Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
11
J. de Rouck 1
J.W. van der Meer 2
N.W.H. Allsop 3
L. Franco 4 and
H. Verhaeghe 5
J. de Rouck 1, J.W. van der Meer 2, N.W.H. Allsop 3, L. Franco 4 and H. Verhaeghe 5
Abstract: safe use of low lying and densely populated coastal regions depends
critically on the performance of coastal structures in defending these areas
against storm surges, wave attack, flooding and erosion. Continuing sea level
rise and climate change (storms are becoming rougher) emphasise the need for
reliable and robust predictions as higher storm surges and bigger storms may
lead to flooding. Population pressures on land use in coastal regions have
sometimes ignored age-old appreciation of coastal hazards. The CLASH
research project EVK3-CT-2001-00058 is being funded by the EU to provide
“Crest Level Assessment of coastal Structures by full scale monitoring, neural
network prediction and Hazard analysis on permissible wave overtopping”. It is
intended to produce generally applicable prediction methods based on
permissible wave overtopping and hazard analysis. This paper describes the
general approach of this major European project and more specific the
development of a homogeneous overtopping database, which will be the basis
for the general prediction methods.
INTRODUCTION
Assessment of the safety of coastal defence works requires reliable and well-
validated prediction methods. Actually there is a lack of widely applicable and safe
The CLASH research project (January 2002 - December 2004), funded by the
European Community and consisting of 13 partners (see table1), is intended to deal with
these problems and so improve knowledge about the overtopping phenomenon.
OVERTOPPING MEASUREMENTS
Examination of possible scale/model effects requires a comparison of large scale
overtopping results with small scale overtopping results. Because very little large scale
overtopping measurements have been carried out in the past, full scale overtopping
The measured prototype storms will then be simulated in scale model tests
and/or by numerical modelling. Results of the modelling can then be compared with
prototype results. This will lead to a firm conclusion on scale/model effects.
At present, a lot of data have been collected and re-analysed already. All kind of
structures are considered: dikes, rubble mound structures with rock or concrete armour,
vertical structures, berm breakwaters and composite structures. Most tests are 2D but
3D tests are also included. As the tests concern overtopping measurements, only
emerged structures are considered. Table 2 summarises the data that have been collected
until now (September 2002).
More data are expected from several other institutions/countries such as CERC
(USA), University of Kingston (Canada) and Japan and Europe.
Second step: Select ‘general’ formulae for comparison with data sets
To have a first idea of the reliability of the collected datasets, they are all
compared with existing empirical prediction formulae. A general form of these formulae
is:
q 1 R
= A . exp − B . . c (1)
gH m0
3
γ H m0
with q the mean overtopping discharge (m3/s per m width), Hmo the significant wave
height based on spectral analysis (m) and Rc the structure crest freeboard relative to
SWL (m). A and B are parameters of which the value depends on the considered
The first form of the formula is the one that is prescribed by TAW (1999) for
smooth dikes and non-breaking waves (Van der Meer et al., 1998). The value of the
parameters A and B are here 0,2 and 2,6 respectively. The value of the parameter γ is 1
in this case (no reduction because smooth slope). The formula predicts relative large
overtopping discharges and is considered therefore as an upper limit for all data. The
second form of the formula is the one of Franco et al. (1994) for vertical structures.
Here A = 0,2 and B = 4,3. The value of the parameter γ is 1 (vertical structure). The
discharge is quite low compared to smooth slopes (and non-breaking waves) and it can
be considered as a kind of lower limit. A prediction in between the two previous ones is
that of Allsop et al. (1995) for vertical structures: A = 0,05 and B = 2,78. The value of
the parameter γ is 1 (vertical structure). This prediction is considered as a mean value.
The fourth formula is the one of TAW (1999) or Van der Meer et al. (1998) for dikes
covered with rock or armour layers, for non-breaking waves. The formula is the same as
the one for smooth dikes, except the value of the roughness factor γ is 0,5 instead of 1.
This causes a lower prediction of overtopping discharge. Figure 2 gives an indication of
the different formulae.
1.E+00
1.E-07
0 1 2 3 4
Rc /Hm0
For breaking waves on dikes, the general form of an empirical formula is (TAW
2002):
q tanα R 1
. = 0,067 . exp − 4,75 . c . (2)
γb . ξ 0 H ξ . γ . γ
f . γ β . γv
3
gH m0 m0 0 b
Many other prediction formulae for overtopping exist (Bruce et al., 2001), e.g.
the empirical formula of Owen (1980). They are not further considered here, although
all Owen’s data are part of the available dataset.
Rc Ac
SWL α2
hb
ht hc
h α1
B
With:
γf : a correction factor for the roughness of the slope (-)
cotα : the average slope angle (-)
Rc : the crest freeboard in relation to SWL (m)
B : the berm width, measured horizontally (m)
hb : the berm depth in relation to SWL (m)
Ac : the height of armour in front of the crest element (m)
Gc : the width of armour in front of the crest element (m)
h : water depth in front of the structure (m)
ht : water depth above the toe of the structure (m)
hc : total height of the structure (m)
To determine the average slope of the structure, one considers the points on the
slope 1,5*Hs above SWL and 1,5*Hs below SWL. The horizontal distance between
these two points is Lslope. The average slope angle cot(α) is then obtained by dividing
Lslope by 3*Hs. This is only valid if there is no berm between the two considered points
on the slope. If there is a berm, the average slope angle is obtained by dividing (Lslope-B)
by 3*Hs. Notify that the berm width is not considered when determining the average
slope angle. This is the method used in TAW (1999) for dikes. Another approach could
be to include the berm in the average slope angle, still keeping B and hb as berm
parameters. If 1,5*Hs is larger than Ac, logically Ac is considered instead of 1,5*Hs. In
this case the average slope angle is obtained by dividing (Lslope-B) by (1,5*Hs + Ac).
More detailed information about the characterisation of the slope and berm of a
structure can be found in TAW (2002).
The second difficulty encloses the fact that sometimes not all information of
tests is available and an estimation or calculation is needed then (e.g. wave height at the
toe of the structure), which causes less reliable information. This is mostly the case for
the wave parameters. It was decided to use the wave height and period at the toe of the
structure, because it is thought to be most relevant that there is a relation between
incident waves and overtopping. The problem herewith is that in quite a lot of tests,
only wave parameters at deep water are measured. This means that it is necessary to
derive the incident wave parameters by means of a numerical wave model. It was
decided to use SWAN (Simulating WAves Nearshore), a third generation model
developed at TU Delft, see Booij et al. (1999). Another frequent problem is that the
wave period Tm is available (mean period) instead of Tp (peak period). In those cases
assumptions of Tm/Tp are made.
1.E+00
3
q/sqrt(gHmo )
q tanα
. * 1.E-01
3 γ b .aξ)/0x
gH m0 sqrt(tan 0
1.E-02
1.E-05
1.E-06
1.E-07
0 1 2 3 4
Rc R /(H *x1 )
. c mo 0
H m0 ξ 0 . γ b . γ f . γ β . γ v
1.E+00
/ gHmom3 30)
qq/sqrt(gH
1.E-01
TAW 1999, dikes,
1.E-02 non-breaking
waves
Franco et al.
1.E-03 1994, vertical
structures
Allsop et al. 1995,
1.E-04 vertical structures
normal wave
1.E-05 attack
oblique wave
1.E-06
attack (45°)
1.E-07
0 1 2 3 4
Rc/Hm0
Table 3 shows the parameters that will be used as input for the neural network.
Only the mean overtopping discharge is considered, so no percentages or individual
overtopping volumes will be treated.
Tp toe (s)
Hm0 toe (m) h (m)
β (°) Parameters to Indexes: q (m3/m/s)
װ describe the
װ װ structure section:
װ Reliability- װ
Peak index RF
Significant Water
period angle of γf (-), cot(α) (-), and Measured
wave height depth at
measured wave Rc (m), B (m), Complexity- overtopping
measured at the toe of
at the toe attack db (m), Ac (m) index CF discharge
the toe of the
of the and Gc (m)
the structure structure
structure
There is still some discussion about the use of the wave parameters. Here it is
proposed to use the wave conditions measured at the toe of the structure. Another
method could be the method of Goda. In this method not the wave parameters at the toe
of the structure, but the deep water wave conditions are used. It is necessary then to
model the foreshore. Therefore Goda proposes to use the parameters Hm0 deep, Tp deep and
m instead of Hmo toe and Tp toe. Here 1:m is the slope of the foreshore. Figure 6 explains
the method of Goda.
Bathymetry
Deep water wave
conditions: Hm0 deep,
Tp deep 1
m
1 or 2 wave lengths
CONCLUSIONS
A first completed homogeneous database will be ready at the end of 2002. A
number between 7000 and 10000 data in the database is expected. This database will be
anonymous without figures of cross-sections. With this completed database one can
start for the neural network, which will lead to a first generic prediction method. During
the second and the third year of CLASH, more data will be gathered (from institutions
all over the world, from prototype measurements and from laboratory measurements).
Halfway the third year (2004) a final database with a final prediction method will be
available.
On behalf of establishing guidelines for crest level design for seawalls and
related sea defence structures, various levels of allowable overtopping discharge will be
fixed. This will be done based on hazard analysis. The guidelines will be available at the
end of the project (December 2004).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The CLASH project EVK3-CT-2001-00058 frames within the EESD programme
of the Fifth Framework Programme of the EU. The financial contribution of the
European Community is therefore very much acknowledged. The technical
contributions of those who have provided data are also gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Allsop, N.W.H., Besley P. and Madurini L., 1995. Overtopping performance of vertical
and composite breakwaters, seawalls and low reflection alternatives. Paper 4.6 in
Final Proceedings of MCS-project, MAS2-CT92-0047.
Aminti P., Franco L., 1988. Wave overtopping on rubble mound breakwaters. Proc.
21st Int. Conf. on Coast. Engrg., Vol.1, ASCE, New York, 770-781.
Besley P., Stewart T. and Allsop N.W.H., 1998. Overtopping of vertical structures: new
prediction methods to account for shallow water conditions. Proc. Conf. Coastlines,
Structures and Breakwaters, I.C.E., March 1998, publ. Thomas Telford, London.
Booij, N., L.H. Holthuijsen, and R.C. Ris, 1999: A Third-Generation Wave Model for
Coastal Regions. 1, Model Description and Validation. J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 10,
No. C, 7649-7666
Bruce T., Allsop N.W.H. & Pearson J., 2001. Violent overtopping of seawalls -
extended prediction methods. Proc. Conf. on Shorelines, Structures & Breakwaters,
September 2001, ICE, London.
Bruce T., Pearson, J. and Allsop, N.W.H., 2002. Hazards at Coast and Harbour Seawalls
-Velocities and Trajectories of Violent Overtopping Jets. ASCE, Proc. ICCE 2002,
Cardiff, UK.