Journal of Coastal Research 27 6 1103–1112 West Palm Beach, Florida November 2011

Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Curved-Front Seawall

Models Compared with Vertical Seawall under
Regular Waves
Karur Vaideeswaran Anand, Vallam Sundar, and Sannasi Annamalaisamy Sannasiraj www.cerf-jcr.org

Department of Ocean Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Chennai 600 036, India
kvanand_karur@yahoo.co.in
vsundar@iitm.ac.in
sasraj@iitm.ac.in

ABSTRACT
ANAND, K.V.; SUNDAR, V., and SANNASIRAJ, S.A., 2011. Hydrodynamic characteristics of curved front seawall
models compared with vertical seawall under regular waves. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(6), 1103–1112. West Palm
Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

Seawalls remain one of the most widely adopted coastal-protection measure. The seawalls should be stable to ensure
safety and optimally use the coastal space with a minimum or no waves overtopping but still keeping the crest elevation
low. This may possibly be achieved by reshaping the front of the structure in such a way that it offers maximum
resistance to the flow or enhances the dissipation of incident wave energy. With this as the background, an experimental
www.JCRonline.org
study measuring run-up and overtopping of three different types of curved-front face seawall models, as well as the
dynamic pressures exerted on each of them, was carried out. The measured parameters for the three types of seawalls are
compared with that for a vertical seawall. All the tests were carried out with the models rigidly fixed over a bed slope of 1
in 30 in a wave flume and subjected to the action of regular waves. The details of the test facility, models, experimental
program, results, and analysis are presented and discussed in this article.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Seawalls, waves, reflection, dynamic pressures, run-up, overtopping, curved seawalls.

INTRODUCTION of its seaside is almost twice as much, questioning the seawall’s

Coastal erosion accompanied by a rise in sea level is a major
problem, particularly for those coasts that are densely
populated, resulting in loss of life and property from natural
coastal hazards, like storm surges and tsunamis. Natural
coastal hazards are occasional and extreme events that need to
be considered in planning mitigation measures. Another
concern is that the anticipated, gradual rise in sea level is
expected to pose a challenge on a regular basis in the future.
The protective measures to control such problems are usually
providing either hard protective measures, like seawalls or
groin fields, or soft protective measures, like plantations or
beach nourishment. Seawalls are the most common coastal-
protection structure built parallel to the beach to protect a
shoreline from erosion. The energy dissipation over a seawall is
mostly due to the loss of kinetic energy in the waves running
over the front slope of the structure and is partially due to
reflection. Although the run-up is less, thereby requiring lower
crest elevation, the vertical front-face seawall experiences high
reflection, almost close to unity, resulting in more force and
scour near its toe. Further, reflection, in general, is not
preferred because the wave climate in its immediate vicinity
DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00169.1 received 11 December
2009; accepted in revision 19 February 2010.
’ Coastal Education & Research Foundation 2011
stability. During the ingress of storms and extreme waves, the
crest elevation has to, necessarily, be higher than the waves to
avoid overtopping. To dissipate the incident wave energy
gradually through shoaling, sloping walls were introduced.
Although more stable, (Kirkgoz, 1991; Müller and Whittaker,
1993) reported that the impact pressures and the resulting
forces on sloping walls are greater than they are on vertical
walls. Granthem (1953) reported that, for a given incident wave
height, the maximum run-up occurred for a slope angle of 30u
and that if there was any variation from that slope in either
direction, the wave run-up would decrease. Sloping walls are
not desirable because they experience high pressures and run-
up and thus require higher crest elevation, and further, sloping
walls occupy more space than vertical seawalls. Hence, it is
evident that a coastal-protection measure should be effective
with an optimal use of coastal space, with few or no wave
overtopping a lower crest elevation. Such a sea wall can also
enhance the scenic beauty of the oceanic view. This objective
may be achievable by addressing the frontal shape of the
structure, which was the main objective of the present study.
A curved-front seawall was considered as one of the options
for meeting the stated requirements. The smooth curvature of
the curved-front sea wall is expected to guide the wave over its
curvature and allow it to return back to the sea. In this process,
a significant amount of energy gets dissipated. Weber (1934)
provided a conceptual design for a curved seawall with a
1104
Figure 1. The geometry of the curved-front seawalls.
combination of a parabolic and a circular arc that brings a
smooth change in the direction of wave propagation from
horizontal to vertical and vise versa to reduce the wave-induced
pressures. Murakami, Irie, and Kamikubo (1996) proposed a
new type of circular arc, nonovertoping seawall and measured
the pressures and forces on it from regular waves. It was
concluded that the critical crest elevation was much lower than
required for a vertical seawall. The maximum pressures
occurred near the still-water surface, changing with the
relative water depth (water depth/deep-water wave height)
and inducing large, vertical force. Kamikubo et al. (2000)
investigated the characteristics of a curved seawall, and the
fluid flow near the seawall was reproduced through numerical
simulation using the finite-volume method. The results
obtained were similar to that of Murakami, Irie, and Kamikubo
(1996). A similar study was reported by Kamikubo et al.
(2003), who also investigated the spray when the waves strike
the wall. Murakami, Kamikubo, and Kataoka (2008) reported
on the efficiency of a curved seawall under increased water
levels from global warming. A literature review reveals that the
concept of using curved-front seawalls with different curva-
tures, instead of vertically faced seawall, to reduce the
overtopping, has been adopted at several locations; however,
the literature on curved-front seawalls is scanty; hence, the
present study was initiated.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Model Details
The present study is an experimental investigation measur-
ing the run-up and dynamic pressures induced by regular
waves on different configurations of curved seawalls and on a
vertical-seawall model. The tests were conducted in a 72.5-m-
long and 2-m-wide wave flume at the Department of Ocean
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras (Chennai,
India) by adopting a model scale of 1:5.
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011
Anand et al.
Figure 2. Models VW, GS, FSS, and CPS along with the locations of the
pressure ports.
The models used in study are the vertical wall (model VW)
and the seaside front face of a curved-front seawall (model GS),
which was a combination of two radii of curvature, as suggested
in the Coastal Engineering Manual (USACE, 2006) by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, which was adopted for use at
Galveston, Texas, during 1905. The model is a modified version
of the model proposed by Kamikub et al. (2000). The cross-
section of the seawall model proposed by Kamikub et al. (2000)
was formed with the deepest point from its base and from the
vertical joining of its toe and the crest of the wall are around
40% and 50% of its height, respectively. The pressure
experienced by such a wall is reported as three to four times
greater than that experienced by a vertical wall. Hence, for the
present study, a modified section with the deepest point from
the vertical joining its toe and the crest of the wall as 40% of its
height was considered. The curved-front seawall was thus
formed by adopting nine varying radii increasing from the
bottom toward the top (referred to as model FSS). The other
model (model CPS) considered is a curved-front seawall from
the concepts of Weber (1934), which consists of a parabolic
curve at the bottom with a quarter circle at the recurved
portion, which was connected smoothly at the intersection. The
geometries of all the curved front seawall models considered
under the present study are projected in Figure 1.
Experimental Set-Up and Conditions
All four models were fabricated with fiber-reinforced plastic
(FRP), and the bed slope was constructed using steel frames
and marine plywood. Arrangements were made to test two
models simultaneously, by placing a rigid partition wall along
the length of the flume over the adopted bed slope of 1:30, and
the seawall sections were rigidly fixed over a supporting steel
frame at the rear end of the slope mentioned above. The toe of
the model was placed at a distance of 40 m from the wave
maker. The pressure transducers were rigidly fixed to the
models along its depth, such that the depth of submergence of
the pressure port, z/d (z is depth below or above still water, and
d is the water depth), is the same. The models (VW, GS, FSS,
and CPS) along with the locations of the pressure ports are
presented in Figure 2. The wave gauges are placed at
appropriate positions to capture the time history of the
composite water-surface elevation. Similar to the principle of
the wave gauge, the run-up probe was fabricated to measure
the run-up on the seawalls. The run-up probe consists of two
parallel, stainless steel wires of 1 mm in diameter, spaced
10 mm apart, which are fixed along the surface of the seawalls.
 Curved-Front vs. Vertical Seawalls under Regular Wave 1105

Figure 3. The plan and sectional view of the models positioned in the wave flume.

Figure 4. (a) Wave pressure distribution for H/d 5 0.304 for various d/L. (b) Wave pressure distribution for H/d 5 0.391 for various d/L.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011

1106 Anand et al.

Figure 5. p* distribution of model GS for various d/L ratios at (a) z/d 5 0, (b) z/d 5 20.26, (c) z/d 5 20.52, and (d) z/d 5 20.78.

When immersed in water, the electrodes measure the conduc-
tivity of the instantaneous volume of water between them. The
conductivity change is linearly proportional to the variation in
the water-surface elevation for a vertical seawall and non-
linearly proportional for a curved-front seawall because the
length of the surface does not vary linearly with the depth of the
water. For this, a polynomial equation is fitted to the
calibration curve of each curved seawall. The plan and sectional
view of the models positioned in the wave flume are shown in
Figure 3. The seawall sections were exposed to the action of
regular waves with periods between 1 and 3 seconds, at an
interval of 0.4 seconds, and each period was associated with
wave heights of 0.05 m to 0.26 m at intervals of 0.04 m. Two
water depths of 0.8 m and 1.0 m near the wave maker, which
correspond to the 0.34 m and 0.46 m at the toe of the model,
were employed for the tests.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Dynamic Pressures
Typical variations of the dimensionless, shoreward peak
pressures, psh/cH (where psh is the shoreward peak pressure, c
is the specific weight of water, and H is the wave height), along
the relative depth of the wall (z/d, where z is the point of
measurement of the pressures along the surface, defined as
negative below the still-water [SW] level) for the d/L (depth to
length) ratio from 0.075 to 0.307 for H/d 5 0.304 and 0.391, are
projected in Figures 4a and b,, respectively. The results which
exhibit a pressure decay along the depth closer to the bed for z/
d , 20.25, are observed to be greater for models GS and CPS
than for models VW and FSS. This is due to the nature of the
curvature of models GS and CPS, being more flat near the

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011

 Curved-Front vs. Vertical Seawalls under Regular Wave 1107

Figure 6. p* distribution of model FSS for various d/L ratios at (a) z/d 5 0, (b) z/d 5 20.26, (c) z/d 5 20.52, and (d) z/d 5 20.78.

bottom, so the bottom port of the seawall nearly acts as a
horizontal bottom, where the exerted, dynamic pressure is less.
Hence, it experiences less pressure. Among models GS and
CPS, the CPS model was found to experience more pressure
than the GS model near the still-water level, whereas the VW
and FSS models experienced relatively less pressure for most of
the d/L ratios considered.
The next exercise was to compare the intensity of the pressures
on the differently shaped walls with that exerted on a vertical
wall. This was done by obtaining the percentage of difference in
pressures between the vertical seawall and the other three
models (GS, FSS, and CPS) for a particular z/d, H/d, and d/L as
½psh on model ðGS, FSS, or CPSÞ{½psh on modelðVWÞ
p ~
psh on modelðVWÞ
|100
The variation of p* for model GS as a function of d/L for
constant values of H/d at z/d 5 0.0, 20.26, 20.52, and 20.78 are
shown in Figures 5a–d, respectively. The pressure on model GS
was found to be higher than that on model VW near the free
surface. For locations closer to the bed (absolute value of z/d .
0.25), a reverse trend was seen, that is, the pressure on model
VW was higher than that on model GS. This is due to the nature
of the curvature of model GS, which was more flat at the said
locations. At z/d 5 0, the maximum percentage increase in the
pressures on model GS, compared with model VW, occurs at the
lower d/L for all the H/d ratios to a maximum extent of about
32%.
The variation of p* for model FSS as a function of d/L for the
constant values of H/d at z/d 5 0.0, 20.26, 20.52, and 20.78
are shown in Figures 6a–d, respectively. The pressure on
model FSS was found to be higher than on model VW for all the
ð1Þ relative pressure-port locations of z/d considered, except at the
free surface. At z/d 5 0, the maximum increase in p* for model
FSS, compared with model VW at lower d/L of 0.075 for an H/
d ratio of 0.304, was observed to be about 40%. As also stated by

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011

1108
Figure 7. p* distribution of model CPS for various d/L ratios at (a) z/d 5 0, (b) z/d 5 20.26, (c) z/d 5 20.52, and (d) z/d 5 20.78.
Kamikub et al. (2000), the continuous change of the radius of
curvature results in a smooth, fluid motion along the curved
face of the seawall, which experiences pressure variations
similar to that experienced by an upright seawall. However,
the magnitude of the pressure on model FSS was found to be
slightly higher. This is due to the surface profile of the seawall,
which directs the flow toward sea, in that process water thrust
exerted upon the surface of seawall is more.
The variation of p* for model CPS as a function of d/L for
constant values of H/d at z/d 5 0.0, 20.26, 20.52, and 20.78
are shown in Figures 7a–d, respectively. The trend in the
pressure variation on model CPS was found to be almost
similar to that on model GS. At locations below z/d 5 20.26,
the pressure on model CPS was found to be less than those on
model VW, and at z/d . 20.26, the pressure was found to be
higher for model CPS. This is again due to the effect of the
curvature of model CPS, similar to that noticed for model GS,
because it is flatter at that location, and hence the exerted
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011
Anand et al.
dynamic pressure is less. At z/d 5 0, the maximum increase in
p* for model CPS, compared with model VW at the lower d/L of
0.105 for an H/d of 0.217, was observed to be about 43%.
Run-Up and Overtopping Analysis
The variations of the relative run-up (Ru/H) as a function of
d/L for models VW and GS with their toes in a water depth of
0.46 m are plotted in Figure 8a for the H/d values. The Ru/H,
in general, was found to decrease with an increase in d/L. A
comparison of the results for models VW and GS shows that the
run-up was found to be higher for the curved-seawall model GS.
The variations of the relative run-up (Ru/H) as a function of
d/L for models VW and GS, with their toes at the slightly less
water depth of 0.34 m, are plotted in Figure 8b for the various
H/d values. The results show that model GS experienced a
higher run-up with a decrease in the water depth. This is due to
the shoaling of waves as they progress over the toe of the model
 Curved-Front vs. Vertical Seawalls under Regular Wave 1109

Figure 8. The variation of run-up (Ru/H) with d/L for various H/d ratios in the water depth of (a) 1.0 m and (b) 0.88 m.

and become steeper. Thus, the curvature of model GS
facilitates having more energy available for the wave run-up.
Further, as the shoreward surface tends to become vertical, the
pressure exerted on the wall is also higher. A closer
examination of the results shows that model GS experiences
a run-up about 30% higher than that experienced by model VW.
When the waves propagate over a curvature of the seawall,
all or part of its surface becomes wet, so the run-up is not
significant for the recurved seawall models FSS and CPS. The
curvature of the seawall guides the wave toward the sea and,
hence, overtopping is avoided. Models FSS and CPS remained
without overtopping for the tested wave conditions, whereas
the other two models experienced more overtopping for the
wave conditions provided in Table 1.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011

1110 Anand et al.

Table 1. Relative wave height and water depth at which overtopping

occurs for models VW and GS.

d/L H/d Overtopping in Models

0.06371 0.52941 GS
0.64706 VW and GS
0.07415 0.64706 GS
0.76471 VW and GS
0.07478 0.47826 GS
0.08734 0.56522 VW and GS

Reflection Characteristics
The reflection coefficient Kr was obtained from the analysis of
composite wave elevations from the three wave gauges using
the method of Mansard and Funke (1980). The variation of Kr
as a function of relative water depth, d/L, for an H/d ratio of
0.304 for all four seawall models over a bed slope of 1:30 is
shown in Figure 9. The Kr decreases with an increase in d/L
because the longer waves possess high energy. The maximum
Kr for all other curved seawall models was found to be less than
that for the vertical wall VW along with the adopted bed slope,
which was found to be about 0.74. Because most of the energy in
models GS and CPS is spent in wave run-up, the reflection
coefficient for these models is less than found for the other two
Figure 9. Variation of Kr with the d/L for a H/d ratio of 0.304 for all the
models. Among the two re-entrant, curved walls (models FSS
seawall configurations considered.
and CPS), the FSS model has its curvature starting at an
elevation much closer to the sloping bed, so more energy is
expected to reflect back than found with the CPS type of wall,
as seen in the results presented in Figure 9.
reasonable agreement. The correlation coefficients for the
Regression Analysis above four expressions varies between 0.75 and 0.8.

The experimental measurements of dynamic pressures and Regression Equations for Run-Up
run-up were subjected to multiple regression analyses based on
least squares method. The equations derived for the dependent Model VW
variable p** 5 psh/cH and for Ru/H, as a function of the
Ru d H
associated dimensionless parameters d/L, H/d, and z/d for ~ {2:274 z1:0835 z1:4328 ð6Þ
H L d
the four models, are presented below.
Model GS
Regression Equations for Dynamic Pressures along Ru d H
the Depth ~ {2:5767 z1:5566 z1:5907 ð7Þ
H L d
Model VW Model FSS
psh d H z Ru d H
~ {1:3274 {0:0772 z0:0907 z0:7923 ð2Þ ~ {1:3213 z1:1074 z1:2684 ð8Þ
cH L d d H L d

Model GS Model CPS

psh d H z Ru d H
~ {1:5758 {0:2539 z0:2798 z0:9222 ð3Þ ~ {0:5186 z1:0742 z1:4222 ð9Þ
cH L d d H L d
Comparisons of the measured results with the computed Ru/
Model FSS
H results for the four models, projected in Figure 11, exhibit
psh d H z reasonable agreement. The correlation coefficients for the
~ {1:4437 {0:1156 z0:216 z0:9688 ð4Þ
cH L d d above four expressions was found to vary between 0.7 and 0.8.
The above equations were derived for all the models over a
Model CPS
constant bed slope of 1:30 and for d/L and H/d ratios of 0.064 to
psh d H z
~ {1:5168 {0:207 z0:6359 z1:0755 ð5Þ 0.307 and 0.108 to 0.652, respectively.
cH L d d
Models VW and FSS experience higher pressures than
Comparisons of the measured results with the computed p** models GS and CPS at z/d ratios of less than 20.5, which is
results for the four models, projected in Figure 10, exhibit nearer to their toes, and hence, the velocity in that region is

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011

 Curved-Front vs. Vertical Seawalls under Regular Wave 1111

Figure 10. Regression analysis comparison between experimental and computational values of various psh/cH ratios.

expected to be less. The driving force for inducing scour near
the toe of the structure may, therefore, be less for models VW
and FSS. However, even though the scour is less for model VW,
it experiences overtopping at higher H/d and d/L ratios,
whereas overtopping is absent in model FSS. Therefore, model
FSS is found to be better because of the lesser disturbance near
its toe and the avoidance of overtopping waves. The shape of the
curvature in model GS is inadequate in its ability to direct
waves more toward the ocean by way of dissipation, and that
inability leads to an increase in the run-up, requiring a higher
crest elevation to avoid overtopping.
CONCLUSIONS
This detailed, experimental study analyzed the hydrody-
namic characteristics of four differently shaped sea wall
models. The study included measurements of dynamic pres-
sures, run-up, and reflection for each models. The salient
conclusions drawn from the study include the following:
N pressures
At z/d 5 0, the maximum percentage of increase in the
on models GS, FSS, and CPS, compared with
that on VW, occurred at lower d/L for H/d ranging
between 0.108 and 0.565 and was about 32%, 40%, and
45%, respectively.
N The curvature of model GS was found to be inadequate in
directing the wave run-up toward the ocean, thereby
leading to an increase in the run-up by about 30%,
compared with that for the vertical seawall model.
N The results on the other two models (FSS and CPS) yielded
favorable results in reducing crest elevation because of its
recurved nature. Either model FSS or model CPS could be
used effectively, even in the places where there is consider-
able tidal variation (water-level variations). Of the two,
however, model CPS was less preferred because of its higher
velocities near its toe, which might induce high scour.

Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011

1112
Figure 11. Regression analysis comparison between experimental and computational values of various Ru/H ratios.
LITERATURE CITED
Granthem, K.N., 1953. Wave run-up on sloping structures. Transac-
tions, American Geophysical Union, 34(5), 720–724.
Kamikubo, Y.; Murakami, K.; Irie, I., and Hamasaki, Y., 2000. Study
on practical application of a non-wave overtopping type seawall. In:
Edge, B.L. (ed.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Volume 3 (Sydney, Australia,
ASCE), pp. 2215–2228.
Kamikubo, Y.; Murakami, K.; Irie, I., and Hamasaki, Y., 2002.
Transportation of water spray on non-wave overtopping type
seawall. In: Chung, J.S.; Sayed, M.; Kashiwagi, M; Setoguchi, T.,
and Hong, S.W. (eds.). Proceedings of the Twelfth International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Volume 3 (Kitakyushu,
Japan, ISOPE), pp. 821–826.
Kamikubo, Y.; Murakami, K.; Irie, I.; Kataoka, Y., and Takehana, N.,
2003. Reduction of wave overtopping and water spray with using
flaring shaped seawall. In: Chung, J.S. and Prinsenberg, S. (eds.)
Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Volume 3 (Honolulu, Hawaii, ISOPE), pp.
671–676.
Kirkgoz, S., 1991. Impact pressure of breaking waves on vertical and
sloping walls. Ocean Engineering, 18, 45–99.
Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011
Anand et al.
Mansard, E.P.D. and Funke, E.R., 1980. The measurement of incident
and reflected spectra using a least square method. In: Edge, B.
(ed.). Proceedings of Seventeenth International Conference on
Coastal Engineering (Sydney, Australia, ASCE), pp. 154–172,
159–174.
Müller, G.U. and Whittaker, T.J.T., 1993. An investigation of
breaking wave pressures on inclined wall. Ocean Engineering, 20,
349–358.
Murakami, K.; Irie, I., and Kamikubo, Y., 1996. Experiments on a
non-wave overtopping type seawall. In: Edge, B. (ed.). Proceedings
of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Coastal Engineer-
ing (Orlando, Florida, ASCE), pp. 1840–1851.
Murakami, K.; Kamikubo, Y., and Kataoka, Y., 2008. Hydraulic
performances of non-wave overtopping type seawall against sea level
rise due to global warming. In: Chung, J.S.; Grilli, S.T.; Naito, S., and
Ma, Q. (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighteenth (2008) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Volume 3. (Vancouver,
BC, Canada, ISOPE), pp. 706–712.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2006. Coastal Engineering
Manual. Vicksburg, Mississippi: Coastal and Hydraulics Laborato-
ry, Engineer Research and Development Center Report EM 1110-2-
1100.
Weber, C., 1934. Seawall. U.S. Patent 1,971,324, filed Jul. 18, 1934,
issued Aug. 21, 1934.