May, 1996.

The study was financed by the Danish Technical Research Council in connection
with the frame work programme Marin Teknik, 1989-1992 and carried out from
1st March 1990 to 31st January 1993 at the Department of Civil Engineering,
Aalborg University, Denmark under the supervision of Professor H. F. Burcharth.

The author wishes to thank everybody in the department for their support and
assistance during the study. Also thanks to the staff in the Hydraulics & Coastal
Engineering Laboratory at Aalborg University for their work and help during the
experimental period.
Special thanks to Harry Luke and Tue Hald for reading and correcting the
manuscript and to my girlfriend and children for their pat ience and support
throughout the study.
Aalborg, 30th August

Jan Pe.dersen

.:i! : .,

Contents
1

Preface
Contents

iii

List of Symbols

vu
XI

Abstract

xiii

Sammenfatning
1 Introduction
1.1 Rubble mound breakwater- Concept . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.1 Failure modes of rubble mound breakwaters . . .
1.1.2 Detailed description of crown wall failure modes
1.2 Experienced crown wall failures .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
2

2
3
4

State of the art

2.1 Wave action on rubble slopes . . .. .
2.1.1 Wave run-up assessment . . . .
2.2 Wave force estimation on crown walls
2.2.1 Parametric investigations . . .
2.2.2 Spatial distribution of wave pressure
2.2.3 Wave force assessment . . . . . . . .
2.2.4 Conclusion on general level of knowledge.
2.3 Wave overtopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Admissible overtopping rates .. . . . . .
2.3.2 Overtopping on breakwaters with superstructures .

11
11
12

Model tests
3.1 Purpose of model study
3.1.1 Investigated parameters
3.2 Sea states . . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Wave generation .
3.2.2 Wave analysis . . .
3.3 Investigated cross sections

31
33
33

lll

14
15
18
21
25

26
26
28

34
34
34

38

3.4
3.5
4

Measurement of pressures . . . . . . . .
Measurement of overtopping discharges

Wave pressures and forces on crown walls

4.1 Distribution of wave pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Wave force components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.1 Force distributions and statistical force estimates
4.2.2 Correlation between force component estimates
4.3 Parametric investigation . . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Influence of wave height . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Influence of wave period/length . . .
4.3.3 Influence of armour crest freeboard .
4.3.4 Influence of slope angle . . . .
4.3.5 Influence of armour layer type .
4.3.6 Influence of crown wall height . .
4.3.7 Influence of armour berm width .
4.3.8 Resume of parametric investigation .
4.4 Conclusions drawn from model study . . . .
4.5 Design equations for wave load components
4.5.1 Assumed pressure distribution . . .
4.5.2 Design equation for horizontal wave force
4.5.3 Design equation for overturning moment .
4.5.4 Design equation for base pressure .
4.6 Summary of wave force design equations .
4.6.1 Conclusions
4. 7 Scale effects . . . . .

41
43
45
45
51
55
58
62
62
63
64
65
65
66
68
69
70
70
71
73
80
81
82
84
85

5 Geotechnical response
5.1 Soil failure . . . . . .
5.2 Soil deformations . .
5.2.1 Mathematical model
5.2.2 Evaluation of damping and stiffness terms.
5.2.3 Evaluation of soil parameters. . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Simplified model for crown wall structure
5.2.5 Evaluation of dynamic amplification

89
90
92
93
96
97
98
100

105
105
106
106
107
108
108
108

Wave overtopping
6.1 Parametric investigation
6.1.1 Influence of wave period
6.1.2 Influence of wave height
6.1.3 Influence of wall crest freeboard .
6.1.4 Influence of slope angle . . . . .
6.1.5 Influence of armour crest berm width
6.1.6 Influence of armour layer type
lV

6.2

Design equation for overtopping discharge

6.2.1 conclusion . . . . . . .. . .. .. .

110
112

7 Summary and conclusions

113

Bibliography

117

A Table of measurements

121

B Photos and drawings

131

list of symbols
a , b, c, d

empirical coefficients

Ac

armour crest freeboard defined as vertical distance from SWL to

armour crest

width of armour crest berm or width of foundation

B*

horizontal distance from back of crown wall to interface between

breakwater slope and SWL

Cm

wave celerity corresponding toTm

dn ,50

nominal stone diameter

dx

damping coefficient for horizontal motion

d<p

damping coefficient for rotational motion

Dx
D'P
e

damping ratio for horizontal motion

void ratio

frequency

le

vertical distance from armour crest to top of crown wall face (unprotected part of crown wall face)

In

undamped natural frequency

ld ,cov.pled

coupled damped natural frequency

lP

spectral peak frequency

Fh

horizontal wave force per metre run acting on crown wall

damping ratio for rotational motion

maximum horizontal wave force per metre run acting on crown

wall
horizontal wave force per metre run acting on lower part of crown
wall
horizontal wave force per metre run acting on upper part of crown
wall

Vll

kinematic friction force

static friction force
vertical wave force per metre run acting on crown wall
gravity force
modified dimensionless freeboard
gravity
dynamic shear modulus
maximum static shear modulus
h

water depth

h,

height of crown wall face

hprot

height of stone protected part of crown wall face

ho

vertical distance from crown wall base to center of gravity

Hs

significant wave height defined as Hs

Ice

mass moment of inertia around center of gravity

kx

stiffness coefficient for horizontal motion

kx ,static

static stiffness coefficient for horizontal motion

= 4Jffi0

stiffness coefficient for rotational motion

k tp ,static

static stiffness coefficient for rotational motion

local wave length corresponding to wave period Tm
local wave length corresponding to wave period Tp
deep water wave length corresponding to wave period T m
deep water wave length corresponding to wave period Tp
mass

overturning moment per metre run acting on crown wall

Mc c

moment around center of gravity

Mcc,max

maximum moment around center of gravity

M peak

maximum overturning moment per metre run acting on crown

wall
amplification factor for horizontal motion
overturning moment exceeded by x percent of the waves
amplification factor for rotational motion
hydrostatic wave pressure at crown wall face

Pm

stagnation pressure at crown wall face due to wave impact

Pu

uplift wave pressure at crown wall base

Vlll

wave pressure at base of crown wall

wall base pressure exceeded by x percent of the waves
maximum wave pressure at base of crown wall
reaction force from soil due to horizontal motion
Q

overtopping rate per metre run of crown wall

Qm

mean overtopping rate per metre run of crown wall

Q:n

dimensionless mean overtopping rate per metre run of crown wall

Q*

dimensionless overtopping rate per metre run of crown wall

roughness factor

rox

radius for equivalent circular footing having same soil contact area
radius for equivalent circular footing having same mass and mass
moment of inertia
vertical distance from SWL to top of crown wall face
vertical run-up level above SWL
vertical run-up level above SWL exceeded by x percent of the
waves
reaction force due to rotational motion
Owen's dimensionless freeboard
local wave steepness based on Tm

Sp

local wave steepness based on Tp

So m

deep water wave steepness based on T m

sop

deep water wave steepness based on Tp

time, thickness of structure

t failure

duration of failure state

trise

wave impact rise time

wave impact decay time
damped natural period
spectral mean period
spectral peak period
mean zero crossing period
up-rush velocity
volumes
reduction factor for wave impact

lX

Xb

horizontal motion at crown wall base

xca

horizontal motion at center of gravity

Xv

excentricity of Fv

Xb

horizontal velocity at crown wall base

xca

horizontal acceleration at center of gravity

vertical run-up wedge thickness

Yetr

effective wave pressure impact zone height

zh

excentricity of Fh

breakwater front slope angle

{3

angle of incidence

peak enhancement factor in JONSWAP spectrum

'Yw

specific weight of water

flt

time lag

strain

()

apex angle of run-up wedge

angle of friction

cp

angle of rotation

cp

angular velocity

cp

angular acceleration

/-Lk

kinematic coefficient of friction

J-Ls

static coefficient of friction

Poisson's ratio

e
em
eP

surf similarity parameter

local surf similarity parameter based on T m
local surf similarity parameter based on Tp
deep water surf similarity parameter based on Tm
deep water surf similarity parameter based on Tp
density

Pw

density of water

O"o

mean principal stress

ax

standard deviation of x

shear stress

Abstract
Wave Forces and Overtopping on Crown Walls
of Rubble Mound Breakwaters- An Experimental
Study
The scientific progress of our understanding of the interaction between coastal
structures and the sea has greatly improved in the recent years. The present
state of knowledge includes structural and financial optimization of the structures based on reliability evaluations. The first requirement for such an evaluation is a mathematical formulation of the related structural failure modes. For
rubble mound breakwaters several new reliable design formulae have been developed over the last decade but at least one major task still remains unsolved
- the assessment of the wave loading and hence the stabilty of rubble mound
breakwater crown walls.
This background motivated the initialization of the present study on wave imposed forces and wave overtopping on crown wall structures. The two subjects
were investigated through an excessive parametric model study involving more
than 370 long duration test series in the coastal laboratory at Aalborg University.
Based oo analyses of the experimental data a design method for assessing the
maximum wave forces on the vertical face of crown wall structures has been
developed as well as a new and more versatile design equation for the related
overtopping discharges.
The stability of crown wall structures has also been investigated and a new
methodology for the evaluation of the geodynamic response of the foundation is
presented.

xi

I
Sammenfatning
Bfl)lgekrrefter pa og overskyl af bfl)lgeskrerme pa
stenkastningsmoler - et eksperimentielt studium
Indenfor det vandbygningstekniske omrade er de videnskabelige fremskridt vedr{Z!rende vor forstaelse af interaktionen mellem kystkonstruktioner og det omgivende hav blevet vresentligt forbedret indenfor de seneste ar. Det nuvrerende
videnskabelige niveau indbefatter sikkerhedsteoretisk baserede strukturelle og
0konomiske optimeringer af kystkonstruktioner. Det basale krav til gennemf0relse af en sadan optimering er tilstedevrerelsen af en fysisk formulering af de
mulige brudmader, der ingar i problemstillingen. For stenkastningsmoler er der
indenfor det sidste arti udviklet nye forbedrede design metoder for adskillige af
brudmaderne, men isrer pa et punkt mangler der stadig information - fastsrettelsen af de dimensionsgivende laster pa b0lgeskrerme og dermed disses stabilitet.
Pa denne baggrund blev det besluttet at igangsrette det nrervrerende studium
omhandlende laster og overskyl pa b0lgeskrerme. De to frenomener blev studeret
i et omfattende eksperimentielt model-parametrisk studie inbefattende mere end
370 langtids fors0g med uregelmressige b0lger i Aalborg Universitets hydrauliske
laboratorium.
Udfra analyser af de eksperimentielle data er der udviklet en banebrydende
design metode til fastsrettelse af den maksimale b0lgekraft pa den vertikale
b0lgeskrermsflade samt en ny og, i sammenligning med de eksisterende, mere
alsidig design metode til beregning af det tilh0rende b0lgeoverskyl.
Endvidere er der fortaget en stabilitetsanalyse af b0lgeskrerme og i den sammenhreng udviklet en ny metode til evaluering af den underliggende jords dynamiske
respons.

Xlll

Introduction
Rubble mound breakwaters have for more than a century been used worldwide
to protect mankind against the violent forces of the surrounding sea. Their
applications are versatile, being used for the enclosure of harbour basins, in
providing berthing facilities in deep water areas and for the protection of land
(dikes) and beaches (offshore breakwaters).
Until the late 1960's rubble mound breakwaters were exclusively used in relatively shallow waters and a fair amount of experience and expertise was available
for these situations. At that time the construction of the large oil tankers was
in progress and a strong need for safe berthing facilities for these vessels arose.
To fulfil these needs the traditionally shallow water structures were extended to
deeper waters and thereby waves and wave forces for which no previous experience was available.
This development resulted in the failures of several large rubble mound breakwaters in the 1970's and early 1980's (see the examples in section 1.2) , which
clearly demonstrated that the available design methods were inadequate.
The recognition of this inadequacy is clearly reflected by the vast amount of
published research results concerning rubble mound breakwaters during the last
two decades. Many new design concepts and design equations have been proposed of which several are generally accepted as being more reliable design tools
when compared to the previous recommendations of the Shore Protection Manual
(SPM 1984).
1

1.1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Rubble mound breakwater- Concept

One of the reasons that rubble mound breakwaters still constitute a major problem in maritime civil engineering is that hardly two breakwaters in the world
have been constructed in the same way. This is due to the difference in environmental loading_and the natural availability of construction materials at the
different sites. Hence the designation rubble mound breakwater covers a wide
variety of structures though all having some common features.
When talking about rubble mound breakwaters we normally distinguish between
conventionally designed structures with a stable armour layer and structures
where the armour layer is alloved to reshape.
Reshaping breakwaters, often termed berm breakwaters, are constructed in such
a way that the stones on the breakwater front face can be moved and rearranged
by the waves whereby the breakwater face will adapt itself to the wave climate.
Reshaping breakwaters are never constructed with a superstructure on the top
and will therefore not be considered further.
Conventional breakwaters are constructed in order to withstand the wave loading
without any significant movement of material. In contrast to reshaping breakwaters these breakwaters are often constructed with a superstructure (crown
wall). The term rubble mound breakwater will be used in the following for a
conventional structure.
In figure 1.1 two typical rubble mound breakwater cross sections are illustrated.
Although appearing different the structure of the cross sections have several
points of resemblance. The innermost part, the core, is typically made of quarryrun or, if available, of gravel taken from the sea bed.
The outer seaward layer, the armour layer, consists of units sufficiently large
and heavy to remain in posistion under wave attack. The units can be rocks (up
to app. 20 tons) or made of concrete if heavier units are needed or if natural
sources of rocks are not available. The inclination of the front slope is one of
the parameters that determines the required mass of the armour blocks. Typical
slope inclinations are in the range 1:1.5 to 1:3.5.
Between the core and the armour layer one or more filter layers are placed, the
aim being to prevent the finer inner materials from being washed out through the
gaps between the armour blocks and to improve the foundation for the armour
blocks.
Figure l.l(a) shows a breakwater cross section primarily used in relatively shallow waters or in cases where access on top of the breakwater is not required. This

1.1. RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER- CONCEPT

(a) Without crown wall structure

(b) With crown wall structure

Figure 1.1: Examples of typical rubble mound breakwater cross sections

type of structure is mainly used for harbour basin enclosures where ship berthing
along the breakwater is not requested and for shore protection purposes. In both
cases relatively large overtopping quantities can be allowed. The upper part of
the structure is simply accomplished by extending the armour and filter layers
over the top of the core and partly or fully down the back slope. The strong
protection of the upper part of the rear slope is necessary due to the action of
overtopping waves.
Figure 1.1 (b) shows an iri many ways similar structure when compared to figure
1.1(a). In this case the uppermost part of the breakwater is constituted by a
concrete superstructure, termed a crown or capping wall. The wall has several
purposes :
The overall crest height of the structure is increased and the permeability of the upper part of the breakwater is reduced. This results in less
wave overtopping and less wave transmission through the breakwater which
means that less wave energy is transmitted to the lee-side of the breakwater. For similar overtopping conditions a breakwater with a crown wall has
a significantly smaller volume than a breakwater without a crown wall.
The crown wall structure constitutes an access road which can be used for
repairment works, for traffic to and from the breakwater, and for carrying
service installations such as pipelines, sanitary installations, electricity etc.

1.1.1

Failure modes of rubble mound breakwaters

A rubble mound breakwater is a very complex structure involving several structural components, which obviously means that failure can occur in many ways.
Failure will here be defined as any exceedence of prespecified structural or functional properties. This definition implies that any partial or total collapse of one

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

or more structural elements which can lead to a global failure of the whole structure is considered to be a failure, but also for instance large wave overtopping
discharges which might damage persons, ships or equipment on and behind the
breakwater is regarded as a failure condition (functional) although the breakwater itself might not be subject to any damage.
Figure 1.2 outlines the possible failure modes for a typical rubble mound breakwater configuration including different soil and block layers, a berm and a crown
wall.
Ov r r lo pJH llg

l:: rosioll, b r tilktogc

~ 13t~a kH(!f'.

C:o1c

...................
in st.a bllit.y

' h di ug . IJ i liuj!

____ ...,""'
____ ..,.,...
::;t-ll.lern eul

~tth:ioil

............ ..._

sf' t t.lf nH~nt.

Figure 1.2: Possible failure modes for a rubble mound breakwater.

Redrawn from Burcharth {1993).

Due to the many geometrical, structural and hydrodynamic parameters involved

in the description of the failure modes outlined above it has not yet been possible
to establish reliable design procedures for all of them.
During the PIANC working group 12 project on safety of rubble mound breakwaters (see Burcharth (1991a) and (1991b)), in which the author participated, it
was recognized that especially the failure patterns involving the crown wall was
very poorly understood. Only some very general guidelines could be found in
the literature. Therefore the design still has to be based on site specific model
tests.
With these problems in mind it was decided to investigate the problems associated with the crown wall structure more systematically.

1.1.2

Detailed description of crown wall failure modes

Like the rubble mound breakwater the crown wall itself can also be constuct ed
in several ways. On smaller breakwaters wave screens of wood (figure 1.3(a))

1.1. RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER- CONCEPT

are often seen. On larger breakwaters heavy concrete structures, basing their
stability on frictional resistance, are the only possible solutions (see figures 1.3(b)
- 1.3(d)).
Wooden

wave screen

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 1. 3: Examples of crown wall configurations.

As illustrated in fig. 1.3 concrete crown walls can take multiple forms. Commonly the structures are comprised of a vertical or recurved wall connected
to a horizontal base which transmits the wave loading to the underlaying soil.
The vertical face can be fully or partly protected from wave attack by armour
units placed in front of the structure. Crown walls are often constructed with
a skirt penetrating into the soil to improve the apparent frictional resistance of
the structure (figure 1.3(d)) by forcing the slip failure surface to go through the
rubble mound.
On very large breakwaters the crown wall can even be constructed as a hollow
caisson in which pipelines and other installations can be placed and thereby
protected against the rough environment. An example of such a structure is
given in figure 1.4, showing the inside of the crown wall structure at the Punta
Lucero breakwater in Bilbao, Spain.
From a safety viewpoint the stability of the crown wall is essential since a failure
of this structure might lead to a total breakdown of the whole rubble mound
breakwater. The forces exerted on a crown wall from the waves occur in two
ways. The primary action takes place on the vertical front face giving rise to large
horizontal forces and large overturning moments. Secondly the wave penetrates
into the soil leading to an increase in pore pressures which, if the underside of
the wall base is placed close to the mean water level, may reach the structure
and hence act as a vertical loading on the structure. These loading mechanisms
result in the possible failure modes depicted in figure 1.5.
Sliding (figure 1.5(a)) is probably the most common reason for failure of crown
walls. It occurs when the horizontal loading exceeds the frictional resistance,
which may be altered by rising pore pressures, between the structure and the
underlaying soil. On many breakwaters this failure pattern can be obeserved as
small dislocations of some of the wall sections.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.4: Inside of the Punta Lucero breakwater crown wall.

Another possible failure mode is overturning or tilting of the entire wall section (figure 1.5(b) ). This phenomenon may be difficult to identify since it will

__.. Sliding

Overturning/
tilling

Gcolecnical
failure

Cracking

slip

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. 5: Crown wall failure modes.

fa~;-~-;~
(d)

1.2. EXPERIENCED CROWN WALL FAILURES

start with small rocking movements of the wall. These movements will decrease
the frictional soil/structure resistance at the front and at the back of the structure, whereafter sliding of the strucure is likely to occur. Another possibility is
the generation of strong water flows in the gaps formed at the structure ends
(venting) which may lead to undermining of the structure and the armour layer.
Another aspect in the design of crown walls is the structural strength of the wall
itself (figure 1.5(d)). In this context also the deteoration of the material during
the life time of the structure must be taken into account.
Finally, also geotechnical failures must be considered. Where the first three
described failure modes can be solved by increasing the mass of the structure
this is not necessarily the case for geotechnical failure . Therefore an optimization
of the structure is required.
All of the described failure mechanisms are quite simple to account for from an
engineering viewpoint. The major problem arises however in the assessment of
the wave loading on the strucure.

1.2

Experienced crown wall failures

As mentioned in the previous chapter the cause of failure may be very difficult
to determine due to the impossibility of inspecting the structure under extreme
weather conditions and the often nearly totally damaged breakwater profile after
failure.
In the period of 1971 to 1981 several failures of large rubble mound breakwaters,
most of them with crown walls, were experienced.
All these breakwater failures were thoroughly analysed. In some instances the
wave climate and hence the design wave conditions had been underestimated and
in other instances structural parts of the breakwater had not been considered
during the design phase, e.g. the Sines breakwater where the structural integrity
of the applied Dolos units had fully been ignored.
In at least two cases the main cause of failure was directly related to the crown
wall. Giinbak and Ergin (1983) studied the reasons for the total breakdown of
the Antalya harbour breakwater in Antalya, Thrkey in december 1971. A typical
design cross section and the section profile after destruction is shown in figure
1.6.
During the storm that damaged the breakwater, observations revealed that the
crown wall sections started to slide backwards resulting in gaps between the

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. 6: Typical cross section of the Antalya harbour breakwater,

Antalya, Turkey {from Giinbak and Ergin {1983)).

sections. The water penetrated through these gaps and rapidly eroded the back
of the breakwater thereby reducing the stability of the crown walls. After the
storm nearly all crown wall sections were found on the rear side of the breakwater.
When the crown wall failed the unprotected top of the breakwater was directly
exposed to the waves and a rapid destruction of the structure from the top to
the zone slightly below Mean Water Level followed.
The failure of the Antalya Harbour breakwater is a typical example of the importance of evaluating the influence from one structural part of the breakwater
on other parts. The very permeable layer, on which the crown wall is founded is,
is during wave uprush filled with water which, if it cannot escape, as is the case
with the breakwater section along the reclaimed area, gives rise to very high pore
pressures in the layer. If the water cannot drain out of the layer before the next
wave approaches a permanent setup of the internal water table will build-up.
With the voids filled with water the wave dissipation decreases which inevitably
leads to higher up-rush velocities and thereby larger forces on the crown wall.
This is probably the explanation for the failure of the crown walls on the Antalya
breakwater.
Giinbak (1985) also examined the damages on the Tripoli Harbour North West
Breakwater. The inner app. 2000 m of the breakwater section is illustrated in
figure 1.7(a) and the outer last app. 2500 m is shown in figure 1.7(b).
Behind the first 2000 m length of the breakwater there is a sand reclamation
with harbour facilities. Between the rear slope and the sand fill a geotextile
membrane was placed (see figure 1.7(a)). The outer 2500 m of the breakwater
had no reclaimed area behind it and the backslope was protected by armour
stones.
In two severe storms in january 1981 the breakwater was, after several minor
damages during its construction, severely damaged. Over the whole length of the
breakwater some armour diplacement and Tetrapod breakage took place. Along

1.2. EXPERIENCED CROWN WALL FAILURES

(a.)

(b)

Figure 1. 7: Tripoli Harbour North West Breakwater cross sections

(from Gunbak {1985}}.

the first 2000 m several crown wall elements failed accompanied by movements
and cracks in the base slabs. Where the walls had failed excessive erosion and
damage to the reclamation and service installations were observed. Venting, a
phenomenon associated with the shooting out of water and air in the form of
jets due to excessive pressure build-up under the wall base, was seen immediately
behind the base slab along some parts of where reclamation was performed.
The reason for the damage of the 'fripoli Harbour NW Breakwater was primarily due to a severe underestimation of the wave heights and secondly due to
insufficient model tests where the steep sea bed in front of the structure was not
modelled.

10

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

I
l

Figure 1.8: Crown wall sections on The Tripoli Harbour NW Breakwater after storms in january 1981.

State of the art

The following chapter is devoted to a summary of the present status of knowledge
concerning wave loading and wave overtopping on rubble mound breakwater
crown walls. Both research topics are, as will be shown, governed by empirical
relationships obtained mainly from small scale model tests in laboratories. The
developed design equations all contain two or more constants which, among
other parameters, are functions of the breakwater geometry and the armour
layer roughness and permeability.

2.1

Wave action on rubble slopes

Wave impacts on the breakwater crest are highly influenced by the wave transformation/breaking processes on the rough porous front slope. As the waves approach the slope the rapid decrease in water depth and the bottom friction cause
the waves to steepen. Eventually the waves reach a steepness where they become
unstable and finally break. The surf similarity parameter ~o = tanafJHs/Lo
has been found to be a good descriptor of the type of wave breaking (~ is also
often referred to as the Irribarren number or Battjes parameter). The wave
breaking criteria given in figure 2.1 have been suggested by Battjes (1974) based
on measurements of Galvin (1968).
In case of plunging or collapsing breakers, which will be the situation for storm
waves in relatively deep waters and relatively steep rubble slopes (1 < cot a < 3) ,
11

12

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

2.5 < ~0 < 3.5

collapsing breaker

0.5 < ~0 < 3

plunging breaker

~0 > 3
surging breaker

-~-'!Y_b

__________

Figure 2.1: M ain wave breaking types

an extensive amount of energy dissipation takes place on the rubble slope and
in the porous filter layers. This will result in a decrease of transmitted wave
energy and in a reduction of the impact on the breakwater crest. Further, when
a wave breaks on the porous slope a large volume of air will be entrained into
the water, hence the uprushing wave impacting on the structure, will consist of
a mixture of water and air bubbles. These complicated processes in combination
with the many geometrical and physical parameters which would be required
for a description of the breakwater crest region, are the main reasons why an
analytical or semi-empirical model for prediction of the wave loading on crown
walls have not yet been established.
One of the physical processes which can add to a better understanding of both
wave loading and wave overtopping on crown walls, is the wave run-up on sloping
structures.

Wave run-up assessment

2.1.1

Several investigations of run-up levels on different types of sloping structures

have been performed. Wave run-up is defined as the vertical distance from SWL
to the crest of the uprushing wave. For irregular waves a significance level is
normally used, e.g. Ru 2 % which is the run-up level only exceeded by 2% of the
waves.
Van der Meer (1988) measured run-up levels on several configurations of armoured rubble slopes. Like in earlier studies on smooth slopes it was found that
the run-up level could be described by the surf similarity parameter (CIRIA/ CUR
1991) :
Rux =a.

Hs
Rux =

Hs

~m for

b ~m c for

1.5

(2.1)

> 1.5

(2.2)

~m<
~m

2.1. WAVE ACTION ON RUBBLE SLOPES

13

For very permeable structures the run-up is limited to a maximum of :

(2.3)

where ~m = tana/JHs/Lom and Lom is the deep water wave length corresponding to the mean wave period.
Values for the coefficients a, b, c and d are given for different exceedence levels
(x) in table 2.1 and level of 2% figure 2.2 shows for a relative run-up level of 2%
the fit of equations (2.1) - (2.3) to the measurements of Van der Meer.

Table 2.1: Coefficients for calculation of run-up levels

coefficients
a
b
1.12
1.34
1.01
1.24
0.96
1.17
0.86
1.05
0.77
0.94

Run-up level
x%
0.1
1
2
5
10

c
0.55
0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42

d
2.58
2.15
1.97
1.68
1.45

2.5

2.0
X

R.2\l.
H,

1.5

equation (2.3)

1.0

o Impermeable core
x Permeable core

0.5
0
0

~m

Figure 2.2: 2% run-up level on armoured rubble slopes.

14

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

The calculation of run-up is important since wave impacts on the crown wall do
not commence until the run-up level exceeds the level of the crown wall base slab
and the run-up height must be expected to have a large influence on the wave
force imposed on the wall.

2.2

Wave force estimation on crown walls

Wave forces on a crown wall structure exposed to irregular waves are of a

stochastic and hence very complicated nature.
The imposed loads on a wall depends both on the characteristics of the waves
and the geometry, including permeability and roughness, of the seaward face of
the breakwater.
The distributions of wave induced pressure and the related resultant wave forces
at a given instant on the wall are outlined in figure 2.3. The figure also defines
relevant geometrical parameters influencing the wave load.

B
ph
fe

Fit

Re
Ac

roughness,
permeability

F.

Figure 2.3: Definition of parameters and pressures.

Redrawn from Burcharth (1993)

The present study will solely address the pressures exerted on the vertical part
of the wall (Ph) The uplift pressure (Pv), acting below the base slab, cannot be
determined in small scale flume tests because of strong scale effects related to
the flow inside the porous mound. Commonly a triangular pressure distribution

2.2. WAVE FORCE ESTIMATION ON CROWN WALLS

15

is therefore assumed based on the pressure measured at the toe of the vertical
face (Pb) and the hydrostatic pressure at the rear of the structure. The latter is
obviously zero if the level of the base slab is above the internal water leveL In
case of homogeneous and rather permeable soils the above assumption is believed
to give a conservative estimate of the vertical load.
As previously mentioned, rather few investigations concerning wave loading on
crown walls have been reported. In the following a summary will be given of the
present knowledge.

2.2.1

Parametric investigations

The complexity of the wave breaking process and the following up-rush of the
water/ air mixture on the front slope makes the establishment of an analytical
expression for the wave impact on the breakwater crest impossible. Thus, the
only accessible way of gaining information on the problem is by performing
parametric studies in the laboratory. Such studies concentrate on obtaining an
empirical relation between the response, e.g. the crown wall wave loading, and
all parameters influencing the response.
Jensen (1984) reports the results of measurements of horizontal wave force from
several site specific model investigations. In all the studies, variations in wave
height (Hs), wave period (Tp) and and water level were investigated and related
to the maximum wave force per meter wall for 1000 waves (F0 _1 %)- Since relatively few waves were used in each test case (a little more than 1000) the Fo.I%
force estimate is subjected to some uncertainty.
From analysis of the tests Jensen found that the influence from water level variations could be expressed by the distance from SWL to the armour crest (Ac)
and that the measured horizontal force was directly proportional to the ratio
Hs/Ac- Concerning the wave period a clear tendency to an increase in wave
loads for increasing Tp was found .
In one of the test cases Jensen (1984) also studied the influence of wave obliquity
for long crested waves on the wall loading. The results for two different wave
heights are depicted in figure 2.4.
The wave force clearly decreases with increasing angle of wave incidence. The
almost linear decrease from 0 and upwards is in sharp contradiction to results from overtopping experiments by Bradbury et al. (1988), who found that
discharges were nearly unaffected by small variations ( < 25) of (3. The same
tendencies should be expected for the wave forces. The findings of Jensen might
be explained by the model setup, where the force measurements were averaged

16

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

Hnriznntal fnn:e (t/m)

500

Horizontal fnrce (t/m)

500

H =8m

'

40<1

400

300

300

200

200

1!10

10

20

30

p (deg)

40

5!1

111

20

3o

so

P<dcgJ

Figure 2.4: Influence of wave obliquity on crown wall loading.

Redrawn from Jensen {1984).

over a 48 m (prototype scale) test section. With such a long section the maximum
wave pressure along the wall does not occur simultaneously when attacked by
oblique waves and hence the measured response will be less than for a smaller
test section.
Bradbury et al. (1988) performed experiments with 5 different rock slope configurations in order to investigate the influence of breakwater geometry on the
wall loading. To some degree their results support the conclusions by Jensen,
e.g. proportionality between wave force and wave height and increase in wave
force for increasing wave periods. The influence on wall loading from variations
in structural geometry does not appear very clearly in their report and no definite conclusions are made concerning the importance on the different geometrical
parameters. The latter might have to do with measuring problems relater to the
used force table (Bradbury et al. 1988). Several of the measurements had to
be both highpass and lowpass filtered in order to get what visually seemed to
be satisfying force recordings. Such filtering processes always have the risk that
information in the original signals is lost.
Hamilton and Hall (1992) carried out a series of model tests to investigate the
stability of precast concrete crown walls in small scale models. In their study the
effect on the minimum mass of the structure to remain stable was investigated
for different design parameters: wave height, wave period, crown wall height,
water level and front slope inclination. Also the effect of positioning the crown
wall either directly on the core or on top of the armour layer as well as the
effect of stabilising skirts (cf. figure 1.3( d)) was investigated. The minimum

17

2.2. WAVE FORCE ESTIMATION ON CROWN WALLS

stable mass (MSM) is directly comparable to the wave loading exerted on the
wall face. Most of the tests in their study were performed with regular waves.
Figure 2.5 depicts some of the results from the investigation.
70

60

E so

--

Cl

40

30

20

(1)

Hew= 0.100m
F = 0.025m
T = 2.25a
Slope 1:1.5
On Cote

70

60

50

Hcw0.070m

40

Hcw0.040m

30

:::E

20

(/)

(/)

10

10
00

Rogul11tWaves
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.~

T 1.75
F 0.025 m
Slope 1:1.5
OnCotw

0.3

0.05

70

~
Cl
e..

50

(3)

OnNmoUI

On Core

OQ

Slope 1:1.5

0.05

0 .1

0.2

0.15

0.2

0.3

Regular WrNes

(4)

..

low 0.050 m

0.25

0.3

Hew 0.100m

~
0.05

0.1

:
F 0,025m
T 2.25
Slope 1:1.5
On eo<.

Regular Wavet

Wave Height (m)

0.25

50 l.cw0.010m

10

Reg ular Waves

0.15

40 l.cw 0 .030 m

:::E 30
(/)
::2 20

Hew 0.070m
F & O.o50m
T -= 1.75s

0.1

60Nolago

40

:::E 30
(/)
::2 20

Wave Height (m)

Wave Height (m)

60

(2)

Hcw0.100m

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Wave Height (m)

Figure 2. 5: Influence of (J}:wave height, (2}:crown wall height

(3}:crown wall position and (4}:stabilising skirts.
From Hamilton and Hall {1992}

A linear relationship between wave height and wall loading was observed as long
as overtopping rates were moderate (figure 2.5.(1)). This linearity continues
until the waves are large enough to induce a significant amount of green water
overtopping. From that point the rate of increase in wave force decreases and a
horizontal asymptote is approached.
Hamilton and Hall do not provide any definite conclusions about the wave period
but simply state that in general the wave loading on the wall increases for larger
wave periods.
A very interesting parameter, not investigated in any of the previous studies,
is the height of the crown wall. Jensen (1984) assumed that the wave loading
would be proportional to the wall height - see section 2.2.3. Hamilton and Hall
examined the stability of three structures with different heights, figure 2.5.(2).
The measurements show that for small wave heights where none of the 3 walls

18

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

are overtopped the wave loading is identical. When the wave height is increased
and overtopping commences on the lower walls a smaller wave force is recorded
when compared to the forces on the still non-overtopped highest wall. Finally, a
threshold wave height directly related to the initiation of green water overtopping
is reached, and from that point wave forces remain nearly constant for still
increasing wave heights.
Two values of front slope inclinations, cot a = 1.5 and 3.0 were tested. In general
the measurements showed that wave forces were smaller for the gentler slope.
Figure 2.5.(3) shows the difference between placing the crown wall on the core
material and placing it on top of the armour. The stability of the walls is clearly
reduced when placed on the armour layer. It must be remembered that the used
walls all have a smooth base slab, hence the situation might have been different
if the walls were cast in-situ, where the concrete could penetrate into the gaps
between the armour stones.
Finally, the effect of constructing the crown wall with a stabilising skirt penetrating into the underlying soil layers was investigated, figure 2.5.(4). In all tests
with walls without a stabilising skirt the failure was found to be a sliding failure,
whereas crown walls with a skirt failed due to overturning. Also, the three tested
skirt sizes had nearly the same effectiveness in increasing the stability of the wall.
Pedersen and Burcharth (1992) also presented results from a parametric study
on crown wall loading. The published findings are comprised in the analysis of
the model tests for the present study and will not be commented further.

2.2.2

Spatial distribution of wave pressure

The distribution of wave exerted pressure on a crown wall is very complex, since
pressure maxima at different locations do not occur simultaneously. Since the
up-rushing water travels faster on the outside of the armour than inside the
porous layer, the pressure loading on the wall is expected first to take place in
the region just above the crest of the armour. A little later, when the pores in
the armour- and sublayers have been filled with water, pressures also act on the
lower protected part and beneath the base slab. The maximum load situation,
or the pressure situation that is most critical for the stability of the wall, will,
depending on the type of wave breaking and configuration of the armour, occur
either at the moment where the water tongue hits the upper part of the wall or
a little later when the wall is fully saturated and pore pressures have risen.
Jensen (1984) presented examples of maximum wave pressure distributions on
a crown wall for different angles of wave incidence - figure 2.6. Pressures were
measured by means of 5 pressure transducers mounted into the wall face. The

2.2. WAVE FORCE ESTIMATION ON CROWN WALLS

19

signals from the transducers were lowpass filtered in order to remove high transient load components.

llm'

Jn 20

tu

>O 20

10

Figure 2. 6: Examples of measured pressure distributions by Jensen

{1984}

Jensen found that for maximum horizontal loading, wave pressures acted over
the full height of the wall and the pressure distributions tended to be even. The
highest pressures were registered immediately above the armour crest level.
Burcharth et al. (1995) presented examples of time evolution of wave pressure
on the wall face for two wave conditions, see figure 2.7.
For a breaking wave impact a rapid rise of wave pressures on the upper part of
the wall is registered, whereas the lower part, which is protected by the armour
units situated in front of the structure, has not yet experienced any increase in
pressure from the up-rushing wave. Approximately 1 second later the full height
of the wall is exposed to wave pressures and the maximum horizontal force is
reached.
The situation is a little different when considering a non-breaking (surging) wave
impact. The pressure rise is more gentle and a clear difference between wave
loading on the upper unprotected and the lower armour protected part of the
wall is not present.

20

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

Breaking Wave (Pressure in kPa)

10.]

o.l

-0.7
2.5

.4

61 .0

34.0 ,
28.7

3 0

3.2

19. I

IP.3

36 I

1.3

47.1

i.2

~3

89.P

62 8

78 4

74.3

86.4

20.1
3110

~B

~-4

20.2

22.2

74 0

75.3

63.6

84.8

j0.3 j0.4

~
13. 1

40 2'

24.5

34.7

74 3

~
8 .2

20.3

67.0

20

84 5
58 s

9.4

70.P

84.2

62 8

~03
3.3

6.11

88.3

85.11

81 .8

80 2

Non breaking Wave (Pressure in kPa)

+1 8.0

48~8
33.0

81.2

71.7

.2

1
41.2

~2

~~

83. I

94.8
81.7

~2.8

34.7

~~

80.9

~3
.?

IPZ

io.4

4~
.o

43.7

78.9

35.3

n8
80.9

~7

38 .1

32 2

P4.8

Q6.2

81 .7

82.3

Figure 2. 7 : Examples of measured pressure distributions by Burcharth

et al. {1995). Prototype scale. All levels in m.

Time lag between recordings : flt = 0.37s.
Wave incidence angle : f3 = 20.
Armour crest is located in level + 14.0)

2.2. WAVE FORCE ESTIMATION ON CROWN WALLS

2.2.3

21

Wave force assessment

Giinbak and Ergin (1983) and Giinbak (1985) propose a method for assessing
the wave pressure on a crown wall based on run-up calculations. In figure 2.8
the assumed pressure distribution is outlined.

Figure 2.8: Definition of pressures and pressure height

The pressure Ph represents the hydrostatic pressure intensity at the wall toe and
Pm is the wave pressure component caused by stagnation pressures. From the
crest of the armour down to the wall bottom the stagnation pressure is assumed
to decrease to a value of 0.5Pm
In order to calculate the pressures Pm and Ph a triangular wave run-up wedge
is assumed on the breakwater slope. The run-up height Ru is calculated as the
run-up height that would occur on an infinitely long rubble slope according to
equations (2 .1) - (2.3).
The apex angle (8) of the run-up wedge is assumed to be 15. The vertical
distance (y) over which to calculate the hydrostatic pressure component can be
calculated as

y=

(Ru- Ac)
sma

sin8
cos(a- 8)

(2.4)

For calculation of the stagnation pressure Giinbak assumed that the velocity (v0 )
of the up-rushing wave front can be determined as

vo =

vg:y

(2.5)

22

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

and hence the stagnation pressure Pm= 9Pw v5/(2g) can be written

Pm=

9Pw y

(2.6)

Although the above procedure is very simple it satisfies many of the observations
outlined in section 2.2.1, for example the reduction in wave load rate when
excessive overtopping starts.
Giibak used the described procedure to analyse the Tripoli and Antalya breakwater failures (see section 1.2), and found in both cases that the crown wall
would fail under the given circumstances.
From analyses of the previous mentioned cite specific model studies, Jensen
(1984) proposed an expression on the following form for estimating the horizontal
wave force per meter width on a crown wall

(Hs)

Fh
- ---=a+b
9PwhjLop
Ac

(2.7)

where a and b are dimensionless coefficients taking into account the effect of slope
inclination, wave direction, armour permeability /roughness and the geometry of
the crest.
The above relationship is derived from a limited range of parametric variations
and should only be used in accordance with this. The influence of wall height
clearly limits the use of equation (2. 7) to situations with only moderate overtoppmg.
Bradbury et al. (1988) fitted their measurements from 5 different breakwater
configurations to Jensen's expression and found a reasonably good agreement,
but the coefficients a and b had to be fitted for each geometry. Also they obtained
different coefficients than J ensen for a similar structure. The measurements by
Bradbury et al. (1988) were performed with a very poor instrumentation which
might explain some of the differences between their and Jensen's findings.
Burcharth (1993) summarised the findings of Jensen and Bradbury et.al. His
results are reproduced in figure 2.9.

2.2. WAVE FORCE ESTIMATION ON CROWN WALLS

Cross section A

23

Cross secUon B
~ 4 .95
f - - - ---::---:...--1111.
Ac

h.. =3.0

Cross section C
I 0.15

Cross section D

Cross section E

All measures in meters.

Cross
section

Parameter ranges in tests

Ac (m)

A (1)
B (1)
c (2)
D (2)
E (2)

5.6- 10.6
1.5- 3.0
0.10
0.14
0.18

.&..

SOp= Lo

0.016 - 0.036
0.005 - 0.011
0.023 - 0.07
0.04- 0.05
0.04- 0.05

&.
Ac

0.76 - 2.5
0.82 - 2.4
0.9 - 2.1
1.43
1.11

0.1% exceedence values

of coefficients in eq. (2. 7)
a
b
- 0.026
0.051
- 0.016
0.025
-0.038
0.043
app. 65% of values for C
app. 25% of values for C

Figure 2.9: Empirical coefficients in equation {2. 1}.

{1) : Jensen {1984} ,
{2} : Bradbury et. al. {1988)
From Burcharth {1993}.

24

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

Burcharth (1993) also proposed a method for calculating the wave induced pressures on the wall face. This procedure is like the method proposed by Giinbak
and Ergin (1983) based on the assessment of wave run-up on an imaginary elongation of the front slope. Unlike Giinbak and Ergin, wave pressures are not
separated into an impact part and a hydrostatic part. For simplicity Burcharth
solely considered the imposed wave load to be a function of a hypothetical hydrostatic pressure. Figure 2.10 outlines the procedure.

..
~ --
~-

Figure 2.10: Definition sketch for calculation of wave pressure

The total hypothetical horizontal force is found to be :

(2.8)

From comparisons of Fh,hydro with actual measured wave forces as calculated

from the data given in figure 2.9 Burcharth proposes the following function to
obtain a central estimate of the measurements :

Fh

= ( 0.22 + 0.12 Re B- Ac) Fh,hydro

The 10% confidence limits are given by

0.4Fh

(2.9)

(Burcharth 1993).

Burcharth concludes that the assumed hydrostatic pressure distribution obviously is not correct as large impulsive pressures from the impinging wave front on
the unprotected part of the wall can not be expected to be modelled well by this

2.2. WAVE FORCE ESTIMATION ON CROWN WALLS

25

simple type of approach. FUrthermore, the method will yield a very conservative
estimate of the pressures acting at the toe of the wall face and hence lead to
very large uplift forces assuming a triangular pressure distribution below the
base slab.

2.2.4

Conclusion on general level of knowledge

The preceeding section presented the methods presently available for assessing
the wave loading on crown wall structures. The three methods can be used as
to serve for a first estimate of the wave loading but cannot be used generally as
they all exclude one or more geometrical or physical components influencing the
loading. The methods proposed by Jensen (1984) and Burcharth (1993) are both
based on analysis of model tests of quite a small number of structural layouts
which means that only a limited number of parameters can be included in the
design. The method by Giinbak and Ergin (1983) is based on a physical interpretation of the interaction between a rubble mound structure with a crown wall
and the wave run-up on the breakwater front slope. A number of assumptions
concerning the run-up wedge and the velocities of the water jet are made and a
few structural parameters, e.g. the berm width, are not incorporated in the procedure. The method has not been validated beside a few calculation examples
of actually failed crown wall structures.
Generally it must be concluded that the present state of knowledge is very limited and does not offer a reliable versatile solution for the design of crown wall
structures. The poor situation is, as previously mentioned, primarily caused by
the difficulty in obtaining an analythical/theoretical expression describing the
physics of waves breaking/progressing on a breakwater slope and the impact
between a solid structure and the water jet. As also pointed out earlier the
only way of gaining more information about the subject is by means of carefully
performed and selected model test studies where the different parameters influencing the wave load are investigated. Hence the main aim of the present study
is to investigate the parametric influence of a variety of physical and geometrical
parameters entering the problem. This will be accomplished by a parametric
model investigation involving 12 different breakwater cross sections where each
parameter is examined keeping all other influencing parameters constant. In this
way a profound understanding of the importance of each parameter on the wave
load exerted on the wall face can be established eventually leading to a new
design concept.

26

2.3

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

Wave overtopping

Wave overtopping is the main hydraulic action causing damage to the crest and
rear of a rubble mound breakwater and must therefore be considered carefully.
Information on overtopping quantities is especially important if reclaimed areas
or structures are situated closely behind the breakwater where massive water
volumes, often having high velocities, may cause extensive damage.

2.3.1

Admissible overtopping rates

The impact of overtopping water volumes on different obstacles situated on top

of an overtopped structure has been investigated by several researchers in order
to assess admissible discharge rates for different investigated objects.
Under random wave attack overtopping discharges vary with up to several orders
of magnitude from one wave to another meaning that wave overtopping is a
very non-linear function of wave height and wave period. This time variation
is difficult to measure and quantify in the laboratory and hence overtopping
discharges are frequently given by the mean discharge Qm expressed as discharge
per meter run (m 3 jmjs).
Based on prototype investigations consisting of wave climate measurements and
expert impressions of the impact of overtopping volumes on different objects situated on the top of breakwaters (Goda 1971 , Fukuda et al. 1974 and Goda 1985)
the guidelines given in figure 2.11 were developed and adopted in the Japanese
code of practice. The version given in figure 2.11 is taken from the Dutch/English
"Manual on the use of Rock in Hydraulic Engineering" (CIRIA/CUR 1991).

2.3. WAVE OVERTOPPING

27

100

100

10

10

,......_

a
Ci)

..;)--

8
"'0
.......
"--'
Cl}

...s:=

u
Ci)

"0
bO
!:::::

0 ..
0..

No
damage

0.1

t:
Cl}
>
0
!:::::

ro
Cl}

.Uncomfort
able but not

0.01
Unsafe at
high speed

::E
0.001

Safe at all
speeds

dangerous

Wet, but not

uncomfort
able

Minor
damage to
fittings etc.

No
damage

No
damage

0.0001
Vehicles

Pedestrians

Buildings

Figure 2.11: Suggested critical overtopping discharges.

{Redrawn from CIRIA/C UR {1991 }}

Revelment
seawalls

0.0001

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE-ART

28

2.3.2

Overtopping on breakwaters with superstructures

The calculation of overtopping discharges is based on empirical expressions fitted

to hydraulic model test results. Since the discharges depend not only on the
environmental conditions (wave height, wave period and water level) but also on
the material properties and geometrical layout of the breakwater it is evident
that only a few specific cases have been investigated thoroughly.
Owen (1980), (1982a) and (1982b) presents an empirical method for the calculation of the overtopping discharges for sea walls with smooth faces (roughness
value r = 1) and without the presence of a crown wall. The developed design formula, based on a series of model tests with random waves, relates a dimensionless
discharge Q* to a dimensionless freeboard parameter R* :
Q*

Aexp ( -B~*)

(2.10)

where
Q*

(2.11)

R*

(2.12)

A and B are empirical coefficients taking into account the slope inclination and
the crest configuration of the structure. This methodology implies that the
coefficients must be determined for each specific structural layout.
Bradbury et al. (1988) performed random wave model tests with rubble slopes
and different configurations of crown walls and concluded that there was a
stronger dependence of the dimensionless ratio jt than expressed in equation
(2.10). To obtain a best fit to their data Owen's expression was modified to :
Q*

Aexp (

-B~*)

(2.13)
2

R* ( Re ) = ( Re )
Hs
Hs

F*

(S::

V?;;

(2.14)

Bradbury et al. (1988) also suggest that an expression on the form :

Q*

AF*B

(2.15)

could give a slightly better description of the Q* - F* relationship than does the

2.3. WAVE OVERTOPPING

29

exponential form in equations (2.10) and (2.13) . Also, Bradbury states that the
above formulae in many ways are inadequate since the geometry of the structure
is not taken into account. It is obvious that parameters like the berm width, the
armour crest position, the slope of the face and the vertical wall freeboard will
have an effect on the overtopping discharge and therefore should be included in
a design equation. Anyway, it seems likely that these geometrical variations will
only have a pronounced effect for relative small discharges, whereas, if the crown
wall is inundated, small geometrical variations at the crest are expected to have
only a minor influence.
Jensen (1984) reported overtopping measurements from 7 different breakwater/crown wall configurations. From analysis of these measurements he proposed a
relation of the following form :
(2.16)
B* being the horizontal distance from the back of the vertical face of the crown

wall to the interface between the mound and the still water level.
As for the equations of Owen and Bradbury et al. equation (2.16) lacks information about the armour crest position and crown wall freeboard whereas the slope
angle and berm width are included indirectly through the parameter B*. For
waves in relatively shallow water Jensen's results show that the coefficient b is
nearly equal to 1 giving a linear relationship between 9;;Jz and ~. For larger
depths of water b decreases to a value lower than 1.
Although the main scope of the present study was to investigate the wave forces
on a rubble mound breakwater crown wall, the experimental setup was easily
modified to incorporate measurements of wave overtopping. Illustrations of the
model setup can be found in section 3 and a discussion of the results and conclusions from the measurements is given in section 6.

30

CHAPTER 2. STATE OF THE ART

Model tests
In order to improve the knowledge of how breakwater crown walls perform under
random wave attack an extensive test programme was set up. In the tests,
measurements of wave loading exerted on the vertical front face of the crown
walls as well as the amount of water overtopping the structures were measured.
A total of 373 tests were performed. The different tests and the obtained results
are given in table A.1 in Appendix A. Each test had a duration corresponding to
5000 waves or more in order to quantify the low probabilistic wave force estimates
(e.g. the 0.1% fractile of the horizontal wave force) with reasonable accuracy.
All tests were performed in a 1.6 m wide and 26 m long wave flume located at
Aalborg Hydraulics and Coastal Engineering Laboratory, Aalborg University.
A breakwater model test section of 1.0 m width, delimited by wave guidance
walls, was installed in the middle of the flume as far away from the wave generator
as possible. Behind the breakwater a gravel beach with a 1:5 slope was laid out.
This setup, shown in figure 3.1, was chosen in order to limit wave reflections in
the flume.
The crown wall structure was constructed from 6 mm thick high-strength aluminium plates which were mounted onto the wave guidance walls. The aluminium structure was further strengthened by means of four triangular braces,
see figure 3.2. Water levels varied between 0.51 m and 0.59 m. The base of
the crown wall was in all tests located at level +0.55 m and the crest of the
armour berm at level +0. 70 m - see section 3.3 for further details. In front of the
31

32

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

breakwater an array of 3 wave gauges was placed in order to analyse the wave
field.
wave
I

......

.L.-L

1.6 m

i\

g u 1 once

0. 3 m
1.0 m

c~~ )C' i} \()Pc'i(Pf

'F)( 'P'':)t
Tt' .. '(,'Pf.'!:.)c
lc
'i

r. .>

I l r .:(,1 1

:;-',

).f:'t;,c:>
:v 'CXX~ff'<...
... t l /(. ~ /( J. : . _l/

l .

Gr ave l
beac h

Wave

gouges

,.

,(_

.5il00.::'f-l< KS0-tf'>f
I '

0.3 m
Wave
ma ke r

WO 11

19 m

26 rn

Figure 3.1 : Outline of breakwater setup in wave flume

Figure 3.2 : Crown wall seen from the lee-side.

3.1. PURPOSE OF MODEL STUDY

3.1

33

Purpose of model study

The main aim of the model study was to get a better insight and understanding of
the physics governing wave loading and wave overtopping on crown walls. Since
a detailed description of the wave breaking and wave transformation phenomena
that takes place on the rubble slope can not be obtained, a better understanding
of the problem can only be achieved by studying how wave forces and wave overtopping are influenced by variations in the governing physical and geometrical
parameters.

3.1.1

Investigated parameters

In the following a brief listing of the investigated parameters is given. Figure

2.3 sketches all the relevant parameters with the exception of the sea state parameters. Since waves were generated from a predefined spectrum the spectral
estimates Hs and Tp were chosen as representatives of the wave field. In table
3.1 the investigated parameters and their respective variational ranges are given.

Table 3.1: Investigated parameters and their variations.

Parameter

armour

Range
0.10 m - 0.18 m
1.20 s - 2.20 s
0.51 m - 0.59 m
random: rock, Dolos, cubes
smooth: cubes
0.15 m - 0.33 m
0.11 m - 0.19 m
0.11 m- 0.37 m
0.18 m - 0.36 m
1.5 - 3.5

Ratio
~m

Hs/Ac
Rc/Ac
Ac/B
cot a

Range
1.1 - 5.1
0.5 - 1.7
1 - 2.6
0.3- 1.1
1.5- 3.5

The above variations were chosen in order to cover the most common structural
variations observed in prototype structures. Tests with the highest wall (hJ =
0.33 m) are in that sense unrealistic, but were performed in order to assess the
total momentum in the waves.

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

34

Sea states

3.2
3.2.1

Wave generation

The model waves were generated according to a version of the JONSWAP spectrum. The applied version, specified in The Danish Code of Practice (DS-449
1983), is a 3 parameter spectrum defined by Hs, /p (= ,J..p ) and the so-called
peak enhancement factor r which in all tests was kept constant at a value of
'Y = 3.3

S(f) = \

4 5
16 H;

fir'"!" exp [ -~ ( 1) ']

(3.1)

where :
2

exp (- (!- /p)

2 a2 j 2
f p
0.10 if
{ 0.50 if

f ~ /p
f > /p

Wave board control signals were generated by the software package PROFWACO
(Frigaard et al. 1993) developed at the hydraulic laboratory. The control signals
are calculated by convolution of a white noise signal through a digital filter with
the characteristics of equation (3.1). The white noise filtering method has the
advantage that very long time series can be generated without any signal repetition. The latter requires that the random number generator used for creating
the white noise signal does not repeat itself. It was verified that this was not
the case. As a different seed number for the random number generator is used
for each test series the wave fields of two tests with identical Hs and Tp are not
identical.
The wave board is a hydraulic driven piston type paddle operating over the full
water depth.

3.2.2

Wave analysis

The irregular wave field, being composed of both incident and reflected waves,
was recorded simultaneously by three wave gauges with a logging frequency of 16

3.2. SEA STATES

35

Hz. The gauges were placed in a row pattern just in front of the structure. This
setup enables the recorded signals to be separated into incident and reflected
wave trains by means of the reflection analysis procedures given by either Goda
and Suzuki (1976) or by Funke and Mansard (1980) . In the present study both
methods were adopted and average values of the reflection estimates were used.
In figures 3.3 and 3.4 results of the wave analysis from two tests with identical
spectral peak periods and water levels are presented for wave heights of Hs ~
0.10 m and Hs ~ 0.18 m respectively.
From the incident wave spectrum the incident significant wave height Hs ~
Hmo = 4Jffi0 and the spectral peak period Tp and mean period T m = )m0 jm2
were derived. Average reflection amplitude coefficients, weighed with respect to
the incident wave energy at each frequency, ranged in all tests between 22% and
25% depending on the actual sea state.
At the time when t he model tests were carried out an active absorption system
was not available in the hydraulic laboratory, and hence incident wave trains are
infiltrated by re-reflected waves from the wave board. This infiltration, which is
most pronounced for long wave periods as they are the most difficult to absorb
on the breakwater slope and the spending beach, can be seen as an increased
amount of low frequent energy in the incident wave spectra.
From the incident wave spectra inverse fourier transforms were performed in
order to obtain the incident wave elevation time series. These series were then
analysed with respect to the distribution of wave heights and wave periods by
zero down-crossing analysis. In tests with small significant wave heights (figure
3.3) the wave height distribution clearly followed the theoretical Rayleigh distribution, whereas for the largest significant wave heights (figure 3.4), where some
wave breaking in the form of spilling waves occurred, the observed wave height
distributions deviated quite significantly from the Rayleigh distribution.

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

36

Incident variance spectrum

1.4

~ 1.2
~ 1.0
0

g
01 0.8
c
~ 0.6
-;;;
l3 0.4
~ 0.2

V,)

0.0
1.5

0.5

Frequency (Hz)

Reflection amplitude spectrum

50

._., 40
~

:aa 30

t::

.9

u0

!;::
0

20
10

IX

0
1.5

0.5

Frequency (Hz)

Wave height distribution

0.20 . - - - - - - - ->.
~
t::

------------------,

0.15

Rayleigh

'1:)

- --

0.10

Measured

'\.

0:: 0.05

10
Wave height (cm)

15

20

Figure 3.3: Example of wave analysis results -test no . 132.

Hs = 0.105 m , Tp = 1.6 s , W L = +0.55 m
5349 waves, mean reflection coef. = 24.9%

3.2. SEA STATES

37

Incident variance spectrum

N'

]_ 4.0
t)

~ 3.0
~

> 2 .0
u
&
1.0

tl)

0.5

1.5

Frequency (Hz)

Reflection amplitude spectrum

50

~ i

.~

';;' 40 f"0

:g_

~~~~~
11~ ~-,l""~ljll~~
r:'~ -L'~,
I!~
I

30 f-

c 20

B
c 10

.S?

~~

IT

rr

I'

i~. ~ f.~ ~ ~; ~
!I

i'C

~~

l"

:::

~~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~~

l<;

[1

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~
~
~
~

{\,

1.5

0 .5

Frequency (Hz)

Wave height distribution

0.10 , - - - - - --

v;

- --

- - - - - - - - -- - - - - ,

0.08

.g

0 .06

:g<'I

004

.~

Measured

.D

0.02
0

10

15

20

25

Wave height (cm)

Figure 3.4: Example of wave analysis results -test no. 136.

Hs = 0.181 m , Tp = 1.6 s , W L = +0.55 m
5086 waves, mean reflection coef. = 23.1%

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

38

3.3

Investigated cross sections

For all tested breakwater configurations the core was constructed of relative
coarse sand (dn,so ~-2mm). Between the core and the inner filter layer (10 mm
thick and dn,so = 5 mm) a geotextile was placed to prevent out-washing of the
core material. The second filter layer had a thickness of 40 mm and consisted
of stones with a nominal diameter of dn,so = 12 mm. Finally a 100 mm thick
armour layer with different units in different tests was placed. To ensure the
armour remained stable under all wave conditions a thin chicken wire was placed
on top of the layer- see figure 3.2.
Figure 3.5 illustrates the principal structure of the breakwater cross section. Also
shown in the figure are the geometrical variations listed in table 3.1.
AH measures In m

landward

Seaward

,~,;~~{~:~~~4?:i]t0!sf~i ~~1Gi:~'::- .
I

I
I
I

0.55

I
I
I

0.96- 2.08

1.21
2.81-4.21

Figure 3. 5: Sketch of breakwater cross section with overall measures

of geometrical variations.

In order to examine the influence from the parameters given in table 3.1 the 12
different breakwater cross sections outlined in figure 3.6 were tested. Most of
the tests were carried out on the cross sections 1-4 where the influence of the
parameters H 8 , Tp, hf, Re and Ac was investigated. Cross sections 2, 5, 6 and 7
were used to assess the influence of the armour crest width B. The slope angle
a was studied by comparing cross sections 2, 8 and 9 and finally the influence of
the applied type of armour (roughness/permeability) was investigated with the
sections 8, 10, 11 and 12.
In Appendix B, figure B.1 two photographs of one of the tested breakwater
configurations are shown.

3.3. INVESTIGATED CROSS SECTIONS

Section 1

39

Section 2
180 ~I

1.,.

+550 ~

11')

All measures in mm.

All measures in mm.

Section J

Section 4
, .. 180

..

, .. 180 .. ,
Ill

.,;

...

I<')
I<')

Ill

+550

+550

Ill

All measures in mm.

Ill

All measures in mm.

Section 5

Section 6
, ..

240

300

.. ,

~
+550 "'

"'

"'
0

Ill

All measures In mm.

...
0

"'

+550 "'

All measures in mm.

Figure 3. 6: Cross sections 1 - 6

...

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

40

Section 7

Section 8

,..

360

..,

,.. 180 . ,

+550

"'

"<t
N

All measures in mm.

"'

0
11>

-.t

+550

11>

All measures in mm.

Section 9

Section 10
,.. 180 .. ,

,.. 180 .,

0>

a>

-.t

+550

+550

0
"<t
N

If)

11>

All measures in mm.

All measures in mm.

Section 11

Section 12
,. 180 .. ,

+550

"<t
N

"'
0

11>

All measures in mm.

+550

"'

If)

All measures in mm.

Fig. 3.6 continued: Cross sections 1- 12

3.4. MEASUREMENT OF PRESSURES

41

The four investigated wall heights - cross sections 1-4 - are shown in figure 3. 7
below. Detailed drawings of the walls are given in Appendix B, figures B.2 B.5.

Figure 3. 7: Photography of the

4 used

walls.

To protect the thin membrane on the pressure sensors against the filter and
armour stones a thin steel net was placed approximately 5 mm in front of the
sensors.

3.4

Measurement of pressures

Initial tests with a wall section suspended in a dynamometer showed that this
type of setup introduced several errors in the measurements of forces exerted on
the crown walls. The problems are caused by the wide frequency range that must
be covered by the force table without introducing any dynamic amplification in
order to measure wave impact forces of very short duration as well as hydrostatic
forces having a duration in the order of the wave period. In practice it turned
out to be impossible to construct a dynamometer sufficiently rigid (high natural
frequency) to avoid dynamic errors and at the same time have a measurable
output from the system. Hence it was decided to measure the wave forces by
means of pressure transducers.

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

42

To avoid disturbances in the pressure field on the wall, the pressure cells were
built into the walls and aligned with the vertical face. The sensors should preferably have a smooth surface and a quite large diameter to smoothen out local
pressure transients. With these constraints in mind 16 Phillips P13-0EM pressure transducers with a diaphragm diameter of 18 mm were chosen. The sensors
have an operational pressure range between 0 and 4 bar (0- 40 kN/m 2 ) which is
around 5- 10 times the maximum pressures expected in the model tests.
Figure 3.8 shows 2 pressure cells mounted with a water proof chasing and 8 other
cells mounted into one of the walls.

10

cm

11 I I 11 11 11 11 I I 11 I I 11 I

Figure 3.8: Phillips P13-0EM pressure transducers.

All pressures were measured relative to the atmospheric pressure. The dynamic
response of the sensors was not tested other than visually verifying that the
transducers responded to short duration impact loadings. The transducers were
powered from a signal amplifier and the sensor output was amplified by a factor
of 1000. The amplifier was checked to be linear up to 0.5 kH z. Prior to the
experiments the it was verifies that the pressure transducers did not suffer from

3.5. MEASUREMENT OF OVERTOPPING DISCHARGES

43

temperature drift and nonlinearity. The sensors were calibrated at least twice
each week and showed very l~ttle variation. Figure B.7 in Appendix B shows the
electronic devices for powering the wave gauges and the pressure sensors.
Initial tests showed that a sampling rate of 256 H z was sufficient in order to
avoid loosing information about the signals. In some of the tests with the lowest
wall, where rapid pressure rises do not occur since the wall is fully protected by
the armour stones, a sampling rate of 128 H z was used.A voltage regulator was
used to feed all electronic devices in order to minimise voltage gradient effects
in the measurements. With the regulator in circuit it was not necessary to filter
the pressure signals. Due to the large amount of data the pressure signals were
instantly transformed to resultant wave forces and only the pressure distributions
for the 3 largest wave impacts in each test serie were stored.

3.5

Measurement of overtopping discharges

Overtopping measurements were conducted by measuring the amount of water

falling into a 0.6 m wide and 0.8 m long tank placed immediately behind the
crown wall - see figure 3.9 below and figure B.8 in Appendix B. Only green
water overtopping was measured as the wind field could not be simulated in the
laboratory.
Flow meter
Crown Wall

Figure 3. 9: Sketch of setup for wave overtopping m easurements.

From the tank the water was pumped back into the wave flume through a water clock. Since many of the tests were run as batch jobs during nights the
recordings of the water clock were done by means of computer controlled camera
which was t riggered to take a picture after each run, see Appendix B, figure B.9.
Unfortunately, this remote registration did not work properly in all the tests

44

CHAPTER 3. MODEL TESTS

resulting in lack of overtopping measurements in some of the series. Only the

mean overtopping quantity from each test was measured.

Wave pressures and

forces on crown walls
In the following the results obtained from the performed model tests will be
presented. As the measurements were performed by measuring the pressures
exerted on the front face of the wall informations on both spatial and temporal
pressure distributions have been obtained as well as information of the resulting
forces imposed on the wall.

4.1

Distribution of wave pressures

In each test series time evolutions of pressures exerted on the wall face corresponding to the 3 maximum wave force loadings were stored. Depending on the
wave climate and the geometry of the actual cross section the spatial distribution
of wave induced pressure on the wall face develops differently. In figures 4.1 4.3 evolutions of wave pressure are shown for identical wave conditions for 3 of
the 4 crown wall heights used. In the figures the maximum wave loading occurs
at time t = 0.000 s . The figures are representative of typical developments of
maximum pressure on the respective cross sections.

For a crown wall fully protected by the armour units in front of it (figure 4.1)
45

46 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

the pressure rise is relatively gentle and an almost even pressure distribution at
the time of maximum loading is observed.
High crown walls with an upper unprotected wall part are subject to high impact
pressures in the region just above the armour crest berm- figures 4.2 and 4.3. A
typical evolution of wave pressure on these type of high structures is illustrated
in figure 4.2. Initially (t < -0.027 s) no wave pressures act on the wall face.
In less than 0.006 s the pressures rise from 0 to approximately 6 kN/m 2 in a
narrow region immediately above the armour crest. Within the next 0.03 s the
high-pressure impact zone is widened and an increase in more slowly varying
pressures on the lower protected part of the wall as the water starts to penetrate
into the voids in the armour is observed. At time t ~ 0 s the maximum load
on the wall .is reached. The distribution of pressure is characterised by a high
pressure intensity on the upper part and an almost even distribution of half or
less the intensity on the lower unprotected part.
Figure 4.3 shows a very similar situation except that the pressures on the protected part are somewhat higher when compared to figure 4.2. These higher
pressures are caused by water from the preceeding wave still being present in
the voids in the armour layer when the next wave approaches. This situation is
typical for tests with the highest crown wall where all uprushing water is stopped
by the wall and hence more time is required to allow for backflow and drainage
of the voids.
To some extent the above observations support the assumptions about the distribution of wave pressure on the wall face made by Giinbak and Ergin (1983)
- see section 2.2.3. Also the measured pressure distributions compare well with
those measured by Jensen (1984), compare figures 4.3 and 2.6, for the pressures
at time of maximum overall loading and for a wall configuration with a high
unprotected upper part. The unprotected wall part in the wall configuration
used by Burcharth et al. (1995) (figure 2.7) only constitutes a small fraction of
the total wall height and hence the measured pressures should be compared with
the pressure distributions shown in figure 4.1 for a wall fully protected by the
armour. For the maximum overall loading the distributions of pressure are seen
to compare quite well.
Three consecutive snapshots of an impinging wave on the highest of the four used
walls (cross section 3 in figure 3.6) are shown in figure 4.4. The photographs can
directly be related to the pressure evolution in figure 4.3.

47

4.1 . DISTRIBUTION OF WAVE PRESSURES

F=29N/m
M=0.7Nm/m
Pb= 0.70kN/m2
150 -.---..-------,

F=45N/m
M= 1.7Nm/m
2
Pb=0.8lkN/m
150 -.---.,---,

F= 63N/m
M=2.5Nm/m
Pb= l.OOkN/m2
150 -.---.,---,

150

150

IOO f - -+---i

I00 f----:-+---1

I 00 _.)'---+---!

I 00 ..,_)_+----l

100

50~-t---1

50\

0 +-"--t--i
0

2.0

4.0

time =-0.0547s

time =-0.0469s

F=159N/m
M=8.5Nm/m
Pb= 1.79kN/m 2
150 .---,r---,

100

0 -+-_.+--_,
0

2.0

100

'

2.0

4.0

150~

F=l71N/m
M=I0.2Nm/m
R = l.69kN/m2

F=I89N/m
M=I2.4Nm/m
Ph=l.81kN/m2

1\

150

100

""'

100

50 -t---\t---1

0 -t----''1----i

0 -t----"'1---i

0 -t----''r----1

0-t--llt---f

2.0

4.0

2.0

4.0

2.0

4 .0

time =-0.0078s

time = O.OOOOs

time = 0.0078s

F=l60N/m
M=9.3Nm/m
Prl .63kNfm2
150 ....--.,---,

F=154N/m
M=8.8Nm/m
11.=1.59kN/m2
150 ........--.,---,

F=151N/m
M= 8.6Nm/m
Prl .59kN/m2
150 ....,,----.---,

100\

100

50

0 -+-_.._+-_,
0

2.0

4.0

time= 0.0234s

'

50 -t--f+---1

0 +---"-+---1
0
2.0 4 .0
time = 0.0313s

5:
0

2.0

150 -.r--..-----,

100

time= 0.0391s

50 +-+-+----l

\
0

2.0

time= 0.0469s

0 +--"-+----1
0
2.0
4.0

4.0

time= 0.0547s

Section I
,... 180 .. ,

Test no. 89
Hs = 0.182 m
TP = 2.2 s
Ac = 0.15 m

4.0

F =I56N/m
M= 8.9Nm/m
ll.=1.6lkN/m2

50 \

4.0

2.0

time = 0.0156s

'

50

50 -t--f---1

I 00 -tl}r.---+--1

100

4.0

time =-0.0234s

F=215N/m
M=I3.6Nm/m
Ph=l.88kN/m 2
150

+--'
\'-+---1
0
2.0

time =-0.0313s

F"'229N/m
M=I4.4Nm/m
Ph=1 .91kN/m2

50 -+--T-+-----i

4.0

time =-0.0156s

150

j)

4.0

time =-0.0391s

F=209N/m
M=12.6Nm/m
Pb=l.86kN/m 2
150

2.0

-t~r-t---1

50 +-._+----l

50 \

0 +-......_+----1
0

F=I24N/m
M=6.1Nm/m
Pb= 1.46kN/m 2

I 00 -t----..if----1

50

0 -t-L-+----i
0
2.0 4 .0

50

F= 88N/m
M=3 .9Nm/m
P.= 1.21kN/m 2

No. pressure cells : 16

Vert. cell spacing : 8.5 mm
Hor. cell spacing : 40 mm
Logging frequency : 128 H z
All measures In mm.

Figure 4.1: Pressure distribution on crown wall for max. wave force
loading in test no. 89. See figure B.2 for details on pressure cell placement.

48 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

F=85N/m
M=8.5Nm/m
Jl,=0.77kN/m2

195

F=I43N/m
M=I7.1Nm/m
P.,=0.89kN/m z
195

130

130

65

65

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time =-0.0273s

,-~

130
65
0

......p

time =-0.0234s

time =0.0078s

195

130

65
0

0
0

'

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time= 0.0117s

195

65

'

2.0 4.0 6.0

time =-0.0039s

130

i'

65

0
0

2.0 4 .0 6.0

time= 0.0156s

... ~,

65
0

!.t""

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time=0.0195s

F=608N/m
M=60.6Nm/m
~ =3 .38kN/m2

130

65
0

2.0 4.0 6.0

time = 0.0039s

'"~'
F=495Nim
M=45.2Nm/rn
lt=3.12kN/m 2

195

65

130

65

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time = 0.0234s

-i'

1
0 2.0 4 .0 6.0

time= 0.0273s

Section 4

Test no. 202

H 8 = 0.173 m
Tp = 2.2 s
Ac = 0.11 m

No. pressure cells : 16

Vert. cell spacing: 11 mm
Hor. cell spacing : 40 mm
Logging frequency : 256 H z

+550

Ill
01

P'

time= 0.0078s

[/

130

~.-"

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

F=526N/m
M=48.5Nm/m
lt=3.23kN/m2
195

'

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

195

~~
0

time =-0.011 7s

65

F=559N/m
M=52.6Nm/m
P"=3.32kN/m2
195

F=621N/m
M=64.6Nm/m
Ph=3.09kN/m2

time = O.OOOOs

130

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

130

.... -::>

65

195

~ ../

130

time =-0.0 156s

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

F=576N/m
M=55. 1Nm/m
lt=3.32kN/m 2
195

'

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

195

65

F=304N/m
M=38.6Nm/m
R. = 1.30kN/m2

...... ~

130

F=586N/m
M=65.0Nm/m
Ph =2.51 kN/m2

130

<

..-~

time =0.0 195s

130

F=584N/m
M=56.9Nm/m
Ph =3 .34kN/m z

195

F=496N/m
M=59.1Nm/m
Ph=l .99kN/m2

65

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

65

F=235N/m
M=29.6Nm/m
R.=l .l4kN/m 2
195 ~

195 """"'
130

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

F=389N/m
M=48.8Nm/m
Ph= 1.58kN/m2
195

,_

F=188N/m
M=23.1Nm/m
R. = 1.03kN/m2

Ill

All measures In mm.

Figure 4.2: Pressure distribution on crown wall for max. wave force
loading in test no. 202. See figure B.3 for details on
pressure cell placement.

4.1. DISTRIBUTION OF WAVE PRESSURES

F=416N/m
M=48.2Nm/m
Ph=l.85kN/m2

F=521N/m
M=64.9Nmlm
Ph =2.11 kN/m2
330

330
220 ~

220

110

110

I"

F=612N/m
M=79.9Nmlm
Ph =2.33kN/m2
330

""' '

49

F=707N/m
M=96.1Nmlm
~ =2.57kN/m2

F=806N/m
M=116.8Nm/m
Ph=2.63kN/m2

330

\,.,.,
220

r;::::.

110

220
110

330

'

~ ......
r-- 'I

220

.......
r- >

110

I
0

0
0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time =-0.0273s

time =-0.0234s

F=862N/m
M=I31.2Nm/m
Ph=2.60kN/m2
330
220

~ ~ ......

,-

110

330

f"'oo.
220

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time=0.0117s

330 ""
220

110
0

'

time= O.OOOOs

If
1\

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time= 0.0156s

220

220

r""''

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

F=857N/m
M=I22.9Nm/m
lt=3.50kN/m 2
330 ......._

1\
~

220

I
t

time= 0.0078s

F=860N/m
M=126.7Nm/m
Ph=3.37kN/rn2
330

""'~

11 0

time = 0.0039s

110

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

220

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

110

time= 0.0195s

F=909Nim
M=I43.6Nm/m
Ph=2.93k.N/m2

330

'r"I\.

F=870N/m
M=J30.9Nm/m
Ph=3.25kN/rn2
330 ......._

i\

.......

0 2.0 4 .0 6.0

time- 0.0117s

F=921N/m
M=I46.8Nm/m
Ph=2.86kN/m2

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

F=894N/m
M=I37.4Nm/m
Ph=3.14kN/mz

220

time =-0.0 156s

330

r-....
'
~~

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

110

time =-0.0039s

F=931N/m
M=l48.5Nm/m
Ph=2.77kN/m 2

110

330 i""""oo

330 ...........

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time =-0.0 195s

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

F=901N/m
M=140.7Nm/m
Ph =3.01kN/m2

110

~~
~
~

0
0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time =-0.0078s

F=907N/m
M=I42.3Nmlm
Ph=2.68kN/m2

110

220

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

220
110

I)

0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time= 0.0234s

)
0 2.0 4.0 6.0

time= 0.0273s

Section 3

Test no. 166

H s = 0.183 m
Tp = 2.2 s
Ac = 0.11 m

No. pressure cells : 16

Vert. cell spacing : 20.2 mm
Hor. cell spacing : 40 mm
Logging frequency : 256 H z

Cl)

+550

"'"'

0
.,.,

All measures In mm.

Figure 4 .3: Pressure distribution on crown wall for max. wave force
loading in test no. 166. See figure B. 5 for details on
pressure cell placement.

50 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

Flow and impact corresponding to maximum loading on crown wall. The

situation corresponds to
the pressure distribution at
time t = 0.000 s in figure
4.3. Velocity paths are parallel to the slope and relatively few air bubbles are
visible in the fluid.
The wave approximately
0.2 seconds after the maximum wave impact. Pressures are reduced significantly on the upper half
of the unprotected part of
the wall and the thickness of the uprushing water
tongue has decreased. The
flow field is very stochastic
and a large amount of air
bubbles are visible.

The wave approximately

0.4 seconds after the maximum wave impact. Pressures have decreased on the
whole of the wall and the
flow has reversed downwards the slope.

Figure 4.4: Consecutive snapshots of a typical large wave impact on

cross section 3 - see figure 3. 6. The photographs can be
compared to the pressure distributions in figure 4.3

4.2. WAVE FORCE COMPONENTS

4.2

51

Wave force components

Since the amount of data from the pressure sensors is enormous - approximately
50Mb disc storage per test - the pressure recordings are transformed to the
following 3 resultant wave force components by numerical spatial integration
over the wall height :
Horizontal wave force Fh
Overturning moment M
Wall base pressure Pb.
The pressure Pb at the base of the wall is stored since this component is normally
used to assess the uplift force acting beneath the base slab of the structure, see
section 2.2.
Calculations of the overturning moments are solely based upon the wave pressures acting on the vertical wall face, i.e. contributions from uplift pressures are
not included.
Time series of Pb and Fh are not filtered or smoothed in any way. The overturning
moment M is smoothed by averaging the sum of the value at each time step and
its neighbouring values. Examples of time series of the three force components
are shown in figures 4.5 - 4.7 for different load situations.
Figure 4.5 illustrates a typical lapse of time during a wave attack on the lowest
wall type which is fully protected against impact forces by the armour stones
in front of the wall. The example shows the maximum load condition recorded
in test no. 55 - see table A.l p. 123. In all tests with this wall configuration
relatively smooth force component time series without a distinct peak around
the time of maximum load were observed. Also it was noticed that the peak
values of the 3 components occurred simultaneously in the majority of the test
series. Rise times, i.e. the time from zero loading to maximum loading (see
figure 4.8) are typically in the range 0.1 s < trise < 0.2 s.
In figure 4.6 a time sequence from test no. 149, breakwater cross section 3, is
shown. The force signals are seen to be double peaked with app. 0.03 seconds
between the two peaks. Such situations were only experienced in very few of the
tests and only in test series with the highest wall, i.e. cross section 3 in figure
3.6. The magnitudes of the horizontal force Fh are nearly identical for the two
peaks whereas the overturning moment M has a clear maximum at the first peak
and the base pressure Pb reaches its maximum around the second peak. This
time history indicates that the wave attack progresses in the following way :

52 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

..
.

1200

.
960

i-~~-~-

I
I
I
t

Lag

Fnax: 217 N/M

Corresponding:

(s]

E'
.......

11
: 14 .3 HJ1/M
0.00
0 00
720 ..... :...............:........ ..:,.. ............ --~ Pb = 1. 78 kM/n2
L...--:::---~=----:-:- - - l

u..

480

-z

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

240
0
125

-E
E

~
~

100

............... ~- ..... ~ t t -~ -~ ............. -~- ...........

I

..r-..r ---rrr-....~ ..............~-----..-

..
Lag
14.3
............... ;............... ................ ................
Corresponding:
F
: 217 HIM
0.00
.:
.:
.: Pb
0.00
: 1. 79 kN/1'12
.
.
-''
ttl1ax:

Hnll'l

~---

[s]

75 ----:------i ----t--~--

so

'

'

I
I
I

I
I
I

f
I
I

I
I
I

f
I
I

25
0
6.0

~: ~ ;
o

.
..

t
t

'
I

..............}................; ..............;....... .
I

..

..
I

'

Pnax: 1.78 kNIM2

4.8 i -~1~ Corresponding:
........
C\1
:
!
F
: 217 HIM
E 3.6
.......
~~ +~ 1'1
= 14.3 ""'/"

~ 2.4

c::

.
~

1
t
I

I
I
I

-~:
I
I

t
I
I

lsl
0.00

0.00

'"-:-----,-:--__,...---1

t ~
o ~
~
~
I
t
I
I
I

1.2

.
.

Lag

I
I
I

!t
I

o
0
o

~-~r-~

0-+~====+==--~-~--~--~--~--~--~
'
.

0
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6

time (s)

Figure 4. 5: Example of typical force time series on the lowest protected

wall. From test no. 55.

a solid water impact in the form of a water hammer impinges on the upper unprotected part of the wall. This impact causes a large overturning
moment and a large horizontal force impact whereas the base pressure is
only slightly affected.
the water hammer is reflected from the wall and all 3 force components
decrease.
the still progressing wave now fully covers the wall resulting in large magnitudes of all the force components. Fh and Pb have their maximum values
at this stage whereas the overturning moment is somewhat smaller than
before.

'

~~ ~---

4.2. WAVE FORCE COMPONENTS

..

1200

Lag
.
lsl
0.03
.
.
.
~i
. f+
.
. Pb : 3.81 kN/"2 o.oo
. ............... !.............. .
.
.
.
.......................... -r
.....:.............r ............T............T.............
'
'
'
'
Corresponding:
:!::
:
:
:

t1
= 56 , 5 Ht1/n

960
__...,

E
...._
~
l1..

53

720

480

240

~~ ~ : :

'

0
125
__...,

E
...._

~
~

'

100

.............. ;..............;..............f ............. ~ ......

75

50 ................................ ..

6
0...0

lsl
-() .03
-() .03

557 N/"
: 1.87 kH/1'12

Pb

o
t

:
:
~ r~- r
.
..
.

..

. . . . . . .+. . .. . ... ,. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .f......

:

..............;..............
............+
.
.............. .

~ ......

3 .6

t
o

0
6.0

"'

4.8

Corresnond
. 1' ......, ',

...........................................................................................

25

-.

~I t
~
~t
I
I

t
t

~ax:

3.91 kH/1'12

Lag
[s]

Corresponding:

F
H

o.oo

: 571 H/1'1
: 56.5 Nl'll"

0.03

o
t

t
t

: ..... : ~ r . ~ :
. _......... . .
.
..................... , ................ ,................................
.
.

2.4

1.2

..

..

0.60

0.80

.... .

.........

.. ,

. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ,

............. .

o!===~~~--~:~--~--~--~--~~
0

0.20

0.40

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

time (s)

Figure

4 6:

Example of double peaked force impact on high wall. From

test no. 149.

The relatively few wave impacts giving rise to double peaked force recordings
all have maximum values somewhat lower than the maximum recordings in the
respective test series.
Figure 4. 7 shows the force time series for the maximum force record in test
no. 149 from where the double peaked forces in figure 4.6 also originates. The
loads are clearly defined by a single peak and all 3 force components reach
their maximum values at the same time. This type of force development, which
corresponds to the pressure evolution shown in figure 4.3, is registered for the
majority of the impacting waves on high crown walls.
In an extensive study concerning wave loading on caisson breakwaters Bagnold
(1939) found that the horizontal wave force imposed on such structures typically
had a lapse of time as shown in figure 4.8. This observation was later verified

54 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

1200

960

.
..
I

E'
-..
z

..._.

u.

._..
~

...

Hrl/1'1

'
'

. ""uc=
.
.
.............. :............. :. ........... ............. ...... Pb =

99 .o Nrl/1'1

Lag

100 .............. ;..............: .............; ..............;...... Corresponding:

ls l

0. 00
0.00

75

I
I

.........

"'E
.......

3 .6

:::..

2.4

4.8

.......... ; ..............

Lag

[sl

Corresponding:

0.00
0.00

F
: 781 N/1'1
H : 99.0 NM/ 1'1
:

~..

4 7:

I
:

~-- :- -~ r-~ - ;

0.20

~ --~

..................... ,......... ..... ...................................................

~---~:--,_J
!
!
1
0

Figure

I
I

..
.............. j..............j~i ..t
..............( ...........i.............t............-f' .....

781 H/1'1
3.71 kH/112

I
I

25

1.2

............................................................ ...............................................................

50

a:'

= 99.0

: 3.7! kN/1'12

'

6.0

"

lsl

o.oo
o.oo

; ; rrr-.. r-1-

480

0
125

E'

.
.

..

Corresponding:

720 .................. ,.......................................................... Pb

240

E
z

~!1r

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.0

.........,................, ................
:

1.2

!.4

1.6
time (s)

Example of typical force time series on highest wall. From

test no. 149.

by Oumeraci and Kortenhaus (1992) and Marinski and Oumeraci (1992) in a

very comprehensive study involving both wave force assessment and stability
evaluations of caisson breakwaters. The same principal shape of the wave force
evolution is found in the present study with the exception of the relative few
tests where double peaked loads were observed. Hence the time evolution of the
horizontal wave force component can be described by the peak force (Fh ,peak),
the more slowly varying (semi-static)part of the impact (Fh,static) and the two
periods trise and tdecay.
The rise times trise were, for all the configurations with an upper unprotected
wall part (cross sections 2- 12 in figure 3.6) and exposed to waves sufficiently
large to impact on this part, found to lie in the range 0.01 s < t rise < 0.1 s. For

4.2. WAVE FORCE COMPONENTS

55

Figure 4.8: Schematised wave force evolution.

milder wave conditions, where only the lower protected wall part is loaded, rise
times are similar to those found for cross section 1, i.e. 0.1 s < trise < 0.2 s. For
the high walls the decay time is typically within the range 0.1 s < tdecay < 0.25 s
whereas for the lowest wall type the decay of the force components is in the order
of the wave period.

4.2.1

Force distributions and statistical force estimates

Examples of distribution curves for the three force components are given in
figures 4.9 - 4.10 for the lowest and highest wall types respectively and for
almost identical wave conditions. It is noticeable how the distribution curves
turn out to be straight lines in the logarithmic (log10 ) probability plots for the
highest crown wall where hardly any overtopping occurs. A study of figure 4.9
representing the lowest crown wall shows that this linearity does not exist due
to the excessive wave overtopping taking place on this configuration.
For further analyses two statistical estimates of each force component have been
extracted :
the 1% force fractile, i.e. the force which in average is exceeded by 1% of
the waves.
the 0.1% force fractile, i.e. the force which in average is exceeded by only
0.1% of the waves.
In table A.l these probabilistic estimates are given for each force component (Fh,
M and Pb) in all the tests. The notation in table A.1 is given as F 1 % = F10;
FO.l% = F1 etc.

56 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

Prohiihility n( cxc.:~Lk.nc.:c

Pn>bohility of e>tccetlence

lc~KI ..,...,-------------------------------,

~ ~ ~c----------------------------,

le-Ill

I c-Ol

lc02

~~~

lc-114
()

50

100

200
Huriwntlli~rcc (N/m)
150

250

------------------ --+-.--.--.--,--.--,--.--,--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--1
4

31Xl

I ll

12

()vertum int; mnmcnl (Nmhn)

Ptohhility of cxc..,.)encc

J,-+(KJ -.-----::-----------------------,
lc~ll

lc-{12

11,11

115

1.11

I.S

2.11

2.5

Section 1

Test no. 89
Cross section 1
Hs = 0.182m
Tp = 2.2s
Ac = 0.15m
Excessive overtopping

1.. 18 0 .. ,

All measures in mm.

Figure 4.9: Force distributions from test no. 89 (see table A .l p. 124).

14

16

4.2. WAVE FORCE COMPONENTS

57

Pn>t..hility of excee<Jence

Pruhahilily nf excccdencc

~~ ~~--------------------------~

le~~ ~----------------------------~

Ie-OI

le-01

l e-02

le-02

le-03

lc-03

1on 200 300 4CXI 500 600 700

scx1 900

1~

00

lOO

lW

Ovenuming mumcnl (Nmlm)

Hnriznnl:ll force (Nim)

Pruhahllily of excecdeoce

le-+00 ,...-----:::-----------------------,

I c-Ol

lc-02

lc-03

I c-(14 -h-rrm-r-rm"rT"r"TTTT'I'TTT'T"T"'TT'M'TTT"r"TTTTT....-rl

0.0

0.5

1.0

I.S

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Wall ha.<e pre-<Surc (kNim 2)

Section 3

180

14

Test no. 166

Cross section 3
Hs = 0.183m
Tp = 2.2s
Ac = O.llm
Qm =52 10- 6 m 3 /m/s

.. I

CO

0
I')
I')

+550

Lf)

All measures in mm.

Figure 4.10: Force distributions from test no. 166 (see table A.1 p.
125}.

I~

I~

58 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

4.2.2

Correlation between force component estimates

Scatter plots outlining the relation between the three extracted force components
from the tests with cross section 1, tests no. 1 - 89 in table A.1, are shown in
figures 4.11 and 4.12. Each figure contains two sets of scatter points, one set
with e.g. the maximum horizontal force (Fh,peak) from each wave attack plotted
against the corresponding moment (M at time of Fh,peak) and another scatter
point set the other way around, i.e. Mpeak versus the corresponding value of
Fh. Where the two sets of scatter points do not coincide there is a time lag
between the peaks of the respective force components, i.e. a situation similar to
figure 4.6. If the scatter points create a narrowly shaped "body" the two force
components have a strong mutual correlation.
l

Thrning to figure 4.12 where Pb is plotted versus Fh the situation is somewhat

different. The correlation between Pb and Fh (and hence between Pb and M) is
much lower and the deviation between the two scatter clouds is more pronounced,
meaning that the peak occurrence of Fh (or M) and Pb is often not simultaneous.

'
\

: .

I:
.\. ,. , .

:t,.,
:~ i'
~

',

. ,:

Studying figure 4.11 it can be concluded that time lags between Fh,peak and
Mpeak only occur for relative small wave loadings. For large wave loadings the
two scatter sets coincide very well. Also, it can be concluded that Fh and M are
almost linearly correlated.

11

Plots similar to figure 4.11 and figures 4.12 are shown in figures 4.13- 4.14 for
the tests with cross section 3 (highest crown wall, tests no. 114- 166). Again, a
very strong correlation between Fh and M is observed and also the peaks occur
simultaneously. Like figure 4.12 the plot of Pb vs. Fh in figure 4.14 shows that
the base pressure does not strictly follow the two other force components.
In figures 4.15 - 4.16 Mo.t% vs. Fh,O.t% and Pb,o.t% vs. Fh,o.t% are plotted
respectively for all 373 test series. A very strong dependency between Fh,O .l%
and Mo .t% is observed.
As observed in the scatter plots for the individual waves (figure 4.12 and figure
4.14) the correlation between Pb and the other two force components is also weak
when considering the 0.1% estimators. For small wave loadings the correlation
between Pb,O.l% and Fh,O.t% is quite high but for higher load intensities large
deviations are observed.

59

4.2. WAVE FORCE COMPONENTS

20,---------------------------------,

15

z~

..._., 10

5-

100

50

M at time of Fh,peak

-~p

Fh at time of Mpeak

200

150

250

300

Fh (N/m)

Figure 4.11: M plotted vs. Fh for all waves with cross section 1.

3.0 ..
+

2.5

2.0
,-...
('l

~
..._.,

1.5

..0

A..

1.0

0.5

0~

Jl(o o

0.0
0

50

100

150

Pb at time ofFh ,peak

Fh at time of Pb,peak

200

250

300

Fh (N/m)

Figure 4.12: Pb plotted vs. Fh for all waves with cross section 1.

60 CHAPTER 4. WAVE PRESSURES AND FORCES ON CROWN WALLS

200
I

cni

150

m.b~c
El

,-...

z.._.,

&.fir

"

(]

100

:=E
:

50 ...

M at time ofFh ,pea k

Fh at time of M peak

0
0

500

250

1000

750

1250

1500

Ph (N/m)

Figure 4.13: M plotted vs. Fh for all waves with cross section 3.

5.00 --,-----------------~
I

I.
ID

3.75
,..-...

!'

::

_
~
.._.,

2.50

.D

tl..

1.25

Ph at time of F h,pcak

Fh at time of Ph,pcak

''

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

Fh (N/m)
I~

Figure 4.14: H plotted vs. Fh for all waves with cross section 3.

4.2. WAVE FORCE COMPONENTS

250

500

61

750

1000

1250

Fh.O.I% (N/m)

Figure 4, .15:

Mo.l %

plotted vs. Fh,o .I%

5000

,.-.,
N

3750

.......,

1250

250

500

750

1000

Fh.O.l% (N/m)

Figure 4,.16:

Pb,0.1%

plotted vs.

Fh ,O.l %

1250