NN User Manual

Scope
This short Manual is meant to provide the User of the NN Tool with:

 a synthetic guidance for the use of the NN Tool and its Graphical User Interface available at
www.unibo.it/overtopping-neuralnetwork.
 short description of the Tool and indications about its field of validity;
 description of the New Database collected by the authors and used to train the NN.

The structure of this Manual follows the same section of the web interface.

Authors
Sara Mizar Formentin, Research Fellow, PhD
DICAM - University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
+39 051 2093261
saramizar.formentin2@unibo.it
https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/saramizar.formentin2

Barbara Zanuttigh, Associate Professor, PhD

DICAM - University of Bologna, Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
+39 051 2093754
barbara.zanuttigh@unibo.it
https://www.unibo.it/sitoweb/barbara.zanuttigh

Jentsje W. van der Meer, Professor, PhD

UNESCO IHE, Westvest 7, Delft, 2611 AX, The Netherlands
Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN, Delft, The Netherlands
Principal Van der Meer Consulting bv, P.O. Box 11, Akkrum, 8490 AA, The Netherlands
jm@vandermeerconsulting.nl
http://www.vandermeerconsulting.nl
NN User Manual ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Scope ................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Authors .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Inputs ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
NN domain of validity ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Outputs .................................................................................................................................................... 10
Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
Error file ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Database .......................................................................................................................................................... 14
References ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Definitions
 Input parameters: the 15 dimensionless input parameters of the NN; these are automatically
computed by the NN tool on the basis of the Inputs supplied by the user.
 Inputs: the physical parameters characterizing the hydraulic conditions and the geometry of the
Scenario(s) to be run with the NN.
 Outputs: physical quantities predicted by the NN; they may be: Kr (bulk wave reflection coefficient,
dimensionless); Kt (bulk wave transmission coefficient, dimensionless); q (average specific wave
overtopping discharge, [m/(s·m)]).
 Scenario: structure and relative wave attack conditions defined by the Inputs.
 Training database(s): the database(s) used to train the three NNs, i.e. the NNs for the prediction of
the wave reflection coefficient, the wave transmission coefficient and the wave overtopping
discharge. Each NN is trained on a portion of the complete Database (available at the Download
page).

Inputs
There are 22 Inputs required for the running of the NN Tool. Each test – or scenario – must include all the
inputs values. Though the NN tool is able to run also if some parameters are missing, it is strongly
recommended to provide all the required information in order to avoid meaningless or wrong predictions.
The 22 Inputs are reported in the following Table 1 and graphically represented in Fig. 1.

The structure has to be schematized following CLASH, many examples can be found in Verhaeghe (2005).
There are 2 ways to submit the 22 Inputs to the NN tool:
 By filling in the fields of the Table available on the Website at the page Input; this option is
recommended in case of single (or few) scenario(s) to simulate;
 By uploading a text file, based on the Template; this option is recommended in case of multiple
scenarios.
The logical flag is necessary to indicate which Output(s) the user wishes to derive. The user can select just
one, or two or all the three output parameters (if possible, check the range of validity of the Tool in the NN
Domain).

Whenever a User submits an Input file to the Tool, an Error file (characterized by the extension “.log”) is
produced and included among the Downloads on the Download page. Since the Error file is produced even
if the computation has aborted, the User is strongly recommended to check for the presence of this file in
case the Outputs computation does not start after the submission of the Input file.
Figure 1. Schematization of the structure based on CLASH, including some of the geometrical and hydraulic
parameters.

Table 1. 22 Inputs required for the running of the NN Tool.

# Inputs Unit Definition of the parameter Further remarks
1 Name [-] Label/ID of the scenario
If no foreshore is present, it is equal to
2 m [-] Cotangent of the foreshore slope
1000
3 h [m] Water depth at the structure toe
Significant wave height at the
4 Hm0,t [m]
structure toe
Spectral wave period at the structure
5 Tm-1,0,t [s]
toe
6 Β [°] Wave obliquity
7 ht [m] Toe submergence If no toe is present, it is equal to h
8 Bt [m] Toe width If no toe is present, it is equal to 0
9 hb [m] Berm submergence If no berm is present, it is equal to 0
10 B [m] Berm width If no berm is present, it is equal to 0
If no berm is present, it is simply the
Cotangent of the angle that the
slope of the structure above the toe (if
11 cotαd [-] structure part below the berm makes
present) and below the wave wall (if
with a horizontal
present)
Cotangent of the angle that the If no berm is present, it is equal to
12 cotαu [-] structure part above the berm makes cotαd
with a horizontal
13 γfd [-] Roughness factor for cotαd
14 γfu [-] Roughness factor for cotαu
Size of the structure elements along For smooth structures, it is equal to 0
15 Dd [m]
cotαd
Size of the structure elements along For smooth structures, it is equal to 0
16 Du [m]
cotαu
In absence of wave wall and/or
17 Ac [m] Crest height with respect to swl
promenades, it is equal to Rc
In absence of wave wall and/or
18 Rc [m] Wall height with respect to swl
promenades, it is equal to Ac
19 Gc [m] Crest width
20 Kr_Flag - Logical flag to get the prediction of Kr
21 Kt_Flag - Logical flag to get the prediction of Kt
22 q_Flag - Logical flag to get the prediction of q
Template
A properly formatted file has to be used as input for the NN tool. The template of such a text file is
available from the Download section of the website. The file must be prepared according to the following
instructions:

 The header row contains the names labels of the 22 Inputs (see Table 1) while their values are
stored in the other rows. This row is already included in the Template. If a new file is used, this
header row must be included.
 The order of the 22 variables – which is the same of Table 1 – must be strictly respected.
 Each row (below the header row) corresponds to a single scenario; the user may insert as many
scenarios (i.e. as many rows) as whished.
 The first column is the Scenario ID and may be a string of letters, of numbers or an alphanumeric
string as well. Each Scenario (each row) must be identified with an ID. It is up to the user to adopt
different or identical IDs for the different Scenarios. Different IDs are helpful for the identification
of the corresponding scenarios, but the NN tool is not affected by equal IDs.
 The columns from the second on contain the values of each Input for the corresponding scenario
listed in the first column. Each column should be filled in. An empty space means a missing
information and will be treated as a “NaN” (Not a Number) by the NN tool. The predictions are
strongly affected by NaNs.
 The following columns must not be left empty: Hm0,t; Tm-1,0,t; cotαd; γf,d; Rc; h. The computation
of the Outputs will not start if these Inputs are missing. These Inputs are considered “compulsory”.
 The dot (.) must be used as decimal separator.
 The “pipe” character ("|") must be used as column separator. Any other symbol is allowed in the
text, included the empty space or the “tab”. Yet, empty spaces or tabs will not be seen as
separators of values by the NN tool.
 Such a Text File may be easily prepared on an a simple Excel sheet and then copied in whatever text
editor, by substituting all the Tab-separators with the “|” character.
 The extension of the Input Text File must be .inp
 For more information, see the Text Inputs Examples in the following.
a. Example of a properly formatted Text File

Test ID|m|h|Hm0,t|Tm-1,0,t|beta|ht|Bt|hb|B|cot(a_d)|cot(a_u)|gammaf_d|gammaf_u|Dd|Du|Ac|Rc|Gc|Kr-flag|Kt-flag|q-flag
A-1|1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|5|4|5|1|1|1|
A-2|1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|7.0|6.|5|1|1|1
A-3|1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|9.0|8.|5|1|1|1

The use of commas (e.g., as in the header row), dashes (-, e.g. as in the Test ID “A-1”) or blank spaces (such as in the Label “Test ID” of the Header Row) do not compromise
the run of the NN tool.

b. Example of a properly formatted Text File - missing non-compulsory values

Test ID|m|h|Hm0,t|Tm-1,0,t|beta|ht|Bt|hb|B|cot(a_d)|cot(a_u)|gammaf_d|gammaf_u|Dd|Du|Ac|Rc|Gc|Kr-flag|Kt-flag|q-flag
A-1| |12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|5|4|5|1|1|1|
A-2| |12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|7.0|6.|5|1|1|1
A-3| |12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|9.0|8.|5|1|1|1

In this example the second column (corresponding to the Input “m”) has been left empty, but properly delimited with |. The simulation will start and the Input values of m
will be automatically set to “NaN”.

c. Example of a properly formatted Text File – missing compulsory values

Test ID|m|h|Hm0,t|Tm-1,0,t|beta|ht|Bt|hb|B|cot(a_d)|cot(a_u)|gammaf_d|gammaf_u|Dd|Du|Ac|Rc|Gc|Kr-flag|Kt-flag|q-flag
A-1|1000| |5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|5|4|5|1|1|1|
A-2|1000| |5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|7.0|6.|5|1|1|1
A-3|1000| |5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|9.0|8.|5|1|1|1

In this example the third column (corresponding to the Input “h”) has been left empty, but properly delimited with |. This format is tecnhically speaking appropriate but
physically meangingless. Though the NN would be able to process such input file, the simulation will not start because the Input h is considered compulsory. The user will
get an error report in the Log output file. The other compulsory inputs are Hm0,t; Tm-1,0,t; cotαd; γf,d; Rc.

d. Example of a wrongly formatted Text File – missing values and spaces

Test ID|m|h|Hm0,t|Tm-1,0,t|beta|ht|Bt|hb|B|cot(a_d)|cot(a_u)|gammaf_d|gammaf_u|Dd|Du|Ac|Rc|Gc|Kr-flag|Kt-flag|q-flag
A-1|1000|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|5|4|5|1|1|1|
A-2|1000|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|7.0|6.|5|1|1|1
A-3|1000|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|9.0|8.|5|1|1|1
In this example (similar to the Example d) the third column (corresponding to the Input “h”) has been left empty and not delimited with |. The values of the fourth
parameter (Input “Hm0,t”), which should be stored in the fourth column accordingly, are stored in the third column format is also technically wrong, and so on, up to the
last column. The missing values definitely lead a missing column, that prevents the starting of the computation.

e. Example of a wrongly formatted Text File – missing Header Row

A-1|1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|5|4|5|1|1|1|
A-2|1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|7.0|6.|5|1|1|1
A-3|1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|9.0|8.|5|1|1|1

The missing Header Row will prevent the starting of the computation.

f. Example of a wrongly formatted Text File – missing Test ID

Test ID|m|h|Hm0,t|Tm-1,0,t|beta|ht|Bt|hb|B|cot(a_d)|cot(a_u)|gammaf_d|gammaf_u|Dd|Du|Ac|Rc|Gc|Kr-flag|Kt-flag|q-flag
1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|5|4|5|1|1|1|
1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|7.0|6.|5|1|1|1
1000|12|5|9.1|0.0|9|4|0.0000|0.00|1.5|1.5|0.49|0.49|1.58|1.58|9.0|8.|5|1|1|1

The absence of the Test ID implies that one column is missing and will prevent the starting of the computation.

g. Example of a wrongly formatted Text File – missing |

Test ID m h Hm0,t Tm-1,0,t beta ht Bt hb B cot(a_d) cot(a_u) gammaf_d gammaf_u Dd Du Ac Rc Gc Kr-flag Kt-flag q-flag
A-1 1000 12 5 9.1 0.0 9 4 0.0000 0.00 1.5 1.5 0.49 0.49 1.58 1.58 5 4 5 1 1 1
A-2 1000 12 5 9.1 0.0 9 4 0.0000 0.00 1.5 1.5 0.49 0.49 1.58 1.58 7.0 6. 5 1 1 1
A-3 1000 12 5 9.1 0.0 9 4 0.0000 0.00 1.5 1.5 0.49 0.49 1.58 1.58 9.0 8. 5 1 1 1

In this example the space (or tab) is used as separator. The NN tool will store all the column values in just one column and will not be able to start the computation.
NN domain of validity
Accurate predictions are ensured only if the Input Scenarios “fall” within the domain of validity of the NN
tool. The domain of validity is defined by the variety of structure types and wave conditions on which the
NN is trained. The three training databases (one for each Output) consist of three different (and only
partially overlapped) portions of the new Database collected by the authors (and available for download
after the signature of an agreement form, downloadable on the Downloads page of the website) and
enclose a wide variety of geometries. However, there are some kind of structures that – because of very
special cross-sections – cannot be schematized through the selected 15 input parameters of the NN Tool
and which the NN Tool is not able to deal with. The full description of the training databases is given in
Zanuttigh et al. (2016) and Formentin et al., (2017), while Figure 4.17 of the EurOtop manual reports an
overview of the possible structure configurations that fit the NN Tool domain of validity.

The main typologies of structures that the ANN cannot represent are resumed in the following:

 double seawalls with a still water basin in the middle;

 structure with multiple (and sloping) promenades;
 very complicatedly-shaped walls, with “bull-noses”. The training database of q includes only walls
with oblique or simply-recurved parapets, while the cases of “bull-noses” (specially-shaped
parapets) have been discarded because of the impossibility to schematize the shape of the bull-
nose. The User could still implement structures with bull-noses in the NN Tool, but, in case, he/she
is recommended to schematize the structure as a simple wall without bull-nose and afterwards
apply to the predictions the correction factors for the bull-noses suggested by Van Doorslaer et al.
(2015).

The capability of generalization (i.e. the capability of provide accurate predictions for Input Scenario
different from the one used for training the NN tool) of the NN tool strictly depends on the “distance”
between the configuration of the Input Scenario and the NN domain of validity (defined by the training DB).
The higher the distance, the less reliable the prediction. The User is strongly recommended to check the
distance of his/her Scenario(s) through the following methods.

Two approximations of the NN domain of validity are implemented in the NN tool:

a. The minima-maxima ranges of the 15 Input parameters of the NN defined by the training DBs and
here reported in Table 2. Whether one or more input parameters of the User’s Scenario(s) should
fall beyond such ranges, a warning message would be printed in the Error file (available after the
run of the simulation at the Results page). Since the minima-maxima ranges represent the “hyper-
rectangle” (15 dimensions) circumscribing the actual NN domain of validity (see Figure 2), which is
indeed a very rough and un-cautious overestimation, it is recommended to rely more on the next
approximating method available.
b. The smallest convex hull polytope of the NN domain (see Figure 2). Such approximation is derived
from Courrieu (1994) and represents the best (i.e. the least-overestimating) solution to
approximate the NN domain of validity (among the methods available for this NN Tool). For each
Scenario, the NN tool computes the Euclidean distance (E) between the configuration of the Input
parameters of the Scenario itself and the NN domain of validity (approximated with convex hull
polytope). The distance E is a positive quantity that is identically equal to 0 for all the Scenarios
belonging to the NN domain of validity (i.e. the training tests). The greater E, the lower the
 reliability on the NN predictions for the corresponding Scenario, and the wider the confidence
intervals associated to the predictions themselves. Roughly, it can be considered that optimal
values of E should be lower than 0.5, while values of E close to 1 would give un-reliable predictions
(i.e. very wide confidence intervals).
The values of E are printed in the Output tables (see Table 3) together with the statistical quantiles.
Whether the NN tool should compute a high value of E, a warning message would be printed in the
Error file (available after the run of the simulation at the Results page).

Figure 2. Two-dimensional conceptual example of the distribution of the data used to train the NN tool
(blue circles) and the approximation of its domain represented by the contour lines.
From left to right, the exact hull of the domain (blue line), the hyper-rectangle approximation (red line)
provided by the minima-maxima ranges of the Input parameters and the approximation with the smallest
convex polytope (green line).

Table 2. Synthesis and description of the 15 Input parameters characterizing the NN Tool. For each Input
parameter, the indication of its range of variability within the 3 training Databases (DB) is given.

Input Reflection DB Transmission DB Overtopping DB

Representation
Parameter min min max max min max
Hm0,t/Lm-1,0,t Wave steepness 3.05e-04 0.086 0.001 0.077 0.002 0.084
β Wave obliquity 0.000 83.490 0.000 68.550 0.000 80.000
h/Lm-1,0,t Shoaling 0.000 0.829 0.003 0.467 0.003 0.942
ht/Hm-1,0,t Toe submergence 0.375 29.167 0.732 38.462 0.430 25.926
Bt/Lm-1,0,t Toe width 0.000 0.264 0.000 0.336 0.000 0.760
hb/Hm,0,t Berm submergence -2.133 7.833 -1.702 6.093 -2.133 7.143
B/Lm-1,0,t Berm width 0.000 0.684 0.000 0.289 0.000 0.972
Ac/Hm,0,t Crest submergence -8.086 12.051 -10.000 9.615 -5.247 16.076
Crest submergence in
Rc/Hm,0,t presence of a crown -8.086 12.051 -10.000 9.615 0.000 16.076
wall
Gc/Lm-1,0,t Crest width 0.000 2.003 0.000 2.003 0.000 0.362
m Foreshore slope 0.000 1000 0.000 1000 0.000 1000
cotαd Down slope 0.000 7.000 0.000 5.000 0.000 7.000
Average slope in the
cotαincl -0.491 10.638 0.000 6.836 -1.347 12.820
run-up/down area
γf Roughness factor 0.340 1.000 0.380 1.000 0.330 1.000
Indication of structure
D/Hm0,t 3.05e-04 0.086 0.000 10.385 0.000 1.298
stability
The statistical percentiles characterizing the distribution of the NN predictions can be considered an
instrument to check the reliability of the predictions themselves. The User is asked to check the “wideness”
of the confidence bands and evaluate upon his/her judgement their reliability.

Results
The Results of the NN Tool consists of numerical predictions of the Outputs, Figures and an Error File
containing a report of all the warning messages or errors that may occur during the run of the NN Tool.

Outputs
All the Outputs are provided in terms of average values and percentiles (5% and 95%). Such quantities are
derived from the statistical distribution of the Outputs obtained by applying 500 times the bootstrapping
resampling technique to the training database (for more information, see Zanuttigh et al., 2016 and
Formentin et al., 2017).

In case of wave overtopping, the User should know that the NN Tool cannot predict a value of q which is
identically equal to zero, because it is trained on logarithmic-transformed values of q. (further explanation
can be found in Zanuttigh et al., 2016). Moreover, no “artificial” correction to the NN predictions of q is
implemented in the Tool to replace the potential “very low” predictions with zeros. This means that the
User might get predicted values of q even of the order of 10-9 m3/s/m (or lower) in case of input Scenarios
for which wave overtopping is expected to be null or negligible. Definitely, it is up the User to set his/her
own threshold to distinguish between negligible and non-negligible overtopping, i.e. whether a prediction
can be considered as “zero” or “non-zero”.

The Outputs are organized in tables such as Table 3, where the header row contains the labels of the
percentiles. The Outputs are stored in the following rows, whose number corresponds to the number of
Scenarios uploaded by the user. In each row, the first column provides the Test ID (as defined by the user
through the Inputs table, see Table 1), the second one contains the average Output value and the
remaining columns the values of the 7 percentiles. An extra column is present when the Output is the
overtopping discharge and the correction accounting for the model effects of the average value is
indicated.

The correction for the model effects is based on the adjustment factor fq proposed in the second edition of
the EurOtop manual (2016). Such formulations for fq (Eq.s 6.13, 6.14, 6.15 pf the EurOtop manual), that are
automatically implemented in the tool, are reported in the following:
5
Log10 (qus -2)
fq =min {- 14
+1} , with
fq,max

min{10∙ cot(αd ) -9; 31} , for rubble mound slopes (γf ≤0.7)
fq,max = {5∙γf ∙(1-fq,max )+4.5∙(fq,max -1)+1, for "slopes with roughness" (0.7<γf <0.9) ,
1, for smooth slopes (γf ≥0.9)
where qus is the “up-scaled” value of the average predicted value of q at model scale.

When looking at the model-corrected value (third column of Table 3), the User should be aware that:

 the fq factor should account for both model and scale effects. However, since the NN Tool works
with dimensionless input parameters and is trained on a variety of data derived from laboratory
tests, performed at different scales, the NN predictions are scale-independent and are affected by
model effects only. Therefore, qus coincides to the average prediction as derived by the NN tool
(second column of Table 3). If the Inputs are provided at (whatever) model scale, the Outputs will
be at the same model scale, while if the Inputs are provided at prototype scale, the Outputs will be
at prototype scale accordingly. In any case, the user does not need to provide any indication about
the scale of the model.

 the formulations for fq have been derived on the basis of approximately 100 tests belonging to
three datasets for which the measurements of q were available at both model and prototype scale.
Such datasets include a rubble mound structure with Antifer cubes, a rock permeable breakwater
and a smooth vertical wall with a rock berm.

Table 3. Example of an Outputs table that is delivered to the User and printed at the Results page after the
run of the NN Tool. The table contains the average values of the predictions, the percentiles 5% and 95% to
derive the 90% confidence bands, the values of the Euclidean distance E between the configuration of the
User Scenario(s) and the NN domain of validity and, when the Output is q, an extra column including the
corrected average prediction of q accounting for the model effects.

average q average q
Test
[m3/s/m] [m3/s/m] 5.0% 95.0% E
ID
Model Corrected
G1 8.03E-06 2.38E-04 5.10E-06 1.39E-05 0.02
G2 7.42E-06 2.27E-04 3.72E-06 1.43E-05 0.02
G3 6.85E-06 2.17E-04 2.65E-06 1.78E-05 0.02
G4 6.31E-06 2.07E-04 1.90E-06 2.10E-05 0.02
G5 5.89E-06 1.98E-04 1.35E-06 2.32E-05 0.02
G6 5.50E-06 1.91E-04 1.01E-06 2.51E-05 0.02
G7 5.18E-06 1.84E-04 7.40E-07 2.95E-05 0.02
G8 4.93E-06 1.78E-04 5.43E-07 3.68E-05 0.05
G9 4.69E-06 1.73E-04 3.98E-07 4.54E-05 0.10
G10 4.44E-06 1.67E-04 2.91E-07 5.55E-05 0.15

The Output tables will be shown at the Results page on the Website and a text file will be available for
download. The Output text files for Kr, the Kt and q will be identified by the extension “.kr”, “.kt” and “.q”,
respectively.
The format of these Text files follows the same rules of the Inputs text file: the column separator is the
“pipe” character (|) and the dot (.) is adopted as decimal separator. For q, the scientific notation is
adopted. Such text file can be easily copied into a spreadsheet by specifying that the column separator is |.
Figures
The User will get also a graphical representation of the predicted Outputs as functions of the relative crest
freeboard Rc/Hm0,t (which is considered one of the main Input Parameters). The predictions will be printed
on pre-existing plots representing the distribution of the experimental tests used for the NN training and
“similar” to the User’s test.

The NN tool automatically recognizes the type of the structure(s) that the user has submitted through the
Inputs and selects the most “suitable” pre-existing plot, i.e. the plot collecting the most “similar” type of
structures present in the experimental database.

Overall, 18 pre-existing plots are available, being 6 the possible types of structures for each of the 3 Outputs.
The 6 types of structures correspond to the 6 sections of the experimental database labelled from A to F (see
Database and Zanuttigh et al., 2016). The oblique and 3D wave attacks (which in the experimental database
are collected in the 7th section G) will not be printed on a separate plot, but will be assigned to one of the
abovementioned 6 types. For example, if the user uploads a vertical wall subjected to a 3D wave attack, the
related NN predictions will be printed on the pre-existing plot belonging to the type F.

The 18 pre-existing plots show only the more reliable experimental data (i.e. the data with Weight Factors
equal to 2, 3, see the Database section).

An example of such Output Figures is reported in the Figures 3 and 4. In this case, the User has asked the
predictions of Kr and Kt (Figure 3) and q (Figure 4) for a dataset of C-structures, i.e. artificial armour units
breakwaters. For each Output, the predictions (red colour) are added to the corresponding experimental
datasets (blue). From these Figures the user is able to check whether the predictions fall within (or next to)
the distribution of similar experimental tests and he/she is therefore provided with additional information
about the reliability of the predictions themselves.

Figure 3. Values of Kr (left) and Kt (right) as a function of the relative crest freeboard. The predictions
corresponding to the user’s test(s) (red) are compared to the experimental data within the database (blue)
for similar structures. Only the more reliable experimental data (i.e. the data with Weight Factors equal to
2, 3) are considered.
Figure 4. Values of q as a function of the relative crest freeboard. The predictions corresponding to the
user’s test(s) (red) are compared to the experimental data of q within the database (blue) for similar
structures. Only the more reliable experimental data (i.e. the data with Weight Factors equal to 2, 3) are
considered.

Error file
The Error file is a text file produced by the NN Tool after the simulation. Whenever a User submits an Input
file to the Tool, an Error file (characterized by the extension “.log”) is produced and included among the
Downloads on the Download page.
The Error file includes:
 a feedback about the outcomes of the simulation;
 warnings and/or error messages in case the User has submitted one (or more) Scenario without
including some information; in case the missing information is related to one of the “compulsory”
Inputs (see the Inputs section), an error message appears to inform the User that the NN has not
proceeded to compute any solution; otherwise (i.e. if the missing information refers to a “non-
compulsory” Input), the NN proceeds to compute the Outputs, but a warning message informs the
User of potential unreliable or meaningless predictions due to the lacking information.
 warnings and/or error messages in case the User has submitted one (or more) values of the Inputs
that are “invalid” (for example, if the comma is used in place of the dot as decimal separator, or if a
letter or whatever symbol is included in place of numerical values in the Input Table).
 warning messages in case one or more Scenarios fall beyond the NN domain of validity (see the NN
domain of validity section).
 …
 Further messages are going to be prepared in order to update the Error file with improved
feedbacks and more detailed information.
Database
The new Database used to train the “Overtopping-neuralnetwork” Tool can be obtained by e-mail after
downloading and signing an agreement form, available on the Download page. The description of the
Database is fully provided in Zanuttigh et al. (2016) and Formentin et al. (2016).

It consists of 13,511 tests on wave overtopping, 7,371 tests on wave reflection and 3,587 tests on wave
transmission, for a total amount of 17,942 tests. Such database is the result of a process of collection and
synthesis of all the available data from the literature. All the tests information are organized in order to
follow the same schematization of the structures (see Fig. 1) already proposed by CLASH project (Van der
Meer et al., 2009) and use the same set of parameters for the description of the tested conditions. Each
test in the database is thus described by the following parameters:
c. the wave attack conditions (11 hydraulic parameters);
d. the geometry of the structure cross-section (23 structural parameters);
e. the test name/label, the label relative to the original CLASH numbering (if the test is derived from
the CLASH database) the reliability and complexity factors, RF and CF, respectively (4 general
parameters);
f. the 3 output parameters, i.e. the average wave overtopping discharge (q, m3/s/m), the wave
reflection and the wave transmission coefficients (Kr and Kt).
The type and the description of the parameters are collected in Table 4.

The new parameters of the Database are described in the following. All the others parameters of Table 4
are directly derived from the CLASH Database and already described by Van der Meer et al. (2009).

 #1. Name: identifier of the test; through the Name, the tests are categorized into 7 sections
according to the different types of structures and/or wave attack conditions: straight permeable
rock slopes (characterized by identifier names starting with “A”), straight impermeable rock slopes
(“B”), armour units with straight slopes (“C”), smooth and straight slopes (“D”), structures with
combined slopes and berms (“E”), vertical walls (“F”) and oblique wave attack (“G”).
 #26, #27, #28. Dd, Du, D: the diameter D represents the mean size of the structure elements in the
run-up/down area. The D could be the Dn,50 for rock armour, Dn for concrete armour, but it could
also be the height of a step of a staircase geometry. In principle it indicates the “size” of the
structural elements, mainly around the water level. A smooth slope will get D=0. The value of D is
computed as the weighted average of the characteristic downslope Dd and upslope Du sizes of the
elements in the run-up/down area, i.e. within ±1.5 Hm0,t above and below the still water level,
following the formula:
Dd ∙(hsub -hb )+Du ∙(hb +hem )
 D= hsub +hem
, where hsub = min(1.5∙Hm0,t ;h) ; hem =min(1.5∙Hm0,t ;Ac ).
 #23, #24, #25. γfd, γfu, γf: roughness factors of the run-down/up area (γfd and γ , respectively) and
average roughness factor (γf) computed with the following formula:
𝛾fd ∙(hsub -hb )+𝛾fu ∙(hb +hem )
 𝛾f = hsub +hem
, where hsub = min(1.5∙Hm0,t ;h) ; hem =min(1.5∙Hm0,t ;Ac ).
 #21, #22. cotαexcl cotαincl: the average slopes in the run-up/down were computed through the
following new formulae (with respect to the CLASH database):
cotαd ∙(hsub -hb )+B+cotαu ∙(hb +hem ) cotαd ∙(hsub -hb )+cotαu ∙(hb +hem )
 cotαincl= hsub +hem
; cotαexcl= hsub +hem
,
o where hsub = min(1.5∙Hm0,t ;h) ; hem =min(1.5∙Hm0,t ;Ac ).
o It is worthy to note that, in case of structures with berm (i.e. hb ≠ 0), the following values
for γf (#25), D (#28), cotαexcl (#21) and cotαincl (#22) are imposed:
o if hb>1.5∙Hm0,t (i.e. if the berm submergence exceeds the run-up area), it is set D=Du, γf = γfu,
cotαexcl = cotαincl =cotαu;
o viceversa, if hb<-1.5∙Hm0,t (i.e. the berm emergence exceeds the run-down area), it is set
D=Dd, γf = γfd, cotαexcl = cotαexcl =cotαd.
 #36, #37. RF, CF: the reliability and complexity factors used to define the “Weight Factors” (WF) to
drive the “random” selection of the training data towards the “more reliable” tests. With respect to
CLASH (Van Gent et al., 2007), the following new definition of the WF was adopted by the authors:
 WF(a) = 6/(RF+CF), WF(a)=0 if RF or CF=4.
 #42. Core data: the label used to indicate whether a test belongs to the “core”-data, which means
that it can be considered as a case to be used for training of the NN, or that it is outside this core-
data but with a peculiar feature denoted by a letter, for instance: w=wind, p=prototype, c=current,
b=bull nose, pc=perforated caisson.
Table 4. Parameters composing the new database (adopted also to train the NN Tool).

# Parameter Unit Type Definition of the parameter

1 Name [-] general Identificator label of the tests
2 CLASH ID [-] general Original CLASH label (if any)
3 Type [-] general Structure type and armour unit
4 Hm,0,deep [m] hydraulic Off-shore significant wave height
5 Tp,deep [s] hydraulic Off-shore peak wave period p
6 Tm,deep [s] hydraulic Off-shore average wave period
7 Tm-1,deep [s] hydraulic Off-shore spectral wave period
8 hdeep [m] structural Off-shore water depth
9 m [-] structural Cotangent of the foreshore slope
10 β [°] hydraulic Wave obliquity
11 Spread s [-] hydraulic Wave directional spreading
12 h [m] structural Water depth at the structure toe
13 Hm0,t [m] hydraulic Significant wave height at the structure toe
14 Tp,t [s] hydraulic Peak wave period at the structure toe
15 Tm,t [s] hydraulic Average wave period at the structure toe
16 Tm-1,t [s] hydraulic Spectral wave period at the structure toe
17 ht [m] structural Toe submergence
18 Bt [m] structural Toe width
19 cotαd [-] structural Cotangent of the angle that the structure
part below/above the berm makes with a
20 cotαu [-] structural
horizontal
21 cotαexcl [-] structural Cotangent of the mean angle that the
structure makes with a horizontal,
22 cotαincl [-] structural excluding/including the berm, in the run-
up/run-down zone
23 γfd [-] structural Roughness factor for cotαd
24 γfu [-] structural Roughness factor for cotαu
Roughness factor (average in the run-
25 γf [-] structural
up/down area in the new DB)
26 Dd [-] structural Size of the structure elements along cotαd
27 Du [-] structural Size of the structure elements along cotαu
Average size of the structure elements in
28 D [m] structural
the run-up/down area
29 Rc [m] structural Crest height with respect to swl
30 B [m] structural Berm width
31 hb [m] structural Berm submergence
32 tanαb [-] structural Berm slope
33 Bh [m] structural Horizontal berm widht
34 Ac [m] structural Wall height with respect to swl
35 Gc [m] structural Crest width
36 RF [-] general Reliability Factor
37 CF [-] general Complexity Factor
38 Pow [-] hydraulic Overtopping probability
39 q [m3/s/m] output Specific overtopping discharge
40 Kr [-] output Reflection coefficient
41 Kt [-] output Transmission coefficient
Label used to include/exclude a test from
42 Core data [-] general
the NN training and mark special features
References
Main References for the NN Tool
Formentin S.M., Zanuttigh B. and Van der Meer J.W., 2017. A Neural Network TOOL for predicting wave
reflection, overtopping and transmission, Coastal Engineering Journal, 59, No. 2 (2017), 1750006, 31 pp.

Zanuttigh B., Formentin S.M., and Van der Meer J.W., 2016. Prediction of extreme and tolerable wave
overtopping discharges through an advanced neural network, Ocean Engineering, 127, 7-22.

EurOtop, 2016. Manual on Wave Overtopping of Sea Defences and Related Structures. An Overtopping Manual
Largely based on European Research, but for Worldwide Application, Allsop, N. W. H., Bruce, T., DeRouck, J.,
Kortenhaus, A., Pullen, T., Schüttrumpf, H., Troch, P., van der Meer, J. W. & Zanuttigh, B. , www.overtopping-
manual.com

Other References
Courrieu, P., 1994. Three Algorithms for estimating the domain of validity of Feedforward Neural Networks,
Neural Networks, 7(1), 169-174.

Van der Meer, J.W., Verhaeghe, H. and Steendam, G.J. 2009. The new wave overtopping database for
coastal structures. Coastal Engineering 56, 108–120.

Van der Meer, J.W., Bruce T., Allsop W., Franco L., Kortenhaus A., Pullen T. and Schüttrumpf H. 2013.
EurOtop revisited. Part 1: sloping structures. Proceedings of ICE, Coasts, Marine Structures and
Breakwaters, Edinburgh, UK.

Van Doorslaer, K., De Rouck, J., Audenaert, S. & Duquet, V. (2015). Crest modifications to reduce wave
overtopping of non-breaking waves over a smooth dike slope, Coastal Engineering, 101, 69–88, doi:
10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.02.004.

Van Gent, M.R.A., van den Boogaard, H.F.P., Pozueta, B. and Medina, J.R. 2007. Neural network modelling
of wave overtopping at coastal structures. Coastal Engineering 54, 586–593.

Verhaeghe, H., 2005. Neural network prediction of wave overtopping at coastal structures, PhD thesis,
Universiteit Gent, Gent, BE. http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:53a64f79-3199-4091-a5d1-
575365f33d98?collection=research