tr

WaveForceson Verticaland
CompositeBreakwaters

N W H Allsop
D Vicinanza
J E McKenna

ReportSR 443
March1995,revisedMarch1996

g"-

Wattingford

Address and RegisteredOffice: HR Wallingford Ltd. Howbery Park, Wallingiford,Oxon OX10 8BA
Tel: + 44 (0)1491835381 Fax: + 44 (O11491832233
ngfdod

h Engbnd No. 256m.

ttR Waft{ilod

l. . rtply

Md

&t3ldaty ol Hn Wanngtord Golp Lld.

sR 443 0209/96

tr

sR 443 0209/96

tr
Contract
Construction
Theworkdescribedinthisreportwaspart-funded
of Environment
bythe Department
Directorate
andpartby the
Sponsorship
underresearchcontractsPECD7161263
and716/312.
and MAS3-CT95-0041.
EuropeanUnionMASTprogramme
undercontractsMAS2-CT92-0047
Belfast,and by
researchsupportwasgivenby the University
Additional
of Sheffield,
Queen'sUniversity
of Hydraulics
at
the Department
of the University
of Naples,withfurtherfundingfor visitingresearchers
programme
fromthe Department
Wallingford
of Education
of Northernlreland,DENI,theTECHWARE
of COMETT,andthe NationalCouncilforResearchin ltaly,CNR.
wasDr-lngH.
The projectco-ordinator
for theMASTll MOS-Project
undercontractMAS2-CT92-0047
Oumeraciof FranziusInstitute
of HannoverUnMersity.
The projectofficerfor EuropeanCommission
Directorate
GeneralXllwasMr C. Fragakis.
was
The projectco-ordinator
for the MASTlll projectPROVERBS
undercontractMAS3-CT95-0041
project
The
ProfessorH. Oumeraciof Leichtweiss
officerfor
Institute
of Braunschweig.
of University
EuropeanCommission
Directorate
GeneralXll wasMrC. Fragakis.
wasMr P.B.Woodhead
The DOEnominated
officerfor researchcontractsPECD716/263
andT/6/312
N.W.H.Allsop.Thisreport
and HR Wallingford's
nominated
officerswereDr W.R.WhiteandProfessor
arethoseof the
is published
by HR Wallingford
on behalfof the DOE,butanyopinionsexpressed
authors,and notnecessarily
thoseof thefundingdepartment.
at
The researchdescribed
in thisreportwasconducted
withintheCoastalGroupof HRWallingford,
of Belfast,andat theUniversity
Queen'sUniversity
of Naples,underthe overallsupeMsionof Professor
job numbers
N.W.H.Allsop.The HRWallingford
wereCAS41,CAS58,andCAS169.TheHR
Wallingfordfile was ClEll/3.

ti ln

Preparedby

rL*qA,rF/96J**
'l
tiue)
fiob

l/lrh
'l

tr

$rr.c.,,{\( .thtr5X'r+

Approvedby

Date
....!h oqM...l$b

@ HR WallingfordLimited1996

ill

sB 44302109196

tr

IV

sR 443 02109/96

tr
Summary
Wave Forceson Verticaland CompositeBreakwaters

N W H Allsop
D Vicinanza
J E McKenna
ReportSR 443
March1995,revisedMarch1996
Thisreportgivesinformation
and related
on waveloadingson verticalandcompositebreakwaters
harbouror coastalstrucfures.The reportreviewstypesof verticalbreakwatersusedaroundthe UK,in
Europe,andfurtheroverseas,
and identifies
designmethodsin usein the UK,Europe,andJapan.
Analysisof performance
in service,andof researchstudies,showsthatpresentdesignmethods
underpredict
waveloadsunderwaveimpactconditions,
/
andare notableto identifyreliablygeometric
waveconditions
whichleadto suchimpacts.
ComprehensMe
2-dimensional
hydraulic
modeltestswereconductedin a randomwaveflumeat HR
Wallingford
verticalwalls,under
to measurewavepressures
on a widerangeof simpleandcomposite
normalwaveattack(9=0").Thetestresultshavebeenusedto:
r
Assessthe reliabilityof existingpredictionmeithods;
r
ldentifythe rangesof geometrbandwaveconditionswhichleadto waveimpacts;
r
Developsimplemethodsto estimatewaveforcesunderimpactconditions.
The resultsof thetestshavebeencomparedwithpredictions
by a numberof differentmethods.
Analysisof the percentageof impactsrelativeto all waveshas beenusedto definea newdecision
diagramwhichsummarises
parameterregionsin whichwaveconditions
andwall/ moundgeometries
leadto breakingwaveimpacts.Forpulsating
Goda'smethodhasbeenfoundto be
waveconditions,
generallyappropriate,
evenwhen
butlor waveimpactconditions,
loadssignificantly,
it under-estimates
eXendedby Takahashi.Up-liftforcesaregenerally
by Goda'smethodfor pulsating
wellpredicted
conditions,
butagainunder-estimated
thatmostresemble
for impactconditions.Forwallconfigurations
crownwallsections,
the methodin the CIRIARockManualdeveloped
by Bradbury& Allsopgives
generallysafe predictions.
The resultsof thesestudiesare intendedto be of directuseto engineers
the stabilityof
analysing
prediction
verticalor compositewallsin deepwater,in harbours,
methods
The
the
shoreline.
or along
derivedhere,and/orthetestresultsthemselves,
wide
loadings
on
a
maybe usedto estimatewave
varietyof structures,existingor in design.The reportis alsowrittenfor otherresearchers
workingin this
field,to illustrate
the rangeof dataavailable
identifyregionsof continuing
for moredetailedanalysis,
uncertainties,
andto assistsetpriorities
for futurestudies.
Theworkreportedherewaspart{undedbythe Department
Sponsorship
Construction
of Environment
Directorate
underresearchcontractsPECD7161263,
andCl 39/5/96,andpartby the
PECD7161312
EuropeanUnionMASTprogrammeunderthe MCS-Project,
and laterthe
contractMAS2-CT92-A047,
project,contractMAS3-CT95-0041.
PROVERBS
of
Additional
supportwasgMenby the University
Sheffield,
Queen'sUnMersity
of Naples,
Belfast,andbythe Department
of the University
of Hydraulics
withfurtherfundingfor visitingresearchers
of
of Education
at Wallingford
fromthe Department
Northernlreland,DENI,theTECHWARE
programme
of COMETT,andthe NationalCouncilfor
Researchin ltaly,CNR.
Foranyfurtherinformation
on theseandrelatedstudies,pleasecontactN.W.H.Allsop,in the Coastal
Groupat HR Wallingford.
sR 443V2tO9t98

tr

VI

sR44302t09,86

tr
Notation
A"
a

Armour crest freeboard

Empiricalcoefficient

Bb
B"
B"*
B"q
B''
Bt
b

Crestwidthof rubblemoundberm
Widthof caisson
Widthof crownwall
Equivalent
widthof rubblemoundin frontof wall,averagedoverheightof mound
Structurewidthat staticwaterlevel
Widthof rubblemoundat toe level
Empiricalcoefficient

C.
C,(f)
Cr

Coefficientof wavereflection
Reflection
coefficient
function
Coefficient
of wavetransmission

D
Dn
Dnso
d

Particlesizeor typicaldiameter
for concretearmour
Nominalparticlediameter,
defined(M/p)t")for rockand (M/p")18
Nominalparticlediametercalculated
fromthe medianparticlemassMuo
Waterdepthovertoe moundin frontof wall

Ei
E,
q

Incidentwaveenergy
Reflected
waveenergy
Transmittedwaveenergy

FB
FF
FR
Fs
Fh
Fnrr.r*
Fn.'ouo
Fu
Fuo.*r.
Funso
f
f,

Buoyantup-thrust
on a caissonor relatedelement
Earthpressureforceon a caissonlrom the seawardpartof the mound
Earthpressureforceon the caissonfromtheharboursideof the mound
Factorof safety
Horizontalforce
on caissonor crownwallelement
Horizontalforce
level
at 99.8%non-exceedance
Meanol highest1/250horizontalwave
forces
Up-liftforceon caissonor crownwallelement
Up-liftforceat 99.8%non-exceedance
level
Meanof highest1/250up-liftwaveforces
Wavefrequency
= llTo
Frequency
of peakof waveenergyspectrum,

Gravitationalacceleration

H.*
H,o
H"o
H"
Ho^
H'uo
h
hb
h"
h,
h.

Maximumwaveheightin a record
Significant
waveheightfromspectralanalysis,
defined4.0m005
Otfshoresignificantwaveheight,un-affectedby shallowwaterprocesses
Significant
waveheight,averageof highestonethirdof waveheights
Waveheightexceededby 2"/oof wavesin a record
Meanheightof highest1/10of wavesin a record
Waterdepth
Heightof bermaboveseabed
Heightof rubblemound/ corebeneathcaisson/ wall
Exposedheightof caissonor crownwalloverwhichwavepressuresact
Waterdepthat toe of structure

(Darcy),alsousedas wavenumber= 2nlL

Permeability

vtl

sR 443 02/09196

tr
L
L.
Lo
Le
Lps

Wavelength,in thedirection
of propagation
Offshorewavelengthof mean(T.) period
Deepwateror offshorewavelength- gllZn
Offshorewavelengthof peak(To)period
Wavelengthof peakperiodat structure

Mh
M,
Mt
Muo
mo
m2

force
momentdueto horizontalwave
Overturning
momentdueto up-liftforce
Overturning
momentdueto allwaveloads
Overturning
curue
Medianmassof armourunitderivedfromthe massdistribution
Zerothmomentof thewaveenergydensityspectrum
Secondmomentof thewaveenergydensityspectrum

N*o
N.
nv

or "/"of totalincident
as proportion
Numberof wavesovertopping
expressed
=
wavesin a record TRff,
Numberof zero-crossing
of totalvolume
as proportion
porosity,
Volumetric
volumeof voidsexpressed

P
P,
p

probability
Encounter
Targetprobability
of failure
Wavepressure

q
Q"

perunitlengthof structure
Meanovertopping
discharge,
perunitarea,usuallythrougha
discharge
velocity;or specificdischarge,
Superficial
porousmatrix

R"
Ru
R,"
Ruex
r
SF
S(f)
sm
sp

Crestfreeboard,heightof crestabovestaticwaterlevel
Run-uplevel,relativeto staticwaterlevel
Run-uplevelofsignificant
wave
Run-uplevelexceededby
2/" of run-upcrests
usuallyrelativeto smoothslopes
Roughness
or run-upreduction
coefficient,
Shearforceat caisson/ rubbleboundary
Spectraldensity
Steepness
of meanwaveperiod= 2nHlgTf
Steepness
of peakwaveperiod= zn{lgTp"

T,
T*
To
TR
T"

Meanwaveperiod
Returnperiod= (1 - (1 - PJln)-l
Waveperiodof spectralpeak,inverseof peakfrequency
Lengthof waverecord,durationof seastate
significant
Waveperiodassociated
withH",notstatistically

u, v, w
x,y,z

Components
of velocityalongx, y, z xes
Orthogonalaxes,
distance
alongeachaxis

Levelin water,usuallyaboveseabed

c (alpha)
B (Beta)
p (rho)
p*
P,,9", 9"
A (delta)
A (lambda)
p (mu)

Structure
frontslopeangleto horizontal
Angleof waveattackto breakwater
alignment
Massdensity,usuallyof freshwater
Massdensityof seawater
Massdensityof rock,concrete,
armourunits
Reducedrelativedensity,eg. (p/p,)-l
alsousedas fractionof aeration
Model/prototype
scaleratio(Froude);
particularly
Coefficient
of friction,
betweenconcreteelementsand rock;alsop(x)=
meanof x
= lano.lsla
parameter,
lribarrennumberor surfsimilarity

(xi)

viii

sB 44302109196

tr
q., Eo
0 (phi)
r (tau)
o (sigma)
o(x)
o'
on

lribarrennumbercalculatedin termsof s, or so
Angleof internalfrictionof rockor soil
Shear strengthof rock moundor soil, also used as the time intervalbetweensamples
Stress
Standarddeviationof x
Normalisedstandarddeviationo/p
Normal stress

IX

sR 443 0209/96

tr

sR 443 02/09/96

tr
Contents
Page

Titlepage
Contract
Summary
Notation
Contents

i
iii
v
vii
xi

I n t r o d u c t i o.n. .
1.1
T h ep r o b l e m
1.2
Termsofreferenceforthestudy.
1.3
Outlineofthestudies....
1.4
Outlineofthisreport

........1
..... 1
......2
......2
.....3

Vertlcalbrealrwatersandrelatedstructures
...
2.1
Purposeandformofstructures
2.2
D e v e l o p m e nvt oefr t i c a l b r e a l < w a t e r s
2.2.1 Historicalbackground
piers, and seawalls
2.2.2 Constructionof breal<waters,
2.2.3 Constructionof vertically-composite
breaktaters
2.3
Performance
in seruice

....5
........5
......... 6
.. . ... .. 8
.... I
. . . 10
.. -.... 14

D e s i g nm e t h o d s
3.1
Designconsiderations
andfailuremodes
3.1.1 Structuralfailures
3.1.2 Functionalfailures
3.1.3 Designapproaches
3.2
Designformulaeforwaveforces/pressures
3.2.1 Horizontaltorces
3.2.2 Up-liftforces
3.2.3 Seawardor suctionforces
3.3
Hydraulic
modeltests.
3.3.1 Selection
of modelscale...

....... 17
... . . 17
.....17
....17
.. . 18
........ 19
.....20
...26
. . . . 27
.. . .. . . 27
. . . ..... 28

Designof researchstudies
4.1
Overallplanofstudies
4.2
Designofmodeltests.
4.2.1 Teststructures
4.2.2 Testfacility
4.2.3 Testconditions....
4.3
Instrumentationandtestmeasurements
4.4
T e s tp r o c e d u r e. s
4 . 4 . 1 W a v em e a s u r e m e n t s
4.4.2 Waveovertopping..
4.4.3 Pressures

. . . 31
........31
.......33
.......33
....35
...35
.....36
...... 37
...-.... 37
........37
..... 37

R e s u l t s otfe s t m e a s u r e m e n t s . . .
5.1
E x a m p l e p r e s s u r e m e a s u r e.m
. ents
pressure
5.2
Definition
of
/ forceevents
5.3
Dataqualityandrepeatability.
5.4
Datahandling/storage/archiving

....39
........39
. . . 43
.......44
....45

xl

sR 4/til @/08/90

tr
Contents continued
Analysisof waveforce/ pressureresults
6.1
S t a t i s t i c a l d i s t r i b u tfioorncoefs
Analysisofimpactsandforces
6.2
6.2.1 Simpleverticalwalls.
6.2.2 Compositestructures,horizontalforces
6.2.3 Compositewalls,up-liftforces
6.3
Comparisonwithdesignmethods
6.3.1 Simplevefticalwalls.
6.3.2 Compositewalls,horizontalforces
6.3.3 Compositewalls,upJiftforces
6.3.4 Crownwalls.
6.3.5 Overallstabilityof caissonson rubblemounds
6.4
P r e s s u rger a d i e n t s a lnodc a l p r e s s u r e s
pressures
6.4.1 Verticaldistributionsof
6.4.2 Pressuregradients
P r e s s u r ies e t i m e s / i m p u l s e s . . : . . .
6.5

. . . 47
.......48
.......51
........52
..... 53
.......56
.....59
........59
. . . 60
.......63
........64
. . . . . 66
......70
....70
....72
.......73

A p p l i c a t i o nroef s u l t s
7.1
fnfluenceofscaleeffects
7.1.1 Studies
on scaling
Bristolstudies.. . .
7.1.2 Scalingof impactsfromHR Wallingford/
periodsandimpactdurations
7.2
Response

........75
......75
.... 75
. .. .. 76
' ... . 79

Conclusionsandrecommendations
8.1
Conclusions
8.2
Recommendationsfordesign/analysis
8.3
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r fruetsuer ea r c h

........81
. ... 81
......82
.......82

Acknowledgements
10

.... 85
..... 87

References

Tables
Table4.1
Table4.2
Figures
Figure1.1
Figure2.1
Figure2.2
Figure2.3
Figure2.4
Figure2.5
Figure2.6
Figure2.7
Figure2.8
Figure2.9
Figure2.10
Figure2.11
Figure2.12

parameters
Maingeometrical
for wallsandmounds
Testconditions,wavesteepness,waveheight,and waterlevels .

34
35

Verticalandcompositebreakwaterconfigurations.. ......'. 1
.. '..... 6
1996.
Stoneblockwork,
StCatherine'sbreakwater,Jersey
.
.
....... 7
Concreteblockwork,EastArmBreakwater,Dover
.......7
T r a i n i n g w a l l l b r e a k wNaot retrh, T y n .e
Layoutof Alderneyharbour,aftercollapseof breakwateroutersection. . . ' . I
1677......... I
Timbercaisson
orGreateChestusedfortheMole,Tangier,
. .. ... .. 10
Marina
andBrighton
Circularcaissons
usedat Hantsholm
. . . 11
1855
duringconstruction,
Cross-section
of Aldemeybreakwater
........ 11
C r o s s - s e c t i oAnlodfe r n e y b r e a k w a t e t , . . . .
1938. ...-... 12
SestrilndustrialAirport,
Concretecaissonsforprotectionof
. . . . - . 12
1985
wall,
Bagnara,
crest
Caissonbreakwater
withset-back
.
.
.
..... 13
PerforatedchambercaissonbreakwateratPonza
.
.
.
..... 13
T s u n a m i p r o t e cb
t iroena k w a t e r a t O f u n a t o
sR143g2l0,9t90

tr
Contentscontinued
Figure2.13
Figure2.14
Figure3.1
Figure3.2
Figure3.3
Figure3.4
Figure3.5
Figure4.1
Figure4.2
Figure4.3
Figure4.4
Figure4.5
Figure4.6
Figure4.7
Figure5.1
Figure5.2
Figure5.3
Figure5.4
Figure5.5
Figure5.6
Figure5.7
Figure6.1
Figure6.2
Figure6.3
Figure6.4
Figure6.5
Figure6.6
Figure6.7
Figure6.8
Figure6.9
Figure6.10
Figure6.11
Figure6.12
Figure6.13
Figure6.14
Figure6.15
Figure6.16
Figure6.17
Figure6.18
Figure6.19
Figure6.20
Figure6.21
Figure6.22
Figure6.23
Figure6.24
Figure6.25
Figure6.26

T s u n a m i p r o t e cbt iroena k w a t e r a t K a m a i s h i
........ 14
Harbourbreakwaterwithwidecaissonat....
...... 14
Decisiontreefor impulsive
. . . . . 20
breakingconditions
(1985)
after
Goda
Pressuredistribution
caissons,
.
. . . . . 21
for
anddefinitions
Verticaldistributions
of pressures
usingGoda,Minikin,andSPMmethods. 23
Horizontal
. . . 26
/ up-liftforceson crownwall,afterSimm(1991). . . . .
F o r m s ouf p - l i f t d i s t r i b u t i o n s , a f t e r M c K e n n a ( 1 9 9 6 ) . . . . . . . . 2 7
Deepwaveflum
....31
. e
geometricalparameters
.
... 32
Caisson/mound
Pressuretransducerpositions
.......32
S t r u c t u1r e. . . .
...... 33
Structure2....
......33
S t r u c t u3r e. . . .
... .. . 34
...... 34
S t r u c t uIr e. . . .
. . . . . . 39
Typicalpressureeventsfromtest 10003on Structure1 . . . .
...40
l m p a c t e v e n t f r o m t1e0s0t 0 3 o S
n t r u c t u r1e . . . .
. . . 40
Smallimpacteventfromtest 10003on . . .
. . . . . . . . 40
Double-peaked
eventfromtest 10003on Structure1 . . . .
....... 41
P u f s a t i n g e v e n t f r o m t e s t 1 0 0 0 3 o n S t .r.u. .c t u r e l
. . . . . 42
Exampfepressure
/ timeseriesoverheightof caisson
........43
Exampfeforce-timeseries
..... . 47
Mainparameter
regions
and
for pulsating
ExampleWeibulldistribution
of horizontalforces
.....48
impactconditions
walls . . . . . 49
Weibulldistribution
verticalandcomposite
of horizontalforces,
. . . . . . 51
Weibulldistribution
effectof bermwidth
of horizontalforces,
. . . . 52
fnffuence
of H./don % impacts,P,,verticalwall.
....... 52
.
fnffuenceof
Hrn.rrlHoon%impacts,
P,,verticalwall
. . . . . . . 53
Dimensionless
horizontal
forcesagainstH"/d,verticalwall .
. . . . 53
Influence
of H./h"on % impacts,P,,highmound
. . ... 54
fnfluence
of Ho/h"on % impacts,P,,lowmound
. . . . . . . . 54
Dimensionless
horizontalforcesagainstH",/d,lowmound
o/o
. . . . 55
Influenceof H"/h"on impacts,P,,highmound
o/o
. . . . 55
Influenceof H"n/don impacts,P,,highmound
. . . . 55
Influenceof B"ol\ on 7" impacts,P,,highmound
. . . 56
Flowchartof parameterregionsfor waveimpacts
. . . . 56
Weibulldistribution
of up-liftforces,s,=0.04,H"/d=0.45
. . . . 57
Weibufldistribution
of up-liftforces,s,=0.04,H"/d=0.62
. . . . 57
Ho/d=0.98
Weibulldistribution
s,=0.04,
of up-liftforces,
... . 57
Weibuffdistribution
of up-liftforces,s.=0.04,H"{d=2.54
.....58
Up-liftforcesfor0<H./d<3.5...
. . . . 58
Dimensionless
up{iftforcesagainstH"/d,0<HJd<1.5 .
. . . . 58
Dimensionless
up-liftforcesagainstH./d,2<H./d<3.5.
Measured/ predictedhorizontalforces,Goda,verticalwalls,H"/d<0.35. . . 59
A & V's prediction
Dimensionless
horizontalforces
againstH",/d,verticalwalls,
..... 59
HJd>0.35
predicted
veftical
and
A
&
V,
Goda
Measured/
horizontalforces,
.....59
walls,Hr/d<0.35.
low
Measured
forces,Goda& Takahashi,
/ predicted
horizontal
... 60
mounds,H"/d<0.65
lowmounds,
Measured
forces,Goda& Takahashi,
/ predicted
horizontal
.... 60
0 . 6 5 < H " / d. 2< 1. . .
sR 443 @/09196

tr
Contentscontinued
Figure6.27
Figure6.28
Figure6.29
Figure6.30
Figure6.31
Figure6.32
Figure6.33
Figure6.34
Figure6.35
Figure6.36
Figure6.37
Figure6.38
Figure6.39
Figure6.40
Figure6.41
Figure6.42
Figure6.43
Figure6.44
Figure6.45
Figure6.46
Figure6.47
Figure6.48
Figure6.49
Figure7.1
Figure7.2
Figure7.3
Figure7.4
Figure7.5
Figure7.6
Figure7.7
Figure7.8

highmounds,
forces,Goda& Takahashi,
Measured
/ predictedhirizontal
....61
.
.
.
.
.30<H"/d<0.55
highmounds,
Measured
forces,Goda& Takahashi,
/ predictedhorizontal
....61
.650<H"/d<1.3,shortberm.
mounds,
intermediate
berm
high
Influence
of B*/\ on horizontalforces,
........ 61
widths
Dimensionless
horizontal
forcesagainstH./d,highmounds,G & T's
predictions,0.65<H"/d<1.3...
......62
Dimensionless
horizontal
forcesagainstHo/d,highmounds,G & T's
p r e d i c t i o n0 s. 6, 5 < H J d < 1 . 3 . . . .
.....62
forces,G & T andV's upperlimit,high
Measured
horizontal
/ predicted
.. ...... 62
m o u n dw
s ,i d eb e r m s
predictions,
Dimensionless
up-liftforcesagainstH"/d,lowmounds,Goda's
.......63
0.65<H"/d<1.4
Dimensionless
up-liftforcesagainstH"/d,highmounds,Goda'spredictions,
.......63
0.65<Hs/d<1.4
Dimensionless
up-liftforcesagainstH"/d,highmounds,Goda'spredictions,
....63
0.65<HJd<2,pulsatingconditions
Dimensionless
up{iftforcesagainstH"/d,highmounds,Goda'spredictions,
......64
0.65<HJd<2,impactconditions
-4<H./A"<B
..... 65
.
crownwalls,
Dimensionless
horizontalforceson
. . . . ... 65
Dimensionless
up-liftforceson crownwalls,-4<Hn/Ao<8...
...... 66
Forces/reactionsforoverallstabilityanalysis
.......67
Simplifiedmodelforoverallstabilityanalysis
..... 70
H"/d<0.35. . .
verticalwall,
Verticaldistributions
of pressures,
71
......
pressures,
H",/d>0.35
.
.
wall,
vertical
Verticaf
of
distributions
pressures,
walls
.
71
composite
of
Etfectof bermwidthon verticaldistributions
pulsating
predictions
for
Measured
andgoda/ Takahashi
distributions
...71
conditions(Structure3)...
predictions
for impact
Measureddistributions
andGoda/ Takahashi
.. . 72
(Structure
conditions
4l . ..
and 99.8%,
levelsof 11250,99.6%
Measured
distributions
at exceedance
. .. 72
(Structure
impactconditions
1) . . .
. . 73
..
(after
.
Hattoriet
al)
Maximumpressures
rise
times
and
predictions
. . 74
rise
times
for
andHattori's
Comparison
of experimentaldata
prediction
...... 74
lines.
Experimental
data(thisstudy)andHattori's
Pressureimpulsesfromfieldandmodelfor waveimpactson armourunit,
........ 76
f i n e a.r
lmpactpressures
fromfieldandmodelfor waveimpactson armour
.....76
unit,linear
. . . 77
fromfieldandmodel
Weibullprobabilities
for pressureimpulses
pressures
.
.
. . . 77
probabilities
field
and
model
from
impact
Weibull
for wave
.......77
C o r r e c t ifoanc t o r s f o r p r e s s u. r. .e.s
..... 78
P r e s s u r e r i s e t i m e s , m o d e l a n d f i e l d m e a s u. .r e m e n t s
Weibullprobabilities
of impactpressurerisetimesfrommodelandfield . . . 78
.....78
Correctionfactorsforrisetimes.

Appendix
Summaryof testconditions,
andresults.
structural
configurations

xtv

sR 4 qz09l96

tr
Introduction
maybe of twogeneralforms:
andrelatedmarinestructures
Harbourbreakwaters
a)
b)

lmpermeable
andsolidwithverticalor verysteepfaces;
androughsideslopes.
Rubblemoundwithpermeable

performance
of rubblemound
and hydraulic
the stability
Muchresearchefforthasaddressed
of
verticalwalls. Relatively
stability
the
directed
towards
relatively
less
effort
has
been
but
breakwaters,
walls.
pressures
/
composite
vertical
on
on
wave
forces
/
is available
liftlereliableinformation
on waveforcesactingon
Thisreportpresentsresultsfromnewresearchstudiesto deriveinformation
The
studiesweretargeted
1.1.
Figure
verticaland compositewallsandrelatedmaritimestructures,
or by largeconcrete
caissons,
primarilyat verticalbreakwaters,
especially
thoseformedby monolithic
joined
to act monolithically.
or stoneblocks
Someresultsof thesestudiescanalsobe appliedto
andsomeresultscan be appliedto crown
facedstructures,
coastalseawallsor othersteepor vertically
wallson rubblemoundbreakwaters
or seawalls,
althoughthe eperimentalworkwasnotspecifically
to addressthosestructures.
configured

HWL

Figure1.1

Verticaland compositebreakwaterconfigurations

1.1 The problem

Breakwatersand relatedstructuresare builtprimarilytogMeprotectionagainstwaveattackon ship
moorings,manoeuwing
areas,portfacilities,
andadjoining
areasof land. Designmethodsfor such
structures
are generallywellestablished,
aspectsof thosedesignmethodsare now
butsomeimportant
Recentresearchstudiesin
seento be uncertainor of limitedapplication
for someconfigurations.
Europehaveconfirmedthatdesignmethodsfor waveforcesbasedon studiesin Japanon caisson
and mayseverely
givelittledataon localwavepressures;
breal<waters
are limitedin theirapplication;
may
under-or over-estimate
loadingsin someimportant
cases.Usingsuchmethods,somestructures
be over-designed,
and hencetooexpensive.Forothersrisksof failuremaybe under-estimated,
leadingto dangerto personnel
andproperty.
design,
EuropeanengineersincludingUKconsultants
are involvedin analysis,
andcontractors
rehabilitation,
worldwide.UK designmethods/
andconstruction
of harbourandcoastalstructures
codesare usedinternationally.
thatsuchmethodsare well-based
lt isthereforeparticularly
important
andreliable.

sR 443 02/09196

tr
1.2 Terms of reference for the study

wasto providedesign
by DOEundercontractT16/312
Theprimaryobjective
of theworkcommissioned
on the stabilityresponseunderwaveattack.
andrelatedstructures
datafor verticalfacedbreakwaters
at the startof the studieswassummarised:
of workdescribed
The programme
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0

typesand
properties
of the principalstructure
describethe strengthandhydraulic
elements;
component
andeachof themainelements;
failuremodesforsuchstructures,
theprincipal
identify
describethe designmethodsusedinternationally;
crossof selectedstructure
modelstudiesto quantifythe responses
carryout parametric
rangeof inputconditions;
sectionsto the appropriate
of futureworkneededfor further
specification
areasof uncertainty,
identifythe remaining
improvement
in economyand/orsafety;
identifying
the rangeof application,
describegeneraldesignrulesfor verticalwallstructures,
and suggesting
targetfactorsof safety.

wereexpanded
to allowthe basictestset-upto be sharedwithtwo related
Thesetermsof reference
by DOEundercontract7161263
projects.Studiesunderthe HarbourEntranceprojectsupported
addressed
the hydraulicperformance
of verticalwalls. Underthe EuropeanUnionMASTresearch
assistedby other
(MCS-Project),
HRWallingford
programme
on Monolithic
CoastalStructures
performance
verticalwallsto
of
simple
Europeanresearchers
extendedthosestudieson hydraulic
'low
withvoided
caissons
included
types.These
includea rangeof
reflection"
alternative
structure
perforated
slopesin frontof verticalwalls. Resultsof those
wavescreens,andarmoured
chambers,
seeAllsop(1995),Allsopet al (1995b),McBrideet al (1995a),
studieshavebeenpresented
separately,
andMcBride& Watson(1995).
to include
herewereexpanded
stabilitydiscussed
The studieson waveloadingsandbreakwater
with
HR and
in
collaboration
contributions
fromresearchers
fromBelfastandNaplesdeveloped
intendedto
was
Belfast
University
of Sheffield.The Ph.Dprojectby McKennaat Queen'sUniversity
on
related
elements
and
on caissonbreal<waters
addressin moredetailwaveup-liftpressures
"Wave
forceson
permeable
foundations,
butthefinalprojecttitleadoptedwasslightlylessspecificas
caissonsandbreakwater
crownwalls".Thisstudywasstartedin October1993,andis to be completed
of Naplesaddressed
at the University
in September1996. A furtherPh.Dprojectby Vicinanza
wallswitha projeet
on verticalandcomposite
temporalandspatialvariationof waveimpactpressures
verticalee composte".
su dighea paramento
titleof *Pressioni
e forzedi impattodi ondefrangenti
Vicinanza's
in theseresearchstudiesstartedin November1994,and his Ph.Dstudiesare
collaboration
dueto be reportedin 1997.
(2-d)waveflumeundernormal
The studiesdiscussedin thisreportwereconducted
in a 2-dimensional
undercontractCl 39/5/96and
waveattack. A laterprojectsupportedby Department
of Environment
workreportedhereto covereffectsof oblique
EU MASTlll undercontractMASS-CT95-0041,
extended
and short-crested
basin,the UK nationalCoastalResearch
waveattackusinga 3-dimensionalwave
Facility.Thesetestsare reportedin HR reportSR465by Banyardet al (1996).

1.3 Outlineof the studies

Designof the model
straight-forward.
Divisionof experimental
workwithinthisprojectwasrelatively
programme
at
were
completed
studies,the testsections,measurement
systems,andthetest
Wallingford
withassistance
fromSheffield
andBelfastduring1993/ 94. Modeltestsby the HR/
Sheffield
/ Belfastteamwerecompleted
in December
1994.
the number
Expansion
of the projectto meetrequirements
of the otherpartnershadhoweverincreased
/ complexity
of testssubstantially,
andtherefore
thevolumeof datacollected.Analysisthereforetook
than
moreresources
thananticipated,
butdid generatebothmoredataand morereliableinformation
couldotherwisehavebeenexpected.Themainactivities
of eachpartnermaybe summarised:

sR44302l09l

tr
- overalldesignof studies;
test
equipment,
HRWallingford
provision
measurement
of testfacility,
andoverallsuperuision.
structures,
technical
andcomputing
andreporting;
support;
leadanalysis
McKennafromBelfastsupervised
by WhittakerandAllsopextendedthe studyto includemore
pressures;
manyof thetests;and
detailedanalysisof up-lift
assistedin testdesign;conducted
analysedup-liftforcesandoverallforces/ stability.
Vicinanzasuperuised
by Benassaiand
Calabrese
fromNaplesmodifiedandextendedthe
/ forcesandstatistical
analysisprograms,
andassistedin detailedanalysisof wavepressures
analysisof waveforces,of pressuregradientsandimpulses.
in the UK;
on verticalbreakwaters
Allsopat Sheffieldreviewedmuchof the historical
information
particularly
providedsupportandsupervision
in analysis
at Wallingford
for thevisitingresearchers
of waveforces;andcompiledand editedresearchpapersandthisreport.
Task1, impactforcesand
Studiesunderthe MASTMCSprojectweredividedintofourareascovering:
structure/ foundation
interaction;
Task3, local
Task2, scalingproblems
andair entrainment;
morphologicalchanges;
measures.HRWallingford
andTask4, waveovertopping
andconstructional
werecontracted
to contribute
Task3.3on scourat verticalwalls,and
to Task3.1on wavereflections,
wasscheduledto leadTask4.3on constructional
andovertopping.
to reducereflections
measures
Duringearlystagesin the MOS-Project,
was neededon impact
it becameapparentthatadditionalwork
forces/ pressures.Analysisby Oumeraciet al (1995)demonstrated
thatimpactloadsare of critical
importance
in the stabilityof caissonbreakwaters
andAllsop& Bray
movements,
againstprogressive
(1994)demonstrated
importanceto the integrityof
that shortdurationimpactsare of considerable
blockwork
walls. ln the lightof thesefindings,theWallingford
/ Belfast/ Naplesteam
/ Sheffield
project
addedto
expandedtheircontribution
to the MCS
withnewstudieson waveimpactpressures
Task1 and discussedhere. WorkunderTask4.3wasalsoexpanded,
andhasbeenreportedin detail
in the MCSand HarbourEntrances
reports,seeMcBrideet al (1996)for a summary.

1.4 Outlineof this report

The maintypesof verticalwallsin usein harboursor alongcoastlines
aredescribedin Chapter2, and
designmethodsavailablelo determine
responses
are discussedin
the mainhydraulic
andstructural
Chapter3.
The designof researchstudiesdevelopedunderthis project,the structureconfigurations
tested,and
procedures
the testequipment
and
are describedin Chapter4.
Resullsof the wavepressureI lorcemeasurements
arefirstdescribedin Chapter5, whichdiscusses
the formand handlingof the datacollected,and definitionsof wavepressure/ forceeventsneededto
reducethe largevolumesof datato moremanageable
proportions.
Thedetailedanalysisof these
measurements
arelhen discussedin Chapter6, coveringthe distinctions
betweenpulsatingand
impactconditions,
and exploring
the differentprediction
methodsneededfor thesedifferentresponse
regions.
Application
of the waveforceresults,andthe prediction
methodsderivedfromthemarediscussedin
Chapter7, includinga discussion
on the effectsof anyscalecorrections
neededfor wavepressures.
Overallconclusions,
are
and recommendations
for design/ analysispractice,andfor futureresearch,
addressedin Chapter8.

sR 443021c'91916

tr

sR 443 f2y09196

tr
2

Veftical breal<watersand related structures

in usein
walls/ breakwaters
Thischapterdescribes
thetypesand purposesof verticalandcomposite
is
reviewed,
such
structures
of
development
the UK,in ltalyandJapan,andelsewhere.Thehistorical
fromexisting
by examplesdrawnfromUK andoverseas.Keyfeaturesare identified
illustrated
using
structures
as wellas for monolithic
structuresaroundthe UK usingstoneor concreteblockwork,
concretecaissonsaroundltalyandJapan.
on previousreviewsby
below,butparticularly
The reviewdrawson a numberof sourcesidentified
(1994c),
&
andTanimoto
(1994),
(1994),
(1994),
Oumeraci
Franco
Lamberti
& Franco
Allsop& Bray
(1994a,b).
Takahashi

2.1 Purpose and form of structures

of the coastalzone. The
Breakwaters
or seawallshavebeenbuiltsincethe earliestdevelopment
or
primarypurposesof suchstructures
anchorages
areto protectareasof waterfor navigation,
or to defendlandagainst
shelteredmoorings;
to protectworkingareaswithinandaroundharbours;
and
erosionor flooding.Manysuchstructures
are requiredto servea numberof differentpurposes,
owesmuchto
of thesestructures
thesemayoftenchangein time. Thecomposition
andconstruction
localpractice,takingparticular
and/ormaterials.Themaintypesof harbour
accountof localconditions
andcoastalstructuremaybe summarised:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o

harbourbreakwaters
entrancechannelbreakwaters
or moles
coolingwaterbreakwaters
nearshorebreakwaters,
reefs,or sills
groynes,bastions,andotherbeachcontrolstructures
coastalseawalls
coastalor shorelinerevetments

Thesestructuresmaybe of threegeneralforms:
a)
b)
c)

impermeable
/ solidwithverticalor steeplybatteredfaces;
rubblemoundwithpermeable
androughsideslopes;or
compositeconstruction
incorporating
a caissonor wallsectionon or behinda moundof
armour.

The principalconcemin the designprocessfor a brealcwater

is to achieverequiredlevelsof wave
protectionin the harbourduringserviceandextremewaveconditions.Thedegreeof shelterrequired
of the port
willdependon harbourusage,andwill be moststronglyinfluenced
by theeconomics
breakwaterlengthand
operation.Waveprotectionis achievedby ensuringthat the planconfiguration,
height,are suflicientto limitwavepenetration
to sensitiveareasof the harbourat selectedretum
periodsor probabilities.
Theseconsiderations
influence
the positionandlengthof the breakwater,
principally
generally
set by levelsof wavediffraction,
setso thatwavetransmission
anditsfreeboard,
overthe structureis notexcessive.
The mainrequirements
for seawallsareessentially
similar,withthe structurerequiredto limitto
acceptable
levelsanywaveovertopping,
butalsoto protectthe materialbehindor belowthe wallfrom
erosionby director indirectwaveforces.
A secondaryconsideration,
butoftenpresented
as the majordesigncase,is thatanysuchstructure
to
shouldremainstableup to a givendesigncondition,
and/orthatanydamageshouldbe restricted
givenlimits. Againditferentlevelsof damage/ movementor safetyfactormay be acceptedat ditferent
probability
levels.

sR 4430209/96

E
to defendpartsof thecoastline
havebeenconstructed
Aroundthe UK,seawallsand revetments
or to reducethe leveland/orriskof floodingof low-lyingland
againsterosion,termed"coastprotection";
verticalor steeply
fromthe sea,termed"seadefence".Seawallsmaybe generally
by inundation
protected
againsterosionby armouring.Structures
sloping,or theymaybe formedby embankments
but manyof the design
thanlargebreakwaters,
morenumerous
suchas seawallsare substantially
Analysis/ designmethods
derivefromstudiesfor breakwaters.
methodsandmuchof thetechnology
andharbours,
usedto defendcoastlines
on largerstructures
in this reportthereforefocusprimarily
entrance
sometimes
marinas;
or
primarilyharbourbreakwaters
for commercial/navalharbours
in 5 to 50m
be
constructed
may
They
channelsfor lagoons;or coolingwaterbasinsfor powerstations.
by
be
armoured
may
breakwaters
of waterand,whereexposedto severewaves,rubbleor composite
may
Caissons
specialconcretearmourin sizesfrom1 to 200tonnes,althoughrarelyabove40 tonne.
in sizesup to 3,000tonnes,or evenup to 10,000tonnes.
be constructed
by
of materials;
andavailability
by economics
areinfluenced
Choicesbetweendifferentconfigurations
the
structure
from
required
performance
standards
plant;
practice
of
andavailability
localconstruction
wallson
ln the UK,blockwork
andclient/ designerpreferences.
concerns;
andlocalenvironmental
strongly
more
have
been
mounds
werepreferredduringthe lastcentury,butrubble
rubblefoundations
structures
some
are rarein the UK,although
favouredoverthe last50 years. Caissonbreakwaters
elsewherein Europehavealso
usesliceblockworkor sheetpilesto formverticalwalls. Designers
lessbrittlefailuremodes,
generallypreferredrubblebreakwaters
for theirrelativeeaseof construction,
impact,exceptin ltaly
reducedenvironmental
reducedsusceptibility
to waveimpacts,andpotentially
datesbackto the Romanera,and
andcaissonbreakwaters
of verticalblockwork
whereconstruction
in Japanalsostronglyfavourverticalcaissonsor,wherewave
remainsprevalenttoday. Engineers
witha moundof armourunitsin
breakwaters
composite
forcesmaybe parlicularly
strong,horizontally
frontof thecaisson.

2.2 Developmentof vertical breakwaters

or seawallsin the UnitedKingdom,it is usefulto

of vefticalbreakwaters
ln analysing
the performance
particularly
thosebuiltduringthe
of manyhistoricstructures,
considerthe designandconstruction
in andaroundthe UK between1830and 1900. Many
majorperiodof harbourdevelopment
to thecontinuing
constructed
duringthatperiodstillsurvive,andtheirstabilityis important
breakwaters
protected.
operationof the harbours
The morecommontypesof
the
breakwater
or seawallaround
UK areof simpleverticalorbattered
slope,withwallsformedof stoneor
concreteblocks.Suchstructures
wererelativelycheapto construct
whenlabourcostswerelow,and
useda minimumof material.
Breakwater
wallswereusually
double-sided,
but manyquaysor
seawallsare backedby naturalor
importedmaterials.An example
breakwatersectionfrom St
Catherine's
harbouron Jersey,
constructed
at about1856,shows
the dry masonrywalls,the rubble
fillingbetweenthe walls,andthe
rubblemoundon whichthe walls
arefounded,
Figure2.1.

";*Ki:!#;!r:&ile*raf;
9i oli oip;p; ;;
3,"s
"bl'3s

Solsol,iojrb',"?liclX'*-i.

Figure2.1

Stoneblockwork,St Catherine'sbreakwater,
Jersey1996

sR 44302JO9196

tr
shapesneededto form a coherentand
Quarriedstoneis not naturallyavailablein the rectangular
stablewall. Productionof stone blocksto acceptablesizes and tolerancesused to be a routinetask in
less economicas labourcostsincreased.Many
civilengineering,
but becamesignificantly
breakwatersbefore 1900 thereforeused largestone blocksto form the outer skin of the wall, with the
core formed from smallerblocksand/or rubbleinfill. The use of concreteblocksto replacedressed
stone blocks becamemore prevalentin the UK after 1850,see sectionof Doverbreakwaterin
Figure2.2.

y'qartryed

K"

Aara-*-

Figure2.2

Concreteblockwork, East Arm Breakwater,Dover

Blockworkwallswereconstructed
widelyaroundthe UKto form
breakwaters,
dockor quaywalls,
andseawalls.Whilstthe main
purposesof the breakwaterswere
to givequietwaterfor mooredor
manoeuvring
vessels;and provide
shelterfor cargohandling
operations,theywerealsooften
usedas quays,supportfor cranes
andotherequipment,
and additional
spacefor cargo. Some
breakwaters
knownas'Moles' or
'Piers',Figure2.3,alsoactedas
trainingwallsat the mouthof a river
or estuary.
Figure2.3

Training wall/breakwater,North Tyne

Seawallsaroundthe UKwerealsoconstructed
to halterosionof beaches,
usingsimilartechniques
are
dunes,or softcliffs,and/orto limitwaveovertopping
andfloodingduringstorms.Suchstructures
not the primaryinterestof this report,but examplesare citedwheretheygiveparticularinformationon
designtechniques
or construction
methods.

sR 44302109/96

E
2.2.1

Historicalbackground

with
of stoneblocks,sometimes
wereconstructed
Ancientbreakwaters
aroundthe Mediterranean
forms
timber
with
construction
usedundenvater
infill.Romanengineers
concrete
or cementitous
andbrick. Franco& Verdesi(1993)
(sometimes
sunkenships),andfillingwithcement,pozzolana,
at Caesareaaround
usedby Herodthe Greal'sengineers
describea versionof caissonconstruction
20 BC,wherewoodenformswerefilledby concrete/ mortarloweredin basketsintotheforms.
of quaywalls
aroundthe UK,althoughsomefoundations
Littleevidenceremainsof suchconstruction
probably
started
in
UK
was
the
blocks
to
form
concrete
havebeendatedto Romantimes.Theuseof
structures
practice
marine
/
coastal
for
againfromUKconstruction
by the Romans,butdisappeared
or coastalwallsare recordedbeforethe
of breakwaters
untilabout1850. Fewdetailsof construction
late1600's,and muchof the information
availableto Bray& Tatham(1992)datesfromthe 1700and
by Britishengineersof
1800s.Onenotableexception
is providedby the accountof theconstruction
in section2.2.2below.
theGreateMoleat Tangierby Routh(1912),discussed
The mainpurposeof manyharboursin the mostexposedareasaroundthe UKwas defence,with
andplanfor harboursat Dover,Portland,Plymouth,
navalrequirements
settingthe position,
orientation
as
Holyhead,St Catherine's
andAlderney,
see layoutin Figure2.4. Otherharbourswereconstructed
These
new,
and
storms.
"harbours
of refuge",to be usedby fishingboatsandtradingvesselsduring
oftenmuchlarger,harbours
weremucheasierto enterthanthe smallcoastalharbours.Then,as now,
close
conditions
narrowentrancesandreflective
wallsof thesesmallharbourscausedverydangerous
problems
to the harbourentrance,
thatstillpersistfor manyharboursin theUK. Theseaspectsare
project,seeparticularly
McBrideet al (1996).
discussedin moredetailin the harbourEntrances

\ q/ger

7,a; t
Litte" \
Craby r:
larbour\-.\

\- - ' - - _- ,- { !u\
^

Braye Bay

Figurd2.4

Layoutof Alderneyharbour,aftercollapseof breakwaterouter section

Manyverticalbreakwaters
between1830and 1900,includingAlderney
or pierswereconstructed
1877. Mostof
startedin 1846,Doverstartedin 1847,Tynmouth
1855,Holyhead1876,Fraserburgh
moreby Allsop& Bray
thesehavesurvivedin theiroriginalform,exceptAlderneywhichis discussed
in thisperiodhavesincebeen
(1994)andAllsopet al (199'l).Manyof the navalharboursconstructed
fishingor leisureactivities.
abandoned
by the navy,andare nowusedfor commercial,
sA4430210,9,l

tr
2.2.2

Constructionof breakwaters, piers,and seawalls

or pierswasa rubblemound
usedin the UKfor breakwaters
The mostcommonformof construction
walls. Hewnstone,often
by blockwork
broughtup to a levelslightlybelowlowwater,andsurmounted
granite,was laidin bond,generally
at a slightbatteroffvertical.Blockswerelaiddryor in limeor
pozzolanamortarup to about1900.Concrete
fillingwas rarelyused,andcementmortarsbecame
widelyavailableonlyafterabout1900,althoughlimeandothermodarswereusedat leastfrom1650.
Concreteratherthanstoneblockswasmorewidelyusedafterabout1880.Variousmethodswere
developedto assisttransfertensile,bending,or shearloadsbetweenadjoiningblocks,or between
includingironcramps,keysor jogglejointsbetweenblocks.
coursesof blockwork,
of
Caissonswererarelyusedin the UK before1900.Oneof thefirstusesby Britishengineers
or Greate
of the mainbreakwater
caissonsis describedby Routh(1912)whorelatesthe construction
Moleto sheltera harbourat TangierfromtheAtlantic.Thetownwasoccupiedby Britishtroops,and
protection
the garrison.The Molewasstartedin
was urgentlyneededfor thevesselssupplying
Construction
construction.
placed
ahead
of blockwork
foundations
fashion,
with
rubble
conventional
at
wave
conditions
to
adverse
due
1668
August
startedin August1663,buthadonlyreached350mby
were
who
workforce
the
nature
of
the site;lossof rubblefill.intothe sandbed;the smallandoccasional
delaysin
andsignificant
materials;
in obtaining
duties;difficulties
oftendivertedto other(military)
paymentfor workcompleted.
returnedin April1670to findthe blockwork
thecontractor
Afterthe contracthadbeenre-negotiated,
and
methodwasre-considered,
wallsdamagedand breachedin at leasttwo places.Theconstruction
ogreatwoodenchests"boundin
proposed
using
was
usedat Genoa
a typeof caissonconstruction
iron,andfilledwithstonesandmortaror concrete.Aftermuchdebate,someof it reportedin Samuel
to eltendthe existingstructureusingcaissons'
wasappointed
Pepys'diaries,a newcontractor
Woodencaissonsof 500to 2000tons(Figure2.5)weretowedoutfromEngland,andonceon sitethey
weresunkontothe foundation
by beingfilledwithstoneboundin a localmortarof RomanTarras.
wasmorerapidandlesssubjectto damagethanthe earlier
Progresson the newconstruction
werefor a longerlifethantheearliersections.
blockworksections,andthe prognostications
20
E

7al

/uy Ag'bay'/Vzq*,yi,il,y z{'/,

c u dz/a/znzn a4/ 61a/ rdftl l*

dlaebe wbw,(at

/u tL Taot d{," aoaa{z9a/.

/-Atu y'd.61ao@,/",

oL

a u /d/z Zan/a. tL 6ta"z o/dz 9-

Figure2.5

Timbercaissonor GreateChestusedfor the Mole,Tangier,1677

Workon the Molecontinueduntil1678whenTangierwasattackedandall energiesweredivertedto its

shouldbe
defence.Peacewasconcludedin 1680,andit wasthendecidedthatthe breakwater
in 1684withmoreditficultythan
destroyedlestit provideshelterto a laterenemy.Thiswascompleted
by Britishengineers,
construction
anticipated,
and markedan apparenthaltin significant
breakwater
andcertainlyin the useof caissons,untilthe early1800's.

sR 443 0209/96

tr
The useof concretefor fillingbreakwater
walls,and/orto formthe facingstartedto be used
afterabout1870.Thereis no recordof
occasionally
againafterabout1830,becoming
moreprevalent
concrete
beingusedforthe NorthPierat Eyemouth
, 1767;theOldPierat Wick,1823;thepiersat
Hynish,1843,Buckie,1855,andWestHartlepool,
1858.
Pre-castconcreteblockswerehoweverusedat NorthTynein 1855,Figure2.3;tor Doverbreakwater,
to Fraserburgh
filledbagsformeda foundation
1866,Figure2.2: andat Corkin 1877.Concrete
in 1892.Concretefillingwas usedfor the later
in 1877,andfor theWintonPier,Ardrossan
breakwater
at Aberdeen,1873;for the NorthPier
1849-1866,
stagesof Alderneybreakwater
the SouthBreakwater
to notethatLamberti&
at Aberdeen,
andthe Fraserburgh
breakwater,
bothin 1877. lt is interesting
wallbreakwaters
to
(1994)
vertical
Franco
creditthe ltalianengineerCoenCagliwithre-introducing
at Dover,Sunderland,
breakwaters
Italyaftera visitto Britainin 1896wherehe sawthe blockwork
NorthTyne,Peterhead,
andWick.
Thedevelopment
of so manyharboursaroundthe UK between1850and 1900,andsulival of manyof
thosebreakwaters,
havesignificantly
reducedthe needto constructnewharboursaroundthe UK,and
since1900.Thosenewstructures
hasthusresultedin relatively
few breakwaters
beingconstructed
by rockor concretearmour
havegenerallybeenformedas rubblemoundsto theirfull height,protected
havealso
particularly
Many
similar
structures
units,see
PortTalbot,Douglas,Bangor,andPeterhead.
beendesignedandconstructed
workingoverseas.
by Britishengineers
protected
usingcircularconcrete
Exceptions
by breakwaters
to thiswerethe newharbourat Brighton,
in Denmak;andtheverticalwave
caissons,Figure2.6,basedon the designusedat Hanstholm
screenbreakwaters
andCardiffBayBarrage.
at SuttonHarbour,Plymouth,
Brealavater

Cross beams

Access manhole

f Cranerail

Figure2.6

2.2.3

Circutarcaissonsusedat Hantsholmand BrightonMarina

brealouaters
Constructionof veftically-composite

Stone or concreteblockwork
Beforethe advent of advancedunderwaterworking,constructionof blockworkwalls was chieflylimited
by the depth to which diver-assistedplacementof closely-fittedblockswas possible,and by the
knowledgeand equipmentavailablefor placingmass concrete. Rubblematerialwas placedby barge,
allowedto consolidate,then trimmedto acceptthe foundationstones.
In 1850,the water depth at which the foundationstonescould be laid was usuallylimitedto 12ft (3-4m)
below low water level,but by 1900,depthsof up to 50ft (15m)had been reached. After dressingthe
mound by divers, blockworkwas then foundedusingthe largestblocksavailable. The breakwaterwall
was carriedupwards in plain or mortaredblocksto the top of the wave wall. The block size often
reducedas constructionclimbed,as increasedtime betweenimmersionallowedmore time to fit
togethersmallerblocks,and/or in layingthe mortarbedding/ jointing. lndividualblockswere often
bondedtogetherby keys, by iron or steel dowels in holesthroughthe blocks,or by lead or mortar
10

sB 1430210'9,l

tr
pouredto form keys betweenblocks,althoughthesecomplications
were moreoften reservedfor the
outer end of the breakwater.The use of iron or steel rail crampsto hold togetherthe outer end of a
breakwateris discussedby Bray & Tatham(1992). Timberpilesweresometimesusedto take bending
or tensileforces,and were occasionallyincorporatedwithinthe breakwaterstructure.

The sectionsof St Catherine

and
AlderneyBreakwaters
shownin
Figures2.1and2.7-8arerelatively
typicalof the largerbreakwaters
between1850and
constructed
1880. Of thesetwo,Alderneyis
Zrutttz
exposedto substantially
more
severewaveconditions,
has
providesus with
sufferedsignificant,
moreinformation
on failuremodes
and responses,
and hastherefore
beengivenmoreattention,recently Figure2.7
by Allsopet al (1991)andAllsop&
Bray(1994).

Cross-sectionof Alderneybreakwater
1855
duringconstruction,

At the landwardendof theAlderney

breakwater,the foundationwas set
no morethan3.5mbelowlowwater
levelonspringtides. Alongthe
outersections,the lowestintended
levelwas7.3m(2aft)belowlow
water,butconsolidation
of the
moundincreased
thisto 9.1m(30ft)
towardsthe seawardend. Large
Figure2.8
Cross-sectionof Alderneybreakwater,
blocksof stone,laterof concrete,
completed,1864
werelaidon the rubbleafterit had
beenallowedto settlefor about6
months.The batterof thewallof 2 (vertical):1 (horizontal)
at the innerendis rathershallowerthanfor
manycontemporary
breakwaters,
and was steepenedfor the outersections.Wallsat St Catherine's
werebatteredat 3:1,andat Aberdeenat 8:1.
Blocksfacingmostof the breakwaters
consideredhereweregenerallyof dressedstone. Typicalsizes
are in the ranges1mx 0.3mx 0.5mup to 2.5mx 1mx 1.5m.Thesizesusedwerestronglydependent
on the stoneavailable,
werepossible,but
andthe stone-working
skillsavailable.Veryfinetolerances
generally
would
havebeenreservedfor elementson thetopof thebreakwater,
thosethatcouldeasily
be seen. Stoneusedas facingon the breakwater
wallcouldbe dressedto givejointgapstypicallyof
no morethan 1-2",about25-50mm.At lowerlevels,whereinspection
wasmoredifficult,and placing
timesshorter,tolerancesmay havebeenwider,andjointgapsof up to 75mmmightbe expected.
The gapsbetweenadjoiningblockswouldgenerallyhavebeennegligible
whereblockswerelaidin
joints
mortar.The mortarwill howeverdeteriorate
thenopenup,allowing
overthe structurelife,the
waterintothe heartingor core,andsometimes
allowingthe blocksto move. Manyfailuresof such
wallshavebeenassociated
withthe lossof bond/ fillingbetweenblocks.The useof concreteblocks,
eg at Dovershownin Figure2.2,avoidedmanyof the problemsof bondingstonework,
and madeit
mucheasierto makespecialprovisions
for joiningblocks,suchas keywaysor othersteppedjoints,or
cut-outsfor key blocks.
Onceproduction
sometimes
of concreteblocksbecameeconomic,
dramatically,
blocksizesincreased
to sizesapproaching
3.5mx 6m x
400tons. Stoney(1874)recordsthe useof blocksof approximately
7m lor quayconstruction
in 1871,andsuggeststheiruseat Alderney.lt washoweveragreedthatthe

11

sF 443 0209/96

tr
capitalcostsof the equipmentneededto produce,moveand placesuchblocks,wouldrestricttheir use
to large projects.
Concretecaissons
Over the last 40-50 years,there have been considerableadvancesin designmethodsfor vertical
breakwaters;in constructiontechnologyfor prefabricatedconcretecaissons;in placementof rubble
foundationsat depth; and these changeshave alteredthe balanceof advantagesand disadvantages
between rubbleand verticalbreakwaters.
The most common form of caissonis rectangular( or square)in plan and front elevation,and
rectangularor near squarein end elevation. Caissonsmay typicallybe 15-30mlong, dividedinternally
into cells. An exampleltaliancaissonis shown in Figure2.9. The caissonitselfis designedto be
floatedout, ballastedwith water to sink it into position,then filled by sand. ln this low tidal range,the
low crest sectionis then cast insitu.
,

t'-

Figure2.9

15.00

Concretecaissonsfor protectionof SestriIndustrialAirport,1938

The slightlymorecomplex
breakwater
at Bagnara(1985)is
shownin Figure2.10.Thecrest
wallis shapedto returnany
overtopping
waves,andis set back
to reduceimpactforcesand
overtopping.Thetoe armourto this
breakwater
wasdamaged
in 1991,
butonlyalongits mostouterend
whereTetrapodarmourwas used
at the toe. Thetoe armouralong
the maintrunkwas 5 t modified
cubes.

Figure2.10

Caissonbreakwaterwith set'backcrest wall,

Bagnara,1985

12

sR 4430200/96

tr
One of the main disadvantagesof a verticalwall breakwateris the high level of reflections.This
problem,and potentialsolutions
have beenstudiedin the companionHarbourEntranceand MCS
projects,see discussionsby McBrideet al(1996),Allsop(1995),Allsopet al (1995b),McBrideet al
(1995a),and McBride& Watson(1995).One approachis to modifythe seawrdchambersof the

caissonto allowwaveenergy
in the firstrowof
dissipation
12.oom
in
chambers,or in a few instances
the first2 or even3 chambers.An
perforated
exampleof a 2-chamber
caissonis shownin Figure2.11.
the higherfloor
Thisillustrates
levelsin the innerperforated
the ventthroughthe
chambers,
crownwallto reduceair pressures
withinthe rearchamber,andthe
useof concretefill to increase
strengthand densityin the seaward
perforated Figure2.11
cells. ln a few instances,
Perforatedchambercaissonbreakwaterat
chambersare alsousedon the
Ponza
harboursideto reducereflected
waveactionwithinthe harbour.see
the sectionof Bagnarabreakwater
in Figure2.10. lt shouldhoweverbe notedthatcaissonswitha
rangeof
below C,=0.5for anysignificant
singleperforatedchamberare unlikelyto achievereflections
waveperiods.
of tidal
by interruption
Highwavereflections
maycombinewithcurrentsalongthe structureincreased
problem
has
that
localscourof theseabed,a
or wave-induced
currents.Thesemayprecipitate
afflicteda numberof caissonbreakwaters.
In the UK,Ganly(1983)reportsthatthe circularcaissonsat
earlyscourleading
Brightonplaceddirectlyontochalkbedrock,Figure2.6,weresubjectto substantial
measures
scourprotection
Extensive
of 3 caissonsby up to 0.65mduringconstruction.
to settlement
scour
period.Despitethesemeasures,
werethenincludedduringtheremainder
of theconstruction
detail
the
toe
reinforce
needed
to
have
being
holes
continuedat Brighton,
withsignificant
expenditure
Elsewhere,
pumping
by
concreteintoflexiblebagsat the seawardedgeof andbeneaththe caissons.
measureshave
anti-scour
scourremainsone of the moreditficultdesignproblems,
andsubstantial
processes
involved
oftenbeenrequiredto avoidlocalcollapse
or lossof support.Thehydro-dynamic
in scourare reviewedby Oumeraci(1994a),but littleinformationis givenon potentialprevention
is givenby Funakoshiet al
measures.Practicaladvicederivedfromanalysisof serviceperformance
(1994),and is discussedin 2.3below.
Mostverticalbreakwatersin Europe
havebeenconstructedaroundltaly.
Comprehensive
reviewsof many
Italianbreakwaters,design,
construction,
failuresand repairs,
havebeendescribedby Franco
(1994)and Lamberti&Franco
(1994).Aroundthe world,more
harboursand breakwatershave
beenconstructed
recentlyin Japan Figure2.12 Tsunamiprotectionbreakwaterat Ofunato
thananywhereelse,perhapseven
morethan in the restof the worldtogether.The scaleof suchconstructionis illustratedby the portof
yardscompleted1500caissonsin 1932- 1992,with131
Onahamawherethe caissonconstruction
constructed
in 1971. Muchfurtherinformation
in Japanis givenby Tanimoto&
on caissonbreakwaters
in
Takahashi(1994a,b) whodescribethedevelopment
andhistoricalprogressof verticalbreakwaters
Japan,and givedetailsof manyexamplestructures.Of thoserelevantto thisreport,threeexamples
areshownin Figures2.12- 2.14.
13

sR 443 02@/96

tr
The tsunamiprotectionbreakwater
at Ofunato,1967,shownin Figure
2.12 is in relativelydeepwaterat
35m, but is requiredto resist
relativelylow wave heights. The
perforatedchambercaissonsused
at Kamaishi,Figure2.13,is builtin
60m of waterusinga moundof
35m, and is the deepestbreakwater
Figure2.13
builtin Japan. This structureagain
seryes as tsunamiprotectionso the
designwave heightsare relativelylow.
The widest caissonin Japan at 3Bm
is shown in Figure2.14. This
breakwaterat Hedonoport is in less
than 30m of water, but is designed
to resista designwave of H" =
9.7m. Herethe toe armouruses64t
Tetrapodunits in a layer about 6m
thick. The longestcaissonbuiltin
Japan up to 1994,was 100mlong,
about 20m wide, and was used as a
temporary breakwaterat Kochi port.
This caissonwas cast in a ship
dock, and towed 370 km to site.

at Kamaishi
Tsunamiprotectionbreakwater

L.w.to.o H'w-+2'o

Figure2.14

Harbourbreakwaterwith wide caissonat

Hedono

in a specialeditionof
Moredetailson verticalbreakwaters
basedon workup to 1992werepresented
(1994b),Hattorietal
CoastalEngineering
by Oumeraci(1994),Franco(1994),Tanimoto& Takahashi
on information
(1994),Chan(1994)andOumeraci&Kortenhaus
(1994).Thesepapersconcentrate
practical
on
information
fromresearchstudies,withsomecomments
on design,andwitha little
on WaveBarriersin DeepWaters
examples.Morepracticalinformation
is givenin theWorkshop
presented
Tanimoto& Takahashi
at the Portand HarbourResearch
Institutein Japan,seeparticularly
(1994a),
Lamberti
Xie(1994),Juhl(1994)andLigteringen
& Franco(1994),Allsop& Bray(1994),
(1ee4).

2.3 Performancein seruice

Analysisof reportsof damageor failureof breakwaters
suggeststhat therearethreemainperiodsof
period;initialseruice;andthe
potentialconcernduringthe lifeof thestructure:
theconstruction
period,
extendedservice
oftenwellbeyondthe normaleconomiclifeusedin presentdesignlife
even
calculations.Muchof thedamagereportedappearsto occurearlyin the lifeof the structure,
duringconstruction,
suryivesthe first5 yearswithoutdamageit
so it wouldappearthat if a breakwater
is generallylikelyto survivethe next40-50years. Thisconfirmsthe premisethatdamage/ failuresare
generallyavoidableif sufficientinformation
on the mainfailureprocesses.
is available
wasderivedfromthe CIRIAproject
Relatively
littleinformation
of breakwaters
on serviceperformance
was
on breakwaters
reportedby Bray& Tatham(1992).Of thoseownersfromwhominformation
given
little
obvious
requested,
perhaps
have
structures
only8% responded,
thatthese
suggesting
causefor concernin recentyears. In theirreporthowever,Bray& Tathamnotethatincremental
degradation
of suchwallsis oftenoverlooked,
andthattheapparentlackof problemsmaybe due
primarilyto lackof inspection.ln someinstances,
thatdamageoccurredso early
it mightbe concluded
that the structurewas abandoned,or was replacedat a relativelyearlystagein its life. In other
havebeenso slowthatthe need
instances,
it mightbe concluded
thathistorical
ratesof deterioration
for maintenance
of thefailuremodesfor manyof
expenditure
is small.Thiswouldignorethe brittleness
for inspection
requirement
thesestructures,
and Bray& Tathamconcluded
thatthereis a significant

14

sR 4430209/96

E
to a failure
hasdegraded
andmonitoring
to avoidthosesuddenfailures
thatoccurwhenthestructure
point.
pedormance,
but oftenfailto
Variouspublications
between1850and 1900givedetailsof breakwater
given
problem
is
by reportsof
distinguish
clearlybetweencauseand response.A goodexampleof this
in 1863
construction
(1874)describes
the startof breakwater
damageto Wickbreakwater.Stevenson
blocksof 5 to 1Otons. Duringstormsin 1870,a sectionof about380ft (115m)of the
usingdry-placed
wall. Thissectionwasthen
presumably
thebreakwater
was destroyed,
by breaching
breakwater
rebuiltusingPortlandcementto bondthe blockfacing,andirondowelsbetweencourses.A stormin
although
February1872gavewaveimpactpressures
so severethatfacingstoneswereshattered,
have
or
could
beenby
reportdoesnotidentifywhetherthiswasby directwaveimpact,
Stevenson's
(1991)
on
by Allsopet al
stonesfromthe moundbeinghurledagainsttheface,seediscussion
as weighing1350
Afderney.In December1872a sectionof blockwork
bondedtogetherandestimated
tonsslidintothe harbour.Thiswasfollowedby a similarfateto anothersectionweighing2600tonsin
1873.Theseare citedby otherauthorsincluding
Cornick(1969)as evidenceof impactforcesfrom
at Wick,andsuggeststhat
breakingwaves. Shield(1895)howeverrefersto informaldiscussions
failure,butgiveslittleotherdata.
damagewas stronglyinfiuenced
by foundation
flaw
a significant
seemsto haveincorporated
Instances
are rarernowwherethedesignor construction
period.
The
fromthe start,andseveredamageor failurehasbecomeapparentduringtheconstruction
primehistorical
wherea designthathadworked
exampleof thisin the UK is the Alderneybreakwater
sideof Jerseywas usedagainfor an
wellin a lowwaveenvironment
on thesheltered
at St Catherines
extremelyexposedsite,subjectto frequentand severestorms. Potentialweaknessesof the Alderney
period,leadingto steepeningof the frontfaceto
breakwaterwerenotedduringthe construction
increaserestraining
loadson individual
blocks;useof mortar/concreteto fill betweenblocksto reduce
at greaterdepth.
internalpressures;
reduction
of the moundlevelto placethefoundation
Alsoduringconstruction
of the breakwater
at Cataniain Sicilyin 1930,verylargeblocksslidbackwards
intothe harbourunderwaveaftack. Thisweaknesswas ascribedto the absenceof the crestblocks,
and no changesweremadeto the design.Thedamagewashoweverrepeatedin 1933whenmuchof
the upperpartof the breakwaterslid backwards.Analysisof thisfailureidentifiedthe lackof horizontal
connectivitybetweenlayers,hencethe relativeeasewith whichsuccessivelayersslid overthat
forces.
to resisthorizontal
beneath.All laterstructures
builtin ltalyincludekeys,or otherconnections
of
andcollapses such
Despitethis,few if anyexistingstructures
werere-appraised
or strengthened,
breakwaters
Palermo(1973),Bari(1974),and Naples
continuedat Genoa(1955),Ventotene(l966),
(1e87).
One of the majordurabilityproblemsof thesetypesof structuresarisesfromscouralongthe seaward
faceof the breakwater.Lamberti& Franco(1994)ascribecollapseof the Mustaphabreakwaterat
et al (1994)
Algiersprimarilyto foundation
by localscour.Funakoshi
failure,initiatedor aggravated
2m in nearlyall
ports,
up
to
found
scour
and
anafysedbreakwaiersof totallength77kmal13 Japanese
from
included
hadbeen
examples,includingexampleswherescourprevention
measures
/ alleviation
(1994)
et al
the startof construction.
Generally
suchscourabatedafterthefirst1-2years. Funakoshi
for thetoe moundshouldbe
recommend
repeatedbedsurveys,andthatscourprotection
measures
stagedoverthe first 2 yearsafterconstruction.
In the useof mostpracticaldesignmethods,it is assumedthatwaveimpactswilleithernotoccur,or
thatthe pressures
willbe so briefas notto allowtimefor massivecaissonsectionsto respond.
damageby impacts
Limitations
of breakwater
of theseassumptions
areexposedby the examples
by Takahshiet al
describedfor Mutsu-Ogawara
by Hitachi(1994),for SakataandMutsu-Ogawara
(1994a),andfor Amlwchby Allsop& Vicinanza(1996).
porton the Pacificcoastof Japanwasunderconstruction
in February1991,whenit
Mutsu-Ogawara
perioddesign
was hit by waveswhichat H"=9.9msubstantially
exceededboththeconstruction
condition(1:10year)of H"=/p1,andthe 1:50yeardesigncondition
of H;7.6m. Damagewas
particularly
severewheremoundsof armourblocksintendedto coverthefrontfacewereincomplete
15

sR 44St2lo9l

tr
moundsactedto tripthewavescausingimpactforces
and/orhadbeendamaged.Thesepart-height
damage,oneof themlosingmostof its upper
so severethattwo 24mlongcaissonssufferedstructural
part. Photographs
takenduringthestormshowbreakingwavesbeingthrownmanytensof metresinto
verysimilarto the processseenat Alderneyunderseverewaves
the air abovethe breakwater,
Sakataportis on the JapanSea,andis thereforein theorylessexposedthanthe Pacificcoast. Even
andexceededH"o=4'$69;14
so,waveconditions
duringthewinterof 1973| 74 reachedH.o=7'2m
or
wouldhavereached
conditions
9-10m,
these
water
no
more
than
occasions.
In
a
depth
other
possible
would
scour
also
have
protect
against
mound
to
exceededthe breakinglimit,anda hightoe
long
and
17m
deep,
20m
slid
each
probability
increased
the
of impacts.Nearlyall of the 39 caissons,
duringthesestorms,someby nearly4m.
wasdamagedat Amlwchporton Anglesey,north
ln a stormin 7 December1990,a smallbreakwater
fromthecoastline,
and
eastwards
Wales.The breakwater
is about60mlong,runsoutapproximately
before1977usingconcrete
wasconstructed
the breakwater
axisis slightlycurved.Thestructure
plateintothe rockhead.Eachblockis thusinterblockslaidin slicesontoa massconcretefoundation
andthe structure
crestwallis at +7.7mODN,
lockedwith its neighbouisby keyways.The breakwater
-11mODN.
by
slid
backwards
breakwater
of
the
end
the
outer
Duringthe storm,
toe at approximately
places
width.
of
up
to
0.075m
in
three
about0.1-0.2m,leavingcracksdownthroughthe sliceblockwork
as at leastH"o=4[],
Waveconditions
at Amlwchduringthisstormare notknown,butare estimated
the structureis verysteep,
probablywitha meanwaveperiodof T,=gs. Theforeshoreapproaching
designmethod.Thewaterlevelduringthe
1:13,so fallsoutsideof anyestablished
approximately
givingwaterdepthsat thetoeof 11-14m. Allsop&
stormprobablyreachedat least+3.4mODN,
as H.i=4mat MHWS,butreducingto
Vicinanza(1996)estimatedlimitinginshorewaveconditions
was
et
H"i=3.6m
at MLWS. Usingthe simplemethodof Vicinanza al (1995),the horizontalforce
p=0.5,
these
and
on
concrete,
calculated
as 1O4okN/m
at MHWS.Withno up-Iift,for theblocksdirect
usingthe Godamethodwhich
givea factorof safetyof F, = 0.9at highwater,contrasted
by predictions
givesF"= 1.2at highwater,andF"= 2.3at lowwater. Thesefactorsof safetywouldbe reducedif up'
liftpressures
couldact on or beneaththeblocks.
particularly
in ltaly,JapanandGermanythatverticalbreakwaters
It is claimedby manyresearchers,
timeswhen
withpre-castcaissonshavelowerconstruction
costsandmuchshorterinstallation
impactin
environmental
reduce
also
may
comparedwithrubblemounds.Theformof theirinstallation
Once
constructed,
site.
quarry,
to
the
andin trdnsport
the formof noiseor dustpollution,
on site,at the
verticalbreakwatersoftenhavelessvisualand spatialimpactwhichis particularlyattractiveto
sectionsalso
navigators
whostronglydislikenavigating
closeto rubbleslopes.Caissonbreakwater
thefill materialand rehavethe potentialto be removedat theendof the projectlifeby simplyemptying
floatingthe emptycaissonsectionsfor re-useelsewhere.
describedin
It is clearfromthe examplesof damagereviewedabove,andthe manyotherexamples
verticaland
design
and
to
analyse
in methods
the literature,
thatthereremainsignificant
uncertainties
that it is
however
suggest
compositebreakwaters.The argumentsin favourof thesetypesof structure
and
breakwaters,
of vertical
nowappropriateto re-examinethe relativeadvantagesand disadvantages
particularly
waveloadingson suchstructures.
to re-examine
methodsto determine

16

sR 443 02,09196

tr
3

Design methods

3.1 Designconsiderationsand failuremodes

The main activitiesin the designprocess,strictlythe analysisprocess,are to identifythe main failure
processes,and then to dimensionthe selectedstructuretype to ensurethat the principalloadings
remainbelow the structure'sresistancewhen suitablyfactored. In the designof verticalbreakwaters
and relatedwalls,the main emphasishas historicallybeen on balancingthe horizontal( and perhaps
up-lift)forces againstthe caissonweight and hence frictionforces. This chaptergenerallyfollowsthat
approach.

3.1.1

Structuralfailures

maybe summarised:
The mainfailuremodesfor thesetypesof structures
Sliding(backwards)
of thewallelementsrelativeto thefoundation;
backwards,
of thewall;
Rotationor overturning,
Forwardrotationof thewall;
Grosssettlement
of wall;
failureof breakwater
elements;
Structural
Lossof integrity
/ continuity
of structure.
up-liftforces;quasiThe mainloadingsactingon thesetypesof wallsarisefromdirectwavepressures;
forces/ reactionsfrom backingor
hydrostaticforcesfrom internalwaterpressures;and geotechnical
by
be initiatedor accelerated
materials.Someof thefailuremodesabovemaythemselves
supporting
resist
structures
These
global
failures.
particularly
foundation
local
or
failures,including
contributing
forcesessentially
by theirownweight,andby frictionwiththe underlying
waveand geotechnical
elements
/ gradients,
interlockor bondingforcesbetweencomponent
materials.Underlocalpressures
or lossof elementsand/orfill.
maintaincontinuity
and avoidmovement
is slidingbackwards
verticalstructures
failuremodefor monolithic
The mostcommonlyaddressed
loads,butmayalsobe influenced
underdirectwaveforces.Thisdependsprimarilyon the horizontal
be examinedby assuming
(backwards)
maytheoretically
by up-liftforces. Failureby overturning
point
rotationis notfixed,depending
practice,
of
the
rotationaboutthe rearheelof the caisson/ wall. In
of the rubblemoundandfoundation.
characteristics
uponthe bearingcapacityandgeotechnical
Analysisof foundationfailuremodeshas beenstudiedunderthe MASTll MCSresearchproject,
a majorpartof the MASTlll projectPROVERBS,
summarised
by de Grootet al (1995),andconstitutes
so furtherdiscussion
on theseissueswithinthisreportwillbe verylimited.
Blockworkbreal<waters
may alsofail by lossof integritywherea blockis removed(seaward)by net
collapse.Detailedanalysisof
damageandthencatastrophic
suctionforces,followedby progressive
thisfailuremodewill be describedby
thatmayinfluence
the highlocalpressures
/ pressuregradients
reportsto PROVERBS.
the Naples/ Sheffield
/ Wallingford
teamin forthcoming
waveloadsactingon the seawardface
This reportis thereforeprimarilyconcerned
withthe (horizontal)
of thewall,andwiththe contribution
of up{iftforcesto overallstabilityof caissonor similarelements.
Peaklocalpressures
willalsobe discussed,
butdetailedanalysisof theseeffectswill be limitedin this
report,as theyarediscussedmorefullyin the Ph.Dthesesof McKenna(1996)andVicinanza(1996).

3.1.2

Functionalfailures

failureswhentheyfailto giveadequate
Verticalor composite
wallsmayalternatively
sufferfunctional
failurewillgenerallybe dueto
protection
functional
In harbours,
sucha
despitesurvivingstructurally.
sheltered
of waveactivityintothe (previously)
excessivewaveovertopping
whichleadsto transmission
to
is
adopted
structure
partsof the harbour.A relatedfunctional
failuremayoccurif the breakwater
under
to limitwaveovertopping
serveotherfunctionsas well. Thisoftenleadsto requirements

17

sR 443 02/09196

tr
vehicleof pedestrian
frequentlyoccurringconditionsto allowsafeworkingon / behindthe breakwater,
access,and perhapsavoidanceof damageto buildingsor otherfixtureson the breakwater.
A particulardisadvantageof vefiicalwalls is these structuresdo not themselvesdissipateany
significantpropoftionof the incidentwave energy. Plainverticalwallswill eitherreflector transmitwave
energy,primarilydependingon the relativecrestfreeboard,and as suchstructuresare primarily
intendedto reducewave transmission,the majorityof wave energyincidenton the structureis reflected
back away from the structure. These increasesin wave activitymay cause problemsto navigation,or
may initiate/ acceleratelocal bed scouror beach movement. This area is not consideredfurther in this
reportas it has been coveredvery fully in the accompanyingHarbourEntrancesproject,summarised
by McBrideet al (1996),and underthe MAST MCS project. Resultsof those and relatedstudieshave
been presentedby Allsop(1995),Allsopet al (1995a,1995b),Allsopet al (1994a,1994b),Allsop&
McBride(1994),Bennettet al (1992),McBrideet al (1996),McBrideet al (1995a,1995b),McBrideet al
(1994),McBrideet al (1993),and McBride& Watson(1995).

3.1.3

Designapproaches

failuremodes,and
of all significant
The analysisof stabilityof suchstructures
requiresthe identification
the derivation
or useof appropriate
analysismethodsfor eachfailuremode.Theseanalysismethods
maybe conductedat widelydifferentlevelsof complexity
or rigour.Theymayincludedetailed
andtesting
of a givenresponseparameter
calculations
of loadingsandstructureresistance;
calculation
of the proposed
that it fallsbelowsomegivenlimit;comparison
of the mainfeatures/ dimensions
of the
region,or in the experience
structureagainstthoseof similarstructures
in thegeographic
engineer.
of rubblemound
Considerable
designinformation
on thestabilityandhydraulicperformance
andhasbeenincluded
andelsewhere,
breakwaters
has beenderivedfromresearchat HRWallingford
in designmanualssuchas theCIRIA/ CURrockmanualeditedby Simm(1991),andin partsof British
availablein
lessinformation
Standard8S6349,BSI(1984,1991).Thereis howeversubstantially
performance
despitetheirhistorical
Europeon the stabilityandhydraulic
of verticalbreakwaters,
Goda's
preponderance
aroundthe UK andelsewhere.856349Pt 1 (1984)as amendedsummarises
vertical
that
however
manual
notes
methodfor predicting
rock
forces.
The
CIRIA
non-impulsive
wave
greater
substantially
or compositewallscansufferhighimpulsive
or impactforces,withlocalpressures
temporally,
are limitedspatiallyand
thansuggestedby somedesignformulae.Theseimpactpressures
and haveusuallybeenregardedas of relatively
littleeffecton the overallstabilityof thestructure.
Damageto breakwaters
in the UK,andto othersin ltalyandJapan,andrecentstudiesunderthe
of caissonsto impact
EuropeanUnionMASTresearchprogramme
on the dynamicresponses
pressures,
haveillustrated
wherepresentdesignmethodsfor waveforces
thattherearecircumstances
are insutficient.
underfourheadings:
Thefailuremodeswhichverticalwallsare requiredto resistmaybe re-presented
a)
b)
c)
d)

Slidingor overtuming
wallas a singleentity;
of the breakwater
and hence
in a lossof continuity,
wall,resulting
Removalof elements
fromthe (blockwork)
destruction
of thewall;
of thewall;
allowingmovement
Grossfailureof the rubblemoundand/orfoundation,
of blocks,lossof fill
Localfailureof the moundor supporting
seabed,allowingmovement
ancl/orcontinuity
of theblockwork.

failurec), havebeen
Of these,slidingor overturning
of singleelementsa), andgrossfoundation
relativelyrarein the UK in recentyears,buthavebeenmorecommonin ltalyandJapan. Localfailures
leadingto lossof continuity,
andthenceto overallfailureb) or d), mayhavebeenmorecommonin the
UK,althoughrecordsof earlyfailureof minorbreakwaters
aresparseandincomplete.
Aspectsof scourleadingto moded) relateprincipally
to the designof anyarmourto the seawardface
and bermof the rubblemound,andto thestabilityof theseabedmaterialin frontof the structure.

18

sR 443 0209r'96

tr
Scouris not consideredfurtherin this project,but has beenaddressedseparatelyunderthe MAST ll
MCS project,see particularly
Oumeraci(1994a).
Breakageof (small)elements,and/orthe loss of integrityof blockworkwalls,have not been much
studied,and few if any data are availableon local pressures/ pressuregradients. Allsop & Bray (1994)
noted failuresof Alderneybreakwater,and other relatedwalls in the UK, and suggestedthat local
failuresof the wall, may perhapsbe causedby extremelocal pressures/ pressuregradients. Allsop &
Bray suggestedan idealisedstabilityanalysisfor a singleblockwithina wall, but noted that no
informationis availableto identifythe magnitudesand frequenciesof occurrenceof severe local
pressuresand/or pressuregradients. Individualblocksor other small elementsare much more likelyto
respondto rapidlychangingpressures,both spatiallyand temporallythan are large elements/
caissons,so more detaileddata are neededto analysethe stabilityof small elements.

3.2 Design formulae for wave forces / pressures

It is oftenconvenient
underwaveactionin two
to treatpressures
or forcesthatacton thesestructures
categories:
Quasi-static,
or pulsating;
Dynamic,
impulsive
or impact
Quasi-static
or pulsatingwavepressures
changerelatively
slowly,varyingat ratesof the sameorderof
quasi-static
here. ln thefirst,a
magnitude
as the wavecrest. Twoprincipal
forcesmaybe considered
pressure
wavecrestimpingesdirectlyagainstthestructure
difference.The
applyinga hydro-static
the
obstruction
of the momentum
of thewavecausesthewavesurfaceto riseup thewall,increasing
pressuredifference
proportional
to thewaveheight,
acrossthe wall. Thenetforceis approximately
andcan be estimatedusingrelatively
simplemethods.
The secondcaseis the oppositeof thatabove,arisingas thewavereflectsbackfromthe structure,
inducinga net negativeforceor suctionon thewall. Againthe magnitudes
of theforcesare relatively
process
low,andthe
is relatively
easyto predict.
Dynamicor impactpressuresarecausedby thespecialconditions
thatarisewherea wavebreaks
ontothe structure.lmpactpressuresassociated
with breakingwavesare of substantiallygreater
of wave
intensitythanpulsatingpressures,
butareof shorterduration.Thedetailedprocesses
and
breakingare notwellunderstood,
withreliability,
the occurrence
of breakingcannotbe predicted
thesepressuresare thereforeextremelyditficultto calculate.
It hasgenerallybeenacceptedthatdynamicloadscanbe veryimportant,
but it hasbeenarguedthat
manystructures
are substantially
un-affected
by suchshortduration,highintensityloads. Schmidtet al
(1992)remindus thatdespitemorethan80 yearsof research
workon impactloadingon vertical
structuressubjectto breakingwaves,therearetwo basicattitudesrelatedto the roleof waveimpact
are
loadingsin the designof suchstructures.Thefirstattitudesimplyassumesthatimpactpressures
not important
andthusshouldnotbe adoptedin the design.Thesecondattitudeis to skipthe problem
of evaluating
the designimpactloadby assuming
canbe designedin sucha waythat
thatthe structure
impactpressurewill notoccur.
A thirdapproachis to conducta dynamicanalysisof thestructure,
andof the
anditsfoundation,
appliedloads.Thisapproachis stronglyarguedby Oumeraci(1995a),Oumeracietal (1994a& b) and
(1994).Problems
Oumeraci& Kortenhaus
arisein the highlevelof datarequired,bothon thetime
seriesof loadings,butalsoon the geotechnical
of the moundandfoundation.The
characteristics
development
of theseoverallstabilitymodelsareat relatively
earlystages.Thisapproachtherefore
presentlyremainsthe purviewof researchers,
althoughit is to be expectedthatdynamicdesign
methodsandexampledatawill becomeavailable
of the PROVERBS
duringor afterthecompletion
-1999).
project,
research
(1996

19

sR 44302y09196

tr
in definingthoseconditionsthat leadto wave
These problemsare compoundedby uncertainties
impacts. Schmidtet al (1992)and laterOumeraci(1994a)define7 differentbreakerclassificationsin
terms of Hold. Unfortunately,the breakerheightHois extremelydifficultto predictwith any certainty,so
theseclassifications
are of limitedpracticaluse. Goda (1985)describesa numberof rulesto identify
whetherparticularstructuresor sea stateswillcausea riskof impulsivewaveconditions,and that
hereas the flow diagramin Figure3.1.
methodis reinterpreted

ls wave attack oblique?

Beta > 20 degr. ?

F"y"is"ifi*il;"drl
hb/hs> 0.1 ?

Figure 3.1

ls mound large ?
0 . 1< B b / L p < 0 . 3

ls sea bed slope shallow?

m<1/50?

Hmax/h> 0.6
hb/hs > 0.5

ls crest level low?

Rc/Hs< 0.3 ?

ls crest level low?

RdHs < 0.3 ?

Decision tree for impulsive breaking conditions

primarily
on methodsusedin design
The reviewof designmethodsbelowwillthereforeconcentrate
of the
on the definition
impact
effects,
of
manualsandcodes,butwill includeinformation
on dynamic
draws
review
This
generally
available.
where
onsetof impactconditions,
andon dynamicresponses
refers
instances
(1996),
in
some
and
on materialalsoconsidered
by McKenna(1996)and by Vicinanza
the readersto thosereviewsfor greaterdetail.

3.2.1

Horizontalforces

The main methodsused in designmanualsto estimatewave forceson uprightwalls, breakwatersor

seawalls,have been derivedby:
Goda for simplewalls
Goda / Takahshifor compositebreakwaters
Minikinfor compositebreakwaters
Jensen / Bradbury& Allsopfor crown walls

20

sR 443 02/09196

tr
The most widelyused predictionmethodfor waveforceson verticalwallswas developedby Goda
(1974,1985).This methodwas primarilydevelopedto calculatethe horizontalforcefor concrete
caissonson rubblemoundfoundations,
and was calibratedagainstlaboratorytestsand back-analysis
of historicfailures. lt assumesthat wave pressureson the wall can be representedby a trapezoidal
distribution,
see Figure3.2,withthe highestvalueat stillwaterlevel,regardlessof whetherwavesare
breakingor non-breaking.In Europe,Goda'smethodis citedby BritishStandard856349 Pt 1, BSI
(1984),and by the CIRIA/ CUR rock manualeditedby Simm (1991). BeforeconsideringGoda's
method in detail, it is howeverusefulto reviewbrieflypreviousmethods,particularlythose by lto, Hiroi
and Sainflou,see lto (1971),and by Minikin(1963).

Figure3.2

Pressuredistributionand definitionsfor caissons,afterGoda(1985)

Hiroi'sformulagivesa uniformwavepressure
on thefrontfaceupto 1.25Habovestillwaterlevel:
(3.1)

p = 1.5p*gH
where

p = the averagewavepressure,
andH thewaveheight.

pl at staticwaterlevel,taperingoff to
Sainflou'smethodderivesa pressuredistribution
withmaximum,
zeroat a clapotisheightaboves.w.l.of H+6o,andreducinglinearlywithdepthfrompt to p, at the
rubblebase:
(3.2a1
(3.2b)
(3.2c)

pr = (pz+ p,gh)(H+ 6o)/ (h + H + do)

pz= p*9H/ (cosh(2nhlL))
6o= (nH2/L)coth(2nhll))

waveforcesfor
ShoreProtection
Manual(1984)suggests
thatSainflou's
methodmayover-estimate
formulaeto derivethe heightof the
shorternon-breaking
waves,andusesthe Miche- Rundgren
up-lift
pressureis calculated.Theaccompanying
clapotisfromwhichan (assumed)
linearhydrostatic
corner
pressure
pressureis assumedto be triangular
at
the
seaward
fromthefrontface,withthe

21

sF 4 C2r'09l96

tr
consistentfor frontface or underside.For longwavesof low steepness,SPM recommendsSainflou's
method,showingdesigncurvesvaryingwith H/gT'z.
Ito discussesthe use of Hiroi'sformulawherethe waterdepthoverthe mound,d, is lessthan 2H',.,and
to notethat Sainflou'smethodgenerallygives
Sainflou'smethodswhen d>2H,,..lt is interesting
pressuresof about0.8-1.0p*gH,rathersmallerthan Hiroi's.
In use in Japan,lhere was some uncertaintywhetherHiroi'smethodgave safe results,particularly
when using H=Hrs,and over the effectsof waves breakingover the mound. A simplemethodby lto,
discussedby Goda (1985)gave a rectangulardistributionof horizontalpressuresactingon the front
face of the caisson,calculatedin terms of H,",. The value of H,", is 2H", or Hoif waves are depthlimited. The pressure,p, is then determinedfor 2 differentregionsof relativewater depth,H/h.. lto
assumeda triangularup-liftpressuredistribution,but uniformpressureson the verticalface. Bruining
approximateslto's methodby:
P = 0.7P,9H.",
p = p*gH,*(O.15+ 0.55H/d)

(3.3a)
(3.3b)

for H<d
for H>d

The Shore ProtectionManual(1984)distinguishesbetweenbreakingand non-breakingwave

by Miche-Rundgren
be estimated
conditions
conditions,
recommending
thatloadsundernon-breaking
pressures.
distribution
of
up-lift
withan assumedtriangular
Minikin's
and relatedmethods
methodhadbeenjudgedas givingtoo low
In Europe,Sainflou's(1928)simplehydro-dynamic
hadnotedbutnotbeenableto measurevery
pressures
for wavesbreakingontostructures.Engineers
thatthe momentumof thewavecouldbe
largeforceson somewalls,andit waswellestablished
ledto veryshortimpact
it wasclearthatsomeconditions
relatedto the pressureimpulse.Unfortunately
by
perhapslargerthancouldbe accommodated
durations,
coupledwithverylargepressures,
engineering
of thatera.
by the pistonof water,where
modelof aircompressed
Bagnold(1939)postulated
a conceptual
theairpocket.Thewaveslowsandslopsas the pressure
momentumfromthewavecrestcompresses
to pressure
thewavemomentumhasbeenconverted
in the air pocketrises.At maximumpressure,
of
of thethickness
the identification
approachhoweverrequired
overthe impactrisetime. Bagnold's
the air pocket,and of thevirtuallengthof thewaterpiston.Neitherof thesecouldbe measured.
(1963)methodwasdeveloped
intheearly1950sto estimatelocalwaveimpactpressures
Minikin's
causedby wavesbreakingdirectlyontoa verticalbreakwateror seawall,andthereforeaddressedthe
a versionof this
pistonmodelandcalibrated
problemsof impactpressures.MinikinusedBagnold's
to
on a seawallat Dieppe givemaximum
modelwithRouvilleet al's(1938)pressuremeasurements
epressionfor p,* maybe written:
peakpressures
for Wpicalwaveimpactevents.The resulting
(3.4a)

P^u=hC^xn P* g H* (1+d/h)(d/L)

where C,* is a coefficientdefinedto allowfittingto Rouville'sdata, and accountingfor the typicalsize of

an air pocket. Minikinsuggestsa value of C.*=p, which is then cancelledwithineqn. 3.4a to gMethe
simplerversionused by 856349 Pt1 (1984):
(3.4b)

P.* = fl9*9H,*(1+d/h) (d/L)

by Minikinwithnp*g replacedby 2'9! The resulting

Unfortunately,
wasthenre-written
thisexpression
was
coefficients
of dimensioned
per
(force)
This(mis-)use
foot.
square
expression
hasunitsof tons
Minikin's
re'writes
which
Manual,
Protection
theShore
latercompounded
by otherauthors,including
overthe useof tonsor tonsforce,or perhaps
formulawithng replacedby 101,butaddsconfusions
(un-stated)
someother
units.

22

sR 443 fz09l96

tr
by Minikinhimself
The confusionsoverthe use of Minikin'smethodis exaggerated
by mis-calculations
in the quasi-hydrostatic
elementof the overallwaveforce,discussedin more detailby McKenna(1996).
Minikintakes the verticaldistributionof dynamicwave pressuresto be parabolicabout the staticwater
level.The total force is givenby approximatingthe impactforce as p,*H/3, and then addingthe
contributionof hydrostaticpressuresat the pointof run-upto Hl2. The final expressionfor the total
horizontalforce may be then be writtenin dimensionally
correctterms:
Fr,.* = /zc^*n g,9 H,* d { (1+d/h)H(3L) + 1l(2n)+ H/(8nd) }

(3.4c)

force,exceptthatusedin
It appearsthatall laterversionsof Minikin's
formulafor totalhorizontal
qualification
on the units.
(1984),
8S6349Pt 1
includedthefactorof 101,butwithoutthe appropriate
give
larger
forcesthanthe
rather
Theselaterinterpretations
werethereforedimensionally
and
incorrect,
minorerrorbecomesmuchmore
originalmethod,seediscussion
by McKenna(1996).Thisotherwise
seriouswhenlaterauthorsimplythattheversionusing101can be usedin otherunitsthanf .p.s,and
havethuspropagated
versionof Minikin's
formulaeeversince!
the erroneous
in the useof the (quasi)hydro-static
As if thiswas notenough,anotherseriousconfusion
is introduced
by errorsby
wascompounded
elementin thetotalhorizontal
forcein eqns3.4c,andthisconfusion
methoddescribedin
Minikinhimselfin applyingthee><ample
calculations.
Theoverallforceprediction
pressure
whetherthisis balancedby
the SPMincludesa full triangular
hydro-static
withoutexplaining
pressures
equMalent
on theothersideof thestructure,
or by pore/ groundwaterwithinthe structure.
distribution
The readerof the SPMmaythereforebe leftuncertain
as to whetherthefull triangular
forcesare oftenverylarge,but
shouldbe applied,so mayin manycaseshavedoneso. The resulting
increasechangemarkedlywithincreasing
waterdepths.
of
The effectof thesevariousmethodscanbe contrasted
by plottingthedifferentverticaldistributions
pressures
for identicalwaveconditions.
An examplewhichmatchesoneof thetestconditions
discussedlaterin Chapters5 and6
(test10003)hasbeenusedto
calculatethe pressuredistributions
shownin Figure3.3. Goda's
methodyieldsa simpletrapezoidal
distribution
withthe maximum
pressureat stillwaterlevel,andthis
methodis discussed
furtherbelow.
Pressurescalculatedby two
versionsof Minikin's
method
discussedaboveare also plotted.
The lowestpressures
are givenby
the correctedversionusingeqns.
(3.4b)and (3.4c).The largest
to
pressures
are givenby the SPM
P.sm in ld.l/.n^2
versionof Minikin,demonstrating
greaterpeak
the substantially
Figure3.3
Verticaldistributionsof pressuresusing
pressure,andthe triangularhydroGoda,Minikin,and SPMmethods
staticelement.
thatthe SPM
engineers,
ln practiceit hasbeenfoundby otherreviewers,
andperhapsby practising
greaterpressures
versionof Minikin's
thanotherformulae,and itsusefor
methodgavesubstantially
by Goda
calculations
of waveforcesfor practicaldesignhasbeenverylimited.Thisis epitomised
viewon Minikin's
writingon waveforceformulaein Herbich(1990)whosummarises
the prevalent
interest".
formulae'can be considered
to belongto a groupof pressureformulaeof historical
Othermethodsfo,rimpactpressures
Muchattentionhasbeendevotedto pursuingthe goalof quantifying
impactpressures.At smallscale,
are
pressures
transducers
verylarge(comparatively)
maybe measuredif smallfast-responding
sampledveryrapidly.Therehashoweverbeenmuchdoubtthatthiswouldbe foundat largescale.
23

SR /1430209196

tr
Partenscky(1988)quotingOumeraciusesresultsfrom the largewavechannelat Hannover/
(GWK)to suggestthat impactpressuresof veryshortdurations(0.01to 0.03s)may be
Braunschweig
calculatedfrom:

(3.sa)

Payn= Ks P* I Ho

where Hois the breakingwave height,and the coefficient( is givenin terms of the air contenta" of lhe
breakingwave:
Kr_= 5.4 ( (1/a")- 1)

(3.5b)

Partensckyalso derMesformulaefor the verticaldistributionof wave impactpressures,but these

formulae take no accountof air content. Blackmore& Hewson(1984)conductedfield measurements
at four sea walls in the UK, from whichthey developeda model basedon momentumexchange.
lmpact pressuresp, dependon the shallowwaterwave velocity,v"; the wave period,T; and an aeration
factor,J\,which dependson the roughnessof the foreshore:
(3.6a)

P i= J \ P T v " 2

A valueof I = 0.3 is recommended

for a roughandrockyseabed,andA= 0.5for a regularseabed.
calculatedfrom
Breakingwaveheightsare indirectly
considered
by usingshallowwaterwavevelocities
the breakingwaterdepth,ho,andbreakingwaveheight,Ho:
(3-6b)

v"=[g(ho+Ho)]o's

werediscussed.Where
andno up-liftpressures
Thismethodwasdeveloped
for verticalseawalls,
assumedto occur
pressures
are
/ forces,these implicitly
thesemethodscan be usedto estimateup-lift
at the sametimeas the peakhorizontal
force.
Goda'smethod
the breaking
twocomponents,
byconsidering
Goda'smethodrepresents
wavepressurecharacteristics
representedin the
or pulsatingpressures),
wave(impacts)andthe deflectedwave(slowly-varying
on the slowlymethodby coefficients
of relativedepthto wavelength
o1,o2,ando.. The influence
wavebreakingdueto the relativelevel
varytngcomponentis represented
by c,; theeffectof impulsive
of the moundis represented
by or; andc. accountsfor the relativecrestlevelof thecaissonandthe
relativewaterdepthoverthetoe mound.
Thismethodis oneof thefewto giveestimates
of the up-liftforces,andhenceof the overturning
reducingfrom
trapezoidally,
momentsfor the caisson.Wavepressures
on thefrontfacearedistributed
p, at s.w.l.to p. at thecaissonbase,seeFigure3.1. Aboves.w.l.the pressurereducesto zeroat the
by a
notionalrun-uppointgivenby a heightq*. The up-liftpressureat theseawardedgeis determined
seaward
of
the
toe
pressure
for
the
calculated
separateexpression,
andmaythereforebe lessthanthe
face. Up-liftpressures
fromtheseawardedgeto zeroattherearheel. The
aredistributed
triangularly
mainresponseparameters
from:
aredetermined
(3.7a)
(3.7b)
(3.7c)
(3.7d)
(3.7e)

rl* = 0.75(1+cosp)H*
pr = 0.5(1+cosp)(a,+orcos2p)p*gH,*
pz=pr/(cosh(2nhlL))
Pg= dsPr
pu= 0.5(1+cosp)(o,a.)p*gH,*

couldbe exerted,takenby Godaas

Whereq* is the maximumelevation
aboves.w.l.to whichpressure
p
=
plan,
waveheight,H.",istakenas 1.8H.
the
design
1.5H,*,
is
in
and
the
angle
of
wave
obliquity,
n*
for all positions
of brokenwaves,H.", shouldbe takenas Ho.
seawardof the surfzone. In condltions
The parameters
from:
c,, dr, andq3aredetermined

24

sR 443 gz09196

tr
(3.8a)
(3.8b)
(3.8c)

Gr = 0.6 + 0.s [(4nh/L)/sinh(anh/L)

]'?
oz = Inin { ((hb-dy3hbxH.Jd)', 2dlH.* }
0s= 1 - (h7h)t 1 - 1/cosh(2nhll)l

Thewaterdepthh is takenat thetoe of the mound,andd overthe moundat thefrontfaceof the

caisson,buthois taken5H"seawardof the structure.
considered
by Goda(1974)hadnaturalperiodsaround0.1to 0.3s.
Thecaissons
on rubblefoundations
shorterthanthe naturalperiod,the effectiveloadwill itselfbe
Whensubjected
to loadsof durations
causedby breakingwaves,the
smallerthanthe appliedload. Thusfor theveryshortpeakpressures
static
whichgivethe equivalent
butpressures
Godaformuladoesnotgivetheactualpeakpressure,
loadfor the dynamicsystemof caisson,moundandfoundation.Thismethodwasnotintendedto
predictpressures
Goda(1974)notedthat
spatialextent.
of shortduration,
or of limitedrestricted
pressures
impulsive
causedbywaveswhichbreakinfrontof or ontothewallmayriseto 10p*9H,but
pressures.
judgedthatverticalbreakwaters
to directimpulsive
wouldnotbe designed
to be exposed
havefounduncertainties
withtheGoda'method,andsomehaveidentified
Variousresearchers
pressures.
(1994)hasdiscussed
manyof the
Bruining
differences
withmeasurements
of forces/
parameters
o1,o2,and c..
of the
inconsistencies
in thederivation
of the Godamethod,andparticularly
the best
Despitetheselimitations,
the methodsdeveloped
by Goda(1975,1984)andothersconstitute
methodsavailable,
andincludemanypointsof goodadvice.
Takahashi's
extension
Morerecently,
Takahashi(1994)
developed
an e*ensionto theGodamethodto includethe effectof
the resultsof comprehensive
wasobtainedby re-analysing
breakingwaveimpacts.Thismodification
modeltestsol caissonsslidingunderwaveimpacts,togetherwithanalysisof the breakwater
is appliedto the Godamethodby
movements
at SakataPort,Japan1973-74.The modification
whichis the
a newcoefficient
introduces
changingtheformulation
for the o, coefficient.
Takahashi
the effect
representing
maximumof o, or a newimpulsive
coefficient
c,, itselfgivenbytwocoefficients
o.
the
changing
applied
by
is
wave
height
modification
of
on the mound,and moundshape.The
given
coefficients
bytwo
o,,
itself
coefficient
to be the maximumof o, or a newimpulsive
coefficient
representing
the effectof waveheighton themound,andmoundshape,oo, todo11l
dro = H/d
dw=2

for H/d s 2, or
for H/d > 2

(3.ea)
(3.eb)

on = cos6z/ cosh6,
for 6, < 0, or
drr= 1 / (cosh6,(cosh6.)0's for 6. > 0

(3.10a)
(3.10b)

6r = 20 6rr
6 r = 1 56 r r
6z= 4'9 6'e
6e=362

(3.11a)
(3.11b)
(3.11c)
(3.11d)

for6', < 0
for 6.'.'> 0
for6,,<0
for 6r, > 0

6rr = 0.93 ( (B/L)-0.12)+ 0.36 ( (h"-dyh.)- 0.6 )

6lz= - 0.36 ( (B/L)-0.12)+ 0.93 ( (h.-dyh")- 0.6 )

(3.12a)
(3.12b)

small,andthe
Thismodification
onlyoperateswherethewaterdepthoverthetoe mound,d, is relatively
methoddoesnot
moundis thereforemostlikelyto precipitate
wavebreakingontothewall. Takahashi's
all
alterpeakpressures
nearthewaterlevelrelativeto thoseaboveor below,butsimplyincreases
pressuresby the samefactor.lt doesnotchangeup-liftpressures
by Goda'smethod.lt
calculated
includesthe effectof moundwidth,Bo,butnotof the slopeangleto the mound.
Crownwalls
of forceson a
Waveforceson a crownwallsectionon rubblemoundmaybe treatedas an extension
the
(1991)
recommends
Simm
composite
wallwithextremely
highmound.TheCIRIARockManual,

25

sR 4430209196

tr
& Allsop(1988)for the
empiricalformulaederivedfrom modeltestsby Jensen(1984)and Bradbury
evaluationof wave forceson crownwalls,Figure3.4:
Fr,se.gz=
Fugg.sy.=

(3.20a)
(3.20b)

p* g hr Lo (a (H"/A") - b)
0.5 p* g B"* Lo (a (H./A") - b)

Theseformulaewere derivedfrom modeltestsby Jensenand Bradbury& Allsopon a numberof

a and b derived
leadingto a rangeof valuesof the coefficients
rubblemound/ crestconfigurations,
forces only.
horizontal
from regressionanalyseson forces usingsimpleforce tablesto measurethe
crown
wall, h,,to
The maximumforce in 1000 waveswas dividedby the heightof the front face of the
give an assumed rectangularpressuredistributionon the front face.

On theunderside
of thecrownwall,
thispressurewasassumedto be
withno lossesto the
transferred
forwardedge,withthe uplift
pressuredecreasing
linearlyover
the elementwidth,B"*,to zeroat the
rearedge. Theseassumptions
wereusedto calculatethe uplfft
forceactingon the structure.

F"l \

L.-*"

Theseformulaegivea simple
empiricalfit to the originaldatafrom
whichtheywerederived,but
that
considerable
scailersuggests
mayhavebeen
someparameters
processes
omitted,or the governing
havenot beenfullydescribed.One
exampleof potentialoverFigure3.4
simplification
of the physical
processesis thatthe horizontal
pressureis assumedto actoverthe
full heightof thecrownwall.

Horizontal/up'lift forceson crown wall,

afterSimm(1991)

butdidnotproposeany
studyon crownwallstability,
Hamilton& Hall(1992)conducted
an extensive
quantitatively
the effectsof
described
amendments
or alterations
to theaboveformulae.They
did not provideany
but
structure,
model
changinga rangeof parametersin termsof the stabilityof the
specificdesignguidance.

3.2.2

Up-liftforces

of caissonsor crown
Relatively
is available
on up{iftforcesactingon the underside
littleinformation
thatthe up-lift
generally
assume
walls. Thosedesignmethodswhichgiveguidanceon up-liftforces
is thenusually
lt
wall.
pressureat the seawardedgeis equalto thatactingat the baseof thevertical
reducingto zeroat the rearof the caisson/
triangularly,
assumedthatup-liftpressures
aredistributed
whichmay
crownwall. Thereare howeverfewdatato describethe shapeof thispressuredistribution,
of the rubblemound;siltation
dependon parameters
suchas:thestructuregeometry;permeability
andthe incidentwaveconditions.
alongthe rearsideof the structure;
the up-lifi
seeeqn(3.7e)in section3.2.1,to determine
Goda'smethodusesa furtherequation,
at the baseof
horizontally
that
acting
from
pressureat the seawardedge,potentially
it
disconnecting
distribution
triangular
the
assumed
underthe caissonfollows
the caisson.The distribution
of pressures
discussedabove.
Yetthe
basedon anymeasurements.
ln few if any instancesare methodsto predictthesepressures
materialandcontributing
actingin thefoundation
andporepressures
overallloadingson the structure,
that
of up-liftforces.Franco(1994)notesparticularly
to its strength,all dependuponreliableestimates
26

sR 44302/09196

E
that up-liftpressures
fieldmeasurementsof pressureson a breakwaterat Genoahad demonstrated
if drainageof pressuresat the rearside is inhibitedby siltationin the harbour.
couldvary rectangularly
This effect could increasethe total up-liftforce abovethat assumedby a factorof 2.

(1991) described
Oumeraci
whereuP-lift
caissonmodeltests
pressuredistributions
differed
and
assumptions,
the
simple
from
point
of
notedthatthe effective
of the up-liftforceis of
application
b) T.opezoidol
o) Rectongulo.
particular
importance
when
stabilityof a structure
ovefturning
is considered.An exponential
decayof up-liftpressurecould
movethepointof application
the
forward,thusincreasing
oveilurningmoment.McKenna
(1996)describes
fourdifferent
formsof up{iftpressure
thathavebeenseenin
distribution
Figure3.5
Formsof up-liftdistributions,afterMcKenna the resultsof thesetests,
(1996)
herein Figure3'5.
summarised
Thesimplesttwoarethe
earlier,buttwootherformshave
andtrapezoidal
formsa) andb) in Figure3.5discussed
rectangular
Theconvexformshownin c) probablyoccursat a shorttimeafterb) and
beenseenin measurements.
force.The
oltencoincideswiththe maximumup-liftforceratherthanwiththe maximumhorizontal
buttherefore
occursat thetimeof maximumhorizontalforce,
concaveformin Figure3.5d)generally
indicatemaximumup-liftforce,northe lowestoverallstability.
doesnot necessarily

3.2.3

Seawardor suctionforces

or slidingforward,thatis in the
proportion
A substantial
of failuresof verticalwallsareby overturning
or
oppositedirectionto the horizontalforcesdiscussedabove. Further,mostblockworkbreakwaters
progressive
blocks.
seawallsfail by
movement
seawardof individual
methodsto estimate
established
Despitethe occurrence
of thesetwo effects,therefewgenerally
methodto estimatethe quasi-static
seawardforcesor suctionon a verticalwall. A simplegraphical
pressuredifferenceacrossa caissonbreakwaterat the pointof maximumwavedraw-downis
suggestedby Goda(1985).
Godawritingin Herbich(1990)givesa verysimplemethodto estimatethe pressureundera wave
troughat a verticalwall:

and

p -

p*g

p -

-0.5p*9H.", tor z < -0.5H,*

(3.21a)

for-0.5H,*<z<0

(3.21b)

3.3 Hydraulicmodeltests

identified
in Chapter2 suggeststhatdesignmethodsin
The evidenceof damage/ failureof structures
for thesetypesof
useinternationally
of loadingsor responses
do notalwaysgivereliableestimates
differentdesign/
methodshaveidentified
structures.The discussions
in section9.1- 9.2on prediction
andwhose
responses,
give
or
analysismethodswhich
varyingestimates
of thedifferentloadings
in
variabilities
and
the
regionsof application
ditferwidely.Boththe evidence
of damage/ failures,
structures'
predictionmethods,leadto significant
in the analysis/ designof thesetypesof
uncedainties
of
anddemonstrate
thatmorereliablemethodsareneededto giveengineersimprovedpredictions
waveloadingsand of structureresponses.
27

sa44Bo2l@l

tr
havebeenfor manyyears,andstillremain,
Themostreliable
methods
to predictwaveloadings
of waveforcesand/ or
hydraulicmodeltestsat scaleratiosthatallowsthecorrectreproduction
for research
studies
responses.
Themainpurpose
of suchtests,outsideof thoseconducted
structure
thus
wholebodyforcesor, lessoften,wavepressures,
responses,
hasbeento determine
on particular
of wave
responses
/ weight.Hydraulic
allowing
thedesigner
to setthemaincaissondimensions
Thesemeasurements
mayalsobe measured.
waveovertopping,
and/orreflections
transmission,
1:20and1:70.
modelsof scalesbetween
commonly
usehydraulic
wouldbe
performance
/ stabilityof a caissonbreakwater
Typicalmodelstudiesof the hydraulic
wavebasin(3-d). ln each
waveflume(2-d),and/orin a 3-dimensional
conductedin a 2-dimensional
overa range
wouldbe usedto quantifythe performance
instance,a rangeof differentwaveconditions
of retumperiods/ risklevels.Randomwavetestsmighttypicallycover1000to 5000waves.
Measurements
thatmadeduringsuchtestsmightinclude:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
h)

Waveforcesandmomentsactingon a sectionof caissonusinga forcetable,dynamometer,

devices;
or otherforcemeasuring
at pointson thefrontface,and/oron the underside;
Wavepressurgs
meandischarges
and/orwaveby wave;
Waveovertopping,
Number/ proportion
of wavesovertopping;
waveenergy/ heights;
Transmitted
Reflected
waveenergy/ heights;
of toearmourelements;
Movement
/ displacement
Scourchangesto bedlevelsin frontof the structure.

butwouldcertainly
It is unlikelythatany particular
studywouldincludeall of thesemeasurements,
have
of suchstudiesusingforcemeasurements
includea) or b), and probablyc) and/ord). Examples
by Franco(199a)and
transducers
beendiscussedby van der Meeret al (1994),andusingpressure
in suchstudies.
measurements
Noliet al (1995).Francoet al (1994)discusswaveovertopping

3.3.1

Selectionof modelscale

scaleeffects,andto fit the testfacilities

The sizeof the modelwillbe setto avoidanyunnecessary
of scale
in the avoidance
available.lt is worthnotingthatthescaleratioitselfis of littlerelevance
conditions
flow
that
ensuring
by
be
minimised
in
models
may
effects.Mostscaleeffects breakwater
(1985)
&
Briggs
(1983)
Owen
and
prototype.
Allsop
are in the sameregimein modeland
Owen&
that
concluded
and
and
UK,
in the USA,Denmark,
reviewedstudiesof armourstabilityin laboratories
provided
the
that
are insignificant
scaleeffectsin the flowin the primaryarmouron rubblebrealcwaters
=
is keptaboveRe 3x104.Forrubble
Reynoldsnumber,definedby the nominalarmourdiameter,
do notfall belowH"=0.15m.
breakwaters,
this is achievedby ensuringthatmodelwaveconditions
wavescreens,wherethe Reynolds
A similarargumentmaybe pursuedfor flowin / aroundperforated
fromvertical
of wavereflections
In
studies
t".
numbermaybe definedin termsof the screenthickness,
a
wave
perforated
in
screen
and perforated
walls,by Allsopet al (1994b)assesseddatafroma
disturbance
modelto determine
the lowest(model)waveheightbelowwhichlevelsof energy
dissipation
Allsopet al (1994b)plottedthe sumof relativereflectedand
startto changesignificantly.
responseis
transmitted
againstmodelwaveheight.The energydissipation
waveenergies(C,2+ C,'?)
givinggreater
generally
of thescreenincreases
flat,but risesfor Re < 4x103,as flowresistance
reflections
withinthe screen.
and lessrelativedissipation
The remaining
responses
whichmaysufferfromscaleeffects,evenin modelsthatmeetthe
are likelyto be greaterin
requirements
outlinedabove,arewaveimpactpressures.Suchpressures
at full
theirequivalents
than
magnitude
in smallscalehydraulicmodeltests,butshorterin duration
therefore
tests
model
in hydraulic
measured
scalein (invariably
aerated)seawater. Peakpressures
some(asyet un-quantified)
represent
over-estimates
of thoselikelyto occurat fullscale,thusproviding
safetyfactor.

28

sR 44302y09/96

E
on the
Theargument
available
on scalingthesepeakpressures
requires
notpresently
information
of thepressure
relationships
between
thestatistics
of thepressure
andthemagnitude
timegradients
withsupport
of Plymouth
impulses.Majorresearchprogrammes
havebeenunderway
at University
butthesestudieshad
fromEPSRC,andat Hannover
/ Braunschweig
undertheMASTlI-MCSproject,
guidance
on thescalingof waveimpacts.
notat the timeof thesestudiesresultedin anysignificant
see
Newresearchby HR Wallingford
and BristolUniversity
on concretearmourunitson breakwaters,
7 of thisreport
in Chapter
Howarth(1996),hashoweverbeenusedhereto address
thisproblem
loads,a) above,
It shouldbe notedthatthe useof a forcetableor dynamometer
to measurehorizontal
generallyprecludes
moments.
the reliabledetermination
of up-liftforces,andhenceof totaloverturning
A forcetablemustusuallybe mountedcloseto the baseof the (model)structureon whichloadsareto
a
be measured,
thusplacingthe devicewithinthe (model)moundor foundation.Conversely,
anysensingelementsfrom
dynamometer
maybe mountedabovethe measurement
caisson,removing
caissonbe freeto
belowthe caisson.Unfortunately,
thesedevicesstillrequirethatthe measurement
material.Thisinevitably
move,if onlyslightly,withoutrestraint
fromthe under-lying
mound/ foundation
leadsto a preferential
flowpath,substantially
distorting
anyup{iftforceson the caisson.
mountedin the frontface
Theseparticularproblemscan be overcomeby usingpressuretransducers
and up-liftforces,
and underside
of the caisson.The pressures
maythenbe summedto givehorizontal
of
andmomentsabouta chosenpoint,usuallythe rearheelpointof thecaisson.Correctreproduction
flow/ pressureconditions
beneaththecaissoncanbe ensuredby scaling(model)mound/ foundation
the modelcarefullyto avoid
materialsto reproduce
the correctpermeabilities,
andconstruction
mustbe
unrealistic
flowcondiiionsalongthe lowerfaceof thecaisson.Theup{ifltransducers
fromthe mound/
mountedand protected
to avoidanypossibledamageby stonesprotruding
foundation.

29

sB 44302109l

30

sR 4 02rc9l96

tr
4

Design of research studies

It is apparentfrompreviousworkin the laboratory

and in thefieldthatthereremainconsiderable
thatleadto wave
conditions
uncertainties
in determining
waveforceson composite
walls;in predicting
andfielddata
the loadingsthemselves.Analysisof recentlaboratory
impacts;and in estimating
beenpresumed,
thanhadpreviously
moreimportant
suggeststhat impactloadingsareconsiderably
lt wastherefore
probably
of
structures.
beenimplicated
in damageor movement
of a number
andhave
sourceof
andcomprehensive
clearthat newresearchstudieswereneededto providea consistent
walls/ breakwaters.
dataon waveloadson vefticalandcomposite
availablein thistwoyear
but resources
Modelstudiesalonewillnotcomplete
thegapsin information,
projectdid not permitfieldmeasurements,
studiesneededto resolve
northe extendedlaboratory
thattheseissueswere
however,
uncertainties
in model/ prototype
scalingetfects.lt wasexpected,
projects
underthe EU's
in the MCSand PROVERBS
alreadybeingaddressedby otherresearchers
MASTll and lll researchprogrammes.
ln the event,an (informai;extension
of the reporting
of thisprojecthasallowedthe inclusionof new
information
on scaleeffectson waveimpactpressures
measuredin hydraulicmodeltests,thusyielding
guidanceon scalecorrections
for the measurements
in thisstudy.

4.1 Overallplan of studies

Hydraulicmodeltestsweretherefore
conducted
to measurewaveloadson a rangeof simplevertical
tn designing
thesetests,it wasnotedthatmanyprevious
andcompositebreakwater
configurations.
prediction
methods,hadbeen
particularly
modelstudies,
thoseusedto deriveGoda'sandTakahashi's
had
measurements
basedprimarilyon studiesof the slidingdistanceof modelcaissons.No force
by a forceplate
beenmade. ln otherstudies,theoverallforceon thefrontfacehadbeendetermined
of thesensingelement
or dynamometer,
butthe needto ensureclearance
for (slight)displacement
precludedreliablemeasurement
thatthe onlywayto avoid
therefore
of up-liftforces.lt wasdetermined
of modelcaisson
theselimitations
wasto measurewavepressures
on boththe frontandunderside
sections.

Figure4.1

Deepwaveflume

31

sa 44302lo9l

tr
The modeltestswere conductedin
the Deep RandomWave Flumeat
Wallingford,
Figure4.1,whichis
52m long and operateswith water
depthsbetween0.8m and 1.75m.
The flume is configuredto reduce
any reflectionof wave energyfrom
the test sectionin its absorbingside
channels.The bed levelat the
positionof the structurewas +1.00m
Figure4.2
relativeto the flume floor, and the
bathymetryapproachingthe test
sectionwas formed to a uniform
slopewith a gradientof 1:50. The
main caissonwas formed as a
hollowbox in marine plywoodwith
pressuretransducersmountedflush
with the front face and the
underside,Figures4.2 and 4.3.
The designand constructionof the
model caissons,and of the
measurementsystems,were
Figure4.3
discussedwith the MCS projectby
McKennaet al (1994)and
Vicinanzaet al (1995).

Gaisson/mound geometrical parameters

Pressuretransducerpositions

waveforcesinclude:
thatinfluence
The geometricandwaveparameters
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0

offshoreor inshorewaveheights,H"oandH,,;
significant
R"
h";andcrestfreeboard,
waterdepthin frontol structure,
toe,\;
wavesteepness,
sm,andwavelengthat structure
waterdepthovermoundin frontof wall,d; andbermheight,ho;
bermwidth,Bo,andfrontslopeof mound,q;
of caissonintomound,ho-h"
depthof embedment

to some
wouldhaverequiredup to 1500tests,equivalent
Studiesto varyeachof thesesystematically
2 years
to
limited
was
however
work
period
DOE
supported
for the
55-65weekstesting. The contract
and
instrumentation;
and
sections
of all test
andinstallation
including:
studydesign;construction
wererequired.Thesewereachievedby
of the programme
analysisof the results;so drasticreductions
to the processes,
parameters
believedto be mostimportant
concentrating
on thosedimensionless
particularly
the relativewaveheight,H"/d,the relativeberp length,Bo/L,andthe relativebermheight,
parameters
aredefinedin Figure4.2.
ho/h".The maingeometric
model
norwasanyparticular
structure,
anyparticular
Thesetestswerenotintendedto reproduce
in
conducted
to
be
intended
was
analysis
scaleimpliedin the studydesign.Mostof the designand
mind
in
to
bear
convenient
often
dimensionless
terms,in whichcaseno scaleis needed.lt is however
the
to
calculate
and
scaleeffects,
a scaleor rangeof scales,bothto checkfor anypotential
Thesestudiesgenerallyrelateto prototype
measurements.
significance
in prototype
termsof particular
up to H"=2mor 10m,
situations
at modelscalesbetween1:10and 1:50,givingincidentwaveconditions
of thesetests,it
maybe coveredby a scaleof say 1:30. Aftercompletion
so manypracticalsituations
werealso
di Milanoand DelftHydraulics
by Politecnico
was notedthat relatedtestsconducted
of 1:30,seeFranco(1996).
assigned
a nominalscale
of abouts'o=
givewavesteepnesses
of UKandEuropegenerally
Stormwavesaroundthecoastlines
so tests
geared
steepness,
wave
to
are strongly
functions
0.04to 0.06. lt is knownthatsomeresponse
waves
diffracted
to
approximately
s,o=0.02,corresponding
werealsorunfor a lowerwavesteepnoss,
32

sB 443021091

tr
withina harbour,
to reduced
waveheights
a storm,or in someareas
/ growthof wavelengthfollowing
preceding
s,o=0.02,
thearrivalof a storm.Testswerelimitedto threenominalwave
steepnesses,
0.04and0.06.
Waterdepthis important
for itseffectson incident
of actionon thewall,andin
waves,in theposition
determining
the effectsof anyapproach
slopeor mound.The modelwasdesignedto be testedat up to
5 waterlevels(each0.09mapartin themodel).All5 waterlevelswereusedduringthesetests,butnot
for allstructures.
Thewaveheightsusedin thetestfacilitywerelimitedin magnitude
by the capacityof the wave
generator,
give
butwerevariedto
intermediate
andshallowwaterconditions.Forthe simplevertical
wall,valuesof relativewaveheightH",/h"
to
variedbetween0.1to 0.6,butthisrangewas restricted
0.15to 0.4for someotherstructures.
andthe localwater
Forthe simplewall,the parameters
variedwerelimitedto thewaveconditions
depth.The crestlevelof thewallwasnotchanged,althoughitsfreeboardR"variedas a consequence
of the changesto the waterlevel. Forthecomposite
walls,the mainchangewasto the relativeheight/
depthof the rockmoundin frontof thewall,bothby varyingthe absoluteheightof the mound,andby
varyingthe waterlevel.Theotherchangeswereto thewidthof the berm,3 widthsweretested,andto
frontslopeangleof themound,variedbetween
1:1.5and1:3withmosttestsusing1:2.
The levelof the caissonbasewasvariedto studythe influence
on up-liftforces
of relativeembedment
to 3
actingon the underside
of thecaisson.Thecaissonbasewasset at 3 differentlevels,equivalent
depthsof embedment,
depth,h', usedin Goda's
butgiving7 differentvaluesof thesubmerged
prediction
method.

4.2 Designof modeltests

4.2.1 Teststructures
Elevenstructures
weretestedin this
study. Structure0 wasa simple
verticalwall,testedto describethe
horizontal
loadingson the simplest
configuration.
The maincomposite
wallswereStructure1 witha small
mound,Figure4.4;Structures
2 or 3
withintermediate
mounds,Figures
4.5 and4.6;and Structures
9 and
10withlargemounds,Figure4.7.
Figure4.4
The remainingstructures
were
variations
fromtheseintendedto
yielda coherentdatasetfromwhich
the influenceof eachparameter
couldbe identified.The
combinations
to investigate
certain
parameterinfluences
maybe
summarised:

Structure1

Structure2

Figure4.5
berm width, Bo
front slope, cotc
core depth, h"
mounddepth,ho

structures
4 and5
3, 6, 7, and indirectly
structures
3, 4,5
structures
2,3,9, (8,10)
structures
3, I (1,2) (9, 10)
33

sR 4430209/96

tr
Structure0, the simpleverticalwall
was placedwith the toe of the
caissonat +1.000m,the
measurementcaissonwas itself
elevatedby 0.112mto give a crest
levelat +1.802m,0.802mabovethe
toe level. The main geometric
featuresof the test structuresare
summarisedin Table4.1.
the influenceof
When considering
the berm width Bo,and the front
slopeanglecot q, it was foundthat
a singleparametercould be defined
to includethe influenceof both
parameters.The equivalentberm
width,B"o,is definedhalfwayup the
berm, ratherthan at its crest:
B* = Bo+ (ho/2tanc)

Figure4.6

Structure3

Figure4.7

Structure9

(4.1)

The model caissonwas formed as a

hollow box in marine plywood,and
was securedto the seabedby 8
screw rods. The front face and the

the
steelplates.Foreachof thesestructures,
withstainless
underside
of the modelwerestiffened
height
mound
gave
desired
the
timberbeamswhich
caissonboxwasmountedontotwo longitudinal
rigidly.ForStructure0 where
beneaththe caissonandensuredthatthecaissoncouldbe restrained
therewas no mound,thevoidbetweenthe narrowbeamsbeneaththecaissonwasblockedby a plate
thisspacewasfilledby the rubblemound.
structures,
flushwiththefrontface. Forthe composite
for wallsand mounds

able 4.1 Main

Structure

cot q

hb

hc

Bb

Crest level

(m)

(m)

(m)

(m abovebed at toe)
0.802

vertical

2.0

0.187

0.112

0.25

0.802

2.O

0.367

0.112

0.2s

0.892

2.O

0.367

0.202

0.25

0.892

3.0

0.367

o.202

0.25

0.892

1.5

0.367

o.202

0.25

0.892

2.O

0.367

0.202

0.375

0.892

2.O

0.367

0.202

0.50

0.892

2.0

0.457

0.202

0.25

0.892

2.0

0.367

o.292

o.25

0.982

1()

90

o 457

o 992

o25

o-982

on thefrontfaceof thecaisson,4 on the underside

at 8 positions
wereinstalled
Pressure
transducers
and4 justbelowthe surfaceof the rubblemound.The useof a hollowboxenabledovertopping
to be installedinsidethe bo)qreducingthe needfor external
equipment
collectionand measurement
entdevices.
collectionor measurem
and
thecore(2-77g\;thefilterlayer(164-2739);
of threerockgradings:
The rubblemoundconsisted
the modelcaissonwas
of eachmodelconfiguration,
the armourlayer(1.0-1.2kg).Duringconstruction
34

SR /14302/09196

tr
loweredonto a bed of core at the appropriatelevel,and any gaps at the caisson/ mound interfacewere
filledby carefuladditionof core material.The berm and frontslopewerethen formedin core material,
to which filter and armour layerswere added.

4.2.2

Test facility

Thetestflumeis 52mlong,andoperateswithwaterdepthsat the paddlebetween0.8mand 1.75m.

Theflumeis configured
to reducere-reflection
waveenergyfromthetestsectionby the
of unwanted
from,thecentralchannelby perforated
sidechannelson eithersideof, andseparated
useof absorbing
channelsareeach0.9mwideand42mlong;andthe central
dividingwalls. Thetwo outer(absorbing)
(test)channelis 1.2mwideand52mlong.
The bathymetry
in theflumewasformedby moulding
cementmortaroverfill in the centralchannelto
paddle,
the requiredshape. Fromdeepwaternearthe
theseabedslopedinitiallyat 1:10witha
gradualtransition
sectionwherethe
to a moregentleslopeof 1:50,andterminated
in a 5m horizontal
modelwas placed.Thebedlevelat theteststructure
was+1.00mrelativeto theflumefloorat the
wavepaddle.
Wavesweregenerated
by a slidingwedgepaddle,drivenby a doubleactinghydraulicram. The
(HR
paddlemovements
at HR Wallingford
arecomputercontrolled
usingsoftwaredeveloped
WAVEGEN),
enablingregularor randomwavesto be produced.The randomwavesignalsare
generated
to matchanywavespectrum
usinga whitenoisefiltertechnique
witha singleshiftregister,
for all of the
spectraweregenerated
thatcanbe specifiedat 16equalfrequency
ordinates.JONSWAP
tests. The nominalwaveheightsin Table1 weregeneratedand measuredin the deepwatersectionof
thetestsectionwere
theflume. Thewaveconditions
in thecentralsectionof theflumeapproaching
measuredduringthe calibration
testsdescribedin section4.4.

4.2.3

Testconditions

of the
A rangeof waveconditionsat five waterlevelswereusedto investigate
the performance
differentstructuretypesunderdifferentrelativewaveconditions.Thesewerechosenso that the
and
separately,
influences
of significant
waveheightandmeanseasteepness
couldbe investigated
directcomparisonscouldbe madebetweendifferentwaterlevels. Waveconditionsand waterlevels
aresummarised
in Table4.2. At eachpointmarkedwitha waterlevel(eg+1.43)waveswererunthe
nominalwaveheightsindicated
hble 4.2 Test conditions,wave steepness,wave height,and water levels
sm

H-=0.10m

H-=0.20m

H*=0.25m

H.^=0.30m

0.02

+1.43

0.02

+1.52

0.02

+1.61

0.02

+1.70

0.04

+1.34

+1.34

+1.34

0.04

+1.43

+1.43

+1.43

+1.43

0.04

+1.52

+1.52

+1.52

+1.52

0.04

+1.61

+1.61

+1.61

+1.61

0.04

+1.70

+1.70

+1.70

+1.70

0.06

+1.34

+1.34

+1.34

0.06

+1.43

0.06

+1.52

0.06

+1.61

o06

+'l 7O

35

sR 4 q2l09196

tr
4.3 Instrumentationand test measurements
Themainmeasurements
madeduringthesetestsmaybe summarised:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)

waveheight/ period,usingstandardHR twin

waterlevelsusedto determine
Instantaneous
probes
wirewave
andloggingmodules;
recorded
loadcell
in theovertopping
tanks,usinga continuously
Volumes
of watercollected
over
of totalvolumecollected
measurement
tank,and/orvolumetric
underthecollection
(usually)
500waves;
Numberof overtopping
wavesdetectedby shortwaveprobesmountedon the structure
crest;
Wavereflections
derivedby analysisof theoutputfroman arrayor 3 waveprobesin frontof
theteststructure;
of thecaisson(4);
Wavepressures
on thefrontface(8) andunderside
pressures
positions
Wave
at (4)
in the seawardfaceof the mound;
Videorecordof waveprofilesobserued
througha sidewindowof thewaveflume.

Threecomputers
wereusedduringtesting.On thefirstof these,datawereacquiredfromall 16
pressuretransducers
at 400 Hz usingthe DATSpackage.Thesecondcomputercollecteddatafrom
andfromthe
thewavegauges(oneoffshore,
threefor reflections
andoneat thetoe of the structure),
using
overtopping
cell,usingHRWAVES.Thethirdcomputerwasusedfor randomwavegeneration
HRWAVEGEN.
The pressuretransducers
installed
on thefrontfaceof thecaissonweresuppliedby Control
butwith4x
Transducers
andwereModelAB witha ratedcapacityof 0 - 6 psiandup to 2x over-load,
gavean upperlimitfor high
over-loadbetorepermanent
damageto the devices.Thesetransducers
resolution
measurements
equivalent
to about8m (fresh)waterhead,anda maximumpressurebefore
of thecaissonwere
on the underside
damageon the transducers
equivalent
to 15m.Thetransducers
psi.
DruckPDCR810witha rangeof 0 2.5
Beforetestingstarted,eachsetof transducers
werecheckedandcalibrated.TheAB pressure
to about1
transducers
on the frontfacewereset up so that 1mof (fresh)waterheadwasequivalent
volt. Witha rangeof 0-10von theanalogue
to digitalcomputerboard(A/Dcard),thisensuredthatall
the
pressuresignalsthatcouldbe measured
wouldbe recordedin O-8volts,
at highresolution
The up-liftandmound
remainingrangebeingavailable
for anyfurtherover-load
conditions.
to about5 volts.
transducers
wereset up so that 1mof (fresh)waterheadwasequivalent
betweenthe
parameters
compromises
represented
The principalrecording
usedherenecessarily
numberof
realistic
a
over
information
needto measurefast-acting
events;the needto collectstatistical
processed.
stored,and
waves;and restrictions
on datavolumeswhichcouldbe recorded,
It is generallyagreedthatfastersamplingrateswill yieldgreaterwavepressures/ forces,providedthat
in impactshave
interested
the transducers
areableto respondquicklyenough.Someresearchers
MUller(1993)and Kirkg6z(1995),but
usedsamplingratesup to 5,000or 10,000H2,
seeparticularly
suchrateshavebeenrestricted
oftenlimitedto regularwavesor preto veryshorttestdurations,
packets.
determined
wave
In contrast,mostengineering
studieshaveusedforceplates,tables,or
vander Meeret al (1994).
frames,withsamplingrateslimitedto no morethan25H2,seeparticularly
whichsuggestsreduction
Oumeraciet al (1994a)providea graphbasedon experiments
at Hannover
of the samplingfrequency.This
factorsfor impactpressures,
impactforces,andimpulses,
as functions
by up to
graphsuggeststhatsamplingat 400H2maygiveunder-estimates
of maximumpressures
50%,butthatthe equivalent
forcewouldbe limitedto 2O"/".At theserates,the
reduction
for horizontal
totalimpulsesare notsignificantly
affected.
and increased
The statisticsof wavepressures
withlongertestdurations,
/ forcesare improved
pressures
forces
recorded.The
/
numbersof eventssampledwilltendto increasethe maximum
by Meeret al (1994)
testsdescribed
originaltestdesignhadspecifiedl OOO
waves,althoughprevious
used1000 3000waves.Duringearlytests,it wasfoundhoweverthat 1000wavesat4OOHz
36

sR 443 02109196

tr
generatedfilesthat were too largefor the recordingcomputer/ software.The test lengthwas therefore
restrictedto 500 waves.

4.4 Test procedures

4.4.1 Wavemeasurements
Beforethe modelbreakwater
was installed
in theflume,waveconditions
at the positionof thestructure
weremeasuredduringcalibration
duringcalibration
tests. Shortsequences
of wavesweregenerated
weremade
andweredetermined
usingspectralanalysis.Measurements
of watersurfaceelevations
using8 twinwirewaveprobes,locatedalongtheapproach
caisson.
to the
Oncethe nominalwave
measurements
werethen
condition
hadbeenachieved,
morecomprehensive
madeusinglongersequencelengths,analysedusingstatistical
methods.Thisensuredthatextreme
waveswerereproduced
correctly,andthatthestatistical
of waveheightswas recorded.
distribution
Statistical
analysisallowedthe significant,
0.17",andotherextremevaluesof thewaveheight
distribution
to be determined
at eachwaveprobeposition,
togetherwiththe meanwaveperiods.
Theselongwavesequences
wereusedduringtestingto ensurethatextremewaveswerecorrectly
represented.Incidentand reflectedwaveconditions
weremeasuredusing3 waveprobes,located
approximately
2 wavelengthsseawardof thestructure.Theoverallreflection
coefficient,
C,,was
determined
by summingenergiesfor eachtestcondition.

4.4.2

Waveovertopping

Duringmostof thesetests,the numberof wavesovertopping

the waveby wave
the structure,
overtopping
volumes,andthe meanovertopping
wereeachdetermined.The numbersof
discharges,
probesspacedacrossthewidth
wavesovertopping
the structurewerecountedusingfourovertopping
volumesmeasured
of theflume. The meanovertopping
discharge
fromovertopping
wascalculated
usinga weighingmechanism
locatedinsidethecaissonwhichformedtheverticalwall. A 100mmwide
allowedthe
chutedirectedovertopping
waterintothetank. Thesensitivity
of theweighingmechanism
was
measurement
discharge
of waveby waveovertopping
discharges.Themeanovertopping
calculated
wasexpectedduringa
at the endof eachtest. Whena highmeanovertopping
discharge
test,the weighingcellwas removedanda largereseruoir
wasusedto collectthewater. Thewaterwas
thenpumpedintocalibrated
volumetric
cylinders.Theseresultshavebeenanalysedby Madurini&
Allsop(1995),and havealreadybeendiscussed
furtherby McBrideet al (1995),so are notincludedin
this report.

4.4.3

Pressures

Pressuredatafromthe 16transducers
wereacquiredat a ratesup to 400H2.Waveimpactsrecorded
by the 8 frontfacetransducers
wererecordedat 400H2.Pressures
measuredby 4 slowertransducers
on the underside,
andthe further4 in theseawardfaceof the rubblemoundwerefilteredat 20H2,yet
procedures.
stillsampledat 400H2to avoidexcessive
complication
in the loggingandcomputation
Datawereacquiredcontinuously
for all channelsthrougheachtestfor about500wavesto preventthe
data losswhichoccurswith selectiveacquisitionsystems.Thefilesgeneratedwerevery largeevenin
multiplexed
binaryformat,and hadto be expanded
beforeanalysis.Oncedeby de-multiplexing
data
multiplexed,
thesefileswerethenputthrougha preliminary
analysisprocess,in whichinteresting
wereselectedfor furtheranalysis.
Withinthe analysisprogram,pressuremeasurements
to metreshead
converted
in voltswerenotionally
of freshwater,andthesevalueswerethenconverted
the pressure
in kN/m2by multiplying
to pressures
headvaluesby p,g.

37

sF 443 02/09196

tr

38

sR 44302y09196

E
Resu/fs of test measurements

pressures
actingon thefrontfaceand
responses
herearetheindividualwave
Theprincipal
of interest
pressurerecords,thesedataareverydifficultto handleandto
underside
of the caisson.As individual
these
by integrating
so valuesof the horizontal
andup-liftforces,FnandFu,arecalculated
assimilate,
pressures
overthe frontfaceandunderside
of thetestcaisson.
Pressuredatawerecollectedat 400 Hz from16channelsfor 500waves,givingabout30 Mbytesof
for
to extractkey information
resultspertest. Withover200tests,the initialanalysistaskwastherefore
eachtest. Thisneedto reducedatavolumeshadhoweverto be balancedby the needto avoid
prejudice
imposingany particular
on the information
likelyto be of mostinterestand/orutility.The
as
needsto maintainas muchinformation
analysisapproachthereforetriedto balancetheseconflicting
judgements
and
the
occurrence
possible,whilstcompressing
be
made
on
to
sufficiently
data
to allow
responses.Lateranalysistherefore
operatedat variouslevelsof detail.
magnitude
of particular
The analysisprogramdescribed
in report1T430by Centurioni
et al (1995)was usedto identify"wave
test,the
forceeventsu,
about500pertest. Afterall sucheventshadbeendefinedin a particular
programreadeachpressurechannelto detectpeakpressures
andrisetimes(At)for eacheventon
werealsosummedto givetotal
eachtransducer.Pressures
on thefrontface,andon the underside,
and up-liftforces,andoverturning
momentsusingtheapproachderivedby McKennaet al
horizontal
in
(1994)and modifiedby Centurioniet
al (1995).Resultsaregiven,witha summaryof testconditions,
the Appendixto thisreport.
howthe datawerehandled;the
Thischapterdescribestheformof the pressuremeasurements,
derivationof 'forceevents';andaspectsof dataquality,handlingandarchiving.

measurements

5.1
1
3.5

2-S

* ..
I
0.5
o
{.5

Figure5.1

Typicalpressureeventsfrom test 10003

on Structure1

the detailed
Beforediscussing
derivedfrom
analysisof parameters
the pressuresignalsin Chapter6, it is
helpfulto considera few examPles
selectedfromthe (in excessof 1
million)wavessampled.Pressures
mountedat
by a transducer
measured
the staticwaterlevelare shownin
Figure5.1for about9 waves.This
examplefromtests10003on
Structure1 witha lowrubblemoundin
frontof thewall,showssomewaves
withsuddenpressurerisesand high
peakstermed,impactevents;and
smaller
otherswithsubstantially
pressures
withmuchlongerrisetimes,
events.
termedpulsating

Theformsof thesewavepressuretracesvarywidely,depending
moststronglyon thetypeof wave
/ timerecordsmay
breaking,andthe positionof the pressuretransducer.Theshapeof the pressure
below:
be broadlyclassifiedin fourtypesshownin Figures5.2 5.5,anddescribed

39

sR 4430209196

tr
Type 'l

Type2

Type3

lmpactpressureon the
verticalwall
characterisedby a short
risetime,At<0.01T0,
and
high pressurepeak,
followedby a much
lower,but longer
pressurepeak,Figure
5.2:

Figure5.2

lmpacteventfrom test 10003on Structure1

Figure5.3

Smallimpacteventfrom test 10003on

Structure1

Lesssevereimpact
pressure,
or up-lift/
moundpressureat the
timeof impact,with
similarcharacteristics
as
1,
with
Type but
smaller
peakpressures
and
longerrisetimes,
At<O.1To,
Figure5.3;

Doublepeaked
pressures
fromsteep
near-breaking
waves
withbothpressurepeaks
and
of similarmagnitude,
withlongrisetimes,
At'0.2To,Figure5.4;

5 0.5

eventfrom test 10003on

Double-peaked
Structure1

Figure5.4

40

sR 44302109/96

tr
Type 4

Non-breakingor
pulsatingwave pressures
with singlepeaks,and
with long risetimes,
At'0.2To,Figure5.5.

Pulsatingeventfrom test 10003on

Structure1

Figure5.5

to describeas fullyas possiblethe pressurepeaksin Types1 and2 as shownin

I The requirement
of the longereventsin Types3 and4 motivated
Figures5.2 and5.3,as wellas givinga fulldescription
chosenhereat 400H2.l
for rapidsampling,
the requirement
on the overalllevelof
pressureeventsareof littlepracticalapplication
withoutinformation
Individual
pressures
structure.The
on
the
of
on the distributions
forcesactingon the wall,andinformation
varyin time,andbetweenthe differentpressure
examplesshownin Figure5.6 illustratehowpressures
withtransducers
12and 13abovethewaterlevel,14 at s.w.l.and 15 and 16 below.
transducers,
awayfromthe pointof
tendedto propagate
of theseimpactsshowhowthe peakpressures
lnspection
maximumpressure,movingbothspatially(upanddownthewall)andthustemporally.Thisillustrates
or forces.
the potentialfor phaselagsbetweendifferentpeakpressures,
and up-liftforces
on thetotalhorizontal
Initialstagesof the mainanalysisof theseresultsconcentrated
pressures
overthe height
summing
by
actingon the caisson,FnandF". Theseforcesweredetermined
gave
approximately
seesection5.2tor moredetails.Eachtest
or widthof the caissonas appropriate,
distributions
or exceedance
to giveprobability
500forceevents,whichwerethenrankedby magnitude
of horizontaland up-liftforceswere plottedon
of forcefor eachtest. Theseexceedancedistributions
and to identifyil
Weibullaxesto identifythe formof the forcestatistics;to checkfor any inconsistencies;
of loads.Theseare discussedmore
/ wherechangesof wavebreakingalteredthetype/ distribution
fullyin section6.1.
levelat whichthe main
as to the statistical
At an earlystagein the analysis,therewassomediscussion
analysis,thatall
responses
shouldbe analysed.lt was notedduringtesting,andduringthe statistical
fourtypesof wavepressureeventshownin Figure5.1couldoccurin anysingletest. The useof the
howeverreducedthedatato muchsimplerform,butdid not
Weibullpresentation
of theforcestatistics
of the completedistribution.Inspectionol the
resolvewhichstatisticallevelwouldbe representative
give
andthatat least4 parameters
no
value
would
the
full
distribution,
statisticsrevealedthat single
on the statistical
give
wouldbe neededto
thefulldescription.lt wasthereforedecidedto concentrate
/ CURmanual,
CIRIA
acceptedin the BritishStandard,
levelusedby Goda,andthereforeinherently
usedthe
therefore
withGoda'sprediction.Mostlatdranalysishas
and by otherresearchers
comparing
to the averageof the
meanof the highest1/250values,so for testswith500valuesthiscorresponds
levels.
highest2 values,or hereto the averageof 99.6and99.8%non-exceedance

41

sR 4430209/96

E
'I
3F

II
I

N'12
r RANSDUCER

fi .. l3 cr
o rcl
L'-rl

1l-

fi

1
|

E 0.5 1

t-

-o - o
O;

l
395

395.5 396

396.5 397

398.5 399

I
399.s 4C

398

398.5

399

399.5

400

398

398.5

399

399.5

40

397.5 398
t (sec)

J.J

TRANSDUCER
N.13

c3

* r.u

:2

3 r.s

gr
o

o.s
o_0
-0.5

395

39s.s

396

396.5

397

397.5
t (sec)

3.5

TRANSDUCERN.14

c3

* ,.u
72

E r.s
E1
o.s

o-0
-0.5
395

395.5

396

396.5

397

397.5

t (sec)
3.5
c3

fit 2 ,.u

E r.s
f1
o.s

o0
{.5
395

39s.s

396

396.5

397

397.5
t (sec)

398

398.5

399

399.5

400

395.5

396

396.5

397

397.5
t (sec)

398

398.5

399

399.5

40

3.5
c3

* z.u
72

E t.s
tl
I o.s
vJ

-0.5 '
395

Figure5.6

Examplepressure/ time seriesover heightof caisson

42

sR 44302/09196

tr
5.2 Definitionof pressure/ force events
volume,
Thefirstproblemin theanalysis
of thedatawasto reducethefilesto a manageable
= about30Mbytes.
particularly
withover200testseachwithdatafilesof 1.5-2.0Mbyte
x 16transducers
Thefirstpartof the analysisidentified
thoseparameters
to be recordedfor eachimpact"event",and
thusreducethevolumeof datato be processed.
et al (1995)to
Measurements
of wavepressurewereprocessed
usinga newprogramby Centurioni
program
founda rapid
defineeach"event",so thateverytimethereis a waveimpact,the analysis
pressureriseto markthe beginning
of theevent.Thisinvolveda seriesof stepsto thresholdthe signal,
thento searchfor a risepastthethreshold
thatlargeenoughto excludenoiseon the pressuresignal.
Oncethe startof the eventhadbeenidentified,
anothersectionof the programcheckedif the signalis
decreasing
andfallsbelowan appropriate
threshold
whichis a functionof the zerolevel.Whenthis
doubleconditionis verified,the programstartsagainto lookfor a neweventso that,if a signalhastwo
peaksor is stepped,the programwillonlyrecorda singlestartof event.Theeventdefinition
is
pressure
very
first
is always
The
event
checkedonlyfor the recordfromthe stillwaterlevel
transducer.
discardedbecausethe measurements
insideit.
mightbeginsomewhere
to definea thresholdfor
The leveldnd signof the noiselevel(valueandsign)needsto be identified
eventprocessing.A somewhat
buttestshaveshownthata
complexprocedure
hasbeendeveloped,
is
if theset-upof the transducer
carefuldefinitionof thisthresholdis neededto avoiderrors,particularly
proportional
at all uncertain.A parameter
to the noiselevelis alsoaddedto thesignalso thatthe
maximaare alwayspositive.
andtheirratio.Whenthisratiois
The algorithmusedfor eventdefinition
calculates
2 runningaverages,
greaterthen 1.1for (T./6).400consecutive
an eventandtransfers
times,the programrecognizes
controlto anothersection.Theprogramlaterseeksan *endof event",afterwhichthe program
searchesfor the nextevent.
Afterall eventshavebeenidentified,
the programreadsthroughallthechannelsandthe pressure
peaksaredetectedfor all
transducers.Foreacheventand
the routine
for eachtransducer,
findsthetimeintervalbetweenthe
pressurepeakandwhenthe signal
is 2O"/"of the peak(At). Before
movingto the nextevent,the
F
z.Y
programderivesthe mainoutPut
E
uPparameters:
the horizontaland
uliftforces,andtheovefturning
on frontface
moments.Pressures
andundersidearesummedusing
rule,and examPle
thetrapezium
-1
forceresultsareshownin Figure
400
5.7. The programalsorecordsthe
for eachevent,
maximumpressure
Figure5.7
Exampleforce - time series
andfor eachchannel.
fromthe
Theforcesand momentsactingon the (model)caissonat eachtimestepwerecalculated
do
pressuremeasurements
of the transducers
usingan approximate
method.The positions
integration
notcoverthe full heightor widthof the caisson,andarenotspacedat evenintervals.Some
interpolation
and indeedextrapolation
is thereforenecessary.Thetrapeziumrulewaschosenin
preference
in thespacingof the
to the staircasemethodor Simpson's
rulesinceit permitsflexibility
yet givesresultswhichare in goodagreement
interuals,
methods.lntegration
integration
withanalytical
by the staircasemethodtendsto over-estimate
is
forcesand momentswherethere a highlocal
points.
pressuresinceit assumesthatpressureactsoverthewholeareabetweenthe measurement
Simpson'srulemighthaveimprovedaccuracyin integration,
overthree
distribution
butthe parabolic
43

sR 443 02109196

tr
adjacentpointsmightalso have givenerroneousresultsin somecases,so the simplermethodwas
preferred.

5.3 Dataquality and repeatability

One of the major concernsin researchis alwaysto establishthe quality/ reliabilityof the data
produced.In this work,lhis procedurewas of particularimportancedue to:
a)

b)

and the developmentof new / reviseddesign

The directlink betweenthesemeasurements
methodsfor wave loadings,and hence impacton the safetyol structuresdesignedusing
them, as in BS 6349.
The highlyvariablenatureof many previousmeasurementsof wave loadings,particularly
those laboratorytests using repeatedregularwavesfrom which conclusionshave been
based on pressures/ forcesat extremeexceedancelevels,see Mttller(1993)or Kirkgoz

(1ees).
falling
a numberof checksweremadeto evaluatedatareliability,
Duringthe modeltestingprogramme,
intofourmainareas.
anda modulewithinthe DATS
werede-multiplexed
measurements
At the endof dataacquisition,
- timetraces.Thisprocedure
gavean instant
softwarepackagewas usedto viewpressure
pressure
traceswereof the
the
that
problems
and
data,
with
the
confirmation
thattherewereno major
test.
the
during
made
typeand levelto be expectedfromtheobseruations
andto checkthatthe
tracesfor signsof 'clipping',
was usedto inspectpressure
The sameprocedure
to copewiththeveryfastrisetimes.Analysisat thisstagealsoincludedthe
sampleratewas sufficient
propagation
wherethe maximumpressurefirstoccurredat onepointon
effectof the wavepressures,
Timesat
transducers.
thefrontwall,then(say)onetimesteplaterhadmovedto the neighbouring
whichlargeimpactshadbeenobservedin testshadbeennotedin the modeldiary,andthesetimes
withimpactpressure
tracesto checkthatthesetimescoincided
couldbe comparedwiththe pressure
signals.
up to
severeimpactswerenoted,givingpressures
Duringtestson Structure1, a numberof particularly
by
studies
as previousresearch
interest,particularly
Theseexcitedsignificant
at leastp=4Op*gH".
thatsuchsevereimpactsmightbe veryvariable.
M0ller(1993)and Kirkgoz(1995)hadsuggested
for
on a numberof occasions
wereperformed
Demonstration
tests(withoutpressuremeasurements)
visitorsto the tests. As thetimesof thefirstfewbig impactshadbeenrecordedin thetestdiary,
couldbe compared
impactsobservedin subsequent
runsof thetestchosenfor thesedemonstrations
occurredat the
always
impacts
thatsevere
confirmed
withthatin the originaltest. Thesecomparisons
samepointin thetest.
anda fasterscanratefor someof thetests
transducers
Testswerelaterrepeatedusingmoresensitive
of pressure- timehistories
whichhadgivenhighpressuresin theoriginaltestseries.A comparison
testsandthe
againshowedthatpeakpressures
occurredat the samepointin thecorresponding
generalformof the pressuretracesfromcorresponding
testsin eachserieswereverysimilar.There
wherethe secondseriesof testsrecordedlowervalues
weresomeditferences
in the peakpressures
system
butwasascribedto changesin the acquisition
thanin thefirst. Thiswas notfullyexplained,
andsignalconditioning
electronics.
betweensometestswerein the coredepth(iethe
Withinthe originaltestseries,the onlydifferences
the same).The pressure- timetracesfor
remained
caissonbasewas raised,but all otherdimensions
were
specifictransducerlocationsrelativeto waterlevel(asopposedto specifictransducers)
andwerefoundto agreeverywell. Again,these
comparedfor the sameincidentwaveconditions,
at specificlocationsundertestswiththe
of wavepressures
comparisons
confirmedthatmeasurements
wave
were
repeatable.
same
conditions

44

sR 44302l09r'96

tr
5.4 Data handling / storage / archiving
Duringeachof the testsin thisstudy,measurements
wererecordedat ratesup to 400H2usinga data
recording
andanalysissoftwarepackageDATS.Thesedatavalues,fromup to 16channelswere
fileof upto about20-30Mbytespertest. Withover200tests
multiplexed
to givea dataacquisition
anda computerlimitedto about200-300Mbytesstorage,it wasclearthatthere
beingconducted,
thesedata.
wouldbe severalproblemsassociated
withholdingandanalysing
into16individual
Theproblem
wascompounded
as eachmultiplexed
filehadto be de-multiplexed
beforeanyanalysiscouldbe
binaryfilescontaining
thetimeseriesdatafor eachpressuretransducer
Thede-multiplexed
datafilesthenoccupied
twicethediskspacevolumeof theacquisition
completed.
files.Initiallydatawereto be recordedfor 1000waves,butthiswassoonreducedto 500wavesto
reducestoragerequirements.
The acquisition
computerwasequippedwitha relatively
smallharddisk,so it wasonlypossibleto
themto anotherdevice.This
storeoneor two dataacquisitions
on the computer
beforedown-loading
practicalconstraints
particularly
approached
here
was
important
as the sampling
/ writingspeedsused
particularly
half-full.
Testing,
whensucha smalldiskwasmorethanabout
on diskaccessspeed,
therefore,hadto be interrupted
regularlyin orderto transferthe datafiles. Thefilesweretransferred
andanalysis.Both
fromthe loggingcomputerto the HR networkfor shorttermstorage,de-multiplexing
tapearchivesystemfor
the multiplexed
andde-multiplexed
fileswerethenwrittento the HR magnetic
longertermstorage.Thecapacityof eachmagnetic
tapewas 100Megabytes.Forsecurityreasonsit
during
was necessary
to makeduplicatecopiesof eacharchivetape. Over200testswerecompleted
thisstudyresultingin some50+archivetapesbeingwritten.Duringlate1995andearly1996,the
majorityof this datawas alsotransferredto compactdisks(witheachof 650 Megabytecapacity).

45

sR 4430209/96

tr

46

sR 4430209/96

tr
6

Analysisof waveforce/ pressureresults

The generalformof thewaveforce/ pressuredatacollectedin thesestudieshasbeendiscussedin

in moredetailto:
Chapter5. Herethe resultsareanalysed
a)
b)
c)

Describetheformof the statistical

distributions
of forces;
ldentifythe occurrence
of waveimpacts;
at thewall.
regionsof significantly
ldentifyparameter
differentwavebehaviour

Latersectionsthendiscuss:
d)
e)
0
g)

level;
Prediction
of horizontal
andup-liftforcesat a givenexceedance
in Chapter3;
Comparisons
of measured
forceswiththosepredictedby methodsdescribed
Examplesof verticalpressuredistributions;
Waveimpulsesandimpactrisetimes.

caissonson
Thischapteralsodiscusses
an approach
to thecalculation
of overallstabilityof monolithic
rubblemounds.
The earlyanalysesby Vicinanza
et al (1995)andAllsopet al (1995b)of resultsfromtheseteststriedto
momentM' to the mainwaveand
describethe responseof F6,Fu,andlaterthetotaloverturning
geometryparameters
usingsimpleformulae,
eachintendedto applyacrossthefull rangetested.That
andup-liftforces,andoverturning
initialanalysisdeveloped
simpleequations
to predicthorizontal
appearedto
level,Fn*.u*,
andM"n.u*.Thoseequations
momentsat the 99.6%non-exceedance
Fu*.u*
(1995),
butthe
et al
givereasonable
predictions
by Vicinanza
for the initialsetof structures
considered
reliability
of the prediction
methodsreducedwhentestedagainstthefull data-set.Themethods
butscatterin someregionsof the
suggestedby Allsopet al (1995b)extended
thisinitialapproach,
parameterspacecoveredfactorsof upto 2-3times,andit becameclearthatthesesimplistic
wereconcealing
approaches
important
aspectsof thewave/ structureinteraction.
It wasthenconcluded
thatsuchsimplemethodsare unlikelyto give
reliablepredictions,
andtheapproachof Allsopet al (1995b)was
abandoned.Carefulconsideration
of the initialdataanalysisshowedthat
the simplifications
haddisguised
significantly
differenthydro-dynamic
processes.Two majorimprovements
in the
weretherefore
developed
analysisdescribedhere:distinguishing
the relativestructure
configurations;
andthenthetypesof wavebreaking
/ loadingconditions.
In thefirstchange,the relativestructure
testedin the study
configurations
weredividedintothreeranges,as illustrated
in Figure6.1:

d,
o4t.i

/d<2

d>o
24\t/d4

small,and is
whenthe moundis relatively
alwayssubmerged;
2 < H"/d< 3, andd > 0, whenthe moundis relatively
large,but is
stillsubmerged;
-7 < H./d < -1, andd < 0, whenthetopof the moundis emergent.

O< H"/d< 2 andd > 0,

Mostof the analysisdescribed

in thischapterconcentrates
on thefirstof
(163testsoutof 217\. Analysisof testscoveringthe
theseconfigurations
thirdrangehas beenconducted
undercrownwalls,section6.3.3.
In the secondchangeto theanalysismethod,the measured
waveforces
withineachof the abovedatasetswerefurtherdividedinto'impact'or
'pulsating'
and'nonconditions,
in manywaysanalogous
to the 'breaking'

47

d>o
-74r/d<-1

Fig.6.1 Mainparameter
regions
sR 443 0209/96

tr
breaking'conditions
used by the ShoreProtectionManual,CERC(1984).This revisedanalysis
thereforeproceededin 3 steps:
a)
b)
c)

'pulsating'or
ldentifyparameterrangesoverwhichwave actionat the structureleadsto
'impact'conditions;
For conditionsidentifiedhersas pulsating,comparewave loadswith predictionsby Sainflou,
Hiroi,Goda,or perhapsGodamodifiedby Takahashi;
For impactconditions,comparewave loadswith predictionsby Goda modifiedby Takahashi,
or suggestnew methods.

6.1 Statisticaldistributionof forces

Wave impactforces acting upon any coastal structureare highlyvariable,sometimesmore so than the
waves that cause them, so wave forces may best be describedby their statisticsratherthan by single
values. Most design methodsin commonuse are howeverdeterministic,so singlevalues are required
for designcalculations.An appropriateprobabilitylevel must thereforebe derivedat which to calculate
the importantparameters. In doing so, it is importantto establishthe extentto which any single
probabilitylevelis indicativeof the full distribution.
For each test, the analysisprogramgave a peak horizontalforce for each event. These values of Fn
were ranked,allowingthe exceedancedistributionto be plottedon Weibullprobabilityaxes to examine
the statisticaldistribution.Theseaxes,givenby plottingln(-ln(l-P))againstIn(Fn)where P is the
probabilitylevel,were selectedto give a good descriptionof forcesat low levelsof exceedance(high
levelsof non-exceedance).The Weibulldistributionmay also be used to examineany link with the
statisticsof wave heightswithin a randomsea, as wave heightsgeneratlyfit a Rayleighdistribution,
itselfa specialcase of the Weibull.

c'
T
C

-2

-3

Figure6.2

These exceedance
distributionsallowedwave
9oo
forcesto be dividedinto the
'pulsating'or
two zones:
'impact'illustratedin Figure
6.2. Pulsatingforceswere
definedas those varying
linearlywith exceedance
probabilityon a Weibull
distribution.These forces
t . hnp@t
generallylie in ranges
calculatedby Hiroi or
Sainflou'smethods. lmPact
forces howeverincrease
In(F)
much more rapidlyover the
upper part of the distribution,
ExampleWeibulldistributionofhorizontalforces
correspondingaPProximatelY
for pulsatingand impactconditions
with those waves that break
directlyagainstthe wall.

1,1*+,

In any generalanalysis,the factorsthat influencethe force or pressureresponsesmust be nondimensionalisedin away that identifiesthe differentform of wave breakingat the wall. Beforedoing so
hereplottedat modelscale.The measurements
below,it is helpfultoreviewexamplemeasurements,
consideredhere were limitedto caseswith moderatemoundheights,0 < H"/d < 2, as discussed
above. Each of the distributionsshown in Figure6.3a-eis derivedfrom a test of 500 waves at a single
sea state and water level,and all those shown have s.o=9.64.

48

sR 443 0209/96

tr
(b)

-_.l
/'

f=***
-rt

2
1.5

'|

/
11

0.5

^
0

il

J
J

^
c

- -

3
- -0.5

i!1

-1

F^.*;l

t /

-1.5
-2

-2

-l

l*Hsi/hFo.2sI

i;i

.2.5

-r.5

.1

o5

-O.5

0
Ln(D

0.5

.t

.t.5

-1.5

.2.5

2.5

-2

-1.5

-l

-0.5

0
Ln(R

0.5

1.5

2.5

(d)

(c)

sldura

1.5

!5

05

t-

Eo

{5

{.t
... ffi.7.

|ffi.4.

|,ffir3r

- BqI+{.14

- lt/ls{.6.

tlC/hd.3.

HslitF.78

- B.qlp4.t3

- hts{.7
- lfu.6

-t

.r,5

- 1tu.4

- ffir31

- 8!Cl+{.rE

- H3iM3

- Mi.78

- 84trP{.16

t5

-2
i

n.6

1.5

{5

2,3

05

b(n

-2
.2.5

-2

i5

{.5

O
Ln{F)

05

15225

1o\
2
1.5
1

^ o5
c

EO
3
t .o.s

- Struclurs 6 - Esdlpd).16
- Struclurs 7 - Beq/Lp.Olg
- Struct rs 4 - B6qA-p=0.1I

.l

-t.5
-2
-2.5

-2

Figure6.3

.1.5

-1

-0.5

o
Ln(R

0.5

1.5

2.5

Weibulldistributionof horizontalforces,verticaland compositewalls

of waveforceson verticalwalls
Distributions
0) shownin Figure6.3aare generallypulsating.
Waveforcesat the plainverticalwall(Structure
testswhichdifferonly in waterlevelgivingrelativewaveheightsof
Forcesfromtwo comparative
witha Weibulldistribution.
H"/d=O.25
and H"/d=0.29showcloseagreement
lncreasing
the relativewaveheightfromH"/d=0.3to H"/d=0.4in Figure6.3bshowsthata few of the
for H"/d=0.4,as largerwavesbreakonto
forces(about2"/"1deparlfromthe mainWeibulldistribution
49

sR 443 0209196

tr
by thisnumber/ severityof impacts,
the wall. Theoveralllevelof waveforcesarenotgreatlyincreased
The
significantly.
levelsof 99.6%and 1/250are increased
but extremeloadsat non-exceedance
for
limit
shallow
the breaking
furtheras thewaveconditionapproaches
overalllevelof forcesincreases
bed slopesaroundH"/h"= 0.55to 0.6. Forsimpleverticalwallswithno mound,d=h",so depth-limited
at H"/h"= H"/d= 0.55.
breakingis approached
It is thenprobablethatfurtherincreases
in offshorewaveheightswouldleadto moresignificant
proportions
of brokenwaves.Thesebrokenwaveswouldprobablynotfurtherincreasethe proportion
givelowerwaveforces.
of impacts,as aeratedbrokenwavesgenerally
walls
Distributions
of forceson comoosite
of
increasethe proportion
It hasbeennotedpreviously
thata moundin frontof a wallmaysignificantly
wallswithrubblemounds.In
impacts,andthiseffectis wellillustrated
in Figures6.3c-efor composite
thesediscussions,
the effectof the rubblebermis relatedchieflyto its levelbelowthewatersurface,d,
by thewave
is non-dimensionalised
and its effectivewidthgivenby B*. Eachof theseparameters
height,H",,or the wavelength,Lo,hencethe useof the relativewaveheightH"/dandbermlength
B"/Lo.
Theteston Structure3 witha smallmoundin frontof thewall,andwitha highwaterlevelwhere
givespulsating
H"/d=0.8andB*/Lo=0.13
forcesin Figure6.3cwhichfit theWeibulldistribution.
Reducingthe waterlevelto givea relativewaveheightoverthe moundof H"/d=l.31significantly
of the extreme
the magnitude
increases
of impactsto about157o,andthusincreases
the proportion
forces.
4 wherethe moundslope
Somewhatsimilarincreases
in forcesareseenin Figure6.3dfor Structure
testat H"/d-0.8and
giving
The
moundvolume.
anglehasbeenslackened
to 1:3,
an increased
increases
BJ\"0.t0 givesabout4% impacts,butthe lowerwaterlevelat H"/d=1.3significantly
impactsto about25%.
withdifferentmounds.Testswiththe
Thiseffectis illustrated
resultsfor threestructures
by comparing
samewaveheight,periodandwaterlevelonStructures
4, 6 and7 comparethe effectof relativeberm
width,BJL',thus including
the effectof moundslopeangle.Forcesplottedin Figure6.3eshow
wheretheoutertoe
relativelycloseagreement
for Structures
4 (BJl-er0.18)and7 (BJl-e'O.19)
andotherthanat
positionsof the moundsareveryclose.Theproportion
very
similar,
are
of impacts
the mostextremelevel,thewaveforcesare muchthe same.
Theothermound,Structure
6, witha slightlysmallerrelativebermwidth,BJI-''0.t0, showssimilar
behaviourin Figure6.3e,butthe proportion
of impactsis a littlelessandmostof thewaveforceson
thisstructureare smaller.
underthe samewave
A similarapproachin Figures6.4a-ccomparesresponses
to differentstructures
short
the relatively
of
The
etfect
conditionand relativewaterlevel,H"r=O.2rTl,
and H",/d=1.3.
s,o=0.04,
Wave
6.4a.
mound(B*/L'=O.14)
in Structure
withthatof the simplewallin Figure
3 is compared
levelsare
impactson Structure3 reachaboutP,=g/o,andwaveforcesat the highernon-exceedance
significantlyincreased.
the extremeforcesin
lncreasing
7 furtherincreases
the relativebermwidthto B"*l\=0.19in Structure
4,
Figure6.4b,and impactsincreaseto Pi=357o.
A similareffectis shownin Figure6.4cfor Structure
This
at
1:3.
shallower
is
wherethe bermwidthis increased
significantly
slope
angle
butthe seaward
4.
for Structure
similareffectivebermwidth,B"d/+0.18givesimpactsat aboutPF2O9/"

50

sR 44302/09196

tr
- sr|@F 3 llru.a
- sr|@EohM.4

- w&1.31 - &qn+o.l{

- tum7.

tut

- lfu.a-

|&r3r

-A.qna4.l,

(c)

q0
5

-2
2.5

-2

Figure6.4

r.5

0
t''(R

05

i.5

2-S

Weibulldistributionof horizontalforces,effectof bermwidth

theformof thewaveloads,butare much

distributions
of forcesare usefulin identifying
Thesestatistical
discussion
force. Mostof the remaining
to usein practicethana singlerepresentative
lessconvenient
on waveforceswillthereforeconcentrate
on singlevaluesof Fnderivedfor eachtest,allowingmore
directcomparisonsof the effectsof structuregeometry,and relativewaveconditions.ln previous
level. Forces
by the 99.6%exceedance
forceswererepresented
analysisof thesemeasurements,
predictedby Goda'smethodare basedon the averageof the highest1/250waves,and if basedon a
Valuesof Fno.* are statisticallymore
standardsamplesize,Fn,o*maybe morestablethan Fnrr.ur..
methodswill usevaluesof Fnlo*.This
meaningful,
withGoda'sandTakahashi's
butcomparisons
designmethodsbased
withpreviouswork,particularly
exceedance
levelwaschosenfor consistency
on workby Godaand analysisby van der Meeret al (1994). The proportionor o/oof impactsP,will
impactfrompulsating
conditions.
continueto be usedto distinguish

6.2 Analysis of impacts and forces

on waveforcesare particularly
of waveconditions
andstructuregeometry
The combinedinfluences
ei al (1995)andAllsopet al
Vicinanza
by
Initial
in
of
this
dataset
complicated.
simplificationsanalysis
at
processof waveinteraction
(1995b)did not reflectfullythe complexnatureof the hydro-dynamic
predictions.
The
give
reliable
wholly
methodsdid nottherefore
thesestructure,andthe initialprediction
pulsating
which
for
analysispresentedherehasthereforeconcentrated
on dividingthetestsintothose
Thecases
havemostinfluenceon the moreeltremeforcesin thedistributions.
or impactconditions
O,and
analysedarefurtherdividedbetweenthe simpleverticalwallwithno toe mound,Structure
1-10. Thisanalysiswasstartedin a paperin ltalianto the Ravenna
compositewalls,Structures
by Allsopet al (1995c),andis developed
furtherin thisreport.
conference

51

sB 443 0209196

tr
6.2.1
Simpleverticalwalls
pressuresonlyweremeasured
Horizontal
the
on the simpleverticalwall,so thisanalysisconsiders
(%)of impactsP,areillustrated
occurrence
of impacts,andthetotalhorizontalforce.
Theproportions
in Figure6.5,whereP,is plottedagainstH"/d(equivalent
to H",/h.becaused=h.for simpleveftical
thatthismaygivea simple
walls).Thisshowsa veryclearonsetof impactsfor H"/d> 0.35,suggesting
limitfor the onsetof impactconditions.
10
I
8
7
5

I
o

I
0
0.05

Figure6.5

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3
0.35
Hsi / hs

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

Influenceof H"/d on % impacts,P,,vertical

wall

Thisvalueof H"/h"-0.35is rather

lowerthanthe relativewaveheight
givenby the simpleruleof thumb
for wavebreakingovershallowbed,
H"/h"=0.55.lt is however
to expectthat a few
reasonable
waveswill breakat waveconditions
lt maYbe noted
belowH,/h,=Q.$$.
thatthe upperfewwavesin the
maybe approximately
distribution
1.8to 2 timesgreaterthanH",and
for single
thatthe limitingconditions
wavesovershallowslopesis
H/h"=Q./$.Thesesuggestthata
limitfor theonsetof breakingmight
wellbegivenby H./h.=0.35.

An alternative
approachhasbeenexploredin whichthe largestwaveheightsfromthe statistical
as a
hereby H*.u*)areexpressed
distributions
measuredin thecalibration
tests(represented
of
this
comparison
proportion
Results
(calculated
Ho(uoo")).
hereas
of the limitingbreakingwaveheight
limitforthe onsetof impactsmightbe given
are illustrated
in Figure6.6,andsuggestthatan alternative
g;vsn
by H*.ur./Ho,noo"1)0.8,
butthisapproachis notas clear,nor as simpleas the limitof H"/h"=9.35
above,and is not pursuedfurtherin thisreport.

rl

rl

.Es

t!

I
0
0.6
0.8
H99.6% / Hb(Goda)

Figure 6.6

Influence of Ho.u*/Hoon 7oimpacts, P,,

verticalwall

52

usefulin
Theselimitsarepotentially
identifyingdifferenttypesof wave/
but do not of
structureinteraction,
predictions
permit
of
themselves
forces.Valuesof lhe measured
nonhorizontalforce
as Fn.,^o/P*gd'
dimensionalised
havethereforebeenplottedagainst
H"/din Figure6.7. Valuesof the
forcepredictedby Goda's
horizontal
methodarealsoshown,illustrating
goodagreement
for
relatively
smallwavesin the region
relatively
errorsfor
butsignificant
H"/d<0.35,
largerwaves,H"/d>0.35.

SR 4 q2r09/96

tr
For the simplewall with no mound,
Goda and Takahashi'spredictions
are equal and for H"/d<0.35,
generallyfall above the
in Figure6.7.
measurements
Goda'smethodmay thereforebe
taken as givinga safe estimateof
wave loads on simplewalls for
H"/d<0.35.

3.5

! Erp. dala
a Goda's paediction

2.5

f/
,/.

{ r.u
./a

/^..

0.5

,it,

o
0.05

Figure6.7

0.r

0.r5

a
a

.l;2.

rlt

I
0,2

0.25

0.3
0.35
Hsl/d

0.4

0.45

0,5

0.55

0.6

0.65

Dimensionlesshorizontalforcesagainst
H",/d,verticalwall

For waves closerto breakinggiven

by 0.35<H"/d<0.6,the prediction
methodsunder-estimatemeasured
forces. The differencesare
greatest where the incident wave
conditionsapproachthe breaking
limit,approximatedfor shallow
slopesby H"/h"-Q.55.This

can be partiallyovercomeby a simpleprediction

curveof theformdiscussedby Vicinanza
uncertainty
et al (1995)fittedhereto resultscoveringthe range0.35<H./d<0.6:
Fn,oul(P*gdt) = 15 (H"/d)t'tto

6.2.2

for 0.35<H"/d<0.6

(6.1)

Compositestructures,horizontalforces

The responses
of compositestructures
aresignificantly
morecomplexthanfor simplevedicalwalls,
by the height,widthandseawardslopeof the rubblemoundberm,as wellas by the
beinginfluenced
werediscussedearlierin
relativewaterdepthandwaveconditions.Someof thesecomplexities
waveconditions.
for particular
to H"/d,andB* wereillustrated
section6.1whereexampleresponses
extended
The overallanalysishereusesa similarapproach
to thatin section6.2.1,butis substantially
parameters,
of the processes.
to reflectthe furthergeometric
andhencethe greatercomplexities
Thefirstdistinction
usedin the analysiswasto separatedataby the relativebermheight,hr/h"into
'low' and "high"mounds.The lowermoundsstudiedhereweredescribed
and higher
by 0.3<ho/h,<0.6,
give
convenient
but
moundsby 0.6<ho/h"<0.9.
Theselimitsare notthemselves
of greatsignificance,
divisionsbetweenregionsof somewhatdifferentresponsecharacteristics.
Lowmounds.0.3<hJh^<0.6
40
Forlowmounds,the onsetof wave
breakingand hencethe change
ss l-l o srrctuG I (@trpcite)
I Snwi.tre 0 (vsrticalwall)
frompulsatingto impactconditions
30
appearsto be maintained
at H"/h"=
0.35,seeFigure6.8. This
25
impression
is howevernotwell
-n
ii
supportedby data,as thereare no
o
t5
measurements
for Structure1
belowH"/h"=0.35. lt willalsobe
to
lr
shownlaterthat increasedmound
I
lo
I
5
levelsmovethe onsetof impactsto
rl
lowervaluesof Hlh.. lt is however
o
0.6
0,65
0.55
0.45
0.5
0.4
o.3
0.35
0.?s
o.2
0.15
0.1
0
0-05
usefulto notefromFigure6.8that
HsltF
the combinedinfluenceof nearbreakingwavesandthe mound
Figure 6.8
tnfluence of H",/h"on o/oimpacts, P,, high
togethergivea significantly
higher
mound
proportion
of impactsthanfor a
simpleverticalwall. An alternative
53

0.t

sB 4430209/96

tr
approachis shownin Figure6.9,
where P,is plottedagainstH"/d,
thus includingmore directlythe
effect of the relativeberm level.
This figure suggeststhat the onset
of impactsis shiftedby the
presenceof the mound to
H",/d=0.65,ratherthan H"/d=0.35
notedfor the simplewall.
Within the range 0.3<H"/d<0.6,with
the data examinedcovering
0.11<H"/h"<0.33
and
wave loads are
0.07<Bsq/Le<0.23,
pulsating,and the Godaequations
generallygive slightlyconservative
predictionsof the overallhorizontal
forces,see Figure6.'10.
For higher relativewave conditions,
0.6<H"/ds1.3, the influenceof
seabed and mound combineto
increasethe proportionof impacts,
as shownin Figures6.8 and 6.9.
The forces have been plottedin
Figure6.10 in the sameform as
Figure6.7 for the simplevertical
wall. Also shown is the simple
predictionmethodof eqn (6.1),
developedfor the simplewall and
H,/d>0.35. Surprisingly,this
equationseems also to give a good
descriptionof the horizontalforces
for low mounds given by
0.3<hb/h"<0.6,
and higherrelative
wave heightsgiven by
0.6<H"/d<1.3.

rc
g Strutut
I

1 (cqrposite)
0 (vrtical wali)

StMture

s
25
-m
it
15
lo

!l
tl
I

lo

^o
0:6o

Influenceof H"'/h"on 7oimpacts,Pr,low

mound

Figure6.9

35

I
30

25

1 (cotrpcite)

o Strctie

0 (vnical wall)

Strctwe

A Cdrp6ite

Goda's prdictim

o Cof,pGite

Takahshi's

o/

predlctiff

a Vedical Goda's $ediction

'-^ Allsop & Vicinana's

ol

predlclion

,o 20

xI

o,/
t5

10

n ".r"

'l-'"'''3

NE

0
o.t

o.2

Figure6.10

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7
HsVd

0.8

0.9

DimensiQnlesshorizontalforcesagainst
H",/d,low mound

Hioh mounds.0.6<hJh-<0.9.
Wave loads are again pulsatingfor high moundswith relativewave heightsin the range 0'3<H"/d<0.6,
and moderateberm widths0.2<B"q/Le<0.34.
for datacovering relativelydeep water 0.11<H;/h"<O.16
Over these regions,Goda'sequationsgive conservativepredictionsfor horizontalwave forces.
As relativewave heightsH"/h"or H"/d increase,more waves are likelyto break on the structure,and
the situationbecomesmore complex. The test resultssuggestthat there is a transitionzone around
0.55<H"/d<0.65,but few data are availableto describethe processesreliably,so it is recommended
that this zone is treatedas the more conservativeof the two adjoiningzones.
Withinthe last zone examinedhere, coveredby the largestwavestested given here by 0.65<H./d<1'3,
the influenceof berm width expressedas B*/Lo is substantiallymore important. For shofi berms, given
by 0.08< BJ\<O.14, the waves are still pulsatingwith few if any impacts,and again Goda's method
can be used to estimatewave forces. At the oppositeend with long bermsgiven by B*/Lo>0.4,wave
breakingoccurs over the berm beforethe wall, and wave loadson the wall are due to brokenwaves.
Again the use of Goda'smethodgives a safe estimationof forces.

54

sR 4430209/96

tr
regionof moderate
The remaining
bermwidthscoveredby
showssignificant
0.14<B"q/Le<0.4
levelsof impacts,andwaveforces
aremuchlarger.lf P,ispresented
againstH"/h"usingthe formof
Figure6.8,it can be seenin Figure
6.11thatimpactsstartto occurat
verylowvaluesof H"/h".These
resultsmayalternatively
be
presentedin Figure6.12in relation
to H",/d,as in Figure6.9,covering
the region0.65<HJd<1.3.

40

t VerticalWall

35

o CompositeStructutes
30

20

t5

10

og

0
o
oo

OO

"g

I
0

ae

o.'t

o.l5

0.2

0.25

0r

o.o5

tr
I

0.3

0.35 0.4
HsYhs

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

An alternativeway to presentthe
Figure6.11 Influenceof H"/h"on % impacts,Pr,hlgh
effectsof B"ol\ is to plotP,against
mound
B"ol\ for constantvaluesof H",/h",
of
as in Figure6.13. The proportion
40
impacts,P,,increasesas the
relativebermwidthincreases.lt
r Vejtical wall
o Cmposite Structures
may be expectedthat this will reach
30
a limitfor verywidebermswhere
the wavesare brokenbeforethey
25
reachthe verticalwall,and the
o
proportion
of impacts,andthe
20
overalllevelof peakwave
15
pressures
wouldthendecrease.
o
oo
Thislimitwas not reachedin these
10
t!_o19
8
-8
I
r
althoughthereare
experiments,
oO
t0
!
gg
I
ot9
> 0.4
somesuggestionsthat Boq/lT
o
E
8;
I
s
give
lowerimpacts.
or 0.5would
0
I

o.t

of the different
Theoverallpicture
waveloadingconditions
overthese
in a typeof
regionsis summarised
flowchartin Figure6.14. The
parameterregionsare dividedby
the typeof wavebreakingontothe
structure,
chieflyinlluencedby the
relativebermheighth/h", the
relativewaveheightH"/d,andthe
relativebermlengfthB*l\. This
a considerable
chartrepresents
of
the
overall
simplification
processes,
but rendersdecisions
on thetypeof waveloading
moretractable.
substantially

0.2

Figure6.12

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7
. HsYd

08

0.9

t.t

1.2

1.3

Influenceof H"n/don % lmpacts,P,,high

mound

r Hsi/hs4.38
g Hsi/hs=O.2g

ri

a Hslihs=O.27
@ Hsi/hs4.lg

L20

'
0.r5

o'
o.1

Figure6.13

55

0.2

-'
0.25

05

0.3

tnfluenceof B*Q on % impacts,P,,high

mound

sR 44302/09196

tr
---r-I R@$oPE

I
r *"il

lor:

ls-Olbos
- ot
!ql,

Figure6.14

6.2.3

bi
Me

Htr'025bog
ffi-Ol5boi

bOA

Flow chartof parameterregionsfor waveimpacts

Compositewalls,up-liftforces

of the depthof the core,h",

the influence
Up-liftforceswereanalysedin twoways. ln thefirstinstance,
levelof up-liftforces.The
parameters
overall
on
the
of these
was exploredto investigate
the influence
usingsimilar
werethenconsidered
as Fu1256,
expressed
overalllevelof up-liftforces,generally
forcesin 6.2.2above.
approaches
as usedfor horizontal
The influenceof coredepth,h",was
exploredby inspecting
the up-lift
forcesfor threestructures,
identical
exceptfor the levelof the caisson
base:Structure
2, h"= 0.112ffi,
=
Structure3, h" O.2O2m,
andfor
Structure9, h. = 0.292m.Up-lift
forceswere plottedfor eachtest on
Weibullaxes,as for the horizontal
forcesearlier.Examplesetsare
shownin Figures6.15- 6.18forthe
same(offshore)
waveheightand
wavesteepness,
butdecreasing
waterdepths,and henceincreasing
H"/d.

luTo_20_.1

..

Lt"

i'

i;

,r

irr

,''"'i
Figure6.15

Weibulldistributionof up-liftforces,
sr=0.04,H"/d=0.45

At H"/d=0.45and H"/d=0.62,
up-lift
forcesare generallylow,with
Figures6.15- 6.16. At
Structure2 withthe lowestcaissonbasegivingthe lowestvaluesof Fu12se,
by 2 to 4 timesat 1/250level,
H"/d=0.98and H/d-2.54, up-liftforceshaveincreased
significantly,
giveslowerforcesthan
generally
still
Figures6.17 6.18. Structure
2 withthe lowestcaissonbase
levelsis often
non-exceedance
Structures
overthe higher
3 or 9, althoughtheformof the distribution
complex.

56

sR 443 0209196

tr
of similargraphsfor
Inspection
configurations
andwave
other
suggests
thatup-lift
conditions
forcesare generallygreaterfor
increasing
coredepth,wherethe
caissonbaseis higher,butthatthis
trendis onlyclearfor pulsating
Underimpact
conditions.
and upbothhorizontal
conditions,
no
liftare morevariable,and clear
influenceof coredepthwas
discerned.

'zr:
ro!s7|
I I T.$ 1m3s,10059.
l-

ltu6r204t

l't

.t

..---1-/
i

/' .'
i ..
./ .'

,l,,i,;

0
Takingthe analysismoregenerally,
kr{Fu)
the resultsweresplitintothree
Figure6.16 Weibulldistributionof up-liftforces,
areasof H"/d. For H.,/d<0,the
s-=0.04,H"n/d=0.62
testedmostclosely
configurations
relateto crownwallson rubble
mounds,andforceson these
|l**il;4*A
are discussedin section
structures
Fsrtoll
6.3.2below.The othertwo regions
hereweredefinedas
considered
or high
lowmound,0.3<hb/h"<0.6;
as usedin
mound,0.6<hd/h"<0.9;
section6.2.2above.Where
regionsarefudher
appropriate,
dividedintopulsatingor impact
conditions.

i'a!'

withgreater
In general,Fuincreases
heightH",,brlt
incident'wave
with lowermounds,ie
decreases
greaterd, Figure6.19. Theup{ift
Figure6.17 Weibulldistributionof up-liftforces,
forcesappearto covertwo regions,
sr=0.04,H"/d=0.98
givenapproximately
by 0<H"/d<0.8
or perhaps1.5,and 2<Ho/d<4,
and
theseare discussedfurtherbelow.
lt**r',t.*r,.tA
It is interesting
to notethe
Iu4s-roI
variationof Fufor the
significant
samevaluesof H./d,suggesting
influenceof otherparameters,
perhapsincludingwavesteepness
and/orrelativecore depth.

'lr"''.','""''
'2
o
hGul

Figure6.18

57

Weibulldistributionof up-liftforces,
s.=0.04,H"ld=2.54

sA4430AOy96

tr
The scatterof resultscan be much
reducedby non-dimensionalising
up-liftforcesas Fulp*gd2,
anda
generally
increasing
trendof
F,/p*gdtwithincreasing
increasing
results
stillappearto
H"/d. The
covertwo differentregions,so have
and
beensplitinto0<H",/d<1.5,
in Figures6.20and
2<H"/d<3.5
6.21.

lo

Fut/250 Expoirental datal

lr coa"

I
0
oo

o
o
Oo

o
o
oo

o
90
o

a'
e98ooo

^9

t?

oo

ooE
o

oo

oo

8o

"-8o

3^l^

ll

'
^i'f{:;^l^l
l^'

It hasbeenshownearlierthat
i l^
ff 0
horizontal
forceare morelikelyto
be increased
by impactsfor
HJd>0.6as the effectof the berm
Up-liftforcesfor 0<H"1d<3.5
Figure6.19
on theformof the wavebreakingis
increased,
Figure6.14. Forup-lift
forces,a slightlyhigherlimitof
t,,"*.;;l
H"/d=0.8in Figure6.20appearsto
from
betterdescribethe transition
@-t-"-**]
o:
I
l^"*"
pulsating
to impactconditions.This
increasein the limitof pulsating
..on
ol
for up-liftforcescan be
behaviour
t
q'
^io
I 10
explainedby dampingof wave
oao
eg
o
pressurepropagation
in the rubble
oo
oo
o
oa
of
moundfor smallproportions
; 8 | . ta
impacting
waves.As thewaves
'iull^;'
increaseandthuschangefrom
pulsatingto impactconditions,
^!'
horizontal
forcesrespond
1{dr
immediately,
buta smallpercentage
H6i/d
of wavebreakingis notsutficient
to
Dimensionlessup-liftforces againstH"/d'
Figure6.20
significantly
increaseup-liftforces.
0<Hs/d<1.5
Whenthe percentage
of breaking
wavesincreases(sayto H"/d= 0.8)
0
up-liftforcesbeginto respondto the
o0
t;;A
I
regime.
changeof
O9

lo

Forthe largerrelativewaveheights
in Figure6.21,variations
of Fuat the
samevaluesof H"/dare reduced,
particularly
at higherrelativewave
heights.

datal
Fu1l25oExpedmmtal

l^*

o8
oo
o
o

ao
6
q,
940

$o

ooa
9o

aal

Figure6.21

58

up-liftforcesagainstH"/d,
Dimensionless
2<H"/d<3.5

sR 4430209/96

tr
6.3 Comparisonwith
design methods
6.3.1 Simpleverticalwalls

3sl
a coda'sprdicrion lHslhs'o
I

^
A

AA
A
on simplewalls
Horizontalforces
Ara
withno moundswerediscussed
brieflyin section6.2.1above.The
4^
weredividedintotwo
responses
^s
h"/d.0.35 or h*/d> 0.35.
regions,
Forthe lowerrelativewaveheights,
^^^
hJd < 0.35, Goda'smethod
f,/
generallyover-estimates
the
horizontal
force,but notvery
method
severely,so this prediction
EredmnLl
dala
maybe takenas givinga safe
Measured/ predictedhorizontalforces,
Figure6.22
approach.The degreeof
Goda,verticalwalls, H"/d<0.35
in Figure
is illustrated
agreement
6.22,showingan averagebiasor
of about40%. lt is
over-estimate
interestingto notethat the useof a
factorof safetyof 1.5withGoda's
I Eipodmntal data
prediction
methodfor the horizontal
a Goda'8 prcdictbn
forceswouldgivea meansafety
factorof 2 relativeto the
results.
experimental
g

,af

I
:l

Forhigherrelativewaveheights,
{
H"/d> 0.35,Allsop& Vicinanza
tr
(1996)suggesteda simpleequation
to estimatewaveforces,givenin
section6.2.1aboveas eqn(6.1).
and
The regionof application,
experimental
dataare summarised
0.5
0.45
llri / d
in Figure6.23. A directcomparison
and
betweenmeasurements
Dimensionlesshorlzontalforces against
Figure6.23
predictionsin the formof Figure
H"/d,verticalwalls,A & V's prediction
6.22is thengivenin Figure6.24.
H"/d>0.35
This showswiderscatterthanfor
the smallerforcescoveredby
Figure6.22,butthatanyover-or
A Goda's Prodiction
O Alsop &Vicimna's Prditltn
(bias)is small. lt is
under-estimate
also interestingto comparethe
experimental
resultswith
A
o
o
lo
predictionsfromGoda'smethodin
oa
'A
gz
this region.Herethe scatteris still
A
8
o
A
large,butthe averageunderA
estimateor biasis about 30%.
4

a^

AA

2
Epedmsnid dsla

Figure6.24

59

Measured/ predietedhorizontalforces,
Godaand A & V, verticalwalls, H"/d<0.35

sR 443 @/@/96

tr
6.3.2

Compositewalls,
horizontalforces

structures
on composite
The comparison
of measuredand predicted
forcesusingGoda/ Takahashi
treatedin the
foffowsthe generalformusedin section6.2.2above,andthe resultsaretherefore
regionssummarised
in Figure6.14.
Lowmounds.0.3<h/h"<0.6
Forlowmounds,the onsetof impact
conditions
is shiftedto H"/d=0.65,
ratherthan H"/d=0.35notedfor the
simplewall. Overthe regionof
pulsatingloads,H"/d<0.65,
the
measuredwaveforcesare safely
predictedby Goda'smethod,see
in Figure6.25.
comparison
Takahashi's
methodmakesvery
littledifference
for the conditions
considered
here. The single
outlyingpointfallsin thetransition
zoneidentified
in Figure6.14, 0.55
. HJd < 0.65.

d0
JrA

Gll

r.

ExDo.lmnlal dala

Figure6.25

Measured/ predictedhorizontalforces,
Goda& Takahashi,low mounds,H"/d<0.65

Waveloadsincreasesubstantially
withthe onsetof impactsfor greaterrelativewaveheights,H"/d t
equationfor waveimpact
0.65,as wasshownpreviously
in Figure6.10. Herethesimpleprediction
forces,eqn(6.1)givesreasonable
estimates
in the rangeof 0.65< HJd < 1.2,althoughthereis some
indication
forcesat highervaluesof H"/d.
thatthissimplemethodmayover-estimate
The comparisonbetween
measurements
and prediction
using
thissimpleequationshownin
Figure6.26showsverylittlebias,
but quitewidescatter.The
comparison
betweenmeasured
loadsandGoda/ Takahashi
predictions
alsoin Figure6.26,
showsmuchgreaterbias,
equivalentto an under-estimate
with
respectto the measurements
of
about60%.

9
a

A Goda's Predictim
o Takahashi'sPrdictton
o Atlsop& Yrcinanzas Prediction
6

.9
g4

oo
3

En

tN

B E

1
o

45

Exprimental datra
Furthercomparisons
betweenthe
measurements
and predictions
Measured/ predictedhorizontalforces,
Figure6.26
basedon Minikin'smethodare
Goda& Takahashi,low mounds,
givenby McKenna(1996).Three
0.65<H"/d<1.2
altemative
versionsof Minikin/
ShoreProtection
Manualmethods
overthe methods
weretestedby McKenna,but noneof theseapproachesgaveany improvement
phrased,and as usedin
reviewedabove. The useof Minikin'smethodas correctly(dimensionally)
the SPMversionwith
8S6349,alwaysgaveverylowforces,wellbelowthosemeasured.Conversely,
triangularhydro-staticpressurealwaysgavemuchgreaterforcesfor pulsatingconditions,yet failedto
matchforcesunderimpactconditions.

60

sR /t4t q2rc96

tr
hiohmounds.0.6<hJh^<0.9.
Relativewaveheightsin the range
0.3 < H"/d< 0.55generallygive
pulsatingloads,andGoda's
equationsgiveconservative
predictions,
Figure6.27. Overthis
region,Takahashi's
modification
hasmuchmoreeffect,butthisgives
substantialover-estimates
of loads.
Againthe outlyingpointsin Figure
6.28fall in thetransitionregion
in Figure6.14,
identified
0.55<H"/d<0.65.

..I

F".--'*"*"-l
lO

Takahashicprodicti'rnl

,.aI

.r

oaal,ra!
/fAA

*[

".t

Expedrentaldata

Measured/ predictedhlrizontalforces,Goda
& Takahashi,high mounds,.s0<H"/d<0.55

5
Goda's Prcdknbn
o Takahashi's PGdiction
1

,3
I
I
P
G

rI
I
nn

&
m E nqlt

u rrt

0
E)e.i|ffiial

&ta

Measured/ predictedhorizontalforces,
Goda& Takahashi,high mounds,
short berm
.6s0<H"/d<1.3,

Figure6.28

Forthe longestrelativeberm
lengthsconsidered
here,B*/\ >
0.4,wavesare morelikelyto break
on the mound,reachingthe wallas
brokenwaves. In thesestudies,
onlyonetestfallsin this region,and
the waveforceis quitecloseto the
valuepredictedby Goda'smethod.

%f!
omo

tr

Figure6.27

The higherrelativewaveheightgive
greaterpossibility
of waveimpacts,
but herethe responseis more
influenced
by the relativeberm
width,BJlr. Forthe smaller
relativebermwidthstestedhere,
0.08< BJh.0.14, Goda'smethod
againover-estimates
the loads,but
lessso thanTakahshi's
significantly
method,Figure6.28,so Goda's
methodshouldbe preferred.For
bothmethods,the higherforces
measuredin theseexperiments
are
lessseverelyover-estimated.

o
(EO

12
a E|Qodruntd
10

datt

l Goda's gdiction
o Tskahashit

Pdictlon

8
oa
c

ac

$o

o-o'

qE
U O

o-o

o
OU

t g f , b { 1 ^ E^ { f i
;6r!l
of

c
I

c
E

'o

Figure6.29

61

Influenceof B"o\ on horlzontalforces,hlgh

mounds,Intermediatebermwidths

sF 443 02109196

tr
region,the
In the intermediate
combinationof greatermound
heightand width is sufficientto
initiatewave breakingagainstthe
wall, the increasein wave impacts
givingsubstantiallygreaterforces.
The resultantforces dependupon
BJ\,see Figure6.29,and on H",/d,
see Figures6.30 and 6.31,but the
relationshipsare complicated,and
no reliableand simple methodcan
be devised. An upper limitestimate
appearsto be given by a simple
equationin H"/d:
Fn(p,gdt)

= 22 (H"/d\4's

(6.2)

Closerinspection
of thecomparison
betweenmeasurement
and
prediction
in Figure6.32,suggests
howeverthatthisupperlimitis much
too conservatMe,
butit is alsoclear
thatneitherGodanorTakahshi's
An
methodsgivesafepredictions.
extremely
crude,andsafeapproach
for waveforcesin thisregionis to
usetheTakahashiprediction
multiplied
by 2. ThisgMesa
generallysateresultfor the
combinations
tested
of conditions
here,buthaslittleothermeritexcept
its relativesimplicity!

(1996)makes
Again,McKenna
comparison's
betweenthe
measurements
and predictions
basedon the alternativeversionsof
Minikin/ ShoreProtection
Manual
methods.The useof Minikin's
methodas usedin 856349again
gaveforceswell belowthose
measured.Conversely,
the SPM
versionwithtriangularhydro-static
pressurealwaysgavemuchgreater
yet
forcesfor pulsatingconditions,
failedto matchforcesunderimpact
conditions.

Figure6'30

Dimensionlesshorizontalforces against
H"/d,high mounds,G & T's predictions,
0.65<H"/d<1.3

Figure6.31

Dimensionlesshorizontalforces against
H"/d,high mounds,G & T's predictionS,
0.65<H"r/d<l.3

A Goda's ptedictlon
O TakahashfE prdlxkm
* WPor liril

*
5

.**iu
F*ffi

r!

t
ooo

da^

nI
Eedmntd

Figure6.32

62

dala

Measured/ predictedhorizontalforces,G &

T andV's upperlimit,high mounds,wide
berms

sR 443 q2lo9/9

tr
6.3.3

Compositewalls,up-liftforces

Lowmounds.0.3<h/hu<0.6
Forcompositewallswithlow
mounds,Goda'smethodgives
generallysafepredictions
of up-lift
forcefor pulsatingandtransition
conditionsH"/d<0.65,Figure6.33.
Abovethathowever,the nonup-liftforceFr/(p*gd2)
dimensional
increasesrapidlyto 2-3timesthat
predictedby Goda'smethod.
Forthe regionof Hsi/d> 0.65,
give
wherethe measurements
greaterup-liftforcesthan predicted
line
by Goda,a simpleregression
wasfittedto the results:.

o E)eerimental data
a Godal prediction
o/
olo
9

q,
910

o/

t.'fl
Figure6.33

0.6

0.1

0.2

F,/(p,gd')= 23.2(H"/d)-15.2
(6.3a)
Thislineis howeverstronglybiased
towardsa set of data pointswith
very low up-liftforces,whichwere
judgednot to be representative
of
the overalldataset. An altemative
predictionlinewas thereforefittedto
givea moreappropriateestimateof
the upperboundto the resultsin
Figure6.33overthe range0.65<
Hsi/d< 1.3:

/n

Fu,/rlrc.g.d2=t 9.72'Hsi/d-l I.(\8

o/o
oo

_^ l ^

^!^
1.1

1.2

0.8
Ari/d

1.6

Dimensionlessup-liftforces againstH"t/d,
low mounds,Goda'sPredictions,
0.65<H"/d<1.4

f 0 . rb*-*-l
6<hb/hs<0.s

I;;**A
*"p'"o",*l

oe

l^

o!

'i

a
10

e8
oc
o
oO
oa
0

ig

oa o

e
CO

rl

, i!
cl

F,/(p*gdt)= 19.7(H./d)-11.1
0
o-2
(6.3b)
Highmounds.0.6<ho/h"<0.9
Dimensionlessup-liftforces againstHJd'
Figure6.34
As was seenfor horizontalforces,
high mounds,Goda'sPredictions,
anddiscussedin 6.2.3,the
0.65<H"/d<1.4
influenceof highmoundsis more
complicated.Forpulsatingand
transitionregionscoveredby
'"gi*I
HJd<0.65and perhapsup to 0.8,
F-rr"*r
0.6<ki/d<2
the non-dimensional
up-liftforce
|
|
c
F,/(p,gdt)remainsrelativelylow,
t B.q/Lp
".."r"*-l
4.15or{.3
|
I
andagreeswellwiththatpredicted
oo
by Goda'smethod,Figure6.34.
s
q
9 l0

Againfor HJd>0.8,the nonup-liftforceFn(p*gd2)

dimensional
increasesrapidly,and herethe
regionis mostusefullysplitusing
valuesof B"ol\ to divideinto
pulsatingor impactregions,Figures
6.35and6.36.

F.*'";l
|

^ codasetcdidid

oo

rl
t

rl

0
0.a

Figure6.35

63

Dimensionlessuplift forces againstH.'/d,

hlgh mounds,Goda'sPredictions,
pulsatingcondltions
0.65<H,/d<2,
sR443fi2l@19t6

tr
|r'pu"t"sr;|
0.6<Hsi/d<2
I

15

r;;;l
I

oo

0.1s<Boq/LP<0.3
|

F.,***;l

^ Goda's pfodic{im

P l0

o
lO

e8

oo

oO
OO
o

8ra
a

Ir

0.4

Figure6.36

6.3.4

Dimensionlessup-liftforces againstH"'/d,
high mounds,Goda'sPredictions,
imPactconditions
0.65<H"/d<2,

Crownwalls

by Jensen,Bradbury& Allsophave
Prediction
methodsfor waveforceson crownwallsdeveloped
in Chapter3.
beenincludedin the CIRIArockmanual,Simm(1991),andtheseweresummarised
as Fn,oro/p*gh,Lp
Horizontal
forceswerenondimensionalised
, andwererelatedto dimensionless
as Fupsol0.5p,gB"\,which
whereA!=-d. Up-liftforceswereexpressed
mounddepthgivenas H"/Ao,
pressures
at
at the frontedgeareequalto horizontal
was basedon assumptions
thatup-liftpressures
given
equations,
fromthefrontedge. Simpleempirical
is triangular
thatcorner,andthatthedistribution
of rubble
derivedfor differentconfigurations
earlieras eqns(3.20a)and(3.20b),usedcoefficients
forcesto HotA".
moundandcrownwallto relatethe dimensionless
of thetestsby McKenna(1996)allowedthe
Whilstnota mainobjectiveof thesestudies,the expansion
a crownwallon a
whichcloselyresembled
configurations
to be extendedto includetestson structures
standardcaissons
rubblemound.The resultsfromthesetestsweredividedfromthoserepresenting
on rubblefoundations
andwereanalysedseparately.Thisanalysisthereforeconsidered
wherethe depthof wateron top of the rubblemound(d)was small,or wherethewater
configurations
levelwas belowthe top of the berm(d is negative).
by Godaor Takahashi,
Horizontal
forcesfromtheseconfigurations
did notagreewellwithpredictions
manualwas used
CIRIA
butthe methodof Bradbury& Allsop(1988)for crownwallsas usedin the
hereto comparemeasuredandpredicted
forcesat 1/250level.
Fnraso=

p, g hrI (a (H"/A")- b)

(6.4a)
(6'4b)

F,raso= 0.5 p* g B" L (a (HJA")- b)

of the crownwall
SectionsA andC in the CIRIAmanualwereselectedas mostrepresentative
previously
for the 99.9%
configurations
a andb hadbeenderived
testedhere,lor whichcoefficients
exceedance
level:
Section
A
c

a
0.054
0.043

b
0.032
0.038

64

sR443V2t09t98

tr
The initialcomparisons
of predicted
forceswere
andexperimental
range
confinedto the parameter
lr.roRrzoNrAl FoRCEsl
studiedby Bradbury& Allsopie 0 <
H"/A"< 2.5. Onlyfourtestsfell into
0.3
this narrowrange,allfor Structure
.'/
,:
//
10 withthe lowestwaterlevel,so
the regionof interestwas extended
!
,'(
L
-.4
to coverthe widerrangeof -4 <
-. ...r
r
I
forcesare
H./A". 8. Horizontal
ta
rt \$..
r
\.'.
for
-l\.
comparedwith predictions
lr!
I
I
0.1
l
a
Bradbury& Allsop'sSectionsA and
: j' .io.t .
lrl
I
C in Figure6.37,and up-liftforces
atr
:t
I
arecomparedin Figure6.38.
i0
Surprisingly,
the simplepredictions
2
lbi / Ac
givenby Bradbury& Allsop's
witha=0.054and
equations
Dimensionlesshorizontalforceson crown
Figure6.37
b=0.032gavereasonable
walls, -4<H./A"<8
for the horizontal
forces,
estimations
Fhl,,so
althoughthis methodover-estimates
at highervaluesof H"/A".
,t

f,

At negativevaluesof H"/A",the measurements

are scattered,butthe simplepredictionmethodgivesa
wherethe moundis just belowthe
reasonable
upperlimitfor mostof the results.Theseconfigurations
waterlevelrepresentfairlyunusualcases,and it is not surprisingthat no standardpredictionmethod
applieshere.
Up-liftforcesin Figure6.38were
wellpredictedby Bradbury&
Allsop'smethodat lowervaluesof
H"/A",but significantlyoverestimatedat highvaluesof H"/Ao.
At negativevaluesof H"/A",up-lift
forcesare againscattered,
butthe
simpleprediction
methodagain
givesan upperlimit.

tr.r-rFrFoRcEd

o.3

l.:/
t.:/
|

E
n,

...

:'.

fi.

T\l'..
rr o\

|
l:'t'l
I

./
.'i

, ..:' . ,'u

...r',..,,/

,"

..i

/'

"/

./
.-

r t

:::

.,
Bradbury& Allsop'scoefficientsa &
|
....'
r
''..r1
I I
t:
I
i
b arethe samefor horizontaland
;1","'
rr
|
,/
I
up{iftforces,thusassuming
thatthe
4
o2
pressureat the bottomof the front
t&i/
faceof the crownwall equalsthat at
Figure6.38
Dimensionlessup-liftforces on crown walls'
thefrontedgeof the underside.
.4<H"/4"<8
The absolutemagnitudes
of the
forcesthendependon the heightor
breadthof the wall overwhichthe pressuresact and on the assumedshapeof the pressure
distribution.Goda'smethodsuggeststhat a reductionfactorbe appliedto the pressureat the bottomof
the wallto givethe corresponding
up-liftpressure.The resultsconsideredhere,howeverindicatethat
of up-lift
up-liftforcesmaybe higherthanthesesimplifying
suggest.Initialinspections
assumptions
suggestthat this
distributions
fromtestshereand at the largewaveflumeat Hannover/Braunschweig
may be becausethe up{ift pressuresdo not reducelinearlyfromfrontto rear. lt is alsoclearthat
pressuresat the rear heelmaynot alwaysreduceto zero. The mostconservative
approachmight
thereforerequirethe assumptionof a rectangulardistributionof up-littpressures,althoughthis would
probablybe excessivein thosecaseswherethe crownwallor caissonis placedon relativelyfreedrainingmaterials.

65

sR443o2|OSpa

tr
6.3.5

Overallstabilityof caissonson rubblemounds

Theuseof theseforcesin any

Previoussectionstreatedhorizontal
andup-liftforcesindependently.
In
andup-liftforcesoccursimultaneously.
stabilityanalysisthereforeassumesthatpeakhorizontal
practice,therewill alwaysbe a lagbetweenpeakhorizontal
andpeakup-liftforces,so it is possiblethat
the structurewouldthenbe morestablethanindicatedby thissimpleapproach.Thisanalysis
caissonagainstsliding.Factorsof
thereforeusesa simpleanalysisof thestabilityof a monolithic
againstthose
forces,
andarecontrasted
F,
sliding
are
calculated
using
measured
Safety against
predictedusingGoda'sformulaewithTakahashi's
modification.
the mostappropriatevalues
The slidingstabilityanalysiswas carriedout in threestagesto investigate
of simplifying
the
the consequences
of the horizontal
and upliftforcesto use,andto determine
of calculations
of a
stageconsisted
horizontal
and upliftforcesto singlevalues.Thefirst,andsimplest,
singleFactorof Safetypertest,usingthe 1/250valuesof the horizontaland up-liftforcestogether.
occurfor the samewave,
Thesevaluesdo notoccurat the sametime,anddo notevennecessarily
in this study. The second
separately
sincethe statisticsof the horizontaland up{ift forcesweretreated
valueof the
per
1/250
stagewas thereforeto calculatea singleFactorof Safety test usingthe
horizontalforcewiththe concurrentvalueof the up-liftforce. Thiswas doneto evaluatethe etfectof
simplifying
theforcesto their1/250valuesin thefirstanalysis.Thethirdstageof theanalysiswasthe
calculation
for selectedtestsof the Factorof Safetyat eachtimestepusingtimeseries.The purposeof
thisanalysiswasto determine
theeffectof usingaveragedsinglevaluesas inputratherthanthe actual
valuesof the forcesovereachwaveevent.
or by localor grossfoundation
Thesesimplifying
approaches
did notconsiderfailuresby overturning,
of the mound.
response
failurewhichwouldrequiresignificant
modelling
of the geotechnical
Enhancement
of stabilityby embedment
of thecaissonintothe rubblehasalsobeenneglected.
tn the modeltests,the test structurewas notfreeto move,so the Factorof SafetyagainstslidingF
wascalculated
for a caissonof thesamesizeandshapeas thatusedin the modeltests,assumingthat
andthat the coefficientof frictionbetweenrubble
the meandensityof concreteandfill was 20@kg/m3,
withthe minimum
andthe baseof the caissoncouldbe represented
by !r = 0.5in accordance
recommended
by BS6349(1991).
Thesesimplifications
earlierin thischapter.Transientphenomena
allowthe useof datadiscussed
werenot modelledin thisanalysisas thiswouldrequirea dynamicstabilitymodel,withforce- time
beingcorrectly
the soilbehaviour)
seriesas inputs,and inertiaanddampingof the system(including
yet
Recent
workby
validated.
not
modelled.Modelsof thistypeare underdevelopment,
but are
(1994)
has
(1994),lbsen(1994),andthe MCSGeotechnicalGroup
editedby De Groot
Kortenhaus
indicatedthe way in whichsuchmodelsmaybe developed,and it is probablethat suchmodelsmay be
validatedduringthe laterstagesof
project(1996the PROVERBS
1999).Untilsuchsophisticated
modelsare available,determination
of stabilityof caissonbreakwaters
will continueto requireuseof static
loadings,with appropriatefactorsof
safetyto compensatefor
simplifications
in the processes
and
uncertainty
in estimation
of input
parameters.
StaticSlidinoModel
The forcesactingon a composite
breakwatersection,wherethe
Figure6.39
66

Forces/ reactlonsfor overall stablllty

analysls
sR 4l|3 q209l96

tr
is embedded
super-structure
a smallamountintothe rubblemound,are as shownin Figure6.39,and
maybe summarised
as follows:
Fn,
Mg,
Fr,
S'
Fr,
F",

horizontal
waveforce,and Fu,up-liftforceunderneath
thecaisson,
dry weightof the caisson,
buoyantup-thruston the caisson,
the shearforceat the rubble/ caissonboundary,
earthpressureforceon the caissonfromthe seawardpartof the mound,
earthpressureforceon the caissonfromthe harboursideof the mound,

The simpleslidingstabilitymodel
considered
theseforcesfor the
caissontestedin thisstudy.The
stabilitymodelemploysa simplified
crosssection(as shownin Figure
6.40)wherethe caissonis not
embeddedin the rubblemound.
Contributions
of the earthpressure
forces,F, and F^ to the overall
stabilityof the structureare
generallysmall,andwereomittedin
thisanalysis.At the pointof sliding,
the stabilityof the caissonis
expressedin termsof the Factorof
SafetyF, againstsliding,definedas
Figure6.40
the ratioof resistanceforcesto
disturbingforces,with F. = 1
denotingthe pointof failure:

rA+

Simplifiedmodelfor overallstability
analysis

Fs =U(Mg-F,-FJ/Fh

(6.5)

Resultsof SlidingStabilityAnalysis
The first stabilityanalysiswith Fn.'*oand F,'*o usedF"< 1 to identifythat 28%of the structure/ wave
conditionswouldhavefailed. In practice,the factorof safetywouldbe requiredto exceedat least1.2,
and 856349 suggeststhe useof Fr= 1.5to 2.0 in designto accountfor the uncertainties
in estimating
the waveloadsand structureresponse.The percentageof failuresfor variouslevelsof F, were
thereforedeterminedfromthe measuredloads,and are summarisedbelow:
LimitingF,
1.0
1.2
1.5
2.O

% failures
28
38
42
53

The sensitivityof this analysisto the assumedparameterswas exploredand the 7" failuresare
summarisedbelowfor differentdensitiesof the caisson/fill, and differentcoetficientsof friction.These
resultsconfirmthat the responseof the analysisto the valuesselectedis reasonablygentle,so the
overallconclusionsdrawnfromthis analysiswill not be significantlyinfluencedby the particularvalues
selected.
Frictionfactor

Caisson/ fill bulkdensity

1700k9/mg
2000kg/m3

F = 0.5
P = 0.6

38%
31o/"

28%
2Oo/o
67

sR 44n02rc8p6

tr
anyextraresistance
It has beennotedpreviously
thatthisanalysisdoesnottakeintoconsideration
of thedynamic
account
take
nor
providedby embedment
mound,
of the caissonintothe rubble
and up-liftloads
horizontal
for
series
Initialinspection
of exampleforce time
responsecharacteristics.
generally
occur
and up-liftforcesdo nol
appearto demonstrate
thatpeak(1/250)horizontal
forceis
as assumedin thissimpleanalysis.Up-liftat thetimeof peakhorizontal
simultaneously
by
by a phaselag introduced
generallylessthanthe peakup-liftforce.Thisis howevercomplicated
andit maybe unsafeto assumethattheactualphase
the 2OHzfilterappliedto the up-liftpressures,
in thesepressure
andup-liftforceswillbe the sameas thosemeasured
lagsbetweenpeakhorizontal
records
usingGoda'smethod
in thesetests,andthosepredicted
of F. usedforcesmeasured
Comparisons
forcesandGoda'smethodfor up-liftforces.Thecomparisons
withTakahashi's
extension
for horizontal
addressedeachbranchof the overallimpactresponsediagramgivenin Figure6.14. ln eachbranch,
measuredand predictedFactorsof Safetywerecomparedto indicatethe degreeof under-or overmaybe summarised:
estimatethatmightbe given.Theresultsof thesecomparisons
methodwillgivesafepredictions
withlowmounds,Goda& Takahashi's
Forcompositestructures
heightswhichleadto impacts.
wave
for 0.3. ho/h"< 0.6exceptfor thoselargermoundsand/or
for
methodgivesafepredictions
Forcompositestructures
withhighmounds,Goda& Takahashi's
0.6 < hu/h"< 0.9,exceptfor 0.65. H"/d< 1.3whenthe moundagaincauseswaveimpacts.
Stabilityanalysiswith Fnraso-@.,
dueto
andup-lififorceswillnotoccursimultaneously
It is verylikelythatmaximumvaluesof horizontal
for
a
of
Safety
Factors
pressures.
The
actual
the dampingeffectof the rubblemoundon the up-lift
given
by
the
those
than
higher
mightthereforebe
structuresubjected
to specificloadingconditions
of structures
of thisin designwouldbe the rejection
simpleanalysisdescribed
above.Theimplication
whichwouldin factbe safe.
in thefirststagethat
of the assumption
The secondstageof the analysisexploredtheconsequences
thefactorsof safetyobtainedfrom
peakhorizontal
comparing
and up-liftforcesoccursimultaneously,
the first analysiswiththosecalculatedusingvaluesof Fn,o*and F, at the sametimestep.This analysis
if the concurrentvaluesof force
showedthat,althoughthe Factorsof Safetychangedby about1O-2O"/"
In general,structures
appreciably.
whichfaileddid notchange
wereused,the percentage
of structures
more
accuratemethod
whichfailedusingthe simplestanalysis(Fn'* andFu'^o)alsofailedusingthe
(Fn'o*and F, at the sametime),so thereis no benefitto be derivedfromthis refinementof the force
inputs.
StabilitvanalvsiswithF- andF..for timeseries
forcesovermorelhan one
Bothanalysesdescribedpreviously
valuesof the maximum
usedaveraged
in a greaterinstability
result
may
event
in
an
event. The combination
of the actualvalues
of theforces
thanwouldbe indicatedby averagevalues.
The thirdand mostrigorousstageof this analysiscalculatedFactorsof SafetyF, at eachtimestepin
to produceforce-timeseries(each
selectedtests. This requireda numberof teststo be re-processed
rangesdefinedin
about3OMbytes)
to a fewwhichfallwithinparameter
so thisanalysiswasrestricted
aimedto
procedure
Figure6.14. Testswithlargeor negativeH"/dwereexcluded.Theselection
investigate
the followinghypotheses:
1.

wereJustsafe'(F, just> 1) mightactually

Conditions
whichthe secondanalysisindicated
to caseswherethe use
become'unsafe'at
sometimeduringthewaveevent. Thiscorresponds
of the simpleanalysiswouldgivea marginally
saferesult.lt wouldbe normalfor an engineerto
rejecta designwith a factorof safetyso closeto 1.0,andthis partof the analysisseeksto
determinewhetherthisis justified.

68

sB 4 q2lool96

tr
2.

Conditions
whichthesecondanalysis
were'safe',F, t 1,butforwhichtheGodaand/
indicated
gavesubstantially
greaterfactorsof safety,mightbecome'unsafe'at
or Takahashipredictions
in the
uncertainty
sometimeduringthewaveevent.Thissituationarisesdueto the significant
prediction
of selectingan
the importance
of the forcesin certainparameter
regions.lt investigates
appropriate
methodfor determining
the inputforcesfor the stabilitymodel.
Conditions
whichthe secondanalysisindicated
were'justsafe',F, > 1, butfor whichthe
predictions
gave'unsafe'results,mightbecome
calculations
withthe Godaand/ or Takahashi
'unsafe'atsometimeduringthe waveevent.Thisis important
the extent(if any)
for determining
parameter
in
certain
to whichthe Godaand/ or Takahashipredictions
are over-conseruative
predictions
wereconsistently'unsafe'
ranges.lf the calculations
usingGodaand/ or Takahashi
whenin factthe structurewas 'safe'thensomereductionin thefactorof safetymightbe justified.

4.

The durationof the 'unsafe'periodfor casesfor whichthe secondanalysisshowedwouldjust fail

(Fs< 1) mightbe closeto the naturalperiodof thecaisson.Thishypothesis
was investigated
only
for marginalcases,wherethe staticstabilityanalysiswas indicatingthatthe structurewouldbe
'unsafe'.The possibility
existsof a shortperiodof lowstabilitynotcausingfailure,as the dynamic
responseof the stnicturewouldreducethe effectiveforceapplied.lf howeverthe durationof the
of thisnaturecan be
unstablephaseapproaches
the naturalperiodof thecaisson,no allowances
made.

programto calculatethe
Thetime-series
stabilityanalysiswascarriedoutusinga simpleFORTRAN
Factorsof Safetyagainstslidingfor everytimestepin the force-timehistories.The programoutput
listedthosetimesduringthetestswhenF, hadfallenbelowandthencomebackabove1.0,thus
allowingthe durationof the unsafeperiodto be calculated.The resultsof this werecomparedwith
thosefromthe secondstabilityanalysis(usingFn,,oo
and F, at the sametime)to investigatethe issues
listedabove.
1.

Structures
whichthe secondanalysisindicated
werejust safe(F. just> 1) mightactuallybecome
unsafeat sometimeduringthe waveevent.
Here8 testswereanalysed,of which5 failed,that is gave Fr<1usingthe time seriesanalysis.
FailuredurationswerebetweenO.0O25s
to 0.0075s(model),whichwouldscale(by Froude)at
1:30to 0.014s- 0.04s. Theseresultssuggestthatthe hypothesiswascorrectand if F" calculated
from Fh,o* and Fu at the sametimewasjust safe,the structuremightactuallyfail. lt is however
likelythat a structurewith valuesof F, this lowwouldbe rejectedas wellbelowthe safetymargins
recommended
in 856349.

2.

Structureswhichthe secondanalysisindicatedweresafe,andfor whichthe Goda& Takahashi

predictionsindicatedthat the structurewasverysafe,mightbecomeunsafeat sometime during
the waveevent.
A singletest was analysed,and it failedfor 0.0025s(model),equivalentto 0.014sby direct
scaling. This suggestedthe hypothesisto be true. lf GodaandTakahashihadbeenused F.
wouldhaveindicateda very safestructure(Fr>2),whereasin factthe structuremighthavefailed.
The secondanalysishad shownF. fromthe measurements
to be lower,and if theseforceshad
beenused,the designwouldhavebeenrejectedas F. wasthenlessthan 1.2. The simple
approachwouldthereforehavebeensufficientif appropriateforcevalueshad beenusedas input
parameters.

3.

Structureswhichthe Goda& Takahashipredictions

indicatedwereunsafe,but measurements
indicatedweresafe,mightbecomeunsafeat sometime duringthe waveevent;
Of 12tests,only2 failed,withdurations
to 0.O14sto
of 0.0025sto 0.005s(model)equivalent
O.O3s.The use of Godaand Takahashi'smethodswouldgenerallybe conseruative.Valuesof F

69

sR 443 02109/96

tr
'Factorof Safety'
werecloseto unity,andso wouldhavefailedthe
calculated
frommeasurements
the useof the simpleapproachcanbejustified.
test. Againtherefore
whichthe secondanalysisshowedwouldfail
4. , The durationof the unsafeperiodfor structures
mightbe closeto the naturalperiodof thecaisson.
wereshortat
here,allfailed,and2 testsfailedtwice. Failuredurations
Of fourtestsconsidered
Again
prototype
directly.
if
scaled
at
0.027s
(model)
to
to
0.014s
equivalent
to 0.0050s
0.O02Ss
concentrated
however
analysis
The
was
untrue.
suggestthatthe hypothesis
thesecalculations
wherethere
whereF. wascloseto 1.0,anddid notconsiderthosestructures
on thosestructures
period
to be
would
be
expected
was an obviousfailure.In thosecasesthe durationof the unsafe
ratherlonger.
Conclusions
fromslidinganalysis
Thisanalysishasshownthata simpleslidingstabilityanalysisbasedon thevaluesof the horizontal
is a usefulandvalidmethod.The
probability
level(eg 11250)
and upliftforcemaximaat an appropriate
aresuitablefor the parameter
which
methods
approachhoweverrequiresthe useof forceprediction
of a safetymargin.Thereis no significant
andthe implementation
the conditions,
rangedescribing
or moresophisticated
information
to be gainedby the useof time-series
increasein reliability
of the forcesthanthe maxima.
descriptions
of the
characterisation
involvesa full dynamicanalysiswithelastic-plastic
The onlyreliablealtemative
will
improve
(1994).
approaches
Such
al
et
Kortenhaus
is
discussed
by
suchas
mound/ foundation,
the accuracywith whichthe caissonresponsecan be determined,and maythuspermitthe reductionof
design. Untilreliabledynamicmodelsare
safetyfactorsand thereforeleadto morecost-etfective
of
marginalimprovements
benefitin'pursuing
therewouldappearto be no particular
readiiyavailable,
here.
the simplestanalysisapproachdescribed

6.4 Pressuregradientsand local pressures

The majoremphasisin anystudyof waveforces/ pressuresis on the overallor averagelevelof

and
pressuresneededto determine
the overallstabilityof the structure.Dataon localpressures
leadingto localdamageor instability
pressuregradientsarealsoneedildin anyanalysisof conditions
of
on the spatialvariability
fromconventionalmethods
is available
of blockwork.Verylittleinformation
pressures,
or on localpressuregradients.

6.4.1

of pressures
Verticaldistributions

t.3
Goda'smethodassumesthatwave
12
pressuresare distributed
t.l
Forpulsating
trapezoidally.
is
conditions
thisassumption
o.0
as is
reasonably
well-supported,
0.9
illustrated
by the examplepressures
E "'
at pruso
levelplottedin Figure6.41
lE 0..
for a simpleverticalwallat
H"/d=0.3.Forthiscase,thewaves
0.4
are pulsating,
andthevertical
0.3
distribution
followsthe
of pressures
o2
generalformassumedby Goda.
0.1
arerelatively
Pressuremagnitudes
0
closeto thosepredictedby Goda's
method.
Figure6.41
I

70

P GrVm^2)

Verticaldistrlbutionsof pressures,vertieal
wall,H./d<0.35

sF 443 02109/96

tr
Agreement
withthissimplification
is
muchlessgoodfor impact
of
conditions.Thedistribution
pressuresin Figure6.42is derived
for the samesimpleverticalwall,but
at greaterrelativewaveheight,
H"/d=0.4.Herethe peakpressure
greaterthan
is substantially
predicted,
andfor thiscaseis
slightlyabovethe staticwaterlevel.

r.2

0.9
0.8

_--.):=,="

o.7
9

tl--''"-

0.6

t'

o.4
0.3
o2

The onsetof impactsthereforenot

0.t
onlyincreases
the overallforceas
o
56
discussedin earliersectionsof this
P (kiuiilz)
chapter,butalsosubstantially
Figure6.42 Verticaldistributionsof pressures,vertical
increaseslocalpressures
and
wall, H",/d>0.35
hencepressuregradientg.This
etfectis illustrateddramaticallyin
Figure6.43wherethe onlyphysical
- fiai4t=0.8 .
differencebetweenthe testswas
t| $netuB 0
aStrctuE3-BCI.P=0.13
the effectivebermwidth,B*. As
oSircturo4.BqnP=0.16
0.9
seenearlier,evenquitesmall
r. Stnrturs 7 - BCLP= 0.t I
changesin the structuremay
0.9
significantlyalterthe proportionof
o-7
e 0.6
impacts,and the overallforceon
the wall. The lowestand most
0.5
pressuresin
uniformlydistributed
0.4
Figure6.43occurfor the simple
o.3
verticalwall,Structure
0, andfor the
o2
compositestructurewith moderate
o.l
berm,3. Structures
4 and7 have
30
2S
2A
21
22
18
N
16
14
12
10
onlyslightlylargerberms,yet the
localpressuresand pressure
Effectof bermwidth on verticaldistributions
Figure6.43
gradientsincreasesignificantly.
of pressures,comPosltewalls
Hereincreasing
the bermwidthhas
initiatedthe breakingprocess,
greaterpeakpressures.
givinggreaterimpactforcesfor greaterrelativebermwidth,and dramatically
I

Theseeffectsare comparedwith
predictions
by Godaand
l2
Takahashis
in Figures6.44- 6.45
wherethe differencebetweenthe
I
structurescomparedis againof
bermwidth. Thestructurewitha
0.8
E
highmound,Structure3, gives
E
pulsatingconditions,
0.8
and pressures
belowGoda'sprediction
in Figure
0.4
6.46for B/h = 0.13.A small
increaseof relativebermwidthto
o.2
BJ\ = 0.16is howeversufficient
to
initiateimpactconditions,with
0
substantiallygreaterwave
pressuresat the staticwaterlevel,
Figure6.44
Figure6.45.

71

HsVaa.g, 1|b/184.62,BqLp4 tq
l+rinre=O.3.

.'a'

6
A
t

1
I,

Measureddistributlonsand goda/
Takahashlpredictionsfor pulsating
condltions(Structure3)

sR443U2lO9lS6

tr
These discussionshave been
confinedto pressuresat 1/250level,
but it should be noted that
pressuresat more extreme
exceedancelevels are greater.
This is illustratedin Figure6.46
where the verticalpressure
distributionsfor an impactcondition
are given for non-exceedance
levelsof 99.6 and 99.8%,and for
1 1250,lying approximatelybetween
99.6 and 99.8%. These confirmthat
even the use of prpsomay not lead
to the highest estimate of local
pressuresor pressuregradients.

6.4.2

Pressuregradients

Analysisby Allsop& Bray(1994)on

the stabilityof blocksin blockwok
wallssubjectto waveactionhas
suggested
that largepressure
gradientsmaybe particularly
the onset
importantin determining
of movementof suchblocks.This
sectionconsidersexamplepressure
gradientscalculated
fromthe
pressuresmeasuredin thesemodel
tests.

Measureddistributionsand Goda/
Takahashipredictionsfor impactconditions
(Structure4)

Figure 6.45

o.9

I t|,roo.ss: ttiltoo.sg; lbvGl.31; BeqLp=o.l0I

0.8

0.7

0,8

= o.s
0.4

0.3

02

0.t

Foreasein scalingand
manipulation,
the resultsof
Measureddistributlonsat exceedancelevels
Figure6.46
calculations
of pressuregradients
and 99.8%'imPact
of 1125O,99.6%
havebeenexpressedas pressure
conditions(Structure1)
head(in metresof water)dividedby
the spacingbetweenthe
Valuesof the pressure
points(inthisinstancebetweenadjacentpressuretransducers).
measurement
headgradient,dp/dz,discussed
belowarethereforedimensionless.
giverelatively
lowabsolute
waveconditions
thatpulsating
The analysisin section6.4.1demonstrated
valuesof
mild,seldomexceeding
valuesof the wavepressure,
so pressuregradientsare relatively
ditferentfor impactconditions.
dpldz>1. The situationis howeverdramatically
varied
Forimpactconditions
on the simpleverticalwall,valuesof the peaklocalpressuregradients
high
for
and
90,
to
dp/dz=S
to
mounds
slightlyfor low
overdp/dz=2to70.Thesevaluesincreased
(s.d.)
and
deviations
moundsto dpldz=2to80.Themeanvalueof theseresults,the standard
below:
coetficients
of variationaresummarised
Structure

range

mean
(dp/dz)

s.d. (dp/dz)

coef. varn. (dp/dz)

Vertical

2-70

13.2

15.9

1.'19

Low mound

5-90

29.5

25.9

0.879

Hirrh mnilnr{

2 -AO

21 .6

175

o-814

72

sA1/.302109196

tr
Forimpactwaves,the greatestrelativelocalpressuremeasuredin thesetestswasgivenby:
p,*/(p*gH"J< 50

(6.6a)

andthe steepestpressuregradientwasgivenby:
max(dp/ dz) < 90

(6.6b)

6.5 Pressurerise times/ impulses

The rateat whichwavepressuresriseis importantfor two reasons.The first pointis that a caissonor
relatedstructurewill onlyreactto a waveforceby movingif the durationof the forceimpulseis closeto
or greaterthanthe responseperiodof the structure.At a smallerlevel,thismayalsobe appliedto the
componentelementsof a structure.lf thewaveimpulseis of shortduration,as mightbe characterised
by a veryshortrisetime,thenthe structureor elementmayrespondonlyslightlyto the loading,evenif
waveforces/ pressuresby
the loadingintensityis very high. lt is thereforeimportantto characterise
pressure
peak
couldbe determined
theirdurations.Thiswas notpossibledirectly,butthe risetimeto
good
of impulse
indication
andthiswastakenas givinga
of pressures,
fromthe measurements
projectin early1996,theworking
duration.I lt maybe usefulto notethatwithinthe PROVERBS
wasthatthe durationof the impactimpulsewasabout3 At.l
assumption
acceptedthatwaveimpacts
The secondissueis of scalingfromsmallscaleto prototype.lt is generally
at full
than
theirequivalents
duration
in
greater
shorter
magnitude,
but
in
in smallscalemodelsmaybe
or
Hannover
of
Plymouth
University
programmes
at for instance
of research,
scalb. Despitesignificant
therehavenot yet beenableto developreliableor robust
researchers
Universities,
/ Braunschweig
fromthefieldand
furtherin Chapter7, usinginformation
scalingmethods.Thisissuewill be discussed
andrisetimes.
laboratoryon pressures
of pressurerise
The classification
times,and the interactionwith any
limitson pressureshavebeen
discussedby Hattori(1994)and
Hattoriet al(1994)whosuggest
modelscale
that,at theirparticular
t
o
or size,an upperlimitmaybe
t
peakpressures
appliedto individual
a
plottedagainstrisetime. These
in
limitcuruesare summarised
Figure6.47wherethe effectsof
threeditferentsizesof air pocket
betweenwavesandwallare
presentedby the threelimitcurves.
Thesecurveswerederivedfor
Maxlmumpressuresand rise times (after
Figure6.47
regular/ singlewaves,andthe units
Hattoriet al)
of pressureand risetime are not
scaledfromHattorietal'soriginal
measurement.
Forno air pocket,Hattorisuggestsa limitoh P,o givenby:
P.a' = 320 At'zr3

(6.7a)

whilstfor a smallair pocket,Hattorisuggests:

P'* = 300afl/2

(6.7b)

andfor a largeair pocket,Hattorisuggests:

P'r,

24O At1r3

(6.6c)
sR443V2l0,l

tr
fn each instance,valuesof p,* are in grams torce lcm2, and At is in milli-seconds.

Thesecurvesare re-presented
in
Figure6.48wheresomeof the
shorterrisetimesmeasuredin the
Wallingford
experiments
arealso
shown. Hattoriet al's
measurements
coveredrisetimes
between0.2 and 10 milliseconds,
whereasthe Wallingford
results
coverfrom5 milliseconds
to 1
second.

Hattori's prediction+ experirnenlalclala

t slnglepeak I fap<lzoHz
c lag>1204z a Exp.data

Os
a
z

a
a

t
E20

3
a

'oI

I
A fullerset of Wallingford
datafrom
an impactconditionis shownin
"L
Figure6.49,whereHattori's
three
limitcurvesare comparedwith
Figure6.48
measurements.
Thereis good
agreement
at longerrisetimes,but
the measurements
appearto lie
aboveHattori'scurvesat higher
pressures,
shorterrisetimes. In
partthiswill be dueto the lowerlimit
to risetimescalculatedfromthese
testresultsusing3 points,ie 2 x
1/400s= 5 milliseconds.
Someof
theserecordsmaywell relateto
rathershorterrisetimes,which
wouldplacethe plottedpoints
furtherto the lefton the graph,and
thuscloserto Hattori'slimit.This
tendencyto givelongerrisetimes
mayalsohavebeencompounded
by the somewhatslowerresponse
of thetransducers
usedin the
Figure6.49
Wallingford
tests.

Comparisonof experimentatdata and

Hattori'spredictionsfor rise times

tr E)e.dala (tst 10003 - 500 mv@)

a single.pkod

irpact (fHtoti t 81., 1994)

* lrpact fap > 120 Hz (tlatlod t.1., tS94)

v lrpact fap < 120 Hz (Hattqi ol al., I 994)

0.1
{tt{s)

Experlmentaldata(this study)and Hattori's

predictionlines

It is howevermostprobablethat
Haftori'slimitsare themselvesstronglyinfluencedby the relativelysmallwaveheightsthat were usedin
thoseexperiments,
andthe scalingof Hattori'slimitcuruesto othermodelscales,andhenceto
prototype,haveyet to be addressed.Thecomparisons
in Figures6.47- 6.49shouldthereforebe
treatedwithsomecircumspectiqn.

74

sB 44{t02l@t9

tr
7 Application of results
to the application
of thesetestresultsaregivenby the limitsof datacovered,
The mainrestrictions
in scalingfrommodelteststo
arisingfromscaleeffects/ uncertainties
distortions
of the responses
prototype,and differencesin the responsecharacteristics
of ditferentstructuresor elementsrelativeto
the measurements.
thoseusedin making/ analysing
groupscoveredby thesestudies
parameter
andof the maindimensionless
The rangesof parameters,
of the design
in earlierchaptersof thisreport.Limitsto theapplication
havebeensummarised
in Chapter6. Application
of the resultsof thisstudydependcriticallyon the
methodsare suggested
madein thesemodeltestsmaybe appliedto full
of pressures
withwhichthe measurements
reliability
modelsmustthereforebe subjectto analysisof the
scalein seawater. Theuseof suchhydraulic
by
influenced
influenceof scaleetfectsof concernwhereflowsin porouslayersmaybe unrealistically
themselves
are
actions
pressures
produced
hydro-dynamic
by
viscousfloweffects,andwherethe
here,the maininfluenceof scale
influenced
by the scaleof the experiment.In the studiesdiscussed
andon theirdurations.
of the waveimpactpressures,
effectsis on the magnitude

7.1 lnfluenceof scale effects

The principalresultsof thisstudyarethewaveforces/ pressures.Theanalysisof thesepressure
assumedany particular
measurements
madeat laboratory
scaleusinglreshwaterhasnotexplicitly
by Froudescalehastherefore
butthe useof otherparameters
scaledimplicitly
scaleconversion,
measuredherecanbe so scaled.
implicitlyassumedthattheforces/ pressures
pressure
betweenwavemomentum,
wavepressures
wherethe relationships
In the caseof pulsating
is
realistic,
scaling
of Froude
simple,theassumption
impulse,andtotalhorizontal
forceare relatMely
overthe rangeof scalesthat maybe
for pulsatingloadconditions
andwill notalterthe keyconclusions
usedfromtheseexperiments.
Forwaveimpactpressure,
scalingis lesssimple.lt haslongbeenarguedand is wellacceptedthat
butshorterin duration
impacts
in
wave
smallscalehydraulicmodeltestswillbe greaterin magnitude,
probable
thereforethat
very
lt
is
thantheirequivalentsat full scalein (invariablyaerated)seawater.
butthatthe
values,
lower
measuredin thesemodeltestscanbe scaledto
the higherimpactpressures
passing
thatthe largest
impulsedurationsmustbe scaledto longervalues.lt maybe notedin
pressuresmayoccurwhenthereis leastair entrainedor trapped,andtheseimpactsmaytherefore
actuallybe less influencedby scaleeffectson air compression.

7.1.1

Studieson scaling

workingat largescalein the Large

Manyol theseuncertainties
havebeenstudiedby researchers
and usingsalt andfreshwaterin
WaveChannel(GWK)at Hannover/ Braunschweig
Universities,
previously
by referenceto earlywork by
argued
at
Plymouth
been
experiments
University.lt has
of air may dramatically
fractions
Bagnold,von Karman,and others,that the additionof onlysmall
modifyingpressuresthat
changepressuretransmissioncharacteristics
of the water,thussubstantially
mightbe experiencedby the structure.Two studieshavehoweversuggestedthat the etfectis very
by Walkdenet al (1995)
described
muchsmaller.Thereis someindication
fromstudiesat Plymouth
measuredin the
thatevenquitehighlevelsof aerationin the modelonlyreducedwavepressures
seefor instance
andco-workers,
modelbyabout20%. Numericalmodelling
studiesby Peregrine
Peregrine
& Thais(1996),can be usedto suggestthatscaleerrorsdueto air effectsmightbe limitedto
about50%.
In contrast,the resultsof analysisdescribedin Chapter6 of this reportsuggestthat evensmall
by factorsof 5 or more. This
changesof relativemoundlevelwillchangewaveimpactpressures
suggeststhat the influencesof smallchangesto relativegeometrymay be of greatereflectthanthe
uncertaintiesintroducedby scaleeffects. lt is howeverstillnecessaryto assessthe likelycontribution
to overalluncertainties
arisingfrom any scaleerrors.
75

SB /|43 q2l0gl96

tr
of wave
on relativestatistics
The argumenton scalingwaveimpactpressures
requiresinformation
hereperhapsby (p xAt).
estimated
p, impactrisetimesAt, and pressureimpulses,
impactpressures,
of events.lf comparative
definitions
in modelandfieldwithequivalent
Thesedatamustbe measured
of pressureimpulses
possible
magnitudes
the
it maythenbe
to compare
datasetscanbe compiled,
interest,sayfrom90
of
range
overthe exceedance
scaledby Froude.lf theseshowgoodagreement
pressures
and risetimeswill give
of
non-exceedance
upward,thenequivalent
comparisons
or 95o/o
scalecorrections.
estimatesof the appropriate

7.1.2

Scalingof impactsfro

'|
Fieldworkmeasurements
on hollow
cubeconcretearmourunitshave
0.99
beendescribedby Allsopet al
0.98
(1995c),whodetailfour
9 o.gz
deployments
of wavepressureand
a
otherrecording
equipment
on La
E 0.e6
o
3 o.ss
Collettebreakwater,
Jersey.ln the
lastdeployment,
waveimpact
$ o.*
o
pressuresweremonitored
5 o.e3
z
throughout
winter1993/4at eight
0.92
pointson a typicalCobconcrete
0.91
armourunitat 500H2.Intelligent
o.9
monitoring
wereusedto
techniques
reducethevolumeof datarecorded
whilstretainingall significant
wave
Figure7.1
impactdata. Statisticsof wave
impactpressuresand risetimes
wereretainedfor the complete
winterperiod,seeAllsopet al
1
(1995c).Duringthisdeployment,
0.99
3270impacteventswererecorded,
0.98
but it was notpossibleto analyseall
9 o.gz
of thisdata. Howarthet al (1996)
;
giving
discuss15 setsof recordings
a 0.e6
o
o.ss
7417waves,of which632were
gI
impacts,so Pr=8.57o.
Forthese15
$o*
I
storms,valuesof impactpressure
5 o.e3
z
(p),and risetime(At)canbe plotted
o3'2
for the top 8.5%of waves,that is
0.9r
from91.5-100%.
6

tr',".;l
I

0.1

o uooet
I

o.2
(mseawater.s)
lmpulse

Pressureimpulsesfrom field and modelfor

waveimPactson armourunit, linear

r;;I
.u'o
I

0.9
Pressure(m seawater)
Followingpreviousmodeltestsat
Wallingford
reportedby Herbert&
lmpactpressuresfrom field and modelfor
Figure7.2
Wafdron(1992),a1:32modelofthe
wavelmPactson armourunit, linear
breakwatercross-section
was
testddby Howarth(1996)at Bristol.
The modelwas subiectedto testseachof about200waveschosento representwaveconditions/
on a modelCobunitin
weremeasured
waterlevelsmeasuredin thefieldat Jersey.lmpactpressures
lOkHz
usinga miniature
werecollectedat
the samepositionas on the instrumented
unit. Pressures
transducerscaledfromthe prototypetransducersize. A totalof 37 randomwavetestsgave6389
wavesof which1310gaveimpacts,so herePF2Oo/o,
thusallowingvaluesof p, andAt to be plottedfor
the top 20"/"of waves,that is from80-100%.

givea datasetof impactpressures

andrisetimesfor fullscalein sea
Comparisons
of thesestatistics
waterandsmallscale(1:32)in freshwater.Thesemaybe usedto calculatepressureimpulse,here
estimatedby pressure(p)multiplied
by the risetime(At). Valuesof thisestimateof pressureimpulse
overthe region
are comparedat the sameexceedance
levelsin Figure7.1, andshowcloseagreement
76

sB 4430209196

tr
non-exceedance.
This
of 92-99.9%
the
that
suppoils
thesis
agreement
the pressureimpulsecan be scaled
by Froude,evenwherepressures
or risetimescannotbe so
compared.
Usingthe samedataset,impact
pressuresare comparedin Figure
thatat thesame
7.2,confirming
exceedancelevels,waveimpact
pressuresin the fieldare lowerthan
wouldbe predictedby scaling
fromthe model.
directlypressures

2.5

E15
+
1

0.5

o
-6

.55

.5

-45

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

Weibullprobabilitiesfor pressureimpulses
from field dnd model

Figure7.3
The presentation
of Figure7.1and
7.2doesnot easilyshow.theformof
of impulses
or
thedistribution
pressures,
so thesedataare represented
on Weibullaxes
in
Figures7.3 and7.4. Comparison
of
impactpressures
fromfieldand
modelin Figure7.4 suggests
ihat
is
a
relatively
constant
there
relationship
betweenfieldand
laboratorypressuresoverthe
levelsstudiedhere.
exceedance
Measurements
of impactpressures
scaledby Froudeneedto be
correctedby factorsbetweenabout
0.40to 0.45overnon-exceedances
fevefsof 92 - 99"/",shownin
Figure7.5.
Flgure7.4

2
In (pressure)

Weibullprobabilitiesfor wave impact

pressuresfrom field and model

A similarapproachmaybe takenin
examining
the effecton pressure
risetimes,takenhereto indicate
alsothe effecton impactdurations.
lmpactrisetimesare ploftedon
linearaxesto the sameexceedance
levelsas beforein Figure7.6,and
on Weibullaxesin Figure7.7. The
differenceshereare widerthan
seenfor impactpressures,
and
morecarewill be neededin
interpreting
theseresultsto take
accountof limitationsin the data.
Forinstance,it will be notedthat
stepsare introduced
intodataon
the shortestrisetimesby the
minimumtimeintervalneeded
to
Figure7.5
definea risetime,1-2sampling
intervals.As for waveimpact

96
Non-xceedance (%)

Correctlonfactorsfor Pressures

77

sB 4430209196

tr
pressures,a correctionfactor may
be derivedfor impact rise times /
durations,as in Figure7.8, but more
informationwillbe neededbefore
these correctionfactorscan be
appliedwith the same confidence
as can be ascribedto the use of
those in Figure7.5.

rlrr
.rlrl.r.
ttl'rrlrlrr

6
o

o.s
3
o
o
o
o

0.85

0.01
Rise time (s)

Pressurerise times,modeland field

measurements

Figure7.6

2.5

o-

u.5

-4
ln (rise time)

-3

-2

Weibullprobabilitiesof impactpressurerise
timesfrom modelandfield

Figure7.7

10

o
I

rfl-

o6
t5**-

!t
F

E
- 611f,'.
,J

rd14;

g6
.9

.95
E
9
4
E

fr,F
-F
.U
-

't

$
a
tr
1

96
9,1
Non-exceedance (%)

Correctionfactorsfor rise times

Figure7.8

78

sR 44302/09196

tr
The correctionfactorsderivedabove may be summarised:

Non-exceedance
level

lmpactpressure
correctionfactor

Risetime / duration
correctionfactor

92%

0.44

95"/o

0.45

6.8

98%

0.43

99"/o

0.41

4.2

7.2 Responseperiodsand impactdurations

betweenthe periodof
is the relationship
Anotherissuein interpreting
the useof thesemeasurements
the waveloadingandthe response
timeof the structure.lt hasbeenshownby Muraki(1966)that
typicalnaturalperiodsof oscillation
for (Japanese)
caissonsis 0.2- 0.4seconds.lt is probablethat
smallelementssuchas stoneor concreteblocksin olderwallswill respondto muchshorterperiods,
at largescalein the GWKat Hannover/
butthis hasnotyet beenstudied.In experiments
pressurerisetimesin the regionsof 0.05-0.02s(sic)in
Braunschweig,
Schmidtet al (1992)measured
andshouldhavebeen0.005- 0.02s.)Schmidtet althen
the model. (Thismayhavebeenmis-typed
suggestthatthetotalwaveforcerisetimeis 5-10timeslongerat 0.05to 0.2seconds,andconvert
risetimesof 0.15to 0.6seconds.Theythen
thesetimesby an un-explained
scale(of3) to prototype
of
comparethesetimesandthe responseperiodsof caissonsto confirmthatthesemeasurements
impactsare stillableto causemovement
of evenlargecaissons.

79

SR .14302109196

tr

80

sB 443 02109/96

tr
8

Conclusionsand recommendations

8.1 Conclusions
in thisstudy,
wallsidentified
1. Of the prediction
methodsfor waveforceson verticalandcomposite
of wave
Goda'smethodis the mostreliablybased,andgenerally
bestaccepted.Thedetermination
for caissons,
forcesin Goda'smethodwas howeverderivedfromtestsor fielddataon slidingdistances
of wavepressures.Goda'smethod
andshouldnot necessarily
be expectedto giveaccurateestimates
greater
waveforces.
hasbeenextendedby Takahashitotake
accountof impulsive
2. Sinceits publication
in 1951/ 1963,Minikin's
methodfor impactforceshasalmostalwaysbeen
quotederroneously
(exceptin BritishStandard6349Pt 1),particularly
whenthe (dimensioned)
coefficients
havebeen(mis-)translated
fromBritishlmperialunitsto metricunits.The 1963versionto
of hydro-static
whichmostlaterusersreferincludesa significant
errorin the examplecalculations
pressures.Manylaterversionsof Minikin'smethodaredimensionally
andthis hasleadto
inconsistent,
The method
coefficients.
considerable
uncertainties
in thevaluesof thedimensioned
or dimensionless
gives
generally
givenin the ShoreProtection
method,and
Manualdepartssignificantly
fromMinikin's
greaterforces.
substantially
3. Waveforceson verticaland compositewallsare stronglyinfluencedby the type of wavebreaking
and impact
ontothe wall. Theforcesmeasuredin thisstudymaybe dividedbetweenpulsating
to identify
conditions.A responsediagram(Fig6.14)hasbeendeveloped
fromthesemeasurements
hence
and
parameters
wave
breaking,
rangesof dimensionless
types
of
thatdistinguish
thedifferent
the differenttypesof waveloadings.
largerthan
4. Pulsatingloadsare relativelyslow-acting.lmpactloadsare almostalwayssubstantially
pulsatingloads,andof muchshorterduration.
5. Analysisof overallstabilitywith a simplemodelof caissonslidingwas usedto estimatefactorsof
safetyfor all configurations
somecaseswheresimple
testedin thesestudies.Thismodelidentified
analysisusingFn,o*and F,r*o showeda Factorof Safetyaboveunity,butfull timeseriesdatashowed
a Factorof Safetybelowunity. Thesecaseswerehoweverwell belowthe rangesof F = 1.5to 2
suggestedby 856349Pt 1, and littleincreasein reliability
wasgivenby usingloadsotherthanFn'ouo
and Fu'o*. Any increasein sophistication
of modellingstabilityis thereforeprobablynot meritedunless
the full dynamicstructure/ foundationprocessescan be reproduced.
6. For pulsatingconditions,the verticaldistributionof pressureson the frontfacegenerallyconformto
the simpledistributionsuggestedby Goda,butchangesdramatically
at the onsetof impacts.lmpact
conditionsgivevery intensepressuresat or nearto the staticwaterlevel,conformingwith the general
verticaldistributionsuggestedby Minikin. lmpactconditionshavelessetfecton pressuresmuchabove
or belowstaticwaterlevel.
7. Forceson breakwatercrownwallsare reasonablywell describedby the simplemethoddeveloped
by Jensen/ Bradbury& Allsopand usedin the CIRIA/ CURmanual.
8. Underimpactconditions,localpressuregradientson verticalwallscan be very severe,reaching
eltreme pressureheadgradientsup to dp/dz= 70 to 90.
9. Pulsatingloadsmay be converteddirectlyfrommodeltestsat appropriatescalesby Froudescaling
withoutsignificantscaleeffects.
10. lmpactloadsare potentially
so impactloads
influenced
by scaleandothermodeleffects,
converteddirectlyby Froudescalingwillover-estimate
prototypeloads. A newmethodhas been
derivedin this studyfromfieldand modeltestdataon waveimpactsto correctwaveimpactpressures
for scale/ modeleffects.

81

SB ,14302/09196

tr
8.2 Recommendations
for design/ analysis
thatmayleadto impact
1. Combinations
andwave/ waterlevelconditions
of structure
configuration
the structure
conditions
mapin Figure6.14. Wherepractical,
shouldbe identified
usingthe parameter
waveimpactloads.
for highintensity
configuration
shouldbe revisedto reducethe potential
At the 1/250level,
2. Forpulsating
conditions,
of waveforcesfit theWeibulldistribution.
thestatistics
safety.Goda'smethodmay
horizonalwave
loadscanbe predictedby Goda'smethodwithreasonable
howeverover-estimate
waveforcesfor lowrelativewaveheightsandlargemounds.Up-liftforcesare
predictedrelatively
safelyby Goda'smethod
thatfitsthe restof the
3. Forimpactconditions,
waveforcesdepartfromthe Weibulldistribution
greaterthan
(pulsating)
forces. Undertheseconditions,
forcesat the 1/250levelaresubstantially
of Goda'smethodhaslittleeffectin
wouldbe predictedby Goda'smethod.Takahashi's
extension
increasing
waveimpactloadsin relationto thosemeasuredin thesestudies.Forsimpleverticalwalls
maybe
andcompositestructures
forcesunderimpactconditions
withlowmounds,horizontal
estimatedby the simpleformulain eqn.6.1and up-liftforcesby eqn.6.3b. Methodsfor other
methodfor
configurations
arediscussedin Chapter6, butwithinthisstudyno generalprediction
impactshasbeendeveloped
for all structureconfigurations.
safelyusingthe simple
4. Waveforceson breakwater
crownwallscangenerallybe estimated
prediction
methodin theCIRIA/ CURmanual.
usinga simplestaticanalysis
5. Thestabilityof caissonor sectionsagainstslidingmaybe simulated
providedlhat waveforcesare predictedat 1/250levelusingan appropriatemethod;and Factorsof
Safetyof at least1.5- 2.0are used.
those
thereforeincluding
6. Predictions
of pulsatingloadsderivedfromhydraulicmodeltests,
measuredin thisstudy,maybe converted
to fullscaleby simpleFroudescalingwithlittlescaleeffect.
in freshwateraresignificantly
7. Predictions
modelstudies
of impactsloadsderivedfromhydraulic
waveloads. A
influencedby modeland scaleeffects,and shouldbe correctedto avoidover-estimating
presented
in Chapter7.
new correctionmethodhas beenderivedhereand is

8.3 Recommendationsfor future research

are morelikelyto use
Futureanalysis/ designmethodsfor verticalandcomposite
breakwaters
probabilistic
approachesratherthanthe deterministic
methodsusedto date. Staticstabilityanalysis
andfoundation.Thesenew
methodswillalsobe replacedby dynamicanalysisof structure
in
/ uncertainties
greaterlevelsof detailon variabilities
approaches
willthereforerequiresubstantially
thananyother
responses
thanavailablehitherto.Thepresentstudy,whilstmorecomprehensive
or relative
recentworkin this field,has not coveredthe full rangeof possiblestructureeonfigurations
waveconditions.Futureresearchstudiesshouldthereforeincludethefollowing:
1. Gapsin the presentparameter
testing.Existingandnew
mapshouldbe filledby supplementary
datashouldbe usedto improvethe reliability
methodsfor the onsetof impactconditions,
of prediction
andfor the prediction
of waveimpactforces.
of the magnitude
anddurations
morereliablythe spatialextentof high
2. Furtherdetailedtestingandanalysisis neededto determine
impactpressures,
andto describetheirspatialvariability.
3. The presentstudywas unableto determinecorrectlythe phaselagsbetweenhorizontaland up'lift
of
forces. Information
on theseforcesandtheirphasingis neededas inputto dynamicmodelling
shouldrecordthese
caisson/ foundation
responses.Futuremodelstudiesandfieldmeasurements
forcesun-filtered
to a commontimebaseto permitphaselagsto be determined.
crown
4. Thesestudieshavegenerallysupported
methodsfor forceson breakwater
simpleprediction
parameters.Furthertestingmay be
walls,but do not identifythe effectsof variousconfiguration
sR 43 q2l09196

tr
on waveloads
meritedto identifymorefullythe influence
of crestgeometryandarmourconfiguration
on the crownwall.
will be
5. Typicaltimeseriesof pressures
on thewallandwithinthe rubblemound/ foundation
time
requiredfor dynamicstructure
of such(standard)
/ foundation
Thedevelopment
simulations.
on typical
seriesfromthe datacollectedin thisstudy,andfromfuturestudies,will requireinformation
frequencyrangesfor the structural
responses
crownwalls,andelementsof blockwork
of caissons,
walls.
of
6. The development
of probabilistic
simulations
of stabilitywill requiremorereliableestimates
testingshould
eltremeforcestalistics.Futuretestsshouldbe extendedto 1000waves,andadditional
quantifythe effectsof long(testor storm)durationson the extremeforcestatistics.
has
7. A simpleengineering
factorsfor impactpressures
approach
to thederivation
of scalecorrection
beenpresented
for thefirsttimein thisreport.the methodis relatMely
simple,andomitssomeof the
morecomplexaspectsof the scalingproblem.lt is hopedthatfuturestudiesunderthe PROVERBS
projectwill refinethisapproach,
andwillpresentmorerobustmethodsto scaleimpactrisetimesand
durations.

83

SR .143 @/09196

tr

84

sR 44I! O2lO9/9

tr
9 Acknowledgements
by membersof the CoastalandPorts&
Theworkdiscussedhereis basedin parton studiescompleted
of the UK
Directorate
EstuariesGroupsof HRWallingford
for the Construction
Sponsorship
and Cl 39/5/96;
PECD7161312,
Department
of Environment,
underresearchcontractsPECD7161263,
undercontractMAS2in partundersupportfromthe MCSprojectof the EC'sMASTll programme
projectin MASTlll undercontractMAS3-CT95-0041.
CT92-OO47,
andthe PROVERBS
of the European
Thisreportalsodrawson the resultsof researchsupportedby the MASTI programme
undercontract
of Environment
Union,and by the Construction
PolicyDirectorate
of the UK Department
usedin studies
PECD7161312.
The development
of the numerical
modelsof internalandexternalflows
undercontractPECD
of Environment
on Alderneybreakwater
wassupported
by the Department
7161108.
Substantial
additional
supportto thetestinganddataanalysishasbeengivenby the Queen's
of
of Naples;and University
University
of Belfast;theiDepartment
of Hydraulics
of the University
the international
fromTECHWARE,
Shetfield.Fundingsupportfor visitingresearchers
at Wallingford
Nl is alsogratefully
of Education
exchangeprogramme
of the University
of Naples,andthe Department
acknowledged.
The authorsarealsopleasedto acknowledge
assistance
in testingandanalysisby PhilBesley,
Theyare
DanielaColombo,ChrisJones,andin the compilation
of thisreportby KirstyMcConnell.
gratefulforassistance
Wallingford,
at
HR
visitingresearcher
in processing
databy LucaCenturioni,
and by Siva Sathiamoorthy
of the NationalUniversityof Singapore.
HR Wallingfordare alsogratefulfor adviceand assistanceprovidedby MikeChrimes,librarianof the
Institution
citedhere;to Gerald
of CivilEngineers,
in researching
someof the historicalinformation
M0llerof Queen'sUniversity
of Belfastfor earlydiscussions
on waveimpacts,andadviceon
in the
measurement
assistance
devices;to MarioCalabrese
of Naplesfor significant
of the University
pulsating
and
to
responses;
development
of theflowdiagramdividingparameter
/ impact
regionsand
AndreasKortenhausof Universities
for adviceon analysisand
of Hannoverand laterBraunschweig
eventdefinitionmethods.
The seniorauthoris gratefulfor the interestand supportshownby the Portand HarbourResearch
pariicipation
Instituteat Yokosuka,
in the 1994WaveBarriers
Japan,andto JISTECfor supporting
workshop,and to his colleaguesin the PROVERBSresearchproject.

85

sR 4qz0sl96

tr

86

sR 4 @rc9/90

tr
10 References
AllsopN.W.H.(1995)"Verticalwalls
to improvevesselsafetyandwave
andbreakwaters:
optimization
disturbance
by reducingwavereflections'Chapter
1Oin WaveForceson InclinedandVerticalWall
pp 232-258,ed. Kobayashi
Structures,
N. & Demirbilek
2., ASCE,NewYork.
and recent
AllsopN.W.H.& BrayR.N.(1994)"Verticalbreakwaters
in the UnitedKingdom:historical
Portand Harbour
experience'Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp76-100,
Researchlnstitute,Yokosuka,
Japan.
performance
of vertical
AllsopN.W.H.,BesleyP.,McBrideM.W.,& McKennaJ.E.(1994a)"Hydraulic
publn
Workshop,
Milan,
walls:testson caissonsand'low-reflection'walls.'
Paper3.7to 2ndMCS
University
of Hannover.
thequestfor a'final'
AllsopN.W.H.,MG Briggs,
breakwater:
T Denziloe,
& AE Skinner(1991)"Alderney
London.
solution'Conference
Institution
of CivilEngineers,
on CoastalStructures
and Breakwaters,
unadigaa
AllsopN.W.H.,Calabrese
impulsivisu
M. & Vicinanza
D. (1995c)"Analisideicarichi
paramento
1995,
ltalianaPIANC.
Ottobre
verticale"Giornateltalianedi lngegneria
Ravenna,
Costiera,
AllsopN.W.H.,CalabreseM.,VicinanzaD. & JonesR.J.(1996)'Waveimpactloadson verticaland
compositebreakwaters"Proceedings1OthCongressof the Asiaand PacificDivisionof IAHR,26-29
August1996,Langkawilsland,Malaysia
in
for improvement
AllsopN.W.H.& McBrideM.W.(1994)'Reflections
fromverticalwalls:the potential
Waters,
in
Deep
vesselsafetyand wavedisturbance"Proceedings
Wave
Barriers
on
of Workshop
ppl01-128,Portand HarbourResearchInstitute,
Yokosuka,
Japan.
performance
AllsopN.W.H.,McBrideM.W.,& ColomboD. (1994b)'The reflection
of verticalwallsand
'low
reflection'alternatives:
resultsof waveflumetests."Paper3.4to 3d MCSWorkshop,Emmeloord,
publnUniverslty
of Hannover.
AllsopN.W.H.,di LeoM. & McBrideM.W.(1995a)"Theeffectof wavereflections
on localwave
publn
of Hannover.
steepness"
Paper11.4.3
University
to thefinalMCSProjectWorkshop,
Aldemey,
AllsopN.W.H.,McBrideM.W.,& di LeoM. (1995b)oWavereflections
and low
fromverticalwalls
reflection
altematives.'
of Hannover.
Paper4.7 in FinalReportof MCSProject,publnUniversity
AllsopN.W.H.& MUllerG. (1995)Discnto TechnicalNote2575:'Comparative
studyon breakingwave
forceson verticalwalls'byErginA. & AbdallaS., ProcASCE,Jo Waterway,
Port,CoastalandOcean
Engineering
Division,September/October1995,ASCE,NewYork
AllsopN.W.H.,VannA.M.,HowarthM.,JonesR.J.& DavisJ.P.(1995c)'Measurements
of wave
impactsat full scale:resultsof fieldworkon concreteannourunits' pp287-302,Conf.on Coastal
Structures
and Breakwaters'95,
Institution
/ThomasTelford,London.
of CivilEngineers
of
AllsopN.W.H.& VicinanzaD. (1996)'Waveimpactloadingson verticatbreakwaters:
development
pp
Royal
newprediction
formulae' Proceedings
275-284,
HarbourCongress,
of 11hIntemational
FlemishSocietyof Engineers,
Antwerp,Belgium.
AllsopN.W.H.,VicinanzaD.,Calabrese
waveimpactloadson
M. & Centurioni
L. (1996)'Breaking
verticalfaces'Paperto 6h International
LosAngeles,
Conference,
Offshoreand PolarEngineering
California,
USA.

87

sR4430210,196

tr
and
breakwaters
AllsopN.W.H.,VicinanzaD, & McKennaJE (1995c).'Waveforceson composite
moments"Paper1.5in FinalReport
seawalls:analysisof horizontal
andup-liftforcesandoverturning
of MCSProject,publnUniversity
of Hannover.
Vol 12,pp
of CivilEngineers,
Jo. Institution
Bagnold(1939)"lnterimreporton wavepressureresearch"
202-226,1CE,
London.
effectsof oblique
BanyardL., Calabrese
M. & AllsopN.W.H.(1996)"Forceson verticalbreakwaters:
Wallingford.
waves"ResearchReportSR465,HR Wallingford,
or short-crested
performance
of verticalwalls
BesleyP.,AllsopN.W.H.,ColomboD & MaduriniL. (1994)."Overtopping
'fow
MCS
Workshop,
4.4
3n
and
reflection
alternatives'Resultsof waveflumetests' Paper to
publnUniversity
Emmeloord,
of Hannover.
modelofa slottedwavescreen
BennettG.S.,MclverP. & Smallman
J.V.(1992)"A mathematical
g, Volume1B, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
breakwater"
CoastalEngineerin
CoastalEngineering,
on full scaleimpactpressures"
Blackmore
PA & HewsonP (198a)"Experiments
Vol8, pp 331-346,
Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
ICEMaritime&
Alderneybreakwater"
BishopRW (1950)"Maintenance
of somerubblebreakwaters:
Waterways,
Paper16,Session1950-51,pp 16-35& 36-53,lCE,London.
crownwalls"Proceedings
effectsof brealcwater
BradburyA.P.& AllsopN.W.H.(198e)"Hydraulic
London.
pp 385-396,Institution
of CivilEngineers,
Conference
on Designof Breakwaters,
crown
performance
of breakwater
BradburyA.P.,AllsopN.W.H.& StephensR.V.(1988)'Hydraulic
Wallingford.
walls"HR ReportSR 146,Hydraulics
Research,
and rehabilitation"
maintenance
BrayRN & TathamPFB(1992)"Oldwaterfront
walls:management,
CIRIA/E & FN Spon,London.
Part1'
(1984)"BritishStandardCodeof practicefor Maritimestructures,
BritishStandardsInstitution
British
Standards
5942,
and
5488
GeneralCriteria"BS 6349:Part1: 1984.andAmendments
Institution,
London.
Part7.
(1991)"BritishStandardCodeof practicefor Maritimestructures,
BritishStandardsInstitution
Guideto the designandconstruction
of breakwaters'BS 6349:Part7: 1991,BritishStandards
Institution,
London.
of designformulae*MSCthesis,
reliability
BruiningJ.W.(1994)"Waveforceson verticalbreakwaters:
the Netherlands.
ReportHl903, DelftHydraulics
of Technology,
/ DelftUniversity
of
of failureprobability
Burcharth
H.F.,Dalsgaard
E (1994)'On the evaluation
Sorensen
J. & Christiani
pp
monolithicverticalwall breakwaters'Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,
Japan.
458469,Portand HarbourResearchInstitute,
Yokosuka,
of
to dynamicloading"Proceedings
BurcharthH.F.,lbsenL.B.(1994)'Responseof rubbleloundation
Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp 402-418,Portand HarbourResearchInstitute,
Yokosuka,Japan.
D.C.
CERC(1984)'ShoreProtection
Manual'4thed. U.S.Govt.PrintingOffice,Washington
analysismethodsfor
Centurioni
L., VicinanzaD. & AllsopN.W.H.(1995)'Waveforceson verticalwalls:
measurements
ol pressures
andforces'ReportlT 430,HRWallingford.

88

SR /|4g q2l0o/96

tr
Coastal
ChanE.S.(1994)'Mechanics
of deepwaterplungingwaveimpactson verticalstructures"
pp 115-134,
Elsevier
ScienceBV,
Engineering,
Speciallssueon VerticalBreakwaters,Yol22,
Amsterdam.
above
suspended
waveloadson verticalwalls
ChanE.S,CheongH.F.& GinK.Y.H.(1995)"Breaking
meansea level"Jo. Waterway,Port,Coastal,andOceanDiv.,ASCE,July/ August,
ChanE.S,CheongH.F.& Tan B.C.(1995)"Laboratory
studyof plungingwaveimpactsvertical
ElsevierScienceBV,Amsterdam.
cylinders.CoastalEngineering
Vol25,pp87-107,
on a verticalplanewall"Proc.
ChanE.S,& MelvilleW.K.(1988)'Deepwaterplungingwavepressures
RoyalSoc.,London.
Jo. Otfshore
structures"
ChanE.S,& MelvilleW.K.(1989)'Plungingwaveforceson surface-piercing
Mechanics
andArcticEngineering,
Vol111, May1989.
waveforceson solidwallbreakwater"
ChienC.H.,ChiouY.D.'&LaiG.H.(1995)'lrregularimpulsive
Proc.Conf.HYDRA2000,Vol3 , pp269-280,
ThomasTelford,London.
ComickHF (1969)'Dockandharbour
engineering"
CharlesGriffin& Co.,London.
CrawfordA.R,WalkdenM.J,BirdP.A.D,BullockG.N,HewsonP.J.& GriffithsJ. "Waveimpactson sea
'94,Barcelona,
ASCE,NewYork.
walls& breakwaters"
Proc.Conf.CoastalDynamics
ErginA & AbdallaS (1993)'Comparative
studyon breakingwaveforceson verticalwalls'ProcASCE,
Vol.119,No 5, ASCE,NewYork
Jo Waterway,Pod,CoastalandOceanEngineering
Division,
sea
underthree-dimensional
FrancoC (1996)"Waveovertopping
andloadson caissonbreakwater
states' MCS/ PROVERBS
repod,Politechnico
diMilano,Milan.
Speciallssueon
FrancoL. (1994)'Verticalbreakwaters:
Engineering,
the ltalianexperience'Coastal
VerticalBreakwaters,
Vol 22, pp31-55,ElsevierScienceBV,Amsterdam.
FrancoL., de GerloniM. & vander MeerJ.W.(1994)'Waveovertopping
on verticalandcomposite
breakwaters'
Proceedings
24thICCE,Kobe,pp 1030-1045,
ASCE,NewYork.
FrancoL & VerdesiG (1993)"AncientMediterranean
harbours:a heritageto preserve"Med-Coast
Conference,Antalya,Turkey.
Funakoshi
H., OhnoM. & TsudaS. (1994)'surveyof long-term
deformation
of compositebreakwaters
alongthe JapanSea' Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp239-266,Port
and HarbourResearchlnstitute,Yokosuka,
Japan.
design&
GanlyP. (1983)Discussion
on Breakwaters:
on papers5 and6, Proceedings
of Conference
pp82-84,Institution
construclion,
publnThomasTelford,London
of CivilEngineers,
GodaY. (1974)'Newwavepressureformulaefor compositebreakwaters"
Proc.14thICCE,
Copenhagen,
ASCE,NewYork.
GodaY. (1985)'Randomseasandmaritimestructureso
of TokyoPress,Tokyo.
University
GodaY. (1990)'Randomwaveinteraction
of Coastaland
withstructures'Chapter16 in Handbook
OceanEngineering,
Vol 1, ed.J.B.Herbich,GulfPublishing
Company,Houston.

89

sR 44302109/96

tr
breakingwaveforces"Coastal
to impulsive
GodaY. (1994)"Dynamicresponseof uprightbreakwaters
Engineering,
Speciallssueon VerticalBreakwaters
, Yol 22,pp 135-158, ElsevierScienceBV,
Amsterdam.
Chapter6
waveforceson verticalbreakwaters"
designpracticein assessing
GodaY. (1995a)nJapan's
DemirbilekZ.,
pp140-155,
N.
&
Kobayashi
ed.
Structures,
in WaveForceson lnclinedandVerticalWall
ASCE,NewYork.
studyon breakingwaveforceson
GodaY (1995b)Discnto TechnicalNote2575:"Comparative
Port,CoastalandOcean
verticalwalls"
by ErginA. & AbdallaS., ProcASCE,Jo Waterway,
Engineering
Division,September
/ October1995,ASCE,NewYork.
walldeflections'
on verticalwallsandthe resulting
HattoriM. (1994)"Waveimpactpressures
pp
Port
and HarbourResearch
332-346,
Waters,
Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin Deep
Institute,
Yokosuka.
underbreakingwavesof
on verticalwalls
HattoriM.,AramiA.& YuiT. (1994)uWaveimpactpressures
varioustypes"CoastalEngineering,
Speciallssueon VerticalBreakwaters
, Yol 22,pp79-115,Elsevier
ScienceBV,Amsterdam.
Gulf
Volume1 pp1-1155,
HerbichJ.B.(Ed.)(1990)"Handbook
of CoastalandOceanEngineering'
Publishing
Houston.,
Company,
of
Port"Proceedings
HitachiS. (1994)"Casestudyof breakwater
damages-Mutsu-Ogawara
Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp 308-331,Portand HarbourResearchInstitute,
Yokosuka.
of irregular
andtheoreticalcomparison
HouH.S,ChiouY.D.& ChienC.H.(1994)"Experimentalstudy
Yokosuka.
pressures
Hydro-Port'94,
Proc.
wave
breakwaters'
on deepwater
composite
of
armourunits"Ph.Dthesis,University
HowarthM. (1996)'Waveimpactson hollowcubebreakwater
Bristol.
of waveimpact
HowarthM.W.,VannA.M.,DavisJ.P.,AllsopN.W.H.& JonesR.J.(1996)"Comparison
on
Conference
pressures
on armourunitsat prototype
andmodelscale" Paperto 25thInternational
CoastalEngineering,
York.
Orlando,ASCE,New
HuntJ.N.(1979)'Directsolutionof wavedispersion
equation'JoWaterwayand HarboursDivision,
pp 457459,ASCE,NewYork
ProcASCE,Vol WW4,November,
- a methodof probableslidingdistance"
Coastal
ItoY. (1971)"stabilityof mixedtypebreakwater
Engineering
in Japan,Vol 14,pp53-61,
JSCE,Tokyo.
'83,
pp272'
JensenO.J.(1983)'Breakwater
Proc.Conf.Coastalstructures Arlington,
superstructures'
285,ASCE,NewYork.
HydraulicInstitute,
JensenO.J.(1984)"A monograph
on rubblemoundbreakwaters'Danish
Horsholm.
JohnsonJ.W,KondoH. & WallihanR. (1966)'Scaleeffectsin waveactionthroughporousstructures"
Proc10thICCE,Tokyo,Vol2 pp 1022-1024,
ASCE,NewYork.
of
Proceedings
JuhlJ. (1994)'Danishexperience
andrecentresearchon verticalbrealcwater"
lnstitute,
Research
pp154-171,
and
Habour
Port
Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,
Yokosuka,
Japan.

90

sR 44 02rc9l196

tr
KarmanvonT (1928).Theimpactof seaplanefloatsduringlanding"NACATechNote321,
Washington.
Ocean
KirkgozM.S.(1995)'Breakingwaveimpacton verticalandslopingcoastalstructures"
Engineering
, Yol 22, No 1, pp 35-48,ElsevierScience,Oxford.
breakwater
design'
KobayashiN. (1994)'Breakwaters
in USAand Canada,andreviewof composite
ppl84-198,
Harbour
Research
Port
and
Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,
lnstitute,Yokosuka,
Japan.
Kortenhaus
A., OumeraciH.,KohlhaseS. & KlammerP (1994)"Waveinducedup-liftloadingof caisson
breakwaters"
Proceedings
ASCE,NewYork.
24thICCE,Kobe,pp 1298-1311,
in Taiwan"
KuoC.T.(1994)'Recentresearches
breakwaters
on composite
andexperiences
PortandHarbourResearch
Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp217-238,
Institute,
Yokosuka,Japan.
Proceedings
of Workshop
LambertiA.& FrancoL. (1994)"ltalianexperience
on uprightbreakwaters'
Japan.
Yokosuka,
on WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp25-75,Portand HarbourResearchInstitute,
of Workshopon
Proceedings
Lee D.S.& HongG.P."Koreanexperience
on composite
breakwaters'
Japan.
Yokosuka,
Institute,
WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp172-183,
Portand HarbourResearch
of
Proceedings
Ligteringen
H. (1994)'OtherEuropean
on deepwaterbreakwaters'
experience
Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp199-216,
PortandHarbourResearchInstitute,
Yokosuka,Japan.
LundgrenH. & JuhlJ. (1995)'Optimization
design'Chapter8 in WaveForces
of caissonbreakwater
2., ASCE,New
pp 181-204,
on lncfinedandVerticalwallStructures,
N. & Demirbilek
Kobayashi
ed.
York.
MaduriniL. & AllsopN.W.H.(1995)'Overtoppingperformance
of verticalandcompositebreakwaters
and seawalls:resultsof waveflumetests"Paperll.4.2to the FinalMCSProjectWorkshop,Alderney,
publnUniversity
of Hannover.
MeerJW van der,d'Angremond
of waveforceson vertical
K & JuhlJ (1994)'Probabilistic
calculations
York.
structures'Proceedings24thICCE,Kobe,pp 1754-1767,
New
ASCE,
MeerJW van der,JuhlJ, & DrielG van (1992)"Probabilistic
of waveforceson vertical
calculations
of
structures'In Proceedings
MASTG6-S,Lisbon,publnUniversity
of FinalOverallWorkshop,
Hannover.
and low
McBrideM.W.,AllsopN.W.H.,BesleyP.,GolomboD. & MaduriniL.(1995a)'Verticalwalls
reflectionalternatives:resultsof waveflumetestson reflectionsandovertopping"ReportlT 417, HR
Wallingford,
Wallingford.
McBrideM.W.,Hamer8.A.,BesleyP.,Smallman
J.V.& AllsopN.W.H.(1993)'Thehydraulicdesignof
hattourentrances:
Wallingford.
a pilotstudy'ReportSR 338,HR Wallingford,
McBrideM.W.,SmallmanJ.V.& AllsopN.W.H.(1994)'Design
breakwater
of harbourentrances:
pp525-541,
designandvesselsafety'Proceedings
PortandHarbourResearch
of Hydro-port'94,
Institute,
Yokosuka,Japan.
McBrideM.W.,SmallmanJ.V.& AllsopN.W.H.(1995b)'Vedicalwalls
altematives:
and lowreflection
numericalmodellingof absorbing
Wallingford.
wavescreens'ReportlT 400,HRWallingford,

91

SR 4ra@rcs/96

tr
designof harbour
forthehydraulic
McBrideM.W.,Smallman
J.V.& AllsopN.W.H.(1996)"Guidelines
entrances"
ReportSR 430,HR Wallingford,
Wallingford.
resultsof 3-d
alternatives:
McBrideM.W.,& WatsonG.M.(1995c)"Verticalwalls
andlowreflection
physicalmodeltests"RepofilT425,HRWallingford,
Wallingford.
crownwalls"Ph.Dthesis,Queen's
McKennaJ.E.(1996)nWaveforceson caissonsand breakwater
University
of Belfast,Belfast.
on caisson
T.J.T.(1994)"Wavepressures
McKennaJ.E.,BesleyP.,AllsopN.W.H.,Whittaker
preliminary
flumetests."Paper1.4to 3rd MCSWorkshop,
breakwaters:
resultsof parametric
publnUniversity
Emmeloord,
of Hannover.
ed.,Griffin,London.
MinikinR.R.(1963)"Winds,WavesandMaritimeStructures'2nd
ProcSth
of waveimpactpressures"
M0llerG.U.& WhiftakerT.J.T.(1995)'On theverticaldistribution
ISOPEconf.,TheHague,TheNetherlands.
wavepowerstation"Ph.Dthesis,
MiillerG.U.(1993)'A studyof breakingwaveloadson a shoreline
of Belfast,Belfast
Queen'sUniversity
causedby waveaction"
MurakiY. (1966)'Fieldinvestigations
of brealcwaters
on the oscillations
CoastalEngineering
In Japan,Vol9, JSCE,Tokyo.
ltaly"Proc.
NoliA.,FrancoL.,TomassiS.,VerniR. & MirriF. (1995)'The newPortoTorresbreakwater,
London.
fnstn.Civ.Engrs.,CivilEngineering,
Vol108,pp 17-27,lCE,
Proceedings
OwenM.W.& AllsopN.W.H.(1983)'Hydraulic
modelling
of rubblemoundbreakwaters'
lCE,London.
Conference
DesignandConstruction,
on Breakwater:
on Breakwater
Conference
OwenM.W.& BriggsM.G.(1985)'Limitations
of modelling'Proceedings
'85,lCE,publnThomasTelford,London.
- reviewof problems"
of
Proceedings
OumeraciH. (1994a)'Scourin frontof verticalbreakwaters
Institute,
Research
pp
Harbour
Port
and
Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters, 281-307,
Yokosuka,
Japan.
OumeraciH. (1994b)'Multi-disciplinary
in Europeon verticalbreakwaters"
researchexperience
PortandHarbourResearch
Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,pp 267-28O,
Institute,
Yokosuka,
Japan.
Coastal
failures- lessonslearnedo
OumeraciH. (1994c)"Reviewandanalysisof verticalbreakwater
pp3-30,
BV,
Amsterdam.
Elsevier
Science
Engineering,
Speciallssueon VerticalBreakwaters,Vol22,
designapproach'Chapter9 in
OumeraciH. (1995a)'Verticalbreakwaters:
a pleafor an integrated
pp 205-231,ed. Kobayashi
N. & Demibilek2.,
WaveForceson InclinedandVerticalwallstructures,
ASCE,NewYork.
the
on verticalbreakwaters:
OumeraciH. (1995b)'European
researchexperience
multi-disciplinary
1995,pp737-762,
MCSproject'SecondMASTDaysandEUROMAR
market,T-10November
Brussels.
Commission,
Directorate
European
GeneralofScience,Research
andDevelopment,
OumeraciH. & Kortenhaus
A. (1994)'Analysisof the dynamicresponseof caissonbreakmraters"
pp159-183,
ElsevierScienceBV,
CoastalEngineering,
Speciallssueon VerticalBreakwaters,Yol22,
Amsterdam.

92

SB rf43 02/09196

tr
OumeraciH., KlammerP. & Kortenhaus
loadinganddynamicresponseof vertical
A. (1994a)'lmpact
breakwaters:
reviewof experimental
results"Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin Deep
Japan.
Waters,pp347-361,
Portand HarbourResearch
Institute,
Yokosuka,
designandwave
integrated
OumeraciH., Kortenhaus
breakwaters:
A. & KlammerP. (1994b)'Caisson
loadspecification"
Proc.Conf.Hydro-Port'94,
Yokosuka,
Japan.
inducedby
OumeraciH., Kortenhaus
of caissonbreakwaters
A. & KlammerP. (1995)'Displacement
and
on coastalstructures
breakingwaveimpacts.'Conference
of Institution
of CivilEngineers
breakwaters'95,
lCE,London.
In
structures"
for monolithic
OumeraciH. & LundgrenH. (1992)'Someremarkson designguidelines
publn
HR
Wallingford.
Proceedings
of FinalOverallWorkshop,
MASTG6-S,Lisbon,
OumeraciH., Partenscky
waveloadson verticalgravity
H-W.& Tautenhain
E. (1992)"Breaking
structures"
Proc.2nd ISOPEconf.,SanFrancisco.
Proc
Partenscky
H-W.(1988)"Dynamiclorcesdueto wavesbreakingat verticalcoastalstructures"
of Hannover.
2nd Int Symposium
University
on WaveResearchandCoastalEngineering,
Speciallssueon
PeregrineD.H.(1994)'Pressureon breakwater:
a forwardlook"CoastalEngineering,
VerticalBreakwaters
, Vol 22, pp553-573,ElsevierScienceBV,Amsterdam.
pressurefield"
PeregrineD.H.(1995)"Waterwaveimpacton wallsand the associatedhydro-dynamic
Chapter11 in WaveForceson InclinedandVerticalWallStructures,pp 259-281,ed. KobayashiN. &
Demirbilek
2., ASCE,NewYork.
RennieSirJ (1854)'The theory,formation,
of Britishandforeignharbours'John
andconstruction
Weale,HighHolborn,London.
(Chapter17:The Moleand
RouthEMG(1912)'Tangier:England's
lostAtlanticoutpost,1661-1684'
Harbour),
JohnMurray,AlbemarleSt, London.
RouvilleMA,BessonP, & PetryP (1938)'Etudesintemationales
sur leseffortsdusaux lames"Vol
108,pp 5-113,Annalesdes Pontset Chaussees,
Paris.
SainflouG (1928)'Essaisurles diguesmaritimes
Annalesdes Pontset Chaussees,
verticales'Vol98,
Paris.
SchmidtR., OumeraciH. & Partenscky
H-W(1992)"lmpactloadsinducedby plungingbreakerson
verticalstructures'
Proceedings
of 23rdICCE,Venice,publn.ASCE,NewYork.
SimmJD (Ed)(1991)'Manualon the useof rockin coastalandshoreline
CIRIA/ CUR,
engineeringSpecialPublication
83, ClRlA,London.
ShieldW (1895)'Principlesand practiceof harbourconstruction.
Longmans,
Green& Go.,London
SmeatonJ (1837)'Reports
of the lateJohnSmeatonFRS'2ndEdition,M Taylor,Strand,London.
Civil
SolerW. (1996)'GrandHarbourbreakwater
of CivilEngineers,
in Malta,1903-09'Proc.Institution
pp
Engineering,
Vol 114, 81-91,ThomasTelfordfor lCE,London
2nd
Stevenson
T (1874)'The designandconstruction
a treatiseon maritimeengineering'
of harbours:
edition,Adam& CharlesBlack,Edinburgh.

93

sR 443020919

tr
StoneyBB (1874)"Ontheconstruction
of harbourandmarineworkswithartificialblocksof largesize'
Paper1376,Institution
London.
of CivilEngineers,
pressures
on
of impulsive
TakahashiS. TanimotoK. & Shimosako
K. (1992)'Experimentalstudy
pp
PHRI,
5,
35-74,
Vol
31,
No
Institute,
compositebreakwaters"
Reportof Port& HarbourResearch
Yokosuka.
andslidingof breakwater
K. (1994)"Dynamicresponse
Takahashis.TanimotoK. & Shimosako
on WaveBarriersin
of Workshop
caissonsagainstimpulsive
breakingwaveforces' Proceedings
Japan.
Yokosuka,
DeepWaters,pp362-401,
Portand HarbourResearchInstitute,
pressurecoefficient
for the
K. (1994)'A proposalof impulsive
TakahashiS. TanimotoK. & Shimosako
Japan.
Yokosuka,
designof compositebreakwaters'
Proc.Conf.Hydro-Port'94,
design
in Japan,andprobabalistic
TakayamaT. "Development
of newcaissontypebreakwater
approachfor composite
breakwaters"
Chapter7 in WaveForceson lnclinedandVerticalWall
pp 156-180,bd.Kobayashi
2., ASCE,NewYork.
Structures,
N. & Demirbilek
Proceedings
breakwaters"
on composite
TanimotoK. & TakahashiS. (1994a)'Japaneseexperiences
Institute,
Research
pp1-24,
Harbour
Port
and
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,
Yokosuka,
Japan.
- the Japanese
of caissonbreakwaters
TanimotoK. & Takahashi
S. (1994b)"Designandconstruction
experience"
CoastalEngineering,
Speciallssueon VerticalBreakwaters
,Yol22, pp57'78,Elsevier
ScienceBV,Amsterdam.
London.
CIRIA/ Butterworths,
ThomasRS & HallB (1991)"Seawalldesignguidelines'
of Civil
Paper3006,ProcInstitution
TownshendBO'D(1898)'Repairsat Alderneybreakwater"
pp 307-310,
Engineers,
London.
of the harbourat BrayeBay,
and maintenance
Vernon-Harcourt
LF (1873)'Accountof the construction
Aldemey"Paper1347,lnstitution
London.
of CivilEngineers,
Vernon-Harcourt
LF (1885).Harboursanddocks:theirphysicalfeatures,history,construction
Press,Oxford.
equipment,
and maintenance'Clarendon
PressSeries,OxfordUniversity
verticalee
VicinanzaD. (1997)'Pressionieforzedi impattodiondefrangentisudighea paramento
composte"Ph.Dthesis,University
of Naples,Naples.
initial
breakwaters:
on composite
VicinanzaD.,AllsopN.W.H.& Centurioni
L. (1995)'Horizontalforces
publn
of
University
1995,
May
analysis'Paper11.1.1
Alderney,
Workshop,
to thefinalMCSProject
Hannover.
WaldronP & HerbertDM.(1992)"Waveinducedstressesin hollowcubearmourunits'Coastal
pp285-303,
Structures
and Breakwaters,
ThomasTelford,London.
WalkdenM.J.A.,CrawfordA.R.,BullockG.N.,HewsonP.J.& BirdP.A.D.'Waveimpactloadingon
andbreakwaters
verticalstructures"
on coastalstructures
Conference
of Institution
of CivilEngineers
'95,lCE,London.
in China"
breakwaters
Xie S.L.(1994)'Recentresearchandexperience
on verticalandcomposite
ppl29-153,
PortandHarbourResearch
Proceedings
of Workshopon WaveBarriersin DeepWaters,
Institute,
Yokosuka,
Japan.

94

sR 4/ qz09l196

tr

Appendix
and results
Summaryof testconditions,structuralconfigurations

sF-ua@]@18

4
q.

BEHF$g
6 R s s & $ E 6 E s E E B B R S B E R B E B s BrDpo E@so&o'B6tE('H@HN Ee nYUdr$@ g
o + 6 o I 6 @

HraebbB:

6i @ o @ F o @ s o ! N N o r + 6 6 qr N F 6 @ o ! N o N @ N lZ) *
=;cjcioiai-dcj;-cjAi-cj-o--oi-oicjo;-ci-J--c;d-Jdcn-o?q\;:ol91qq?qfu?ol
Essa-obo-FoYNF
q

{acss888eBBB8BB888888BB8B88BB8B8888888qEEqee888qqBB
ddtNFctutNcicioi-ddcictoooddoi-cidoooooodocjctctct.dR6S$RSrtutd:9dct

sciscte ctB d8 8ct 8ct8oBoBoBd8 ct8 8o Bo Bd 8d8 8 8 E E E E E E B E B E 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 B B B B B B ds s s

o o

E
I
u

q'(Do
r
s
oQ
vsqo@nFvooss

i]

ct

"ff

F
!
o

t
=
o

(?Q
oo
o o

o o

d o

o o o

o o o

o ct o o

F
F
F
F
F
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
A
O
N
0O
FFNNoo*o{FFNNNNNooFFaNNooooFFoFN@@@Nos

ci

ct

ct

q,(9o
F
oo
o o o

I
e
cj

F
a
ci

(D F
o t
ci ci

N
t
ct

F
F
ci

o
F
ci

o
N
d

o
N
o

F
O
o

o o
o *
ct o

o
o
o

o
g
o

o
F
ct

F
F
d

F F
NN
ci o

ct

ct

F o
NN
d d

N
N
d

oo
OO
d d

OO

ct

ooo
F F
o o

o o o
O

ct

t ct

o
C) N
cj ct

N
N
ct

ct o o

OOO

o o

@@

ct ci ci cj
N

ci

ts N
I
I
o d

o
O
o

o
N
d

@@@

s
*
o

F o
OO
o o

ct

@oN
oO3
o ct o

v
$
o

g, o
O h
o o

ci cj d

gsEr
o d

c, o
O O
o o

d eo oeo oeo oE
EEEeeeEeqqqEeqeeeeeeeeEqqqqEqqeqEirtqqqq;erqq
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
f,

SescBBBBBBBTsSBBBBBSBEEEEEEEEEESTETTTsbEEbEbEBEEbBb
Acjcioooctdcicictctdcictoooooctddddcidciododooctoooooooooctciciddcic;
q@O
IOF
F
F
F
OQ
F@
O
O
@A
=
FO
r
O
AO@
OO
tgFoss@FNNNNFO@OO@OtOFFNNF=@F*OtsOOFtOOOFO**@NNNNNOF

NOS

NS

ts

FF

Fe

-ciriajsi$atFidcict{cici6irjsi.aid+ut+6id+ai++d+dioidsjsi{{sicictci+cidciFirsidci

EeqqNEqEsqqqqdqEqhEsEqqieqEqieqfr
-

C,

qeErEeqqEEqEqqEqqq
N

(O

rt

C,

(o

C)

HeenpgSSESEsFSsSs&pgB$8sE8ERpg88$ESsKpBEsFBSsgn:s

Jutcict*tsddddci<ttdoiutaj@+rirtututoiddajd+Nrtdoiddoid*daj@*Nd9stajd{9d
I ro !o o a 9 a N q) 9 s o o N I s n s
E e e a Q Q Q o o o o o o o o o o o
d o d o o o o o ct ci ci ct ct ct d ct o o

o o o a N I N s
ct o o o ci 6 ct 6
o ct o d d d o o

s s n 9 e N o o * = i { o @ o o @ @ o s s
6 6 6 6 ct ct o o 6 6 6 O c' o o c' o c) o o o
o o o o d d ct ct ct ct ct d ct o o o o o o o o

E
8t888883888888383888888St8t8t88t83888
I
o o o o

E
I

ct o ct d

ct ct d

o ct d ct ct ct d

o@6@6@t60000t
ooooooooooooo

o o o

o o ct ct ci ct ct c t c t o c t c i o o o o o c i c i c i

ct qt c i c i c t o c i o o o c i o d d c t

rOO@N

@O

OOO
N
o
F
*
6
$
@ N o o F o @ o NN@ -q ) ol q
a? og
q 6r

;;Ai6i6ioi-si--o-

Et q E E
o@oo

F
F
i- O+
@@
S
ts *
O
ts tO@
c .q c q c q - q q c q q c q e? \
S

NFNNNFFNFFNFNN-FNFFNF

*o<@+oN*o$@N{
ooooooooooooo

e \

- c

oooNN@ts6NOO@r
O@NOOF@OFFOF@
-;AioiaioiniJ-ci-oi-

E E B q E q A E q c \q a e q q E . c & E g E E 8 e c q r E c g , \ \ q g q q o ? q \ u ? o l \ 1 q
r - N F d F N F F T F N F

oo

'q \ 9 C q

r\\

F ? N * N F F N F F N F

e
!

d o o

E
EqqqdqqEqaeqqqEqsEdEdqqqqqqq
o o o o o o o ct o o o ct ct ci ct ct ct d o ci d ci d ci <) o o d o d o d ct o

Fo

d d

o o o t
o c' o O
o o o o

@ rO O N I

o o o ts
q\o @
aCq \ol\

oo

1e

aoo

oo

q \ q AN\

e-i

T f

N F N F f

@ @ o) @ t

O @ N (D rO u) O) O (O C', (o t\

oo

@oo

iqe-\

oo

(' orF

oN

\qq\c\qq

N F F N F N f

o(o

- N F F N F

o6000000@o000
NgooFtsoNrto@bN
--si-d-oi--oi-d-

cO rO rO rO O o) Ct (9 N O N u) st O qt @ r o o N o @ o @ s l o @ F r o

r ol - q g : r r - q ol ol g g : : r o{ - Al 6l q C r r r o! r
= o: o o- o--o oolo-o oqo -o o: o o
o
oooooooooooooooooooooo

9 e n | !N! NQ Q o9 0 0
0 Fn o o o o o n o o o o oFo oF oN o o o o o o o o o
oo6
(.)C)
9

NNNNOONNNNNNN

A I F F F F ( { r F F

d ci ct cj ci ci ci ci ci ci o d

CI
T
!

NGI

gcqqqqqcgqqccqqqqqqqqooooooooo
qqqcgqqqqqcqq
ooooooo
o o ct o ct ci ct ci o o o d ci ci o ci d ct d ci o o o ct o o d d o o d t ci ct ct ct <i N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Nd

NN

NN

Oi

-(i|6I

6iN

O.D

NN

dN

ooooooooooooo

o ct ct ct d d ci ci ct ct ci d d ct ct o o o o o d d d d d d d d d o o o ct ct ct d c; o o o o o d c t d c i o o o o

t E E E E E E q E E E q E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E S E Evt tvt sv vs v= ss ss vs ST ss sv 9s v
o o o o ci o ct ct ct d ci ct ct d ci ct o ct ct ct d ct ct ct d o o o o ct ct ct i ci ct d d d c t c t d o c t d o o o o o o

gEEEgT
gEEEEEE
gEgg
gEEggTTEEgg
EEEgEEEEE
8888888888888
gEEEgEEE
gggEEgEEEETTg
gEEggEEEE
ETgEggg
ci o o

g
q

ct ct ct ci ci ct ct d d

!sstsqsvvvYss
NNNNNNNNNNNNN
aoo@@@o@(o@@.o@@

ct ct ct t o

o o o

o ct o

ct ct ct o

ct ct o

o o o

o ct ct ct c t c t o c t o d c i o o c t o o o

qol6{qqqqqqqolqc!
ooooooooooooo

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOooooooo

fi

qqcqqq$$$$E$EeqeEeeeqqqHecpeqe&&EEEfr
&

qEEEEEqqEEEEE
HHEEEHHHHHEHHEEE$$HHHHEHHHEHEEEEEE

d
G
q
E

oo

oo

ooo

oo

ooo

oo

oo

ooo

oo

ooo

ooo

oo

oo

octooo

ooooooooeoooo
.6(o(o@@oNF-i-FF@@
9!qa9aaa?o?ea?eqq
ooooooooooooo

@.o(o@@@(0(o(o@@oo

o ct o

ct ct ct ci ci c! o

o a

o o

o o

o o

o o o

o o

o o

o o

o I

ooooooooooooo

I F F I

oo oo ooo
oo oo,o o oo o)o o oo o6 66;
;6;
;;
;
q q q E oq oq oq oq o9 oe oq oq o9 oq oq oq rqo ,
66 66 666
6,6 6,e q q qq
q q q9 qq qq9
eEq
9qq,qe
ct ct ct o d d ci o ct ct d ci ct ct ct 9
d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooooooooooooo
NdNNNNNNNNNNN

q
E

ctdctdodcictoctooo
q

ct ct o o
a
E

oooooooooooor)
660booQ?+t{oo
F F N N N N N O O
i6 i0 irt art rllt at art
ci ct ci ct ct ct ci ct o o d o o o d c t c t c t c i o o o c t c t c i o o o

?
e99398888889epp9999p888888888RRRRRRR
o o o o o o t a r r { = @ @ @ @ o @ @ @ @ F F F F F F F F F
ct d d

o ct ct d

ci ci d ct d o

o o

o o

gETgEgEgTEETTETEEgEggEggE
EqEgggEETEgE

NNNNtsNtsNNNtsNts
600@@@@o@o@@@

oooo

ooo

oo

oo

oo

ooo

ctd

ctoo

ooo

oo

8eeepeepee888888888Rfi
A 3eee3e888B8
allccqqqqqqe\-E\E[-E-q
?
9???91f
o o o o o o

o o o

o o

o o

o o

o d

ct ct <t o o o

ooo

oooo

ooodctoctooocido

f i o{ !or or 9o toooot o* 3o *oaNoNo

fififig
o o ctoooctoctooocido
ooooooooooooo

O o

o ct o o

4F H f l I H F E

ggEF8858r8r588gHHgHggHgg5s8r88
F
F
F
F
R
F
F
F F F F H H H H H H H H H H H H H R'R'R'R'H H R H H H F H H ttggggtsEEssE
E
It o o o o o o o o o

.A

O{O@N@OO-NOth

ooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooo

g$RgE$EFfi
$$:$9fi$xfieegi g$$pnHRsHFE
FEHsFfi
flFsgEEBH$fi
;H
: : Y- + + 9 e ? a ? q q uF ? q c ? 6 q a q c ? Y q q q q v c ? q q - c q a ? q f 6 s ? o ? q o l a ? o q q q a ? v a c ?.',a \ u q e ? . : o l
o

fi

ci

S
c a e E a c c e E E E c a E E sd so sdBo B? BN rdr scj ror or so sajsotE.,i* e q e e e a dEo stc s e Eo E
srBsB
o o .i o o o
E N o o : s ^i <t d E
E S "i "i I

BBBBBgsEFFFF
eo go g
o - - - - d cj o
ct d

o ci o

= I

P :

R 3

FBBBBBss$ssBBBBsBEEBFFFFFEEEEEsssss

o o

ci cj ct ci o o

d,j,i

ct o o

o d

o o

o o

o o

o o

o ct

o o

o d

gg gB

H
a;aqAqEssN:3=EsEgEEsR&
ssgBEbsANsSN:t=E$6gssERN
tlood"?999aioi6iatd-cjd;ctctctoooddooq,ggg;dcic,icjd;ctdJctooctctctctddd
d
a@@N(DsQtFoN@goNot6ooFFFFFotso*ootNots@ooFo+oonFrFFFo
gAFFqoSoSoonFONNOFNNNOFNNNNtO$OFiOOSFONNOFNNNOFNNNN

fl

o o

d o

o o o

d ci o

o ci ct o

o o

cj o

d d d

o o o

o d

o o o

o o

CI
J o N o o @ 9 @ F N o o s o rt s: @ s o o @ o o o o o @ o @ r o o @ @ F F o o s o b @ 9 o o @ o o o o o @ o
- I - ol -':':
- ol - - - - q q - - - - - q - q l':':
: : : : : E':
g* o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ci o o o o o o o o o o

o o

o o

o o

I q r I
o o o o

I r
o o

al I I
o o o

ct ct ct ci d d

ol q r':
o o o o o

-':
o ct

S
eqeEEqEEEqE?EqEEqEqEqEEEEEEqb?EbeEeEEEsqqEqqEE
fi ct d d ci ci ci ct o o o o o o ct d d ci ct c, o d ct d d d o o o o o o d o o o o o o o o o o o ct ct d cj ci ct ct
=
a:
Tor

q
14 b
=eoFs

o
O
FFNN@OF{

F
F
ts
@ O
a
@ v
@ o
@ N
O
F
O
O
O
O@OOO6tstsF*OOOFt*tsNNNAOO*O@OOOtsNFSo

ts

-+aioictatciatdaici+oidcici+siatsid*oi<t+ct+dctciat.jstaici$oiut+air6i<tcici+oid{ctr

q':

g,

(9

(o

o A 4 (!
rt o, r s o o @ N N c, N o o o t o o o o o @ 6 (9 @ {
or r
$ o o
N N o, N o' o, @ s o o o
1 a ? \ o ? a ? v ? o q o l A q \ - a ? + C o Ce a ? I q q C q i q a ' : q q ? u ? e q q q \ - C I e e e ? a ? - q q e
1
o ' : N Ia o N N 3 o a o N !o o N r N o o N n N o
{ o { o o N c) N * o N d) N 6 o N * N o o N 3 N o t o {

qe
gl
N Ro
o oo
oo
9,qq
P o o o o go
o o o Ioo
o o o o P o o o o Io
li N o o o N o F Y o o N o Y O o N 6 9 6 o N 6 9 6 o N 6 oi o N rb I 6 at N rb 9 6
r<tcioiqtdct+Pdai<toi9dd<toi9stai@c,i9utcj@d@djdoiPdcidciPdcj.osi9dcidoi9dcid

o
o

oo
N 6

go
9 6

ooo
o oi 6

Io
9 6

o o
at ai

H q q q Eo oEdEdqctctEctctqciEctEo ectqctqciqciEoEoEo qoqoEo eo4oEo Eo Eci Eo qo qo o eo Eo qo qo o eaeoqaqaq oEaqaq oq oe e

{
a a
ic o ct ci o

E
4c E
E iE
o cq
i c iq
d cq
t cq
tcq
t c iq
o o
c tq
c tq
o oE
o oE
d cq
i d cq
t o4
o oE
c iE
< t oE
o oq
oo
i c tE
d c tq
c tq
c tq
c t ct c4
t cE
t c tE
o cE
t c tE
o oE
cto
o oE E q q E E E E E E E 4 q q 4 q 4
E
egaBEtssBBBrBBBBrsBsEBSssEErBErBBB8BsBBgBgssEBsBBB
doooctcicictdcidctctctdctoooctctdddddctctooctoooctoctooooodcictctdodoo
F

!!,

!O

Ol

r,

ts

ts

t' = l - o Fl c ?F o lFc Y q gF q o l \ - q ? \ C \ ' : a ? q o q q ' : q ? \ q q q q q 0 q q a ? o g o l \ r q ? \ o l \ - a ? q q q r q ? \ q q q

N

p or':

F N F

N -

F F

T N

N F

F N

N -

N F

N F

N *

ts

"r R E B R I R I I R e I 3 I R I I e I R e I e I R E E P R I R I I R e R I I R I 8 I I R I I I I
N - F F F N F F F F N F T f

F N

E
9 \ q \ g a q u? \ a q ot q \
- N F F F N F F N F F N T N F T N F N - F N F N F F N F N F N ? N f

* q q u? \

T F F N - F F

N F F F F N F F F F N f

geoFaee!n<?gl@9Noo@oNoo@oNoo@ooo@oNoo@oFe@@atsoo@otsoo@o

q q q \

q \

q i

q q q \

q q ot u? \
f

Q F N f

F F F F F':
;Fi q I
- o@
O
- oc) ;( o
o $c^i ,c@i d
Nd
r Odt c
fO
Oc rt@
Oc
fr\ i| c
oFrt O
-" idQdQc9i9d@co Oi d1- rd) -dF d
i Odc Ocr ri cO-ir cO i-r cOi(rl
c ir cOr i| co- ri O
cFiOc@Fi d@cOui)ctF-i @
oFoO otF(oOOl
dt ^o,Fo
oF@
c il Oc{ )iuc- ) ir dO
c ir drd"!Oou Cl
o) r OFO F

.: E c! s? \
F N F N F F N F N f
-

(\l O

a q ot s? \
F

a q
f

ol

t4 nc tgc g
i cR
i o&
o oRo R
ctR
d cR
t dR
c tR
c tp
c tR
c tR
d dRd R
d opoR
o oR
oR
o oR
o ogoR
d oRc R
t cR
t oR
c tR
c tR
ct&
c te
o dRo R
o oR
c tR
c teo R
c tR
o cR
t o& g R R R R p R R R S
gqqeqqqcqccq

d cNqNqN gN Nq NqNqN qN q
gqqqggqqqqqeqceqqqqgqqqqcqcec
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNdNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

$S EES EEESESESEESSEEEEEE
E
q S$
ci ci o
-

gSSEEEE$SEESEEEESE$ESSEEE

ci

ct

ci

ci

ct

ci

ci

ci

ci

<i

cl

el

ct

ct

ct

ct

ci

ct

ct

ct

<i

ci

ct

o ct o

ct ct ct ci ct ci ct o o

o o

o d d

d o

o d

ct o o

!t

o ct c, d d

d qd q q q q q q q q q q E q q q q q q E E q q q q q E q s q q q q q q q q q q q q E E E E E q q q 6 q
ci ct ct d ct o d

ct d

ct d

sf Eff 88E88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
qNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

ddcidciddcioodciddddciaiJaiai<tJiiaiciiicicici6ci6ddddddddJddoociooo

nR$SS988$$Fft
*RRppFEEpppppgfr
B$ge$gg$ttt$fr frR$REpEEF
ctdciciooctocictciciddddoctooctcicictctctooctctctoctctctooctodooddoctodoo

=
S g E E E Ev gt E E
EEEEERRRREEERRRSSRRRREER&RRR&
- @P@E
@9v S
w qE
9 sEt S E E E Et E
tttt?
{3ti$t$q$60b66b6660b60booooo60@@o
ctctctcioctctddctctctctdcictoooocioctctctoctoctciocictociooooooodddctdood

i!=rr

gqEEqEqqEEqqEEEEqqqEEqEEqEEqEqEEqqEqqqqqqqEEqEEEEEE

Eooctdcictooctddoctdddciddoooctctctctctctocictocioooocioooocictoooctoo
N
N
,"
g! .FFFFFr

d d

o ct d d ci ci d

o d d ci o ct d

o o

ct o

N N
N
N N
N N
N
N
SI q|
OI OI SI
FFFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOa
FFFNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

ci ct ct o o ci o

o o o

SI

SI

OI

OI

OI

s|

OI

q.{

ci d ct ct ct ct o o

o o

o o

OI

CI

QI

gBgggEEEEEfi
.fi $fiqq.EqBgggEEEEE&fr
Efifr$g$g$qEEq
&$&$fi
E$$E
ctctct999?cjoooctctddcictctdcictciciodd9999ctctctocioctctooooodctctctooo

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

ts

Eq
qqqqqEqEqEEqEEsqqqqqEEqqqEqqqEqqqEEEEEEqEEE
ctctdctciddcioctctddcictcictctdooooctcioooodctctctctctctctoctcictooooctctood

I!

!fi e83333$$e$fif fifiE;EE3EFFppF3333e$$$efi

BfififiE33E;FpFFF
o

A
:Z

ci

ct

@ F

.N

ci

ci

ci

ct

ct

ci

.o ts

@ or o

@ F

ct

ct

(!t F

@ o

ct

d,

g,

@ F

ct

ct

ci

sr

E? 9

14 !e

d8555sS$sgSggggggg ggggg ggggEEEggggegggggggggEEgSssE

d

gHSHEBRB$BqBHEggPBf;
Eg:H$EaqH8:
f,$$H$Eg$FgH$$HH$CEqF
Ectqiraodci-;-aio'j--dct----oiN+"i@;"iajsiato;-;,josiaioid;-'dddctoi$+ct

IE e
RFFe e Fe s e e e e q e q e q q EEq
=q
Ee e,qE=ea EEEEQe e e Es F
-eI I e e e e -s
i :
= & P E o o S d ot d d d ct d d o o d .t R
P 3 & d .i I I I d d - ai od $ oi ci ai *
: R R 3 ct a,i : d I
"j

"i

$
rrr!!qqqqqEi
E o o o o o o ct d ct

ct

ct

E ctr Eo qo qo qdqoq ciE oEo oq qa E

EiiiqqqeqqqEEEEEEEqqqqq
o o a o o o o o e e o e o o e e o o o d d ci d

cj

jld;cict;dctoodct;ctct-dcidctd;cjoioicjo;oorodooct;sjoi6icj6;ctd;cjctddo
a
r
ci

t
o
d

N
"
d

r.. e
N o
o o

t4
N
o

o
N
ct

o
N
d

i
O
ci

g
J
ll
jq
q

=
o
o

o
F
o

N
ct

q? @ 9o
N F o F
o o o o

I
N
d

9
N
ci

@F N
ct d

s
F
o

@ o
r o
ct ct

o
N
ct

r
N
d

@ r
o ;
ct o

o
N
o

o
N
o

o
N
o

F
o
d

o
;
d

s
+
d

F I
aD o
ct o

E, I
O F
ct ct

6
F
ci

F
ct

o
O
o

oOr
F ;
o ct

F
d

O
ct

O
F
ct

O
N
d

O
N
o

ts
{
o

o@
N F
o o

o
N
o

N
o

F g
aD o
o o

n
oi
o

a
oi
o

a
oi
o

r
o
o

o
;
o

O N @ @N
dr oi ;
N F
o o ct o o

O
o

N
N
o

4
F
o

@6O
6 F N
o d o

@ o o
;
et ol
d ci o

ts
i\
ct

@ s
6 ;
o o

s
{i
ci

ts
{
o

ts F
N N
ci d

ct

qqEn

SqrqqEiqEEqqiqsEtEEEn\qqsiqqqsqqqqqE\q{Niq;qsEfi

F
o
o

@ o o
at 6i
o o o

ts @ +
a! o ;
o o o

o o
o,l 6i
ct o

o
ai
o

s
O
ci

Oo
r o
ci d

o
N
o

o
o

O
o
o

I
i
o

N
ci
o

@ O
dt';
o o

gBB:BbbBBsBSBFEe*BpEp=E:tB:BeBppsRBpp=eEppp

SessbBBB

fiodddcicicictcicicictctctctooodcictdciooooctooooociooooddddocidcjcictdcj
=OtNtts@ooF
.l
o
o
N
t

qf
a2

OntNsN@O@F@OOFOFbSN{tsOOOF@OOrOFOTNCN@OO

- c n u t c i a t s s i d c i c iO+ ooi d oc i ao i +bo i o)

d c ts
i a it $ ooi r i.bc i cO i i oo i do a i6 d i ao i cF t aNj s Ni * sNi d 6c i adri { ii6 i u+ t aioi c 6i + o6 i doic t oa i *6
E
q

t(!

I
q

!O

E'
N

O!

E,
o

E'
o

I
N

O
e

O
@

@
F

N
F

N
ci

O
F

N
@

O
dt

O
di

O
-

@
6

I
o

O
ni

F
co

N
;

N
qt

N
qt

O
6

O
d,

<

ts

ia

ai

ir

ot

F@
o
6

O
;

@
6

$
O

O
nt

F
6

t
cir

O
-

O
6

@
F

N
;

N
ct

O
F

N
dt

O
6

d
J o i u i aa i o i $\ s i ru t c t o i + Qo i d F i o i + n i d c i o , i + s i + c i o i c i o i u t c i s i + o i d s i s i +
o -i + a6 i oFi a i o i d r Fi o i + s i u t c i A i +

O
dt

EaEaseBqsE&BEsenBqssRBqssRBqsBRBEesnBqBseBEsERBqBse

Js,i:6crdsiPdcicisi9siciddPutctctc,jPdsidc,i9utsidoiPdaiddPdaidc,iPdaiGic,iPdci<t
qo

ro g

o o s 9 9
or !
$ n s I
r {
o o o r
= s o N s n s
o
I
s s s I
N r
a s
q
q q q
q q q o Io oo 9o 9o so oo N
q c <i Iq Ic sQ q
o o o 6 6 6 6 d 6 d a5 d 6 o a5 q
ci ci q c e e q e ci q
H
d o co o o o e
o o d d o o c, d d ct o ct d ci o ct o o ct o ct d o ct ct o ci e
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
F

E
8o8o 8
8<8r d3d8d d3 8 8 3 8 3 8 3
q c8
i c8i d8o 8
o o8o3
c t8
c ito8d 3
c t rc 8
t drc8
i o8
c t3c 8
t d3
c i8
c i3
c i3
c i3
c t8o 8
c t8
c t3
o c8i o
o o8o 8
d d3o 8
o d3c 3
i c3
i d8
oo

g4qq4qqHEqqqqeEEaqEEEEqEEEEqEEdEqEEEEqdEeEqEqe
doooooooctcicioddctctdctdcitctoctctoctctctdoctctctctctctctctcicioooooooooo

Eqq4sqqqdeEEEfi EqqqEqEbqt?fr E4sEq44EeEaEfiqqE4tqq4{6e

.

A F

F F

F N

F N

N F

F N

N F

F ( | F

T N

F N -

N F

E R q e q q f fE q q E R q q q E E e q q q & q E E a f q q q q & q e q E R q E E q E q e q q E E q q q
F l ;

s i ; *

6 i

- ;

- - N

? r

F - F

F N

N F

F F

N F

F - e

{ F

N r

9 l qoto <rQp eNh *a o o@ oNt s6g o o o t s o o @ o F o o @ o F o o @ o F o o a a F a o q e r o o @ o F g o @ a

t- t o c| 6 t- a O N n F i 6 N 6 F < 6 i! ut F' if 6 N o F ii 6 ar aO F a O N b t- * O N D N + O
E
li ; oi - ; oi ; ci ; - ci - oi - - oi * oi - ; ai - d ;
oi * 6i ; - oi - 6i ; - c,i - 6i - - oi - oi * * oi * c\i ; * oi
"j
.i q0 t\ ro \t 9 E| ro rfr ro o)@ N ro t o o ro ro () crr @ or (o st ^. co N ll) r+ o qt u) u) ro o) oo o)(o $ ^. @ t ro if o@ u) ro roo)
\.:
F
F
F
q'I
F
F
F
Iii
F
e
F
F
F
-.:
F
F
FOIO
F
-O
O
- d dO c i d d d d c i Nd c Qi c i c i d d d c i c i Oc i c i o o dr d dAoI dC cI ; Fd d Fd c ' t o Fo e Oi o cr t cFi d Fd o c i dO d oF c i- o cr i c t c i Oc i
gooooooooooooooooooo@oooo6oooo6oooooooooooooooooooo
g - N N N N F N N N N F N N 6l N F 6r N N N = 61 6r N oi ; N N d oi F N 6| 6r N F 61 6r N N i
4cicicictctdciciddcidciddoooooctctdcidcidooctdctctocioioooodctooooooo
!- l' Q
c t aQ
i F iQc i Q
c i cQi c Q
t F iOc t O
c i JO- - O
* - Jn; ; O
; ; o6i o 6i c ,Oi o 6
i c ,O
i c iOc i O
c i cO, i cO, i O
c \ i( o) i O
6 i cO, i O
c ,Oi c nO
n i cOnOo i sOi o O
i c \Oi o O
i o iOo i O
o i oOi s0i 6 iOoO
i

gE8888888883EEEEEEEEEXXNilXFSXFXNFFf,

(\| N N N F N N N N

O O O O O O O O O O

FbbbbbbbbbbbSbhb

qoooooctcioctctctdtcictctctdcioodddodctddcio<tooctoooctooctdooodcicto

dEEEEEEEEqEEeEqEEqeeEeeeeeCeegCeeeeC$$$$$&&
FFOO()OOOOOOO

s' 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 p R R p R p R p p R t $ $ $ g g g g g H B g H H H g g g g g

3 3 3 S 3 3 S 3 3 S S 3 3 3 3 S S S S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .; o d o d o ci o d o o o d ct o o d ci o c'

..3?(of"("(irooooa?ooeoooooooooooooooooo(oqraocr('g)crctooooosrgrgrqtq9

f i Q Q q q q f rf rf rN f E h E E E 8 8 f r8 f i E E E E 6 G E h E E & S S & E E E E q D D E E fErf rf rf r

o

@ @ .o .o

ct

et

(o @ @ @ (o o

ct

ct

ci

ct

ct

ct

ct

ci

@ @ (o (o @ @ @ @ .0 (o (o (o

ci

ct

ci

ct

@ @ @ @ @ (o C' @ (o C' .o

@ @ @ (o @ @ @ .o

@ @ @ @ (o @ 6

ct

ct

@ @

E $ $ s s s s s $ s $ s s $ s s s s s S S r* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S $ s $ s $ s s s s
o o o o ci c, ct d o o ct d
ci o d
o

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

ct

l!===rEiErf-F

SEEqEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Eoooooooctdctctddctctctdddooctctctoctctctctctctctctdoctooctctooctoctctoocto

gHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
ct ct d d
(? a a

o o

g? (? a

g qa q q E E { { { f i

o o

ct ct o

ci d

s, o, s, ('

s, ('

ct o
o o

ct ct d
o o o

o o
o o

o o o
o o o

o o o
o o

o o

o o
o

o o

o o
o

ct ct o
o

o o

d d
o

o o

o ci d

o (o g) g) o g, o

NEEEEE{EENNEESEEPP9PESSNilEEEEEEPqEEEd{fi
ctctctdooctctdctctctdctddooctoctctooooodooooctctoctctdctoooooctctctood

ct ci o d
o o

q, o

{fi

EBBgBBHHB BBHDgBBHHHHHHHFBFBHHBBhEEHHHBBHgHBBH
ooooooctctoioctctctdcictctooddcicioooodctctctctctctdctcictooooodoctooo

s8q888388338f;
888EEEEE$qq$$88fi
888EEEEe$eqqf;
888f;3E3eE
ooooctcictctoo<tctdctciciciooodctctctooddoo<rciddodctoctooooddooocto

gggggsssgsssgeggggESEEtsSsEEEEEEE
EE
iEssEESSsEEbEEgg
:t

fi

frl

ts

ts

@ o

@ @ @ @ @ @ o

ts

@ !o @ @ (o.o

ts

ts

ts F

ts ts

ts N

ts ts

** ooos-eo

gfraHs gRrFE$FsHEhstsHNstEEeEf

gi{Es$gEq$e$q$E$gE*q
sqqnEqsilqq'l$BEgg$fi
ENngIg$q
o N - - aj ; ci i e ut ; ai e ct d ct ; -$qsqfi
oi r ; cj ; 6i ; d si $ i o - at oi + ci
E
u
$SngspHSqgp$$

S
s e eI s.i e- E ES E E
e e E E E os B
s B s E Na sci a.j E E E gE q ds E nte E de B
s B B s s R s s E E E Eda E
d ci - ct o o o oi d g
o - 3 *
d d
I + d
"t

q tI

EFF

(o

q c
F-

(o

R E

@@

q q

q oc og \

oo

P I

q q q

R I

@@

q q

@@

q q q

oo

oq q q

FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFF

S b P

oae

q q q

N
N
Ni
r
I
N
N
I
@ @
q u? u? u? ql u? a? q? q? a? q q
I

FrFF

qEE

H
g g q ? i r s s N l s E p B * E s E E s q b E E N sg ; s :- 3Fi=oiBoi$ci6 os E
ssRs$ssBhdfl
jl cy t {l I tr - oi ai ni cj ct ci - ci - o o o o o
J o o ; ci d d d d d d

o o

o t

'-

o
F

I
I

F.
O

tn
O

ts
t

oo
F
O

o
N

N
N

o
O

s
F

o
N

o
O

o
N

F
O

ff

ci

cj

ct

ct

cj

ct

ct

cj

GI
g) N
J

or

@ o

N F

@ @ @ o

i l N

o
N

N
+

o
O

v
t

o
O

o
F

s
S

N
o
OO

ts
t

o
F

oo
O
N

N
N

o
O

*
F

o6o
NN
N

o
N

ts
*

o
O

v
*

o
O

o
F

s
q

ci

ct

ct

ct

ci

ci

ct

@ @ F

ts

@ o

@ o

r N

@ aD o

jlooddcjctcioooddctctcidooodcictdcicjciddooooooooooodciciocjcjoctddct

F
OF

N O

F N

T T T $ f

SessBBgEbbBsBEEBBtSbBbgBbpBbBtsEbbBBBEEBBEBBBbBEbeB
Actctdctdcictooctcjcjctdctoodciddcicicidcidodooooctoooooooocicjcjcictctctci
FoOO

=OOTOFDtNtF@oNFO$Oo@NoNFooOFOrO*Ntts@OoF@*Oo@N@ts
?vFFNNDoFSe@ONO@NNrt@O@FS$NtsNNDONtO@OOO@NtsFt@OOFt

$ts

-siutaicito,idaiai+oidrci+oi@+ci+cidciaioiuictci+oidaiai+oidciai+Aio+ci<cicicicioid
go,rqOO@NNoNOO@tOOooo@oo@qOFsOO@NNONOOOsOOOOo@oO@

EO

q-o?a?ulqqaq\-q?\oqoqc?q?-qqqqao?.q-o?a?u?oqol9q\ra?\ogoqa?a?-qqIq1o?-q-q

-NS9NONOON

$NAIDNtN@{O9OONON*ONONnON$NOON*NOIOtOONONS

EaEcBRBqssKBEcenBessRsRERBqssRBqBERBQeenBqBsKBREsBE

J6iPdFict6iPdaidoi9strrcioiPutci@dctcidc,i:dcidci9drirtt6i9dsictc,i9dcictd@cidr,i9
!tq,q, I !E lo(!)o I t + oN
t o$
oN
r r r o o o o0
0 * { b o
HooooOOoooooOoo6oe'6o6oo666oooooooooooOoOoOooOOOOOOO
d o o ct d d d ci o o o d o ct o o d d o ci o o o o o o o o ci d o

ot

N to

o d

ct o

o o o

o o

6t

o ot 4o )oo O
! +o o0o o{6 6a6 6o6 6t o 6o6 6o o 66 o or c tooNo o o+o oo o* o o o
Eq o to o!O ot o
o o oo O@
o + o
O oo O rO O! O oO on o *
qocicidcictoddctctoctctctoocioooooooooooocictoctcto<toooooooooctcidd

qo

oN

o o o

o o

@o

o d ci d d

E
Edq ci q
EqEdqEEEEqEEEqqqqEqE44SEEAESEEEgqEq44dddq
d oE oE oEct
ct o o o ci o o o o d d d ci o o o o o o o o o o ct ci ct o o ci o o o o o o d ci d ct d ct d o

@ o

d d

@o

oo

$ oN

:dAts!oNO@@tNO@$@F@O@?Ftso6oN@NONOOOtNOt*F@@O*Ftso6ON@N

H qF? 9N o lF \ r Tq ?N\ oFq \Nr aF? qT q oN l qT r aN ? \F o eF Ne c cFqN q ? qF e Fc q \ r a

? \ q F\ - a ? q q q ' F: Fa ? \ q qf c o l q o qF q o ? q
F

N F F

E 9 Na 0 q0 9 N0 0AQ o o o o o o o o o o o o o @ o @ o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o @ o @ o Q

_E

oi

N F

N -

N F

N -

d'

Ot

rl.'

ra

6r

rD

dl

oi

oi

6i

6i -

si

6i ;

N T N

oi

J,j

F N

ts

6i

qJ

I r.' o o @ o ts
o F o o @ o ts o o @ o @ o @ o N o o @ o ts o o @ o N e o @ o F o o @ o o e @ o F a)
q q \ rq q q u2 o\ @
F
a q q q \ a q ot q \ q q \ q = q ot u? \ i q o{ q? \ a q q c? \ a q q c? \ a c \ c a c q q
Ff
q
J
;
F
;
F
F
F
ni
si
si
;
;
F
F
F
r
r
r
F
N
N
N
N
oi

si

6i

si

si

d @ o @ t f ^ r @ -t :-Ol Fo \ t ^ . @ r o c- o
too)@totolr)o@@|ot-@or@rl^.@t-roslo@1r)|oroo)@rat()u)o(o@toF-@ct)
: O
F
o F
-i i di d
c i c i- o dF o d o o o d d
c Fi c i c r c i c i c i c i c t cOj c jr d c- - iOcr i c i c Fi Fo o oFoF Oc t o o cF Ft Fc i c t d "c: Oi c i cF Fj d
c t d cO iI cO i c i c i c i

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o q a o o a @ g o o
E o I g 9 r.l
q q ol q
ql ql ol q
c\ q q q
q
q
q
q q
fl
q o o= o o o o o o o c t cr i c t c i c i o o c t ro o o c t o c t c i o Io onc i o.! c i*c t ol
d d dt
c t c t c6tt o q':
c t c t d6lo o d cc{t c t o -o o c i d
gqq

dqqqc

qc

qqq

gqqqqce9qc

o
q

n e
q r

o e
ol q

F F

O F

C \ F

F F

o F

g b o o o o @ o ra, 9 ro o e
.! sl F N N N N N N N N F N
qqqc

gq9qqccqqcqqqqqqegqqqqcq

NSNNNNNNNNNNNNqNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

FNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNoTNNNi-rrrBrrrirrr
,g\\\\\\\r:\tsFNr\NNtstsNii*irtddadirtirtirtadAtidadartntOirtad6('6ct('qqqc:\\\\\\
q
o o o ct ct ci d o o o o ci d ci t o o o ct ct ct d ct ct o ct o o o o o o o ct o ct d

ct

o ;

ct

la33333333333333333333s333s$SBSSSSssSS$$3SSSdS333333
-

FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooaTFFFFF

-,j

o o

o <i d

d ct o ct o

<t ci o

o o

o d ct ct ct ct o o

cq 8q 8ol8 8q 8ol8q8 8
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888f
q ol q a{ q q ol ol q ol sl cy ol ol N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

ol

(D g) g,

ol

ooooctdcictoooooctooctctdddctctctoctcitodciddctctct<tctooooodooddcto
.-

!D !D (? (9 o

g)

Eq
q E E E q A h D A f r E f i R f rq q q e e q q q q q q q q 9 q E q q h t E q b f r
o o o o ct d d ci o ct ct d o o o o ct ct ct ct d d d <t o o ci o o o o o c, ct c, ci o ci
=
EESTEEEEEE9888E99999P99999P9999P99999998RRPR8
! Es TsE sT E
s s v { Q I t $ t t 3 I s t t ? * @ 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @.o @ @ @ o @ @
o o

o o

o ct ct o

o o

ct ci ci ci o

ct o d

ct o

ct o o

o o

o d

ct o

o o

o ci o

o o

(D (? a

q) q) !!

E
a

!?

Eqqqq
fo i fd rfo i df rE
o o d ct o o

@ @ @ @ @ @ n 6 n a o u2
o o o o ct d o ct o o ci o

.g---

gqqqqqEqEqqEqeEqEqqqqqeqqqqEqqqEqqqqqEqqEEEEqqqEqqE

&

o ct ct d

ci d d

ct d

o o

ct d

ct d d

o o o

o o ct 6 ct ct ct o

o o

o o

o o o

ct d o

o o

o ci ci o o

gHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHfr
fr&fr$&$$fi$$fr$fr$fr$$&fiHfi$fr$$$fr$$
o o

o o

o ct ct d o

ct o

o ct ci o ct d d ci a o

o o o

o a o

o o

o o

ct c, ct o

o o

o o o

d d o

o o o

-qqqqEEBEssEgEqqfi
Efrfi$$$$$iIiiEq
f;fi$fiEqqEsssssEpsEE$fi
I

? ?

o o

d ci o o

o o

o o

o o o

cj o

ct ct ci o

o d

o o

ct d o

ci o

o o

d 9 9

N N F F I". N ts F N N N N ts ts ts ts N N N ts ts ts N ts N ts ts ts ts ts }. I\ F F ts N ts N h F N F F I!
- ts ts F'\
.goororj)ooo66ho66iDitoinoiDoioaoioaoaoaoao@ao.o.o@@@@Q@(o@@(O@(o|oA|otOqq
E t { { t + t a i a q q a a a q a g g q g q q q q q a? c a? a? o? d? c? a? a? a? c? q e e a? q q q a? 9 a 9 a
o o o o ct d d ci ci ct o ci o ct o ct o ci o d ct d ct ct ct ct ci o o o o o o ct ct o o o o o o o ct d o o o o

"
\ I:
rq a
o o

!VVYqVEilfi
fiEESESSEEEEEEEEEqqqqqf;
8f;f;SSEEEEEREEEEEE
.ooooooooo(
ct ct

ct

ct

ct

ci

ci

ct

ct

ct

o a

.l

irt*rs&NRsg6sssBsBEEet$srsetseB6SEsEEDEES6sESSEbqEE
= F ? F

ll o o

fi

o o

o o o

o o

-o

6 o o

@ .o @ o @ @ o

o o
o

o o

oo

o o

o @ o

o o

oo

o o

o o

o dr or o o

o o) or o o

o oo

o o

o oo

o o

o o ot o

F F r i r i = = = = =

o oo

o o

o o

o o

o o, o P 9

d---aNNoF^.@N@a@N@
d3=N=OOON):@FooFNo
d@xqr:!a|',oH*oooo9o

qNqREE889qg5C$$99
-

E
E

oi -

at ai r

o N ai ri d

SeqqeE8sqqB8s8B
d:998ob={o:6ddoiut<t

s- e- s -E dE E
ERpRRssBBB
ci cj ct ci cj ct ct d ci ci

ci c;

E
q E q h- E6iN6iFais to scjE cj* s- Ed Eo Ecjs
il

d
ClFoFooFotooFFFFF6

d a? a? a : q q a? - ol 6l a? ioooooooooooooooo
5-a-@oF@tsN@s@atsoo
ol - q - ol - q - df,oooooooooooooooo

al':

ct

ot ot nt

S
qeE?bEEeEEEedEEE
aoooooooooooooooo
EFOFoNiNOoo@$@o@N
r+NNNnN9O@OoONN-t@

ai ci + 6i qi ci + s| d

ii*O-gOONNONO@sOOo

q e? q q ol q
- o N o N o \N -t

a? \
N o

ai + si d

+ ci {

q a? a?.: q c
o I N.@ * o

9ooooo<oooRooo9ooo
llooNoooNoYoNOYOON
J d ci @ si d ct d oi 9 d <t oi 9

d ci c;

E
sssBBEESgBBBgBBS
C ci ci ci ct d ci ci o o o d
o

q
{

o d d

ci

.eoootrooso$s0N$o{
E
q dOdOdOd O
c iOd O
o oOoOdOc O
i oOo O
o dOdO O O

9*(0ttto9sNt*sN$@{

qqqqqqeqqcqcq9cqq
qoooooooooooooooo

EEtefrEflqqqdflqE4qE
.

FFNFFFNFNFNFNFFN

q? ol q q s? o? ol q q o? c\ a e
a q

E9AAOQQOOOOOOOOOO

.5 \

F N F F F N F F F

9oooFoootsoootsaooo
\aqotq\qqq\aq
.F H
\9Col
F F N F F F N F N F N F N f F N
= (o ti ^, @ u, r+ o @ |J) ro o @ lo ro ro o
oFFFC\l
C\l
-f : r ; : q r r e
o o
ci ct o ct ct d ct d ci ct ci d c;

g
Rfi{?Ef{EER{ERRf{
qoooooooooooooooo
d qNqNgN gN NqNqNqN qN N9 NeNcNqN qN Ng q q
q---

sq o\o\o\o\ o\ o\ o\ o\ \o \o \o \o\o\o\o\o
_svssssssssss==gl
lil@@o@@o@@@@@@@@@@
----------,j---J-

9 8q8 q8 8q 8q8 8q 8q8 8

888888
q
q q q q ol ol q
oooooooooooooooo

ol cY ol

--aaC?oq)(?(9ooooooooo

E33399995bbbReRRR
oooooooctddct<tdctdd
@@@o@@@@@@@@@@@@

Eq
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
oooooooooooooooo
lg--doooooooooooooooo
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ (b {o <b
aI o
e o ct ct o ct ct ct ci ct ct ct d d ct ct c,

q$$$$$S$$$SS$$SS$
ENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

o o

o o

o o ct o d

ci c, o

ci d ct o

.EEEggggEEEESRR*R
999ddocictooctdoooo
s F@N ot so tosoNoFo N
g- o. tosot @
bN
o ot sh t6s N N N N
EsTSSV99ttVSqqSr=
ooooociooodctododo

g$$$fi8fifi388;FFFPP
ct ct ct d

ct o

d d

9rcOt@NoOo)OFogo@Fo
-FFFFFNNN@6O@@@OO
! F F F

'|oooooooooooooooo

doooooooooooooooo

q ? ? ?

ci ct o

d o

ct ct