Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oumeraci WaveLoads PDF
Oumeraci WaveLoads PDF
Oumeraci WaveLoads PDF
FZK
Wave
Wave Loads
Loads on
on Breakwaters,
Breakwaters, Sea-
Sea-
Walls
Walls and
and other
other Marine
Marine Structures
Structures
2
Leichtweiss-Institute
Leichtweiss-Institute for
for Hydraulic
Hydraulic Engineering
Engineering
Homepage: http://www.LWI.tu-bs.de
Wave
Wave up to 30cm high solitary waves
Length ≈ 90m
b) Twin-Wave Paddle
(Synchron or independent)
Hydromechanics &
Coastal Engineering
2m 1m
3
Coastal
Coastal Research
Research Centre
Centre (FZK)
(FZK) in
in Hannover
Hannover
FZK
Joint Central Institution of
the University of Hannover and the
Technical University of Braunschweig
SWL
Wave Absorber as a Sea Wall Wave Absorber as Artificial Reef Innovative Sea Walls
Pile
Beach Profile Development under Dune Stability and Reinforcement Wave Impact Loading
Storm Surge Conditions with Geotextile Constructions & Scour (in progress)
5
Sea Wave-Structure-Foundation Interaction
CoV > 30%
TF Wave
Transmission
CoV > 50%
Wave
TF Overtopping
CoV ≥ 20% TF
CoV ≥ 10% CoV ≥ 20%
Incident Waves & Waves &
Structure Structure
Waves TF Water Levels TF Water Levels TF Load Load
(Farfield) (Nearfields) (at Structure)
CoV > 30% CoV > 20%
Structure
TF Structure- and
response
Soil Parameters
CoV ≥ 15%
Wave Refelction TF
TF TF
Direct Loading
TF of Foundation Soil
Indirect Loading
of Foundation Soil
CoV = Coefficient of Variation
TF = Transfer function (Model) Structure Parameters 6
Research Strategy
Conceptual model
(original idea/hypothesis)
Numerical modelling to Physical Modelling (small scale
supplement/support small scale model tests for systematic
model study parameter study)
Correction
for scale
understanding of physical processes to be
investigated
and/or
Large-scale model tests (scale effects)
7
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Wave Loads on Pile Structures
3. Wave Forces on Submerged Bodies
4. Wave Loads on Monolithic Breakwater and Sea
Walls
8
2. Wave Loads on Pile Structures (3D)
9
2.1 Wave Load Classification
10
Non
Non Slender
Slender and
and Slender
Slender Structures
Structures
Incident Wave
C Incident Wave
Ht≠Hi C Ht=Hi
Hi
Ht Hi Ht
D
L L D
FH FH
FV
MORISON-Formula:
1 π⋅ D2 ∂u
fges = CD ⋅ρw ⋅ D⋅ u ⋅ u + cm ⋅ρw ⋅ ⋅ h
2 4 ∂t Transition &
D/H
Total
Drag component Inertiacomponent Deep water Shallow
0,025 water Force
(h/L ≥ 0,5)
D= H/32 FTot
Drag forces dominate for (h/L < 0,5)
(Deep water)
smaller D and larger wave
heights H
(1/100.h/L)H FTot =
L)
(H/32)<D<
h. /
<D< FM + FD
(H/5)
16
(1/16.h/L)H
H(
Inertia forces
D=
h/L
10
0,01 0,1 1,0
12
Wave
Wave Load
Load at
at Different
Different Locations
Locations
FH (t)
FH
FH (t)
Landward
FH Seaward of of shoreline
shoreline
13
2.2 Breaking Wave Impact Load on
Single Pile in Deeper Water
References:
• Wienke, J. (2001): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by breaking waves in deeper
water, PhD-Thesis, Leichtweiss-Institute, TU Braunschweig (in German)
14
Extreme
Extreme Loads
Loads Due
Due to
to Breaking
Breaking Waves
Waves
15
Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Forces
Forces on
on Slender
Slender Cylinders
Cylinders
inertia/drag force +
Total force = impact force
(quasi-static force
FTot = FM + FD + FI
Breaking wave
λ.η'
η‘
C F MWS
λ = „Curling Factor“
16
Slamming
Slamming Coefficient
Coefficient and
and Pile-up
Pile-up Effects
Effects
pile-up effect
no pile-up
CS(t=0)=2π
CS(t=0)=π Wagner(1932)
von
Karman
(1929)
17
Theoretical Formulae for Slamming Forces
y
flat plate
R
x
f pile-up effect
c(t)
η
ηb V.t
x
V
18
Theoretical Formulae for Slamming Forces
y R
2π
x
Impact load duration: f η
13 R x
Slamming Factor
TD = ⋅ V
32 C
CS= f/ ρRV2
π
ignoring pile-up effect
new approach
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
t / R/V
19
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK
Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
quasi-static
20
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK
Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
quasi-static
21
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK
Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
quasi-static
22
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK
Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
quasi-static
23
Loading Cases for Vertical Cylinder in GWK
Broken wave at Wave breaking in Wave breaking just Wave breaking at Wave breaking
pile front of pile in front of pile pile behind pile
Video
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Breaker
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
quasi-static
24
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases Investigated
Investigated in
in GWK
GWK for
for Vertical
Vertical &
& Inclined
Inclined
Cylinders
Cylinders (1)
(1)
5
quasi-static
25
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases Investigated
Investigated in
in GWK
GWK for
for Vertical
Vertical &
& Inclined
Inclined
Cylinders
Cylinders (2)
(2)
quasi-static
26
Loading
Loading Case
Case 3
3 for
for Different
Different Pile
Pile Inclination
Inclination Angles
Angles
SWL
RWS SWL
RWS SWL
RWS SWL
RWS SWL
RWS
Loading Case 3
27
Slamming
Slamming Forces:
Forces: Definition
Definition Sketch
Sketch
60
actual
total force
40 FI
F0
force [kN]
20
F2
0
t1 TD
t2
-20
t0
time [s]
28
Impact
Impact Force
Force for
for Loading
Loading Case
Case 3
3 Different
Different Pile
Pile Inclinations
Inclinations
F1 = 2 ⋅ π ⋅ ( λ ⋅ η ' ) ⋅ ρ ⋅ R ⋅V 2
F
F1
F1 [kN]
80
max
t
60
mean
mittel
40
min
20
Loading Case 3
0
-45.0 -25.0 0.0 24.5 45.0 α [°]
SWL
29
Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Impact
Impact on
on Slender
Slender Structures
Structures (Video)
(Video)
wave crests
C
Splash
Splash
Wave with C
vertical front at
cylinder
V(z) dz
31
Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Impact
Impact as
as aa Radiation
Radiation Process
Process
Breaking
wave at
cylinder SWL SWL
32
Theoretical
Theoretical 3D-Model
3D-Model for
for Impact
Impact Force
Force
1 R
For time: t = 0 ÷ :
8 V cos γ
⎡ ⎛ V cos γ ⎞ ⎛ 1 V cos γ ⎞ ⎤
Fl = ρRv² λ ηb cos ²γ ⎢2π − 2 ⎜ t ⎟ arctan h ⎜ 1 − t ⎟⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ R ⎠ ⎝ 4 R ⎠ ⎥⎦
3 R 12 R 1 R
For time t´ = ÷ , with t´ = t - :
32 V cos γ 32 V cos γ 32 V cos γ
⎡ 1 V cos γ −1 8 V cos γ V cos γ V cos γ ⎤
⎛ ⎞
Fl = ρRv² λ ηb cos ²γ ⎢π ⎜ t´⎟ − 4 t´ arctanh 1 − t´ 6 t´ ⎥
⎢ 6⎝ R ⎠ 3 R R R ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Impact area
C λ . ηb
h
b λ = 0.46 für α = 0
Hb R
SWL
C C
β
g.t α
γ V cos ( α − β )
V
V λ=
cos α
C α
V= für α = -45° bis +45°
cos β und β ≈ -45°
C
V⊥ = ⋅ cos ( α − β )
cos β
34
Time
Time Dependent
Dependent Slamming
Slamming Coefficient
Coefficient (Wienke
(Wienke and
and Oumeraci,
Oumeraci,
2005)
2005)
Wagner (1932)
Fabula
(1957) Von Karman (1929)
Goda
et al. (
1966) Campbell & Weynberg
(1979)
Wienke (2001)
35
2.3 Breaking Wave Impact Load on
Single Pile in Shallow Water
References:
• Irschik, K. (2007): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by depth limited breaking
waves, PhD-Thesis, TU Braunschweig (in German)
36
Breaking Wave Loads (Slamming Coefficient Approach)
Hb
Δz = Impact height of fD = f(Breaktype) :
hb Δz ≈ Hb
2
FTot ≈ 0, 88 ρw ⋅ g ⋅ D ⋅ H b
Problem: Response characteristics of structure not considered.
37
Quasi-Static Force and Impact Forces
Non-breaking wave:
C F
MWL
• quasi-static force
MORISON equation
F = FD + FM
R
Breaking wave: C λ . ηb
ηb F
• quasi-static + impact force MWL
F = ( FD + FM ) + F I
FI = ρ ⋅ R ⋅V 2 ⋅ C s ⋅ λ ⋅ ηb ⋅ cos 2 α
Cs: slamming coefficient
λ: curling factor
38
Curling Factor for Depth Limited Wave Breaking
Non-breaking wave:
C F
MWL
• quasi-static force
MORISON equation
F = FD + FM
R
Breaking wave: C λ . ηb
ηb F
• quasi-static + impact force MWL
F = (FD + FM ) + FI
FI = ρ ⋅ R ⋅ V 2 ⋅ Cs ⋅ λ ⋅ ηb ⋅ cos2 α D Estimation of curling
factor λ for depth limited
Cs: slamming coefficient
breaking waves
λ: curling factor
40
Model Set-up in GWK (2)
Flume wall:
• current meters (8)
propeller probes (4)
Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV) (4)
Test cylinder:
• five inclinations
α = -45°/-22,5°/0°/22.5°/45°
41
Wave
Wave Conditions
Conditions Tested
Tested in
in GWK
GWK
GWK-Data
x= 201m GWK-Data
x= 201m
42
Breaker
Breaker Type
Type
43
Breaker Tilt Angle
44
Breaker Tilt Angles
plunging breaker
breaker tongue at top
air gap
breaker tilt angle 30-45°
collapsing breaker
breaker tongue at SWL
very small air gap
breaker tilt angle >45°
45
Breaking Wave Loads in Shallow Water
1 2
3 4
46
Normalized Max Total Force
2.5
Time Dependent
[-]
2 impact force
(highly variable)
1.5
Ftot/ρgDHzyl2
3D model of Wienke
1 (2001)
0.5
+
quasi-static load
0 (constant)
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Morison equation
distance xb-xcyl [m]
x = xb = Breaking Point Location:
47
Curling
Curling Factors
Factors
Curling factor
Fdyn (t)
λ=
ρ ⋅ C S (t) ⋅ R ⋅ C b2 ⋅ ηb
1 height of impact area
λ=
ηb
curling factor [-]
0.8
0.4
0.2
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4
¾ distance
The time history xb-ximpact
of the cyl [m]can be estimated using the same
curling factors for both plunging and collapsing breakers
48
Impact Force: Curling Factor l
49
Impact Force: Curling Factor l
Wienke (2001)
loading case 3
Curling – Factor λ [-]
(most critical)
Mean of 10%
highest values.
Wienke, J (2001): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by breaking waves in deeper water, PhD-Thesis,
Leichtweiss-Institute, TU Braunschweig (in German)
Irschik, K. (2007): Impact loading of slender pile structures induced by depth limited breaking waves, PhD-Thesis, TU
Braunschweig (in German)
50
2.4 Effect of Neighbouring Piles on
Wave Loading of Slender Pile
References:
• Sparboom, U; Hidelbrandt, A; Oumeraci, H. (2006): Group interaction effects of slender cylinders
under wave attack. Proc. ICCE´06
51
Measuring
Measuring Cylinder
Cylinder in
in GWK
GWK
5.00m
Support
structure
+
Measuring Strain
cylinder
D = 0.324m
gauge
s
SWL
+4.26m Wave
7.00m
Current gauges
meters
+2.40m
3.00m
2.50m
0.00 m
Model set-up in the
CROSS - SECTION Large Wave Channel
52
Measuring
Measuring Cylinders
Cylinders and
and Locations
Locations of
of Neighbouring
Neighbouring Cylinders
Cylinders
Measuring cylinder
Neighbouring cylinder
D = Cylinder diameter
c = Incident wave direction
Loading
case 1
Loading
case 2
Loading
case 3
55
Loading
Loading Cases
Cases for
for the
the Selected
Selected Cylinder
Cylinder Group
Group Configurations
Configurations (2)
(2)
Loading
case 4
Loading
case 5
56
Tested
Tested Wave
Wave Conditions
Conditions
Water Depth
d = 4.26 m
Water Depth
d = 4.26 m
Instrumented Cylinder
3D D
D
D 3D
58
Surface
Surface elevation
elevation and
and wave
wave height
height development
development in in the
the
near
near field
field of
of aa single
single isolated
isolated cylinder
cylinder for
for loading
loading cases
cases 1-5
1-5
H3,0
[m]
loading case 5
loading case 4
loading case 3
2,5
loading case 1
loading case 2
(a) Locations of wave gauges and cylinder
2,0
cylinder axis
2 η [m]
9
8 1,5
7 1,5
6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
WG 5
2.6 m 1.3 m 0 1.3 m 2.6 m
1
wave gauge location
(c) Wave development in front and behind the cylinder
0,5
SWL
t [s] 0
2 1,5 1 0,5 0
59
Bending
Bending moments
moments and
and surface
surface elevation
elevation for
for isolated
isolated single
single
cylinder
cylinder
Regular Waves: H = 1.4m; T = 4s
My (t)
Mx (t)
Mr (t)
60
Measured
Measured wave
wave kinematics
kinematics with
with calculated
calculated accelerations
accelerations
η(t) u(t)
du/dt
dv/dt
v(t)
61
Bending
Bending moments
moments and
and surface
surface elevation
elevation for
for side-by-side
side-by-side
arrangement
arrangement
Regular Waves: H = 1.4m; T = 4s
My (t)
Mx (t) Mr (t)
62
Wave
Wave kinematics
kinematics for
for side-by-side
side-by-side arrangement
arrangement
η(t) u(t)
du/dt
dv/dt
v(t)
63
Reduction
Reduction Amplification
Amplification Factor
Factor for
for Loading
Loading Cases
Cases 1-5
1-5
64
3. Wave Forces on Submerged Bodies
References:
• Recio, J.; Oumeraci, H. (2006): Geotextile Sand Containers for Coastal Structures – Hydraulic
Stability Formulae and Experimental Determination of Drag, Inertia and Lift Coefficients. Progress
Report LWI (1st Draft), December 2006
65
Sliding
Sliding and
and Overturning
Overturning Stability
Stability
a) Sliding Stability b) Analysed condition
Mobilising force:
Drag + Inertia force
∂u
FD + FM = 0.5ρw u2 CD A s + CMρw V
∂t
Resisting Force:
Weight of GSC-Lift Force-Buoyancy
lc lc
FGSC
2 2
66
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (1)
(1)
67
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (2)
(2)
68
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (3)
(3)
69
Tested
Tested Configurations
Configurations (4)
(4)
70
Reynolds
Reynolds Numbers
Numbers and
and KC
KC Numbers
Numbers for
for Tested
Tested Conditions
Conditions
71
Comparison
Comparison Aceleration
Aceleration Data-Linear
Data-Linear Theory
Theory
72
Comparison
Comparison with
with COBRAS-Computations
COBRAS-Computations
Horizontal Forces
Difference within
12%
landward z= 0.13m
Forces [N]
seaward
Calc. Cobras
Measured
0 10 20 30
Time [s]
73
Drag
Drag Dominance
Dominance
Horizontal Velocity
Horizontal Force
74
Maximum
Maximum Solitary
Solitary Wave
Wave Generated
Generated in
in LWI-Twin
LWI-Twin Wave
Wave Flume
Flume
75
Comparison
Comparison of
of Solitary
Solitary Wave
Wave Shape
Shape Measured
Measured with
with Cobras
Cobras
110 115
76
4. Wave Loads on Monolithic
Breakwaters and Sea Walls
77
4.1 Wave Loads Classification
78
Parameter Map for Classification of Loading Cases
Composite breakwater
Moderate High mound Crown wall of rubble-
Vertical breakwater Low mound mound mound breakwater
hb * < 0.3 0.3 < hb* < 0.6 0.6 < hb * < 0.9 0.9 < hb * < 1.0 hb * > 1.0
L hs Bb
SWL
SWL SWL d SWL
Hsi d
hs hs
hs d Beq hb
hb hr
hb hr
Small wave Large wave Small wave Large wave Small wave Large wave Very large wave
* * * * * * *
Hs < 0.35 0.35 < Hs 0.1 < Hs < 0.2 0.2 < Hs < 0.6 0.1 < Hs < 0.2 0.2 < Hs < 0.6 Hs > 0.6
td ≈ 0,5 SWL
t d > TN Fh
Fh,max TN= natural period of Ph,max
structure oscillation
Fu
Ph,max
Pu,max ≈ 1,0
t/T ρ ⋅ g⋅H
td = t d / T
Pu,max
≈ 0,5
a) quasi-static load (pulsating) ρ ⋅ g⋅H
Pu,max Ph,max
t/T ≈ 2 bis 50
td = t d / T ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hb
Pu,max
b) Impact load ≈ 2,0
ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hb
(*) Figures represent only order of magnitude
80
4.2 Breaking Wave Loads
81
Breaking Wave Loading of Caisson Breakwaters in GWK
Vertical
Breakwater
82
Breaking Wave Loads and Splash in GWK (Video)
83
Breaking Wave Loads
Fh / ρgHb2 Fh / ρgHb2
Hb
FFhh Fh,max
Fh,max T = Wave period
Fh,q Fh,q
GODA-Formulae PROVERBS-Approach
(static stability analysis) (dynamic stability analysis)
84
Simplified Force Time History
F (t) F (t)
h h
Actual load Idealised load
F h,max
I
dFh
I I
rFh I rFh
dFh
t rFh t tr t
t dFh td
85
Simplified Impact Pressure Distribution (Parameterization)
Fh(t)
SWL = Static Water Level
R c = freeboard p4 h*= 0.8Hb
F h,max
p1 Rc
SWL
Fh,max
F (t) lFh d
h
dc
t t
tr p = 0.45 p1
3
td
86
Calculation of Static Equivalent Wave Loads (1)
Fh,max
• Maximum Impact force Fh,max[kN/m]:
π2 h = Water depth
⋅h
2 g (3) directly at the
t A = ρw ⋅ g ⋅ Hs ⋅ tr Time
4Fh,max wall
td
• Total load duration td:
Dynamic load factor νD
⎡ ⎛ t ⎞⎤
t d = t A ⋅ ⎢2.0 + 8 ⋅ exp ⎜ −18 A ⎟⎟ ⎥ (4) Tp = Peak ⎡ ⎛ td ⎞ ⎤
0,55
⎡ ⎛t ⎞ ⎤
⎢⎣ ⎜ Tp νD = 1.4 ⎢ tanh ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ + 0.25 ⎢2π ⎜ d ⎟ c ⎥
⎝ ⎠ ⎥⎦ Periode
⎢⎣ ⎝ TN ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎝ TN ⎠ ⎥⎦ (6)
or approximated by: t d ≈ 2.5 t A (5) ⎛t ⎞
−0,63
with c = 0.55 ⎜ d ⎟
⎝ tA ⎠
For more details see Oumeraci, H. (2004): „Caisson breakwaters“ in Planning and Design of
Ports and Marine Terminals, pp. 155-262 2nd Edition by H. Agerschou, Thomas Telford, London. 87
Calculation of static Equivalent Wave Loads (2)
Dynamic load factor νD
⎡ ⎛ td ⎞ ⎤
0,55
⎡ ⎛t ⎞ ⎤ ⎛t ⎞
−0,63
td
k=
tA
dynamic load factor νD[-]
tA tE
td
Natural Period:
M
TN ≈ 2π
Ks
M=Mass, Ks= Stiffness
88
Effect
Effect of
of Successive
Successive Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Loads
Loads
horiz. Force Fh [kN/m]
Time [s]
Total horiz. Displacement of Structure [cm]
Time [s]
±0,0
(c) Caisson displacements
Fh
89
SAKATA-Habour (Japan)
B=17.0m
±0.00
d hc=11.63m
-3.43m
14.5m -9.00m
Storm surge im Winter 73/74 ⇒ Hmax=10m, Tp=13s Credit: Dr. Takahashi, PARI
91
Sliding
Sliding of
of Caisson
Caisson in
in SAKATA-Harbour
SAKATA-Harbour in
in the
the Storm
Storm Surge
Surge
1973/74
1973/74
92
Dynamic
Dynamic Stability
Stability Calculation
Calculation of
of SAKATA
SAKATA Breakwater
Breakwater
B=17.0m
±0,00
HS= 6.9m
Tp= 13.0s
d = 3.43m
Horizontal displacement
of Caisson: ca.
20mm/Impact event
93
Seaward Impact Loading Induced by Wave Overtopping
Overtopping plume
SWL
Fh, sea
Seaward impact
pressure
Uplift
Schüttrumpf, A. (2006): Uplift force on monolithic structures induced by breaking waves and under
overtopping conditions – PhD-Thesis, TU Braunschweig (1st Draft)
94
Research
Research Performed
Performed in
in PROVERBS
PROVERBS for
for Wave
Wave Impact
Impact of
of Vertical
Vertical
Structures
Structures
Berm height Parameter Map Water depth &
wave conditions
and width for classification of loading case
at structure
IMPACT LOADING
1 2
* force history 2 * force history
Fh,1= f (duration) Fu,1= f (duration)
Fh,1 Fv,2
* correction of Fh,1 Fs,2 * correction of Fu,1
for aeration for aeration
Fu,1 Fu,2
95
4.3 Scale Effects Associated with
Breaking Wave Impacts
96
Physical
Physical Processes
Processes Involved
Involved in
in the
the Wave
Wave Load
Load History
History and
and
Associated
Associated scaling
scaling Problems
Problems
α
F h, nature
= NLF Fh, model
Oscillations of Air α
Pocket t nature= NLt t model
Compression of Air
Pocket C FROUDE: αF= 3 and α t = 0.5
C MACH-CAUCHY: αF= 2 and α t = 1.0
C ALTERNATIVE Scaling depending on
air entrainment:
αF= 2 to 3
MACH-CAUCHY α t = 0.5 to 1.0
MACH-CAUCHY
AND FROUDE
Escape of Air
Maximal Run-up
Impact of Breaker
Tongue
MACH-CAUCHY
AND FROUDE FROUDE
FROUDE
Time t
(Oumeraci & Hewson, 1997)
97
Suggested
Suggested Procedure
Procedure for
for Scaling
Scaling the
the Various
Various Components
Components of
of the
the
Wave
Wave Load
Load History
History
impact component governed by compressibility
F (t) Fdyn (MACH- Cauchy)
[
Ftot(t) = (Fdyn) + (Fosc ) ] + (FFroude)
MACH-Cauchy
oscillatory component
governed by compressibility quasi-static compon
Fosc(Mach-Cauchy) governed by gravity
Fq (Froude)
Cauchy: tr
Froude: t di Time t
Cauchy - Froude: td
Froude: tq
(Oumeraci et al, 2001)
98
Scale
Scale Effects
Effects in
in Modelling
Modelling Breaking
Breaking Wave
Wave Loading
Loading and
and Response
Response
of
of Sea
Sea Dikes
Dikes
Gravity FROUDE 1 1 1
C
Friction REYNOLDS 1 1:31.6 1:1000
Surface
Wave CAUCHY
FROUDE ( REYNOLDS ) Elasticity CAUCHY 1 1:10 1:100
99
4.4 Broken Wave Loads on Sea Walls
100
Broken Wave Loads: Load Cases According to SPM (1984)
Front of seawall
Seawall Seawall
Front of seawall
Shoreline
101
Assumption According to CEM (2003)
1 2
⎛ hw ⎞ ⎛ x ⎞
Bore height Hb´= 0, 78 ⋅ Hb (5) Hw1 = ⎜ 0, 2 + 0,58 ⋅ ⎟ ⋅ Hb (6) HRWS = 0, 2 ⋅ Hb (7) Hw2 = 0, 2 ⋅ Hb ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ (8)
⎝ hb ⎠ ⎝ xA ⎠
⎛ x ⎞
v w1 = c b = g ⋅ hb (2) v RWS = c b = g ⋅ hb (3) v w2 = c b = g ⋅ hb ⋅ ⎜ 1 − 2 ⎟ (4)
Bore velocity v b = c b = g ⋅ hb (1)
⎝ xA ⎠
cb cb cb
max. run-up
Linear decrease of bore height
vA = 0
Breaker A
Hb´ Hw2
height HB SWL Hw1 HSWL ( zA )max
α
U
hw
(shoreline)
hb (Breaking
depth) 1:m x2
o pe
Bea ch sl x A = ( z A )max / tan α
α
linear decrease of bore
linear decrease of bore height
velocity from
1 Seawall front seawards of shoreline v SWL = g ⋅ hb to v A = 0
2 Seawall front landwards of shoreline at max. run-up
102
Seawall
Seawall Front
Front Seawards
Seawards of
of Shoreline:
Shoreline: Wave
Wave Load
Load Formulae
Formulae
Force Components:
1 2 1
Fwo = ⋅ ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hw1 ; Fstau = ⋅ ρ ⋅ g ⋅ hb ⋅ Hw1
2 2
1 Fwu = ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hw1 ⋅ hw ; Fstat =
1
⋅ ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hw1
2
2
v
pstau = ρ⋅
2
Wave pressure
v = g ⋅ hb
Fstau ⎛ h ⎞
Fwo Hw1 = ⎜ 0, 2 + 0,58 ⋅ w ⎟ ⋅ Hb
⎝ hb ⎠ HSWL = 0, 2 ⋅ Hb
SWL
U
p w = ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hw1 Fwu shoreline
hw
Fstat
103
Seawall
Seawall front
front landwards
landwards of
of shoreline:
shoreline: Wave
Wave Loads
Loads Formulae
Formulae
2 (maximum run-up)
v
pstau = ρ ⋅ w2 A
p w = ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hw2 2
⎛ x ⎞
Hw2 = 0, 2 ⋅ Hb ⋅ ⎜1 − 2 ⎟
Fstau xA ⎠
Fwo ⎝ zA
1
HSWL = 0, 2 ⋅ Hb Fwo =
2
⋅ ρ ⋅ g ⋅ Hw2
2
1 ⎛ x ⎞
Fstau = ⋅ ρ ⋅ g ⋅ hb ⋅ Hw2 ⋅ ⎜1 − 2 ⎟
SWL 2 ⎝ xA ⎠
U (shoreline) x
α 2
x A = z A / tan α
105
Wave Force Reduction by Armouring
x
Tetrapod
layer B crown
DWL Rc DWL
H b0 Caisson hc
d
d0 hs Bb
Bb
hb hr
1 Definition of parameters:
• DWL = design water level
Bbottom + B crown • Bcrown = crest width (larger than two armour blocks)
b0 = B crown + hs • m = cot α = 1.35 to 1.50
hs + R c
• Rc = freeboard
• Lhs = wave length for depth hs at toe
• b0 = width of dissipating mound at height of DWL
106
Damping of Pulsating Wave Loads by Armouring
(Fh)max = 1.2
(Fu)max = 0.9 with
withoutdissipating mound
dissipating mound
without dissipating mound
(μD,u)max ≈ 40%
(μD,h)max ≈ 50%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
(Oumeraci, 2004)
107
Damping of Pulsating Wave Loads by Armouring
( Fh)max= 4.1
(Fu)max = 2.6
with
withoutdissipating
dissipating moundmound
with
without dissipating
dissipating mound mound
(μD,h)max≈ 80%
(μD,u)max≈ 60%
Fu -Fu,D
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 μD,u=
Fu
(Oumeraci, 2004)
108
4.6 Stability of Structure Foundation
Under Extreme Wave Loads
109
Main
Main Modes
Modes of
of Vertical
Vertical Breakwater
Breakwater Failure
Failure
Fh
Fh SWL SWL
SWL lh
SWL
W' W'
A B
lv
μ (W' - F v)
Fv Fv
a) Sliding b) Overturning e) Erosion beneath seaward and f) Punching failure at seaward and
shoreward edges shoreward edges
SWL
SWL Fh
Erosion of
Scour hole rubble mound toe
F v'
Fv
110
Wave
Wave Induced
Induced Dynamic
Dynamic Process
Process in
in Foundation
Foundation of
of Coastal
Coastal Structures
Structures
Inductive Displacement
Wave Gauges Meters
7.00 m Wave Flume (Top Level)
3.30 m
1
1 Caisson
2.76 m
4.05 m SWL 1 with 4.05 m SWL
1 Sandfill
HS, TP 3.45 m 2.50 m Bedding layer 0.2 m
1
1.00 m
.5 1 1
Sand layer 2.45 m
1:1
Sand Berm
1 1 1 1 D50 = 0.35 mm
2.45 m
2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2
Sand D50 = 0.35 mm
Impermeable Sheets 2 3 2 2 3 2
Electrical Conductivity
2 2 2 Measurement
Sand D50 = 0.35 mm Sand D50 = 0.21 mm
2 2 2 2 0.00 m Flume Bottom
Separation Wall
(Sandbags) 7.20 m
111
Caisson Breakwater Construction in GWK
112
Processes
Processes Leading
Leading to
to Partial
Partial Soil
Soil Liquefaction
Liquefaction
300
Mean Value Mt,max ≈ 210 kNm/m
Mt [ kNm/m ]
200
100
0
-1
-2
-3 (b)Transient motions of the
shoreward caisson edge
10
ut [ kPa ]
-5
10
ur [ kPa ]
-20 hs dv,b Mt
-40 -
P36
-60
Transient -
-3.5 Δdv,b=0.3 mm P36
-6
-8
-10 (a) Vertical caisson motion dv,b (t)
4
Transient pore pressure
3
u [ kPa ]
2
S
Residual pore pressure
1
3 Residual
Δur=0.2 kPa
0 Zoom 2 Transient
(b) Pore pressure response u(t)
1 under the shoreward edge
of the caisson (P36)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
S≈54 cycles Time [s]
Regular waves with H=0.7m, T=6.5s, hs=1.6m
114
Residual Pore Pressure vs. Caisson Motions
Impact Pulsating
Load Load
4
III
Dr≈0.31
Dr≈0.35
Dr≈0.40
hs dv,b
3
Dr ≈ 0.35
Dr ≈ 0.40
123