Klicken Sie, um das Titelformat zu bearbeiten

FZK

Wave
Wave Loads
Loads on
on Breakwaters,
Breakwaters, Sea-
Sea-
Walls
Walls and
and other
other Marine
Marine Structures
Structures

H. Oumeraci, E-mail: h.Oumeraci@tu-bs.de

Leichtwei-Institute for Hydromechanics and Coastal Engineering, Technical
University Braunschweig, Braunschweig
Coastal Research Centre, University Hannover and Technical University
Braunschweig, Hannover
1
 Introduction

Main Experimental Facilities and Expertise

2
 Leichtweiss-Institute
Leichtweiss-Institute for
for Hydraulic
Hydraulic Engineering
Engineering

Technical University Braunschweig

Homepage: http://www.LWI.tu-bs.de

(a) Plan view of twin-flume

Depth = 1,25m

Wave
Wave up to 30cm high solitary waves

Length 90m
b) Twin-Wave Paddle
(Synchron or independent)

Hydromechanics &
Coastal Engineering
2m 1m

3
 Coastal
Coastal Research
Research Centre
Centre (FZK)
(FZK) in
in Hannover
Hannover

Coastal Research Centre Homepage:http://www.hydrolab.de/

FZK
Joint Central Institution of
the University of Hannover and the
Technical University of Braunschweig

Dimensions up to 1m high solitary waves

330m x 5m x 7m

Large Wave Flume (GWK)

4
 Investigated
Investigated Coastal
Coastal Marine
Marine Structure
Structure (Selected)
(Selected)

SWL

Seadikes and Revetments Rubble Mound Breakwaters Caisson-Breakwaters

Wave Absorber as a Sea Wall Wave Absorber as Artificial Reef Innovative Sea Walls

Pile

Beach Profile Development under Dune Stability and Reinforcement Wave Impact Loading
Storm Surge Conditions with Geotextile Constructions & Scour (in progress)
5
 Sea Wave-Structure-Foundation Interaction
CoV > 30%
TF Wave
Transmission
CoV > 50%
Wave
TF Overtopping
CoV 20% TF
CoV 10% CoV 20%
Incident Waves & Waves &
Structure Structure
Waves TF Water Levels TF Water Levels TF Load Load
(Farfield) (Nearfields) (at Structure)
CoV > 30% CoV > 20%
Structure
TF Structure- and
response
Soil Parameters

CoV 15%

Wave Refelction TF

Structure Response Wave Transmission

TF TF
Direct Loading
TF of Foundation Soil
Indirect Loading
of Foundation Soil
CoV = Coefficient of Variation
TF = Transfer function (Model) Structure Parameters 6
Research Strategy

Processes Identify most essential and crucial Processes

observed in nature features of processes to be predicted observed in nature

Conceptual model
(original idea/hypothesis)
Numerical modelling to Physical Modelling (small scale
supplement/support small scale model tests for systematic
model study parameter study)

and model effects

and extension Qualitative (and partly quantitative)
Quantitative
adjustment

Correction
for scale
understanding of physical processes to be
investigated

Prototype observations and measurements (model and scale effects)

Verification and validation

Verification and validation

and/or
Large-scale model tests (scale effects)

Improved quantitative understanding of

processes to be predicted

Validated sophisticated numerical model Validated predictive formulae and

used as a research predictive tool graphs (empirical/semi-empirical)

Ultimate Scientific Result: Detailed conceptual model

(generalized and validated)

7
Outline

1. Introduction
2. Wave Loads on Pile Structures
3. Wave Forces on Submerged Bodies
4. Wave Loads on Monolithic Breakwater and Sea
Walls

8
2. Wave Loads on Pile Structures (3D)

9
2.1 Wave Load Classification

10
 Non
Non Slender
Slender and
and Slender
Slender Structures
Structures

Incident Wave
C Incident Wave
HtHi C Ht=Hi

Hi
Ht Hi Ht
D
L L D

FH FH

FV

(a) D > 0.05L (b) D < 0.05L

Non Slender Structures Slender Structures
(Diffraction + Reflection) (Hydraulically transparent)
D/L= Diffraction parameter
11
 Relative Importance of Drag and Inertia Forces FDD and FMM

MORISON-Formula:

1 D2 u
fges = CD w D u u + cm w h
2  4 t Transition &
D/H   
  
Total
Drag component Inertiacomponent Deep water Shallow
0,025 water Force
(h/L 0,5)
D= H/32 FTot
Drag forces dominate for (h/L < 0,5)
(Deep water)
smaller D and larger wave
heights H

0,1 Both Drag and Inertia

are important D<
D (H/32) FTot = FD
. h/L) (1/100.h/L)H
(100
0,2 D= H D= H/5
(Deep water)

(1/100.h/L)H FTot =
L)

(H/32)<D<
h. /

<D< FM + FD
(H/5)
16

(1/16.h/L)H
H(

Inertia forces
D=

1 dominate for larger

D and smaller wave
heights H
2
D> FTot = FM
D 0,2H
(1/16.h/L)H

Shallow water Transtion Deep water

h/L
10
0,01 0,1 1,0

12
Wave
Wave Load
Load at
at Different
Different Locations
Locations

Wave Load Classification

Seawards of surf zone Surf zone Shorewards of surf zone

Non breaking waves Breaking waves Broken waves (bores)

FH (t)

FH
FH (t)
Landward
FH Seaward of of shoreline
shoreline

generally quasi-static generally dynamic generally dynamic

enough knowledge available insufficient knowledge

13
 2.2 Breaking Wave Impact Load on
Single Pile in Deeper Water
References:
Wienke, J. (2001): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by breaking waves in deeper
water, PhD-Thesis, Leichtweiss-Institute, TU Braunschweig (in German)

14
Extreme
Extreme Loads
Loads Due
Due to
to Breaking
Breaking Waves
Waves

PROTOTYPE GWK MODEL

15
 Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Forces
Forces on
on Slender
Slender Cylinders
Cylinders

inertia/drag force +
Total force = impact force
(quasi-static force
FTot = FM + FD + FI

Breaking wave
.'

C F MWS

= Curling Factor

16
Slamming
Slamming Coefficient
Coefficient and
and Pile-up
Pile-up Effects
Effects

pile-up effect
no pile-up
CS(t=0)=2
CS(t=0)= Wagner(1932)
von
Karman
(1929)

17
Theoretical Formulae for Slamming Forces

y
flat plate
R

x
f pile-up effect
c(t)

b V.t
x
V

analytical solution by flat plate approximation

experimentally verified by pressure measurement

18
Theoretical Formulae for Slamming Forces

Line force fmax = C S R V 2 with CS = Slamming Factor

y R
2

x
Impact load duration: f
13 R x
Slamming Factor

TD = V
32 C
CS= f/ RV2

ignoring pile-up effect

new approach
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
t / R/V

19
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK

Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker

SWL SWL SWL SWL SWL

Force - Time

Force
Force

Force

Force
Force

quasi-static

Time Time Time Time Time

20
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK

Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker

SWL SWL SWL SWL SWL

Force - Time

Force
Force

Force

Force
Force

quasi-static

Time Time Time Time Time

21
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK

Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker

SWL SWL SWL SWL SWL

Force - Time

Force
Force

Force

Force
Force

quasi-static

Time Time Time Time Time

22
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK

Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker

SWL SWL SWL SWL SWL

Force - Time

Force
Force

Force

Force
Force

quasi-static

Time Time Time Time Time

23
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK

Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker

SWL SWL SWL SWL SWL

Force - Time

Force
Force

Force

Force
Force

quasi-static

Time Time Time Time Time

24
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases Investigated
Investigated in
in GWK
GWK for
for Vertical
Vertical &
& Inclined
Inclined
Cylinders
Cylinders (1)
(1)

-45 -25 0 +24,5 +45

5
quasi-static

25
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases Investigated
Investigated in
in GWK
GWK for
for Vertical
Vertical &
& Inclined
Inclined
Cylinders
Cylinders (2)
(2)

quasi-static

26
Loading
Loading Case
Case 3
3 for
for Different
Different Pile
Pile Inclination
Inclination Angles
Angles

-45 -25 0 +24.5 +45

Inclined against Inclined against vertical pile Inclined in wave Inclined in wave
wave direction wave direction direction direction

SWL
RWS SWL
RWS SWL
RWS SWL
RWS SWL
RWS

Loading Case 3

27
Slamming
Slamming Forces:
Forces: Definition
Definition Sketch
Sketch

60
actual
total force

40 FI
F0
force [kN]

20

F2
0
t1 TD
t2
-20
t0

0,0 0,4 0,8 1,2 1.6

time [s]

28
Impact
Impact Force
Force for
for Loading
Loading Case
Case 3
3 Different
Different Pile
Pile Inclinations
Inclinations

F1 = 2 ( ' ) R V 2

F
F1
F1 [kN]

80
max
t
60

mean
mittel
40

min
20
Loading Case 3
0
-45.0 -25.0 0.0 24.5 45.0 []

SWL

29
Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Impact
Impact on
on Slender
Slender Structures
Structures (Video)
(Video)

HB 2.8m just in Front of Cylinder

Breaker Heights up to 3.25m generated!

30
Wave
Wave With
With Vertical
Vertical Front
Front at
at Cylinder
Cylinder and
and Splash
Splash Generation
Generation

wave crests
C
Splash
Splash

Wave with C
vertical front at
cylinder

V(z) dz

31
 Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Impact
Impact as
as aa Radiation
Radiation Process
Process

(a) Side View (b) Front View

wave crests Splash

Splash
C
C

Breaking
wave at
cylinder SWL SWL

32
Theoretical
Theoretical 3D-Model
3D-Model for
for Impact
Impact Force
Force

F = FD + FM + FI Adopted in ISO/CD 21650 Actions from

wave and currents (in print)
Morison Impact Adopted in New German Lloyd Guidelines
Force Force (2005)

1 R
For time: t = 0 :
8 V cos
V cos 1 V cos
Fl = Rv b cos 2 2 t arctan h 1 t
R 4 R
3 R 12 R 1 R
For time t = , with t = t - :
32 V cos 32 V cos 32 V cos
1 V cos 1 8 V cos V cos V cos

Fl = Rv b cos t 4 t arctanh 1 t 6 t
6 R 3 R R R

Duration TD of Impact Force FI

13 R Wienke, J; Oumeraci, H (2005): Breaking wave
TD = , mit C(TD) = R impact on a vertical and inclined slender pile
32 V cos theoretical and large-scale model investigation.
Coastal Engineering. Elsevier vol. 52 pp 435-462.
33
Curling Factor for Vertical and Inclined Cylinder

Impact area

C . b
h
b = 0.46 fr = 0
Hb R
SWL

C C

g.t
V cos ( )
V
V =
cos
C
V= fr = -45 bis +45
cos und -45
C
V = cos ( )
cos
34
 Time
Time Dependent
Dependent Slamming
Slamming Coefficient
Coefficient (Wienke
(Wienke and
and Oumeraci,
Oumeraci,
2005)
2005)

Wagner (1932)

Cointe (1989) Campbell et al. (1977)

CS = fS/RV

Fabula
(1957) Von Karman (1929)

Goda
et al. (
1966) Campbell & Weynberg
(1979)
Wienke (2001)

35
 2.3 Breaking Wave Impact Load on
Single Pile in Shallow Water
References:
Irschik, K. (2007): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by depth limited breaking
waves, PhD-Thesis, TU Braunschweig (in German)

36
Breaking Wave Loads (Slamming Coefficient Approach)

(FM0 FTot FD)

1 '
FTot = C D w (D z ) u u
2
' For shallow water :
C D,breaking 2,5(CD )nonbreaking
u = c ghb gH b
with CD,nonbreaking 0,7
CD, breaking 1,75
D
u u = u2 = gHb

Hb
z = Impact height of fD = f(Breaktype) :

hb z Hb
2
FTot 0, 88 w g D H b
Problem: Response characteristics of structure not considered.
37
Quasi-Static Force and Impact Forces

Non-breaking wave:
C F

MWL
quasi-static force

MORISON equation
F = FD + FM

R
Breaking wave: C . b
b F
quasi-static + impact force MWL

F = ( FD + FM ) + F I
FI = R V 2 C s b cos 2
Cs: slamming coefficient
: curling factor

38
Curling Factor for Depth Limited Wave Breaking

Non-breaking wave:
C F

MWL
quasi-static force

MORISON equation
F = FD + FM

R
Breaking wave: C . b
b F
quasi-static + impact force MWL

F = (FD + FM ) + FI
FI = R V 2 Cs b cos2 D Estimation of curling
factor for depth limited
Cs: slamming coefficient
breaking waves
: curling factor

PhD-Thesis of Mr. IRSCHIK to be completed in Summer 2007

39
Model Set-up in GWK (1)

5 inclinations of test cylinder

a = -45/-22,5/0/22.5/45

40
Model Set-up in GWK (2)

Flume wall:
current meters (8)
propeller probes (4)
Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV) (4)

wave gauges (20)

Test cylinder:
five inclinations
= -45/-22,5/0/22.5/45

force transducers -strain gauges- (8)

top and bottom bearing
inline and transverse

pressure transducers (16)

front-line

wave gauges (4)

41
Wave
Wave Conditions
Conditions Tested
Tested in
in GWK
GWK

GWK-Data
x= 201m GWK-Data
x= 201m

42
Breaker
Breaker Type
Type

Example 1: T = 4s (Plunging Breaker)

Example 2: T = 8s (Collapsing Breaker)

43
Breaker Tilt Angle

plunging breaker plunging breaker

breaker tongue at top
air gap
breaker tilt angle 30-45

collapsing breaker collapsing breaker

breaker tongue at SWL
very small air gap
breaker tilt angle >45

44
Breaker Tilt Angles

plunging breaker
breaker tongue at top
air gap
breaker tilt angle 30-45

collapsing breaker
breaker tongue at SWL
very small air gap
breaker tilt angle >45

45
Breaking Wave Loads in Shallow Water

1 2

3 4

46
Normalized Max Total Force

2.5
Time Dependent
[-]

2 impact force
(highly variable)
1.5
Ftot/gDHzyl2

3D model of Wienke
1 (2001)

0.5
+
quasi-static load
0 (constant)
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Morison equation
distance xb-xcyl [m]
x = xb = Breaking Point Location:

47
Curling
Curling Factors
Factors

Curling factor
Fdyn (t)
=
C S (t) R C b2 b
1 height of impact area
=
b
curling factor [-]

0.8

0.6 Wiegel (1982)

0.4

0.2

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4
distance
The time history xb-ximpact
of the cyl [m]can be estimated using the same
curling factors for both plunging and collapsing breakers

48
Impact Force: Curling Factor l

Estimation of curling factor for maximum loading case

Curling Factor [-]

49
Impact Force: Curling Factor l

Comparison with Goda et al. (1966), Wiegel (1982) and

Wienke (2001)
Wienke (2001): transient wave packets on horizontal bottom freak waves

Wienke (2001)
loading case 3
Curling Factor [-]

(most critical)

Mean of 10%
highest values.

Wienke, J (2001): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by breaking waves in deeper water, PhD-Thesis,
Leichtweiss-Institute, TU Braunschweig (in German)
Irschik, K. (2007): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by depth limited breaking waves, PhD-Thesis, TU
Braunschweig (in German)
50
 2.4 Effect of Neighbouring Piles on
Wave Loading of Slender Pile

References:
Sparboom, U; Hidelbrandt, A; Oumeraci, H. (2006): Group interaction effects of slender cylinders
under wave attack. Proc. ICCE06

51
Measuring
Measuring Cylinder
Cylinder in
in GWK
GWK

5.00m
Support
structure
+

Measuring Strain
cylinder
D = 0.324m
gauge
s
SWL
+4.26m Wave
7.00m

Current gauges
meters
+2.40m
3.00m
2.50m

0.00 m
Model set-up in the
CROSS - SECTION Large Wave Channel
52
Measuring
Measuring Cylinders
Cylinders and
and Locations
Locations of
of Neighbouring
Neighbouring Cylinders
Cylinders

Video Wave gauges

control
107.29 m
106.64 m
Current 105.99 m
meters
105.34 m
104.69 m
104.04 m
103.39 m
Measurin
102.74 m
g cylinder
102.09 m
2.50m
Location in front
Video of the wavemaker
control
Model set-up in the
PLAN VIEW Large Wave Channel
53
Cylinder Group Configurations Tested

Measuring cylinder

Neighbouring cylinder

D = Cylinder diameter
c = Incident wave direction

see paper Sparboom, U.;

Hildebrandt, A.; Oumeraci, H
in Proc. ICCE 06

15 Investigated cylinder group configurations

54
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases for
for the
the Selected
Selected Cylinder
Cylinder Group
Group Configurations
Configurations (1)
(1)

waves waves waves waves

Cylinder
D D D
configur-
ations D D D D 3D 3D
D D D

Loading
case 1

Loading
case 2

Loading
case 3

55
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases for
for the
the Selected
Selected Cylinder
Cylinder Group
Group Configurations
Configurations (2)
(2)

waves waves waves waves

Cylinder
D D D
configur-
ations D D D D 3D 3D
D D D

Loading
case 4

Loading
case 5

56
Tested
Tested Wave
Wave Conditions
Conditions

Water Depth
d = 4.26 m

(a) Regular Non-Breaking Waves

Water Depth
d = 4.26 m

(b) Irregular Non-Breaking Waves

(JONSWAP)
Water Depth
d = 4.26 m

(c) Breaking Waves

(Gaussian Wave packets)
57
Instrumented
Instrumented Cylinder
Cylinder with
with Two
Two Lateral
Lateral Cylinders
Cylinders (Video)
(Video)

Instrumented Cylinder

3D D
D
D 3D

58
 Surface
Surface elevation
elevation and
and wave
wave height
height development
development in in the
the
near
near field
field of
of aa single
single isolated
isolated cylinder
cylinder for
for loading
loading cases
cases 1-5
1-5

H3,0
[m]

loading case 5
loading case 4
loading case 3

2,5

loading case 1
loading case 2
(a) Locations of wave gauges and cylinder
2,0

cylinder axis
2 [m]

9
8 1,5
7 1,5
6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
WG 5
2.6 m 1.3 m 0 1.3 m 2.6 m

1
wave gauge location
(c) Wave development in front and behind the cylinder

0,5
SWL

t [s] 0
2 1,5 1 0,5 0

(b) Surface elevation above SWL

59
Bending
Bending moments
moments and
and surface
surface elevation
elevation for
for isolated
isolated single
single
cylinder
cylinder
Regular Waves: H = 1.4m; T = 4s

(t) : surface elevation at cylinder location

My (t)

Mx (t)

Mr (t)

Mx= Moment in longitudinal direction

My= Moment in transverse direction
Mr= Resulting Moment
t= Phase lag related to max

60
Measured
Measured wave
wave kinematics
kinematics with
with calculated
calculated accelerations
accelerations

Regular Waves: H = 1.4m; T = 4s

(t) u(t)

du/dt
dv/dt

v(t)

u= horizontal Particle velocity

v= vertical Particle velocity

61
Bending
Bending moments
moments and
and surface
surface elevation
elevation for
for side-by-side
side-by-side
arrangement
arrangement
Regular Waves: H = 1.4m; T = 4s

(t) : surface elevation at cylinder location

My (t)

Mx (t) Mr (t)

Mx= Moment in longitudinal

My= Moment in transverse direction
Mr= Resulting Moment
t= Phase lag related to max

62
Wave
Wave kinematics
kinematics for
for side-by-side
side-by-side arrangement
arrangement

Regular Waves: H = 1.4m; T = 4s

(t) u(t)

du/dt
dv/dt

v(t)

u= horizontal Particle velocity

v= vertical Particle velocity

63
Reduction
Reduction Amplification
Amplification Factor
Factor for
for Loading
Loading Cases
Cases 1-5
1-5

Reduction Configuration no.2 Configuration no.7 Configuration no.12

Coefficient
Amplification
C=
Factor
MM D D
K=
group
group waves waves D waves 3D
MMsingle
sin gle
[] D 3D
[-] D

LC 1 0,50 1,19 1,11

LC 2 0,62 1,27 1,04
LC 3 0,59 1,24 1,05
LC 4 0,64 1,31 1,11
LC 5 0,78 1,17 0,92

64
 3. Wave Forces on Submerged Bodies

References:
Recio, J.; Oumeraci, H. (2006): Geotextile Sand Containers for Coastal Structures Hydraulic
Stability Formulae and Experimental Determination of Drag, Inertia and Lift Coefficients. Progress
Report LWI (1st Draft), December 2006

65
Sliding
Sliding and
and Overturning
Overturning Stability
Stability
a) Sliding Stability b) Analysed condition
Mobilising force:
Drag + Inertia force

u
FD + FM = 0.5w u2 CD A s + CMw V
t
Resisting Force:
Weight of GSC-Lift Force-Buoyancy

FResisting = (FGSC Flift )

Sliding Formula
Horizontal Sliding
0.5CD + 2.5CL
Mobilising force: lc(sliding) u2
Drag + Inertia force u
g CM
t
Empirical Coefficients (CD,
Resisting Force
CM and CL) needed
a) Overturning Stability b) Analysed condition

Mobilising Moment >=Resisting Moment

lc l l l Overturning Formula
FGSC FD c + FM c + FL c
2 10 10 2
Mobilising Moment:
0.05CD + 1.25CL
lc(overt.) u2
(Drag force + Inertia force) x Mobilising force:
lc/10:
lc l
Drag + Inertia force
u
FD + FM c 0.5g 0.1CM
10 10 lc
10
Rotation Point 0 t
Resisting Moment

lc lc
FGSC
2 2
66
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (1)
(1)

67
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (2)
(2)

68
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (3)
(3)

69
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (4)
(4)

70
Reynolds
Reynolds Numbers
Numbers and
and KC
KC Numbers
Numbers for
for Tested
Tested Conditions
Conditions

71
Comparison
Comparison Aceleration
Aceleration Data-Linear
Data-Linear Theory
Theory

72
Comparison
Comparison with
with COBRAS-Computations
COBRAS-Computations

Horizontal Forces

Difference within
12%

landward z= 0.13m
Forces [N]

seaward

Calc. Cobras
Measured

0 10 20 30
Time [s]
73
Drag
Drag Dominance
Dominance

Horizontal Velocity

Horizontal Force

74
Maximum
Maximum Solitary
Solitary Wave
Wave Generated
Generated in
in LWI-Twin
LWI-Twin Wave
Wave Flume
Flume

75
Comparison
Comparison of
of Solitary
Solitary Wave
Wave Shape
Shape Measured
Measured with
with Cobras
Cobras

(a) Free Surface experiment (b) Free Surface Cobras

110 115

76
4. Wave Loads on Monolithic
Breakwaters and Sea Walls

77
4.1 Wave Loads Classification

78
Parameter Map for Classification of Loading Cases
Composite breakwater
Moderate High mound Crown wall of rubble-
Vertical breakwater Low mound mound mound breakwater
hb * < 0.3 0.3 < hb* < 0.6 0.6 < hb * < 0.9 0.9 < hb * < 1.0 hb * > 1.0

L hs Bb
SWL
SWL SWL d SWL
Hsi d
hs hs
hs d Beq hb
hb hr
hb hr

Small wave Large wave Small wave Large wave Small wave Large wave Very large wave
* * * * * * *
Hs < 0.35 0.35 < Hs 0.1 < Hs < 0.2 0.2 < Hs < 0.6 0.1 < Hs < 0.2 0.2 < Hs < 0.6 Hs > 0.6

Narrow berm Moderate berm Wide berm

* * *
0.08 < B < 0.12 0.12 < B < 0.4 B > 0.4

1. Quasi-standing 2. Slightly 3. Impact loads 4. Broken waves

wave breaking wave *
* * Fh *
Fh Fh Fh
8.0 Fh ,max 8.0 Fh , max 8.0 F hmax Fh ,max
8.0
1.0 < < 2.5 > 2.5
1.0 6.0
6.0 6.0 Fh , q 6.0
Fh , q Fh , q
4.0 4.0 4.0
4.0 F hmax F hmax
F hmax F hq F hq F hq F hq
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 t/T t/T
0.4 t/T 0.0 0.1 0.2 t/T 0.0 0.1 0.2

(quasi-static analysis) (quasi-static analysis) (dynamic analysis) (quasi-static dynamic/analysis)

h Hs B F h Oumeraci et al (2001):Prohabilistic
with h* = b ; H* = ; B * = eq ; F * = h and B * =B + b
b h s h L h 2 eq b 2tan Design of Vertical Breakwaters.
s s h
s
gH
b Balkema, Amsterdam 316 p. 79
Characteristics of Pulsating and Impact Wave Loads

Fh = Fh / gH2 Fh,max < 2,5 (*)

td 0,5 SWL
t d > TN Fh
Fh,max TN= natural period of Ph,max
structure oscillation
Fu
Ph,max
Pu,max 1,0
t/T gH
td = t d / T
Pu,max
0,5
a) quasi-static load (pulsating) gH

Fh = Fh / gHb2 Fh,max = 2,5 bis 15

(*)
SWL

Fh,max td 0,01 bis 0,001 Fh

t d < TN Ph,max
T= Wave period Fu

Pu,max Ph,max
t/T 2 bis 50
td = t d / T g Hb
Pu,max
b) Impact load 2,0
g Hb
(*) Figures represent only order of magnitude

80
4.2 Breaking Wave Loads

81
Breaking Wave Loading of Caisson Breakwaters in GWK

Vertical
Breakwater

82
Breaking Wave Loads and Splash in GWK (Video)

83
Breaking Wave Loads

Slightly breaking waves Strongly breaking waves

(pulsating load!) (impact load)

Fh / gHb2 Fh / gHb2
Hb
FFhh Fh,max
Fh,max T = Wave period

Fh,q Fh,q

Fh,max t/T Fh,max t/T

= 1,0 2,5 > 2,5
Fh,q Fh,q

GODA-Formulae PROVERBS-Approach
(static stability analysis) (dynamic stability analysis)
84
Simplified Force Time History

F (t) F (t)
h h
Actual load Idealised load
F h,max

I
dFh
I I
rFh I rFh
dFh

t rFh t tr t
t dFh td

85
Simplified Impact Pressure Distribution (Parameterization)

Fh(t)
SWL = Static Water Level
R c = freeboard p4 h*= 0.8Hb
F h,max

p1 Rc

SWL
Fh,max
F (t) lFh d
h
dc

t t
tr p = 0.45 p1
3

td

86
Calculation of Static Equivalent Wave Loads (1)

(Fh )stat = D Fh,max (1) with D = dynamic load factor

Calculation of dynamic load factor D by assuming a triangular load-time function:

Fh,max
Maximum Impact force Fh,max[kN/m]:

Fh,max 10 w g Hb 2 (2) Hb = Breaker height

Rise time of Impact force tr:

2 h = Water depth
h
2 g (3) directly at the
t A = w g Hs tr Time
4Fh,max wall
td
Total load duration td:
Dynamic load factor D
t
t d = t A 2.0 + 8 exp 18 A (4) Tp = Peak td
0,55
t
Tp D = 1.4 tanh + 0.25 2 d c
Periode
TN TN (6)
or approximated by: t d 2.5 t A (5) t
0,63

with c = 0.55 d
tA

For more details see Oumeraci, H. (2004): Caisson breakwaters in Planning and Design of
Ports and Marine Terminals, pp. 155-262 2nd Edition by H. Agerschou, Thomas Telford, London. 87
Calculation of static Equivalent Wave Loads (2)
Dynamic load factor D
td
0,55
t t
0,63

D = 1.4 tanh + 0.25 2 d c with c = 0.55 d (6)

TN TN tA

td
k=
tA
dynamic load factor D[-]

tA tE
td

Natural Period:
M
TN 2
Ks
M=Mass, Ks= Stiffness

Fstat ,equ = D Fdyn,max

3.0
relative Load Duration t d / TN

88
Effect
Effect of
of Successive
Successive Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Loads
Loads
horiz. Force Fh [kN/m]

(a) Horizontal breaking wave

force

Time [s]
Total horiz. Displacement of Structure [cm]

(b) Accumulation of residual

displacement

Time [s]

0,0
(c) Caisson displacements
Fh

89
SAKATA-Habour (Japan)

Storm surge (1973/74): Caisson dimensions:

Hmax: 10.0m (tD=0.6s) Width: B=17.0m
TP : 13.0s Height : hc=11.63m
Length: L=20.95m

B=17.0m
0.00

d hc=11.63m
-3.43m

14.5m -9.00m

Static Standard Approach: Dynamic calculation (tD=0.6s):

S=1.2 S=0.50

S= Safety coefficient against sliding

90
Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Impact
Impact on
on SAKATA
SAKATA Breakwater
Breakwater

Storm surge im Winter 73/74 Hmax=10m, Tp=13s Credit: Dr. Takahashi, PARI
91
Sliding
Sliding of
of Caisson
Caisson in
in SAKATA-Harbour
SAKATA-Harbour in
in the
the Storm
Storm Surge
Surge
1973/74
1973/74

B=17m; h=11-12m; L21m Hs7m; T=13s

Credit: Dr. Takahashi, PARI

Although safety coefficient against sliding s=1.2 and against

tilting ov>5 according to static (Standard) approach.

92
Dynamic
Dynamic Stability
Stability Calculation
Calculation of
of SAKATA
SAKATA Breakwater
Breakwater
B=17.0m
0,00

-3.43m d hc=11.63m Caisson-Length:

L21m
14.5m -9.00m

HS= 6.9m
Tp= 13.0s
d = 3.43m

Impact load for

Hmax=10m, Tp=13s and
d=3.43m

Adhesion and friction

force

Horizontal displacement
of Caisson: ca.
20mm/Impact event

93
 Seaward Impact Loading Induced by Wave Overtopping

Seaside Harbour side

Entrapped air

Overtopping plume

SWL
Fh, sea

Seaward impact
pressure

Uplift

Schttrumpf, A. (2006): Uplift force on monolithic structures induced by breaking waves and under
overtopping conditions PhD-Thesis, TU Braunschweig (1st Draft)

94
Research
Research Performed
Performed in
in PROVERBS
PROVERBS for
for Wave
Wave Impact
Impact of
of Vertical
Vertical
Structures
Structures
Berm height Parameter Map Water depth &
wave conditions
and width for classification of loading case
at structure

IMPACT LOADING

Horizontal Loads Effect of wave Vertical Loads

(shoreward) overtopping (uplift)

New prediction methods New prediction methods

with following steps: Seaward impact Slamming on top with following steps:
loads Fs,2 slab Fv,2
* statistical distribution see Section 2.5.2 outside Proverbs * statistical distribution
of max. force (Fh,1 ) of max. force (Fu,1 )

1 2
* force history 2 * force history
Fh,1= f (duration) Fu,1= f (duration)
Fh,1 Fv,2
* correction of Fh,1 Fs,2 * correction of Fu,1
for aeration for aeration

* pressure distribution * pressure distribution

Fu,1 Fu,2

Constructional Measures to Reduce Impact Forces

* Perforated Structures (Section 2.8.1)

* Rubble as Damping Layer (Section 2.8.2)
* Unconventional Alternatives Related to Front Geometry
(MCS-Project) and foundation (Section 3) (Oumeraci et al, 2001)

95
4.3 Scale Effects Associated with
Breaking Wave Impacts

96
Physical
Physical Processes
Processes Involved
Involved in
in the
the Wave
Wave Load
Load History
History and
and
Associated
Associated scaling
scaling Problems
Problems

F h, nature
= NLF Fh, model
Oscillations of Air
Pocket t nature= NLt t model
Compression of Air
Pocket C FROUDE: F= 3 and t = 0.5
C MACH-CAUCHY: F= 2 and t = 1.0
C ALTERNATIVE Scaling depending on
air entrainment:
F= 2 to 3
MACH-CAUCHY t = 0.5 to 1.0

MACH-CAUCHY
AND FROUDE

Escape of Air
Maximal Run-up
Impact of Breaker
Tongue

MACH-CAUCHY
AND FROUDE FROUDE
FROUDE

Time t
(Oumeraci & Hewson, 1997)
97
Suggested
Suggested Procedure
Procedure for
for Scaling
Scaling the
the Various
Various Components
Components of
of the
the
Wave
Wave Load
Load History
History
impact component governed by compressibility
F (t) Fdyn (MACH- Cauchy)

scaling of total force history:

[
Ftot(t) = (Fdyn) + (Fosc ) ] + (FFroude)
MACH-Cauchy

oscillatory component
governed by compressibility quasi-static compon
Fosc(Mach-Cauchy) governed by gravity
Fq (Froude)

Cauchy: tr
Froude: t di Time t
Cauchy - Froude: td
Froude: tq
(Oumeraci et al, 2001)
98
Scale
Scale Effects
Effects in
in Modelling
Modelling Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Loading
Loading and
and Response
Response
of
of Sea
Sea Dikes
Dikes

Breaker and Impact Run-up and down

WEBER REYNOLDS
Force Model Scale
REYNOLDS ( WEBER ) Law
CAUCHY 1:1 1:10 1:100

Gravity FROUDE 1 1 1
C
Friction REYNOLDS 1 1:31.6 1:1000
Surface
Wave CAUCHY
FROUDE ( REYNOLDS ) Elasticity CAUCHY 1 1:10 1:100

Surface WEBER 1 1:100 1:10000

Bottom friction Core material Tension
(after Fhrbter, 1986)
REYNOLDS CAUCHY

99
4.4 Broken Wave Loads on Sea Walls

100
Broken Wave Loads: Load Cases According to SPM (1984)

(a) Seawall front landward (b) Seawall seaward

of shoreline of shoreline

Front of seawall
Seawall Seawall
Front of seawall

Beach slope Broken wave

Shoreline
SWL

Broken wave Virtual max.

run-up
SWL

Shoreline

101
 Assumption According to CEM (2003)
1 2
hw x
Bore height Hb= 0, 78 Hb (5) Hw1 = 0, 2 + 0,58 Hb (6) HRWS = 0, 2 Hb (7) Hw2 = 0, 2 Hb 1 2 (8)
hb xA

x
v w1 = c b = g hb (2) v RWS = c b = g hb (3) v w2 = c b = g hb 1 2 (4)
Bore velocity v b = c b = g hb (1)
xA

cb cb cb
max. run-up
Linear decrease of bore height
vA = 0
Breaker A
Hb Hw2
height HB SWL Hw1 HSWL ( zA )max

U
hw
(shoreline)
hb (Breaking
depth) 1:m x2
o pe
Bea ch sl x A = ( z A )max / tan

linear decrease of bore
linear decrease of bore height
velocity from
1 Seawall front seawards of shoreline v SWL = g hb to v A = 0
2 Seawall front landwards of shoreline at max. run-up
102
Seawall
Seawall Front
Front Seawards
Seawards of
of Shoreline:
Shoreline: Wave
Wave Load
Load Formulae
Formulae

Force Components:
1 2 1
Fwo = g Hw1 ; Fstau = g hb Hw1
2 2
1 Fwu = g Hw1 hw ; Fstat =
1
g Hw1
2

2
v
pstau =
2
Wave pressure
v = g hb
Fstau h
Fwo Hw1 = 0, 2 + 0,58 w Hb
hb HSWL = 0, 2 Hb
SWL

U
p w = g Hw1 Fwu shoreline
hw
Fstat

hydrostatic pressure hb = Breaking depth

Hb = Breaker height for water
depth hb

p w = g Hw1
pstat = g hw1

103
 Seawall
Seawall front
front landwards
landwards of
of shoreline:
shoreline: Wave
Wave Loads
Loads Formulae
Formulae

x HSWL = Bore height at shoreline

v w2 = g hb 1 2
xA 2 Hw2 = Bore height at wall

2 (maximum run-up)
v
pstau = w2 A
p w = g Hw2 2

x
Hw2 = 0, 2 Hb 1 2
Fstau xA
Fwo zA
1
HSWL = 0, 2 Hb Fwo =
2
g Hw2
2
1 x
Fstau = g hb Hw2 1 2
SWL 2 xA

U (shoreline) x
2

x A = z A / tan

zA= max. wave run-up

See also PhD-Thesis RAMSDEN (Caltech).
104
4.5 Wave Force Reduction by Armouring
(Tests Performed in Large Wave
Flume)

105
Wave Force Reduction by Armouring

x
Tetrapod
layer B crown

DWL Rc DWL

H b0 Caisson hc
d
d0 hs Bb
Bb
hb hr

B bottom d sand Sand

1 Definition of parameters:
DWL = design water level
Bbottom + B crown Bcrown = crest width (larger than two armour blocks)
b0 = B crown + hs m = cot = 1.35 to 1.50
hs + R c
Rc = freeboard
Lhs = wave length for depth hs at toe
b0 = width of dissipating mound at height of DWL

106
Damping of Pulsating Wave Loads by Armouring

(Fh)max = 1.2
(Fu)max = 0.9 with
withoutdissipating mound
dissipating mound
without dissipating mound

(Fu)max = 0.5 with dissipating

with dissipating mound mound
(Fh)max = 0.6 with dissipating mound

(D,u)max 40%
(D,h)max 50%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Fu -Fu,D

Fh -Fh,D D,u=
D,h= Fu
Fh

Time t [s] Time t [s]

(Oumeraci, 2004)

107
Damping of Pulsating Wave Loads by Armouring

( Fh)max= 4.1
(Fu)max = 2.6
with
withoutdissipating
dissipating moundmound
with
without dissipating
dissipating mound mound

(D,h)max 80%
(D,u)max 60%

Fh -F h,D (Fu)max = 0.7

D,h =
Fh with dissipating mound
( Fh)max= 0.9
with dissipating mound 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Fu -Fu,D
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 D,u=
Fu

Time t [s] Time t [s]

(Oumeraci, 2004)

108
4.6 Stability of Structure Foundation
Under Extreme Wave Loads

109
Main
Main Modes
Modes of
of Vertical
Vertical Breakwater
Breakwater Failure
Failure

OVERALL FAILURE MODES LOCAL FAILURE MODES

Fh
Fh SWL SWL
SWL lh
SWL
W' W'
A B
lv
(W' - F v)
Fv Fv

a) Sliding b) Overturning e) Erosion beneath seaward and f) Punching failure at seaward and
shoreward edges shoreward edges

SWL
SWL Fh

W' F h' W' SWL

Erosion of
Scour hole rubble mound toe
F v'
Fv

c) Settlement followed by slip d) Settlement followed by slip

failure and seaward tilt failure and shoreward tilt
g) Seabed scour and toe erosion

110
Wave
Wave Induced
Induced Dynamic
Dynamic Process
Process in
in Foundation
Foundation of
of Coastal
Coastal Structures
Structures

Inductive Displacement
Wave Gauges Meters
7.00 m Wave Flume (Top Level)

3.30 m

1
1 Caisson

2.76 m
4.05 m SWL 1 with 4.05 m SWL
1 Sandfill
HS, TP 3.45 m 2.50 m Bedding layer 0.2 m
1
1.00 m

.5 1 1
Sand layer 2.45 m
1:1
Sand Berm
1 1 1 1 D50 = 0.35 mm
2.45 m
2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2
Sand D50 = 0.35 mm
Impermeable Sheets 2 3 2 2 3 2
Electrical Conductivity
2 2 2 Measurement
Sand D50 = 0.35 mm Sand D50 = 0.21 mm
2 2 2 2 0.00 m Flume Bottom

Separation Wall
(Sandbags) 7.20 m

Measuring 1 Pressure 3 Pore Water Pressure + Total Stress (isotropic)

Devices: 2 Pore Water Pressure

111
Caisson Breakwater Construction in GWK

112
Processes
Processes Leading
Leading to
to Partial
Partial Soil
Soil Liquefaction
Liquefaction
300
Mean Value Mt,max 210 kNm/m

Mt [ kNm/m ]
200
100
0

(a)Total moment around caisson heel

0
dv,b [ mm ]

-1
-2
-3 (b)Transient motions of the
shoreward caisson edge
10
ut [ kPa ]

5 (c) Transient pore pressure (P36)

0

-5
10
ur [ kPa ]

(d)Residual pore pressure (P36)

5 S
0
III
0
dv,b [ mm ]

-20 hs dv,b Mt
-40 -
P36
-60

(e) Residual deformation (vertical) Loading cycles [-]

S 373 cycles
0 692
Number of wave load cycles [-]

Regular waves: H=0.9m, T=6.5s, hs=1.6m

113
Wave-Induced
Wave-Induced Pore
Pore Pressure
Pressure and
and Soil
Soil Deformation
Deformation Benesth
Benesth
Structures
Structures (Soil
(Soil Liquefaction)
Liquefaction)
0 Residual III
-2.5
Zoom
-2
-3.0 hs dv,b
-4
dv,b [ mm ]

Transient -
-3.5 dv,b=0.3 mm P36
-6

-8
-10 (a) Vertical caisson motion dv,b (t)

4
Transient pore pressure
3
u [ kPa ]

2
S
Residual pore pressure
1
3 Residual
ur=0.2 kPa
0 Zoom 2 Transient
(b) Pore pressure response u(t)
1 under the shoreward edge
of the caisson (P36)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
S54 cycles Time [s]
Regular waves with H=0.7m, T=6.5s, hs=1.6m
114
Residual Pore Pressure vs. Caisson Motions

Impact Pulsating
Load Load
4
III
Dr0.31
Dr0.35
Dr0.40
hs dv,b
3

Residual pore pressure ur [kPa]

-
P36

after 53 loading cycles

Dr 0.31 2

Dr 0.35

Dr 0.40

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

Downward motion (dv,b)crit= -0.3mm
amplitude dv,b [mm]
115
Thank you for your
attention!

123