Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Large impulsive forces on recurved parapets under non-breaking waves. A

numerical study
M. Castellino a, *, P. Sammarco b, A. Romano a, L. Martinelli c, P. Ruol c, L. Franco d,
P. De Girolamo a
a
“Sapienza” University of Rome, DICEA, Via Eudossiana, 18, Rome, 00184, Italy
b
University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, DICII, Via del Politecnico, 1, Rome, 00133, Italy
c
Padua University, ICEA Department, Via Ognissanti, 39, Padua, 35129, Italy
d
Roma Tre University, Engineering Department, Via V. Volterra, 62, Rome, 00146, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper describes 2-D numerical simulations of velocity and pressure fields generated by non-breaking waves
Non-breaking waves on a vertical breakwater with a recurved parapet wall. The influence of the geometrical characteristics of the
Vertical breakwaters parapet is investigated. An impulsive pressure force is identified and discussed with respect to the pure vertical
Recurved parapet wall wall case. This force is generated by the seaward flow confinement induced by the surging wave crest. We refer to
Impulsive forces this impulsive impact as “confined-crest impact”.
A large part of the vertical wall is affected by an impulsive increase in pressure caused by pulsating wave,
compared to the case where the parapet is completely vertical. The maximum values of the impulsive pressures
are localized under the recurved parapet. The total force increase on the entire structure may be significant when
compared to the pure vertical wall case.

1. Introduction and state of the art
Composite vertical breakwaters are a type of coastal structure often
used in deep water conditions to protect harbours from incoming waves
(typically non-breaking). In order to safely use the port-side of these
breakwaters, it is crucial to limit wave overtopping. To this purpose, a
high vertical crown parapet wall is a very efficient and economical design
solution. To improve the hydraulic efficiency of the crownwall, the
seaward side of the top profile may be shaped to form an overhang
(recurved parapet/wave return wall/bullnose) aimed at further reducing
wave overtopping by deflecting back seaward the uprushing water (Fig. 1
illustrates the parameters definition from EurOtop, 2016).
Curved parapets at breakwater crownwalls and quay walls have been
efficiently used since the ancient Roman times (see Fig. 2).
An overhang or a curved parapet located in the upper part of a
crownwall yields two effects: (i) reduces wave overtopping if compared
to a pure vertical wall characterized by the same value of the crest
freeboard Rc (see Fig. 1); (ii) generates a wave impact on the underside
part of the overhang. This wave impact produces impulsive pressures
acting both on the overhang and on the vertical wall.
These two effects have been largely considered by the technical and
scientific literature, which however has mainly dealt with the use of
curved parapets or overhangs for seawalls. Seawalls are characterized by
shallow water conditions at the toe of the structure and therefore the
incoming waves are generally broken or nearly breaking. In these con-
ditions the wave impact contribution of the overhang is not easily
detectable.
The aim of the present work is to analyze the wave impact on a
recurved parapet of a vertical breakwater placed at a large water depth.
Therefore, in these conditions the presence of broken or breaking waves
can be excluded.
The scientific literature dealing with impulsive pressures and forces
on vertical or inclined walls with or without recurved parapets or over-
hangs is very extensive.
A first review concerning wave impacts on bodies and coastal struc-
tures is provided by Ramkema (1978) who highlighted that the devel-
opment of mathematical wave impact and slamming models was
originated by Von Karman (1929) and Wagner (1932). They were
interested in the impact of seaplane floats during landing and taking off.
Ramkema (1978) developed the so-called Bagnold's piston model (Bag-
nold, 1939). The model was used to describe the wave impact caused by
standing waves against protruding structural elements inserted in the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: myrta.castellino@uniroma1.it (M. Castellino).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2018.01.012
Received 27 May 2017; Received in revised form 18 January 2018; Accepted 28 January 2018

0378-3839/© 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

M. Castellino et al.
caissons of the storm surge barrier of the Eastern Scheldt. In the geometry
considered by Ramkema (1978) a layer of air between the protruding
element and the water mass was present.
The basic concepts of wave impact beneath a horizontal surface are
given by Wood and Peregrine (1999). They considered the wave impact
on the underside of a projecting surface, e.g. a flat deck, close to the mean
water level. The horizontal surface of finite length is confined on at one
side by a vertical wall. Wood and Peregrine (1999) showed that the
pressure-impulse (e.g. the integral of pressure over the duration of the
impact) generated by the wave action under the horizontal surface affects
also the vertical wall.
Most of research concerning pressures and forces have addressed the
violent breaking wave impacts on vertical sea walls placed in shallow
water, where breaking of wind waves is induced by bottom effects
(Bagnold, 1939; Cooker and Peregrine, 1990, 1992; Peregrine, 2003).
Hattori et al. (1994) observed that pressure waves generated by the wave
impacts, propagate away from the impact zone at the speed of sound, i.e.
as acoustic waves in the fluid. Other findings regarding the characteris-
tics of violent breaking wave impacts may be found in the works of Wood
et al. (2000), Bullock et al. (2007), Bredmose et al. (2009), Plumerault
et al. (2012) and Bredmose et al. (2015). These works (see Bredmose
et al., 2015, for a comprehensive state of art) deal with the strong
sensitivity of the impact pressures on the wave shape and the oscillatory
temporal pressure variations due to compression and expansion of trap-
ped and entrained air. In these situations, compressibility effects need to
be taken into account. The effect of air bubbles on the speed of sound in
2
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
Fig. 1. Parameters definition for assessment of overtopping
at structures with parapet/wave return wall (EurOtop,
2016).
Fig. 2. Left panel: curved seawall in a
Roman mosaic of 2nd century AD in
Rimini (Italy). Right panel: cross section
of the rock carved breakwater of the
Roman port of Ventotene built under
Augustus on 14 BCE and still operational
(from Franco, 1996).
water is addressed by Gibson (1970) while the influence of salinity in the
bubble size in water is studied by Scott (1975a, b). The importance of
scale effects and aeration in simulating violent breaking impacts are
considered by Blenkinsopp and Chaplin (2011) and Bredmose et al.
(2015).
Recent applied research concerning breaking wave loads and their
effects at vertical seawalls and at caisson breakwaters may be found in
Cuomo et al. (2010a, b) and Elsafti and Oumeraci (2017). Chen (2011);
Chen et al. (2015) and Van Doorslaer et al. (2017) considered the impact
on stormwalls induced by overtopping flow.
An extensive review of curved seawall shapes can be found in Anand
et al. (2010). Such curved shapes have been extensively used for onshore
seawalls under breaking and broken wave attack.
One of the earliest studies on the application of curved crownwalls on
composite vertical breakwaters was conducted by De Gerloni et al.
(1989) for the deep water perforated caissons at Porto Torres, testing
three different recurve shapes with excellent overtopping reduction.
Even field measurements of pressures acting on the Porto Torres caissons
(see Fig. 3) were then carried out by De Girolamo et al. (1996), but no
large events were recorded in the limited measurement period. General
formulations for overtopping reduction factors, as compared to the pure
vertical wall, were then proposed by Franco et al. (1995), while recent
effective applications were described by Di Risio et al. (2007, 2009) and
Franco et al. (2013). A systematic investigation on chamfered parapets
was conducted by Cornett et al. (1999). Early work for curved seawalls
was reported by Owen and Steele (1993). An extreme Flaring Shaped
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

measured by using tactile sensors (Ravindar et al., 2016).

Kisacik et al. (2012a, b, 2014) describe and analyze the results of
physical model tests reproducing an existing structure on the Belgian
coast. The structure, which may be classified as a seawall, is made of a
vertical wall with an overhanging horizontal cantilever slab whose
function is to reduce wave overtopping. The structure is exposed to vi-
olent wave impacts, including waves running up against the vertical wall
and slamming beneath the horizontal deck. The experimental tests
included a wide range of incoming wave conditions and water levels,
covering all possible types of breaking conditions and considered also the
flip-through impact (Cooker and Peregrine, 1990). Most of the tests were
characterized by shock pressures recorded on the two parts of the
structure. The first impact occurs on the vertical part, while the second
one occurs beneath the horizontal part. The authors excluded from their
analysis waves hitting first the horizontal part.
Despite significant research work on forces acting on vertical and
recurved walls, the mechanisms determining the effectiveness of a
recurved parapet and the associated forces are complex and not yet fully
described. There is still a lack of design guidelines and consolidated
engineering standards for the relatively frequent case of recurved walls,
especially in deep water applications at the crown of vertical breakwa-
ters. This may lead to a significant understimations of wave forces
induced by non-breaking waves and to the consequent damages, as that
occurred recently at the Civitavecchia Harbour (see Fig. 4).
Indeed in this work we infer that the impact of a non-breaking wave
Fig. 3. Picture of the main breakwater of Industrial Port of Porto Torres,
Sardinia (Italy) made by r.c. precast perforated caissons with a on the recurved part of the wall generates pressure shock waves which
recurve crownwall. propagate all along the vertical structure with the sound speed, drasti-
cally increasing the forces acting on the entire wall. Unlike the case of a
Seawall with thin overhanging crest was first presented by Murakami pure vertical wall, when a recurved parapet is considered, the pressures
et al. (1997). and forces reach their maximum values at the top of the structure where
To date, the formulae for estimating the magnitude of impulsive and the recurve is located. These effects may be important for the design of
non-impulsive pressure fields, acting on composite vertical breakwaters the structure and in particular for the design of the top parapet wall.
and generated by breaking and non-breaking waves, are largely derived Indeed such walls may be slender, i.e. characterized by a small inertia
from results of laboratory tests. The most widely used design formulae and high stiffness, and therefore may be much more sensible to impulsive
are summarized by Goda (2010). These formulae include impulsive forces than the rest of the vertical structure which is normally made by
breaking conditions studied by Takahashi (1996). massive precast caissons. As previously mentioned, this case has not been
Oumeraci et al. (2001) gave guidelines for the design of composite analyzed by Kisacik et al. (2012a, b, 2014).
vertical breakwaters and seawalls under breaking and non-breaking
conditions within the framework PROVERBS (PRObabilistic design
tools for VERtical BreakwaterS). PROVERBS also includes guidelines to
estimate wave impact magnitude and duration, and their effects on
caisson breakwaters (Martinelli and Lamberti, 2011). No recurved
parapet walls were considered.
The first works that highlighted the effects of recurved walls on the
total force acting on a coastal structure, due to breaking and non-
breaking waves, are those of Kortenhaus et al. (2002, 2003). They
investigated experimentally the effects of parapets and recurves on wave
overtopping and wave loading. The authors found that the horizontal
force increase is about 1.7 for impulsive breaking wave conditions and
2.0 for non-breaking conditions. However, they state that “it is not
possible to distinguish whether the load increase is due to the increase of
wall height or to the shape of the parapet installed at the wall”.
Pearson et al. (2004) studied experimentally a promenade wall with
an “unusual parapet” made by an overhang to reduce wave overtopping.
They concluded that the overhang increases the horizontal loads of a
factor around two as compared to the loads on a vertical wall. Further-
more, they pointed out that the upward loads on the underside of the
parapet are comparable in terms of magnitude, and even larger in some
cases, when compared to the horizontal ones.
More recently, Stagonas et al. (2014) performed an extensive exper-
imental campaign within the Hydralab IV project investigating both
wave overtopping and forces acting on a recurved seawall in breaking
waves conditions. They pointed out that “the force acting on the recurved
parapet increases as the seaward extent of the wall increases”. The spatial
distribution of impact pressures on the recurved part of the seawall was Fig. 4. Picture of the damages occurred at the Civitavecchia Harbour,
Lazio (Italy).

3
M. Castellino et al.
In the present work numerical simulations of non-breaking wave
conditions on recurve and vertical parapet walls are carried out in order
to analyze the hydrodynamics generating the impulsive forces. The
maximum forces on a recurve wall are evaluated and compared to the
forces acting on a pure vertical wall characterized by the same freeboard.
The trade-off between overtopping reduction and impulsive forces is also
investigated.
The paper is structured as follows: first, the numerical experiment
assumptions and the implementation and validation of the numerical
simulations are given, then the numerical results are shown and
discussed.
2. Basic assumption
A vertical breakwater with a parapet wall located on its crown is
considered. The seaside of the parapet wall and of the vertical breakwater
are vertically aligned. As shown in Fig. 5, the sea side of the considered
parapet wall has two shapes: (i) a recurved shape (upper panel); (ii) a
vertical shape (lower panel). Fig. 5a shows the main characteristics of the
recurved parapet: the curve, a 90∘ sector of circumference, is placed at the
top of the parapet with a radius of 1.0 m.
The elevation of the parapet wall crown (crest freeboard Rc ) is equal
to þ6:5 m (above the Still Water Level - S.W.L.) for both geometries. In
4
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
order to focus on the hydrodynamic process related to the parapet wall, a
pure vertical breakwater on a flat bottom is assumed, i.e. no rubble
mound foundation is considered. The flat bottom assumption also allows
to use the Sainflou analytical solution (Sainflou, 1928) to validate the
numerical setup under regular wave conditions. No sea level variations
are considered. The water depth at the toe of the structure is constant and
equal to 20.0 m with respect to S.W.L. This water depth reproduces the
typical deep water conditions of vertical caisson breakwaters along the
Mediterranean coasts, where flip-through impacts, breaking waves or
broken waves at the breakwater toe may be statistically excluded during
their lifetime.
The sea bottom and the structures are assumed to be impermeable.
Entrained or trapped air is simulated by the applied numerical code, even
though water and air are assumed to be incompressible. These assump-
tions (i.e. water and air incompressibility) are justified by the following
reasons: (i) it has been numerically verified that there is no trapped air in
the fluid or between the fluid and the structure during the phenomenon;
(ii) the fluid velocity is always much smaller than the speed of sound in
the fluid (Korobkin and Pukhnachov, 1988; Cooker and Peregrine, 1992;
Mei et al., 2005).
A comparison between the two different parapet wall geometries is
carried out in order to estimate the influence of the crown's recurve of the
parapet wall on the hydrodynamics. With reference to a recurved parapet
Fig. 5. Sketch of the two vertical breakwaters ge-
ometries. a) recurved wall, b) vertical wall. Rc is the
same for both walls. Elevations are in meters. The
numerical flume length is 100.0 m and the depth is
constant and equal to 20.0 m.
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

and non-breaking regular waves, two types of hydrodynamic flows Table 1

induced by the interaction between incoming waves and the vertical Simulated incident wave conditions and crest freeboard. First column: name of the simu-
lations. Second column: nominal wave height H. Third column: nominal wave period T.
breakwater have been observed:
Fourth column: nominal dimensionless freeboard Rc =H. Fifth column: nominal steepness
s ¼ H=L0 . Sixth column: effective wave height H. Seventh column: effective wave period T.
 Case 1: the formation of a wave “clapotis” (standing wave) induced by Eighth column: effective dimensionless freeboard Rc =H. Ninth column: effective steepness
a reflection phenomenon; in this case, the incoming wave crest does s ¼ H=L0 .
not reach the recurved part of the parapet wall; Wave Nominal Effective
 Case 2: the formation of impulsive pressures (i.e. shock pressure name
H T Rc =H s H T Rc =H s
waves) and forces originating from the top recurved part of the wall;
(m) (s) () () (m) (s) () ()
the shock pressures are induced by the sudden confinement caused by
the incoming wave crest. We refer to this case as “confined-crest W1 1.0 8.0 6.50 0.010 0.98 8.13 6.63 0.009
W2 2.0 8.0 3.25 0.020 1.86 8.13 3.49 0.018
impact”.
W3 3.0 8.0 2.16 0.030 2.93 8.13 2.21 0.029
W4 4.0 8.0 1.62 0.040 3.97 8.19 1.63 0.039
Cases 1 and 2 have been sequentially obtained by gradually W5 5.0 8.0 1.30 0.050 4.95 8.19 1.31 0.049
increasing wave height for fixed period of the incident regular waves. For W6 6.0 8.0 1.08 0.060 6.06 8.19 1.07 0.060
a vertical parapet wall, Case 2 is never observed. W7 7.0 11.0 0.92 0.037 7.17 10.83 0.90 0.038

3. Implementation and validation of the numerical simulation reported and in the fifth the wave steepness, where the wave length L0
has been calculated using the linear theory in deep water condition. In
Numerical simulations are performed using OpenFOAM®, which in- the eighth and ninth columns effective dimensionless freeboard and
cludes the incompressible three-dimensional RANS conservation equa- steepness are reported. In the following analysis, we refer to the effective
tions. These equations are based on the Reynolds decomposition that values of the wave characteristics. The effective incoming wave heights
identifies an average and a fluctuating component. The k - ε turbulence have been computed by means of the method proposed by Isaacson
model is used to close the system equations, with k the turbulent kinetic (1991) which is suitable for regular reflected waves. The effective wave
energy and ε the turbulence dissipation rate. periods have been calculated by means of a spectral analysis.
The free surface is tracked by the Volume of Fluid method (VOF, Further decrease of the mesh size have been studied only for the W5
Berberovi
c et al., 2009). We used IHFOAM, a specific numerical solver wave condition on the recurved configuration. By analyzing the results
well suited for coastal hydrodynamic processes. The solver is able to for increasing mesh resolution we have not noticed any improvement in
reproduce wave generation and active absorption (Higuera et al., 2013a, accuracy.
b). The active absorption system of the reflected waves from the structure The incident wave conditions W1, W2 and W3 produce a wave cla-
is crucial, since vertical breakwaters are characterized by high reflection potis in front of the structure for both vertical and recurved parapet (see
coefficients. This tool has been successfully used in several coastal en- Fig. 6). Starting from incident wave condition W4 the confined-crest
gineering applications (e.g. Higuera et al., 2014a, b). impact takes place on the recurved parapet. This phenomenon becomes
The IHFOAM model has been used to numerically reproduce an more evident in terms of the increase of pressure and force with respect
experimental wave flume. The dimensions of the numerical wave flume to the vertical parapet, when the wave conditions W5, W6 and W7 are
are 100.0 m in length, 35.0 m in height and 0.10 m in width (see again considered.
Fig. 5). We use subscripts R and V respectively for the Recurved wall and the
Different mesh setups have been considered to assess the influence of Vertical wall. Subscript max indicates the maximum value attained by the
the mesh resolution on the results. The chosen mesh is characterized by forces, while the apex v and h respectively indicate the vertical and the
an initial cell resolution equal to 0.20 m along x-direction and 0.15 m horizontal components of the forces. By using this notation we list the
along z-direction, gradually decreasing to 0.03 m along x and z directions following symbols:
near the wall.
All the 2D simulations carried out are characterized by regular non-  FVmax maximum value of the total force on the structure with the
breaking waves to enucleate the physics of the phenomenon. The inte- vertical parapet;
gration time step is automatically chosen by the code to ensure numerical
stability and, for the tests here presented, ranges between 4:0  104 s
and 1:0  103 s. This aspect is crucial both for numerical models and
physical experiments because impulsive forces occur in a very short time.
The Courant number was set to a maximum value of 0.45. Numerical
simulations were performed by generating on the West side of the nu-
merical flume (see Fig. 5) regular waves of period T equal to 8.0 s and
11.0 s with varying wave heights H (minimum wave height of 1.0 m and
maximum of 7.0 m). Few additional tests up to H ¼ 8:0 m and T ¼ 13 s
were also performed in the final analysis described in chapter 5. An active
absorption boundary condition has been imposed on the West side of the
flume. Along the solid impermeable boundaries (walls and bottom) the
numerical code assumes a no-slip velocity condition.
The mean computational time for each simulation is of the order of
5 h (some 15 zerocrossing regular waves have been simulated) on an Intel
Core i7-6700K computer equipped with 64 GB of RAM and 8 processors.
The simulated regular and non-breaking incoming wave character-
istics are summarized in Table 1. The second and third columns of
Table 1 contain the nominal wave heights and periods, while the sixth
and the seventh columns contain the corresponding effective values. In Fig. 6. Time evolution of the free surface elevation η for the numerical
the fourth column of the table, the nominal dimensionless freeboard is simulation W3. Values of the free surface elevation are reported on the z-axis.
Non-breaking wave condition is assured.

5
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

 FRmax maximum value of the total force on the structure with the The values of the above forces are computed: (i) for the part of the
recurved parapet; vertical breakwater located above the S.W.L. (z 2 [ 0.0; þ6.5 ] m); and
 FRv max vertical component of FRmax ; (ii) for the entire vertical structure (z 2 [20.0; þ6.5 ] m).
 FRhmax horizontal component of FRmax ; To verify the numerical implementation, the wave forces acting on
 FR total attained force on the structure with the recurved parapet wall the vertical wall have been compared with those given by the exact
(time-dependent quantity); Sainflou approximated second order wave theory (Sainflou, 1928) for the
 FRv vertical component of FR (time-dependent quantity). W1, W2 and W3 wave conditions. For these three conditions, indeed
 F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax instantaneous normalized force. there is no wave overtopping on the vertical wall, nor the wave crests
reach the recurved part of the parapet (see Table 2). The fourth column of
Table 2 shows the ratio between the maximum total force computed on
Table 2
the entire wall in crest condition (FVmax ) and the corresponding maximum
Characteristics and main results of numerical simulations for z 2 [20.0; þ6.5 ] m. First force by Sainflou's theory (FSainflou ; Sainflou, 1928). The values of this
column: name of the simulation. Second and third columns: regular non-breaking wave ratio, varying between 0.94 and 0.97, imply a good agreement. The
characteristics (height and period). Fourth: ratio of the maximum total forces calculated at clapotis time evolution of the free surface elevation η for W3 wave con-
the vertical wall FVmax with respect to FSainflou .
dition is shown in Fig. 6. Increasing further the incoming wave steepness,
Wave H T FVmax /FSainflou the agreement between the computed and theoretical forces decreases.
name
(m) (s) () This may be explained by observing that Sainflou theory becomes less
precise as wave nonlinearity increases. Similar results have been ob-
W1 1.0 8.0 0.94
W2 2.0 8.0 0.97 tained when the wave trough takes place at the vertical wall.
W3 3.0 8.0 0.96 A further check of the numerical implementation has been carried out

Fig. 7. Vertical wall: comparison between the Goda pressure diagrams and the numerical pressure distribution at the time at which the maximum force occurs.
Each panel refers to the different wave conditions W1 - W7 of Table 1.

6
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

Table 3
α ¼ 90∘ . Characteristics and main results of numerical simulations for z2[0.0;þ6.5]m and z2[20.0;þ6.5]m. First column: name of the simulation. Second to sixth columns: maximum total
forces FRmax , maximum horizontal forces FRhmax , maximum vertical forces FRv max calculated for the recurved wall, maximum force FVmax calculated for the vertical wall, forces ratio
F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax for z2[0.0;þ6.5]m. Seventh to eleventh columns: maximum total forces FRmax , maximum horizontal forces FRhmax , maximum vertical forces FRv max calculated for the recurved
wall, maximum force FVmax calculated for the vertical wall, forces ratio F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax for z2[20.0;þ6.5]m.

Wave z2[0.0;þ6.5]m z2[20.0;þ6.5]m

name 
FRmax FRhmax FRv max FVmax F FRmax FRhmax FRv max FVmax F

(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) () (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) ()

W1 3.29 3.29 0 3.29 1.00 107.30 107.30 0 107.30 1.00

W2 17.39 17.39 0 17.39 1.00 228.10 228.10 0 228.10 1.00
W3 35.13 35.13 0 35.13 1.00 338.30 338.30 0 338.30 1.00
W4 112.50 112.33 6.01 98.92 1.14 419.50 419.46 6.01 415.10 1.01
W5 364.20 352.05 93.25 127.40 2.86 884.90 879.99 93.25 546.60 1.62
W6 479.90 462.26 128.92 169.20 2.84 1179.50 1172.44 128.92 705.70 1.67
W7 719.10 685.95 215.81 252.20 2.85 2051.00 2039.66 215.81 1228.00 1.67

by comparing the forces provided by the standard Goda's formulae
(Goda, 2010) with the forces obtained numerically. We remark that this
is not a theoretical comparison due to the empirical origin of the Goda's
formulae. Nevertheless, it is interesting for engineering applications. The
comparison has been made by using for the Hmax and T1=3 of the Goda's
formulae the H and T values respectively, as reported in Table 1 for each
simulation. The comparison has been made only for the vertical parapet
case taking into account both the wave conditions which do not induce
wave overtopping (W1, W2, W3 and W4) and those which do (W5, W6
and W7). The comparison of the pressure diagrams and of the corre-
sponding maximum forces ratio (FVmax /FGoda ) acting on the entire vertical
breakwater is shown in Fig. 7 for all the simulated wave conditions. The
ratio FVmax /FGoda resulted between 0.94 and 1.15. This agreement is really
good, considering the Goda's formulae empirical nature.
4. The nature of the impulsive force
Numerical simulations have shown that the presence of the recurved
wall induces a very large increase of wave pressure acting on quite a large
part of the entire structure, compared to the case where the parapet is
completely vertical.
The results for the seven different wave conditions are summarized in
Table 3, where the maximum instantaneous values of the forces FRmax
(recurved wall) and FVmax (vertical wall) acting on the upper part of the
walls (pressure integral from z ¼ 0:0 m to z ¼ Rc ) and the entire walls
(pressure integral from z ¼ 20:0 m to z ¼ Rc ) are given together with
their ratio F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax . The horizontal and the vertical components
FRhmax and FRv max of the total forces acting on the recurved wall are also
shown in the table.
Time series of the total force FR and the vertical component of it FRv
computed on the recurved wall and the total force FV on the vertical wall
are represented for the W5 condition in Fig. 8.
Forces values in Fig. 8, normalized with respect to the maximum force
value FVmax attained in the vertical case, are computed on the wall above
the still water level. The black line indicates FR =FVmax , the dashed black
line indicates FRv =FVmax and the dashed red line indicates FV =FVmax .
Fig. 9 shows a zoom of the curves of Fig. 8 around the time t2 (see
Fig. 8) at which the maxima occur. The capability of the automatic time
step selection to resolve rapid pressures and forces time variations is
highlighted by the curves of Fig. 9 which exhibit a regular profile. Fig. 8
shows an impulsive force peak of FR (with FRmax =FVmax ¼ 2.86) in a purely
non-breaking wave condition. The pressure increase has impulsive
characteristics and occurs when the free surface elevation of the wave
crest reaches, along the wall, the terminal part of it. We show that this
pressure increase has the characteristics of a pressure shock wave due to a
sudden stop of a water mass in motion.
First of all, the pressure peak occurs at the numerical probes almost at

Fig. 8. Time series of the normalized force on the wall above the mean sea
level (z 2 [ 0.0;6.5 ] m) for the W5 wave condition. Normalized forces ratios
are all taken with respect to the maximum force attained for the vertical wall
FVmax : a) the total force acting on recurved wall FR =FVmax (black line), b) the
vertical component of the total force acting on the recurved wall FRv =FVmax
(dashed black line), c) the force acting on the vertical wall FV =FVmax (dashed
red line). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Fig. 9. Zoom of Fig. 8. Dimensionless time series (W5 wave condition) of the
forces on the walls for t 2 [ 20.3; 20.6 ] s. Black line: ratio of FR with respect to
FVmax . Dashed black line: ratio of FRv with respect to FVmax . Dashed red: line ratio
of FV with respect to FVmax . (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

7
M. Castellino et al.
the same instant (this is due to the assumed fluid incompressibility) all
along the full vertical structure down to the bottom, as it is shown in
Fig. 10. The pressure peak reduces progressively its intensity, moving
from the top of the wall (probe D located on the recurve at þ5:54 m)
toward the base of the wall (probe A located at 10:0 m). This is due to
the spatial dispersion of the pressure shock wave.
Second, the impulsive pressure occurs at the same time when a
massive flow confinement induced by the incoming wave crest suddenly
stops the returning flow induced by the recurved wall. We further clarify
this aspect.
When the wave crest reaches the top recurved part, a high-speed flow
runs upward to exit seaward of the recurved part. It is expected that this
momentum deflection, induced by the recurve, increases the forces (both
vertical and horizontal) acting on the recurved part of the wall. Somehow
less expected is the impulsive force shown in Fig. 8.
The impulsive force is generated by the flow confinement induced by
the wave crest. This phenomenon, identified in this paper as “confined-
crest impact”, can be shown by considering the three instants indicated
on the top of Fig. 8: t1 ¼ 20:29 s, t2 ¼ 20:43 s and t3 ¼ 20:83 s.
At the instant t2 the force peak takes place, while during the time
interval t3  t1 ¼ 0:54 s the normalized force acting on the recurved wall
is higher than the normalized force acting on the vertical wall. The force
increases take places in the very short time interval t2  t1 ¼ 0:14 s.
Figs. 11–14 show what happens. To outline the phenomenon we
consider the horizontal velocity component of the flow. Positive values of
horizontal velocity component (red) are directed towards the wall, while
negative values (blue) are directed seaward. In the following analysis
also vertical velocity component is provided (positive values refer to
upward components, while negative values refer to downward ones).
Instant t1: Fig. 11a and d shows the horizontal velocity field, while
Fig. 11c and f shows the pressure field for the vertical and recurved wall
respectively. In Fig. 11d the flow is climbing the curve and a significant
negative horizontal momentum is locally achieved. Over the seaward
area, the rest of the velocity field is identical to the vertical case (compare
with Fig. 11a). As for the pressure field, there is only a local increase
accompanying the flow deflection; other than that the two pressure fields
are identical (see Fig. 11c and f). No substantial differences of the vertical
velocity components can be noticed between the vertical (Fig. 11b) and
8
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
the recurved wall (Fig. 11e) configurations.
Instant t2: Fig. 12d shows how the wave crest, surging from seaward,
blocks the water flow deflected offshore by the recurve. The mass of the
incident wave, and therefore its momentum flux, confine the returning
flow, whose maximum negative speed value is in the order of 16 m=s,
introducing a sudden “no flow” constraint. Therefore, a blockage effect
may be observed. An entirely new finite area with zero horizontal ve-
locity suddenly appears at and below the free surface just off the recurved
edge. Associated to this sudden instantaneous zero horizontal mo-
mentum, a large and widespread pressure increase hits the recurved wall
extending its influence on part of the vertical wall with a maximum value
right under the recurve (see Fig. 12f). This excess pressure will expel the
flow through the free surface causing the jet of Fig. 13c and d. Under the
recurve a smaller vertical velocity component (Fig. 12e) with respect to
the vertical wall (Fig. 12b) is also evident. The volume of fluid involved
in the confined-crest impact is shown by the white and blue area of
Fig. 12d.
Instant t3: Fig. 13c shows that now almost all momentum is negative
(no horizontal velocity field) and a jet appears. The pressure field is back
to normal conditions (compare Fig. 13b and d).
A minor drop of the total force with respect to the vertical wall case
follows at the instant identified as t4 in Fig. 8. This can be explained as
follows.
Fig. 14a and c shows two different conditions. In the vertical wall case
the water falls back down along the wall, causing a larger hydrostatic
pressure in the second peak, while the recurve has deflected water
seaward, leading to a minor drop.
Fig. 15 shows, at a larger scale, the spatial shape of the free surface at
several instants for W5 condition, starting from the wave trough. The
dashed blue line of Fig. 15 corresponds to instant t2 of Figs. 8 and 12,
when the confined-crest impact induces the shock pressure in the fluid
originated by the recurved part of the parapet wall. Fig. 15 highlights that
neither wave breaking nor trapped air occur during the development of
the phenomenon. This result has been confirmed for all the wave con-
ditions considered in this paper and also confirm that this phenomenon
can be treated assuming an incompressible fluid.
Looking at the maximum vertical forces FRv max of Table 3, the first wave
condition at which a vertical component of the force appears on the
Fig. 10. Time series of the pressure on four probes
along the wall for the W5 wave condition.
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

Fig. 11. Instant t1 ¼ 20:29s. Diagrams of the pressure and velocity fields for the W5 wave condition for vertical and recurved wall. a) horizontal velocity field -
vertical wall; b) vertical velocity field - vertical wall; c) pressure field - vertical wall; d) horizontal velocity field - recurved wall; e) vertical velocity field - recurved
wall; f) pressure field - recurved wall.

Fig. 12. Instant t2 ¼ 20:43s. Diagrams of the pressure and velocity fields for the W5 wave condition for vertical and recurved wall. a) horizontal velocity field -
vertical wall; b) vertical velocity field - vertical wall; c) pressure field - vertical wall; d) horizontal velocity field - recurved wall; e) vertical velocity field - recurved
wall; f) pressure field - recurved wall.

9
M. Castellino et al.
recurved wall is W4, even though the W4 FRv max is much smaller than the
corresponding value attained for W5 condition.
The analysis of W4 condition, shown in Fig. 16, reveals that also for
this condition a small pressure shock wave may be identified because a
small pressure peak occurs at the same time at probes D, C and B. As for
W5 condition, the pressure peak reduces progressively its intensity
moving from the curved part of the wall to the base of the wall. At the
probe A, located at 10:0 m, the pressure peak almost disappears.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that the deflection alone does not give a
dramatic impulsive force, as shown in Fig. 17. In the upper panels of the
figure the horizontal velocity field is reported at three different time
steps. In the lower panels, at the same instants, the pressure field is shown
and it ultimately determines that the W4 condition exhibit the highest
runup of a deflected wave that does not cause any significant pressure
(and therefore force) increase.
These results show that the confined-crest impact appears for the
threshold value Rc =H ¼ 1:62 (see W4 condition of Table 1) and becomes
evident for Rc =H ¼ 1:30 (W5 condition).
The increase of the total forces on the recurved wall above the S.W.L.
with respect to the vertical wall case (see F* column 6 of Table 3) ranges
between 1.14 and 2.86, for increasing values of H and T. As far as the
forces evaluated on the entire vertical structure are considered (see F*
column 11 of Table 3), the increase ranges from 1.01 to 1.67.
It is worth noticing that for wave heights and periods larger than
those of W4 condition, the ratio F* remains almost constant, i.e. F* it is
10
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
Fig. 13. Instant t3 ¼ 20:83s. Diagrams of the pressure and
velocity fields for the W5 wave condition for vertical and
recurved wall. a) horizontal velocity field - vertical wall; b)
pressure field - vertical wall; c) horizontal velocity field -
recurved wall; d) pressure field - recurved wall.
not a function of wave height and period. Apparently the impulsive force
increase is, for a given bathymetry, mainly a function of the recurved wall
geometry (i.e. angle).
Finally, Fig. 18 shows a comparison between the asynchronous en-
velopes of the pressure peaks diagrams for the recurved and vertical wall.
The figure shows the large pressure peak localized at the recurve and the
spread of the impulsive pressures over a large part of the vertical wall.
Moreover, the recurved shape induces also a vertical component of
the force. As shown in Fig. 18, most of the pressure increase induced by
the recurved shape of the parapet is localized near the top of the struc-
ture, where the pressure values may be more than ten times the values
obtained for the pure vertical wall. This has a significant influence on the
structural design of the parapet wall, which may be characterized by
small natural period, which in turn might may be comparable to the
duration of the impulse, so enhancing the induced stress field. Further-
more, the presence of the upward vertical component of the force, which
induces vertical tensile stresses in the parapet structure, may consider-
ably reduce the compression stresses due to the structure weight, thus
reducing the overall resistance of the structure itself. Moreover, the
increased height of the application point of this impulsive force induces
higher overturning moments on the structure.
The impulsive nature of the forces may have a lower influence on the
entire structure of the vertical breakwater, especially when the latter is
made of a massive precast caisson, characterized by a large inertia.
Nevertheless, the increase of the ratio F  ¼ 1:67 (see Table 3 column 11)
M. Castellino et al.
may have some influence on the global stability of the structure and on
the geotechnical response of the foundation (e.g. fluidization).
5. Trade off between overtopping volumes and impulsive forces
In order to understand the influence on the wave overtopping and
total forces of the opening angle characterizing the recurved crown wall,
two further geometrical configurations have been analyzed: α ¼ 70∘ and
α ¼ 45∘ (upper panel of Fig. 19). Both the additional curved parapets
have a radius of 1.0 m, as in the previous case. Therefore, with reference
to the horizontal extent of the recurved parapet, defined for this specific
case as Br ¼ 1  cosðαÞ, independent of the radius (see Fig. 1), we have
analyzed three different configurations, Br ¼[1; 0.66; 0.29].
The results in terms of forces, for the two new geometrical configu-
rations and for the same regular wave conditions (W4, W5, W6 and W7)
are shown in Table 4 (α ¼ 70∘ ) and 5 (α ¼ 45∘ ).
Fig. 19 compares the results in terms of normalized forces F  (on the
left axis) and normalized wave overtopping volumes V  (on the right
axis) of the three geometries as a function of the dimensionless freeboard.
The forces F  of Fig. 19 are calculated above the S:W:L:
The normalized wave volumes are defined as V  ¼ VR =VV , where VR
and VV are the overtopping volumes as obtained for the recurved wall
and the vertical wall respectively.
The single overtopping volume has been calculated considering the
11
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
Fig. 14. Instant t4 ¼ 21:50s. Diagrams of the pressure and
velocity fields for the W5 wave condition for vertical and
recurved wall. a) horizontal velocity field - vertical wall; b)
pressure field - vertical wall; c) horizontal velocity field -
recurved wall; d) pressure field - recurved wall.
same wave used to evaluate the maximum force for each wave condition.
The volumes have been obtained by considering a vertical section
localized on the seaward side of the top of the wall. Along this section, the
vertical profile of the horizontal fluid velocity component and the sea
surface level have been measured for each time step, so to obtain the
instantaneous overtopping discharge. Its time integration provides the
overtopping volume.
In order to describe with more details the dependence of the forces
and the overtopping volumes on Rc =H, two intermediate wave conditions
between W4 and W5 have been eventually considered, namely: W4:33
and W4:65 (see the upper part of Fig. 19). The incoming wave height is
H ¼ 4:33 m and the wave period is T ¼ 8:0 s for the first condition, while
H ¼ 4:65 m and T ¼ 8:0 s for the second one. A further wave condition
(W8: H ¼ 8:0 m, T ¼ 13 s, see the upper part of Fig. 19) has been
considered in order to analyze if (and when) the effect of the curved wall
on the overtopping reduction tends to disappear.
In Fig. 19 circles, squares and diamonds refer to 90∘ , 70∘ and 45∘
respectively. Blue lines and empty markers refer to the dimensionless
forces, while red lines and filled markers refer to the dimensionless
overtopping volumes.
The strong reduction of the overtopping volumes induced by the 90∘
recurved wall with respect to the vertical parapet is clearly revealed in
Fig. 19. This significant decrease of the overtopping volume (filled red
circle) is accompanied by an increase of the maximum force (empty blue
M. Castellino et al.
circles). The reduction to 70∘ of the circumference sector still maintains a
good performance in terms of the wave overtopping reduction, but with a
lower force ratio (see b - filled and empty squares). With the 45∘ sector of
circumference the overtopping reduction is quite limited, while almost
no force increase is produced by the recurved wall (see c - filled and
empty diamonds).
12
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
Fig. 15. Time evolution of the free surface elevation
η for the W5 wave condition. Values of the free sur-
face elevation are reported on the z-axis. Non-
breaking wave condition is assured. t2 is the time of
the peak force.
Fig. 16. Time series of the pressure on four probes
along the wall for the W4 wave condition.
Fig. 19 shows that the efficiency of the curved parapets in reducing
wave overtopping volumes occurred in the range 0:81  Rc =H  1:62
and that for Rc =H < 0:81 the overtopping reduction becomes negligible.
The force ratios, shown in Fig. 19 for Rc =H  1:3 confirm a weak
dependence of the results on the incoming non-breaking wave height and
period.
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

Fig. 17. Diagrams of the pressure and velocity fields at various time intervals for W4 the wave condition. The times considered are: t1 ¼ 20:9s, t2 ¼ 21:0s
and t3 ¼ 21:37s.

The observed force decrease, for decreasing angle of the recurved

wall is similar to the results obtained by Stagonas et al. (2014) for
breaking wave conditions.

6. Concluding remarks

Deep water breakwaters with a recurved parapet wall are often used
to reduce the wave overtopping discharge and therefore to protect and
safely use the port side. In this paper, we compared the pressures and
forces acting on a typical recurved wall versus those acting on a tradi-
tional pure vertical wall of the same height.
Aiming to understand the importance of the geometrical character-
istics on the hydrodynamics, numerical simulations have been carried
out using the IHFOAM model, based on the OpenFOAM®. To examine the
essence of the hydrodynamic processes only regular non-breaking waves,
and flat bottom without any berm at the toe of the structure, have been
considered. Although regular waves have been used, it is interesting to
note that the simulated regular wave conditions could represent (ac-
cording to the Rayleigh distribution) the highest waves for irregular
wave conditions with a wave steepness of roughly sop  0:5s, where sop is
the wave steepness calculated as the ratio of the significant wave height
and the peak wave length in deep water and s represents the wave
steepness reported in Table 1. Therefore the tests represent conditions
with a steepness up to sop  0:03:
The numerical simulations have shown that a fully recurved wall (90∘
angle) can induce a significantly high impulsive pressure peak. Fig. 18. Recurved parapet wall: comparison between numerical pressures
This pressure peak is due to the wave evolution at the wall. We diagrams along the recurved (red line) and vertical (black line) wall. The
identified the phenomenological genesis of the impulsive pressures and envelopes of the pressure peaks are reported on the entire structure for the W5
forces on the recurved wall. wave condition. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
When the wave crest reaches the top of the recurved part, a high-

13
M. Castellino et al. Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15

Fig. 19. Upper panel: geometrical configurations of the analyzed parapets:
α ¼ 90∘ , α ¼ 70∘ and α ¼ 45∘ . Lower panel: normalized overtopping volumes
V  (right axis) and normalized forces F  (left axis) for z 2 [ 0.0; þ6.5 ] m
above the S:W:L as a function of the dimensionless freeboard Rc =H. Circles,
squares and diamonds refer to 90∘ , 70∘ and 45∘ respectively.
speed flow runs upward to exit seaward of the recurved part. The
impulsive pressure is generated by the flow confinement induced by the
surging wave crest. This impulsive phenomenon, which we refer to as
“confined-crest impact”, has nothing to do with breaking wave condi-
tions, neither can be fully explained by the flow deflection only. Rather, it
is only when the surging wave crest “blocks” its own running flow,
creating a sudden stop of the horizontal momentum of a significant water
mass, that an instantaneous pressure shock wave occurs, and high
impulsive pressures and forces are obtained. A large part of the vertical
wall is affected by the impulsive pressure increase. The maximum values
of the impulsive pressure are localized under the recurved parapet. The
force increase on the entire structure may be significant with respect to
the pure vertical wall case.
When the confined-crest impact occurs the normalized force ratio for
non-breaking waves is found to be dependent only on the recurved wall
angle α (i.e. it is not a function of wave height and period) and is not
linearly dependent of the horizontal extension of the recurved Br . As
previously mentioned, this is because the force increase is, for a given
bathymetry, mainly a function of the recurved wall geometry (angle and
radius).
Numerical simulations have shown that the recurved shape of the
wall excludes the possibility that trapped air occur in the phenomenon.
Therefore, water may be assumed incompressible. In real sea states it is
not excluded that entrained air may be present in the fluid, inducing
water compressibility not treated by the present numerical application.
However, when non-breaking wave conditions are considered, the water
compressibility is unlikely to play a significant role. A significant amount
of entrained air may be induced in deep water conditions in the presence
of perforated caissons made to absorb the incoming waves (as shown in
Fig. 3).
Further research is necessary to provide useful comprehensive design
guidelines both in terms of wave forces and overtopping. Ongoing
research is focussed on: (i) validation of the numerical code for impulsive
impact; (ii) the influence of different recurved wall geometries not
limited to a sector of circumference; (iii) the presence of a toe berm

Table 4
α ¼ 70∘ . Characteristics and main results of numerical simulations for z2[0.0;þ6.5]m and z2[20.0;þ6.5]m. First column: name of the simulation. Second to sixth columns: maximum total
forces FRmax , maximum horizontal forces FRhmax , maximum vertical forces FRv max calculated for the recurved wall, maximum force FVmax calculated at the vertical parapet wall, forces ratio
F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax for z2[0.0;þ6.5]m. Seventh to eleventh columns: maximum total forces FRmax , maximum horizontal forces FRhmax , maximum vertical forces FRv max calculated for the recurved
wall, maximum force FVmax calculated for the vertical wall, forces ratio F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax for z2[20.0;þ6.5]m.

Wave z2[0.0;þ6.5]m z2[20.0;þ6.5]m

name
FRmax FRhmax FRv max FVmax F FRmax FRhmax FRv max FVmax F

(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) () (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) ()

W4 109.30 109.22 4.28 98.92 1.10 417.50 417.48 4.28 415.10 1.01
W5 225.80 223.75 30.39 127.40 1.77 813.50 812.93 30.39 546.60 1.49
W6 295.60 292.11 45.31 169.20 1.75 922.60 921.49 45.31 705.70 1.31
W7 430.10 425.74 61.12 252.20 1.71 1497.20 1495.95 61.12 1228.00 1.22

Table 5
α ¼ 45∘ . Characteristics and main results of numerical simulations for z2[0.0;þ6.5]m and z2[20.0;þ6.5]m. First column: name of the simulation. Second to sixth columns: maximum total
forces FRmax , maximum horizontal forces FRhmax , maximum vertical forces FRv max calculated for the recurved wall, maximum force FVmax calculated at the vertical parapet wall, forces ratio
F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax for z2[0.0;þ6.5]m. Seventh to eleventh columns: maximum total forces FRmax , maximum horizontal forces FRhmax , maximum vertical forces FRv max calculated for the recurved
wall, maximum force FVmax calculated for the vertical wall, forces ratio F  ¼ FRmax =FVmax for z2[20.0;þ6.5]m.

Wave z2[0.0;þ6.5]m z2[20.0;þ6.5]m

name
FRmax FRhmax FRv max FVmax F FRmax FRhmax FRv max FVmax F

(KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) () (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) (KN/m) ()

W4 100.30 100.29 1.01 98.90 1.01 416.22 416.21 1.01 415.10 1.00
W5 143.40 143.27 6.03 127.42 1.13 595.80 595.77 6.03 546.60 1.09
W6 182.20 181.89 10.67 169.20 1.08 755.30 755.22 10.67 705.70 1.07
W7 273.30 272.89 14.91 252.20 1.08 1289.41 1289.32 14.91 1228.00 1.05

14
M. Castellino et al.
(composite breakwaters); (iv) the influence of irregular waves; (v)
comparison with dedicated hydraulic model.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Paolo Contini (MODIMAR s.r.l) for the
fruitful discussions on the engineering problem and the reviewers who
provided a great contribution to improve the paper.
References
Anand, K., Sundar, V., Sannasiraj, S., 2010. Dynamic pressures on curved front seawall
models under random waves. J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B 22 (5), 538–544.
Bagnold, R., 1939. Interim report on wave-pressure research. Excerpt from J. Inst. Civil
Eng. 12 (1939), 202–226.
Berberovi
c, E., van Hinsberg, N.P., Jakirli
c, S., Roisman, I.V., Tropea, C., 2009. Drop
impact onto a liquid layer of finite thickness: dynamics of the cavity evolution. Phys.
Rev. 79 (3), 036306.
Blenkinsopp, C., Chaplin, J., 2011. Void fraction measurements and scale effects in
breaking waves in freshwater and seawater. Coast Eng. 58 (5), 417–428.
Bredmose, H., Bullock, G., Hogg, A., 2015. Violent breaking wave impacts. part 3. effects
of scale and aeration. J. Fluid Mech. 765, 82–113.
Bredmose, H., Peregrine, D., Bullock, G., 2009. Violent breaking wave impacts. part 2:
modelling the effect of air. J. Fluid Mech. 641, 389–430.
Bullock, G., Obhrai, C., Peregrine, D., Bredmose, H., 2007. Violent breaking wave
impacts. part 1: results from large-scale regular wave tests on vertical and sloping
walls. Coast. Eng. 54 (8), 602–617.
Chen, X., 2011. Hydrodynamic Loads on Buildings Caused by Overtopping Waves. Ph.D.
thesis. Delft University of Technology, TU Delft.
Chen, X., Hofland, B., Altomare, C., Suzuki, T., Uijttewaal, W., 2015. Forces on a vertical
wall on a dike crest due to overtopping flow. Coast. Eng. 95, 94–104.
Cooker, M., Peregrine, D., 1990. Computations of violent motion due to waves breaking
against a wall. In: Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Coastal
Engineering. ASCE, pp. 164–176.
Cooker, M., Peregrine, D., 1992. Violent motion as near breaking waves meet a vertical
wall. In: Breaking Waves. Springer, pp. 291–297.
Cornett, A., Li, Y., Budvietas, A., 1999. Wave overtopping at chamfered and overhanging
vertical structures. In: Proc. International Workshop on Natural Disasters by Storm
Waves and Their Reproduction in Experimental Basins, Kyoto, Japan.
Cuomo, G., Allsop, W., Bruce, T., Pearson, J., 2010a. Breaking wave loads at vertical
seawalls and breakwaters. Coast. Eng. 57 (4), 424–439.
Cuomo, G., Allsop, W., Takahashi, S., 2010b. Scaling wave impact pressures on vertical
walls. Coast. Eng. 57 (6), 604–609.
De Gerloni, M., Franco, L., Noli, A., Rossi, U., 1989. Industrial port of porto torres: model
test on the new west caisson breakwater (in italian). In: II AIOM Congress, Napoli,
Italy.
De Girolamo, P., Noli, A., Spina, D., 1996. Field measurements of loads acting on smooth
and perforated vertical walls. In: Advances in Coastal Structures and Breakwaters:
Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Institution of Civil
Engineers and Held in London on 27-29 April 1995, vol. 7. Thomas Telford, p. 64.
Di Risio, M., Beltrami, G., De Girolamo, P., 2007. Laboratory investigation on wave
overtopping of composite breakwaters: the port of civitavecchia case. In:
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp. 4616–4627.
Di Risio, M., Beltrami, G.-M., De Girolamo, P., Noli, A., Ievolella, G., 2009. Investigation
on overtopping and reflection performance of perforated caisson breakwaters: the
ponza harbour case. In: Coastal Structures 2007: (In 2 Volumes). World Scientific,
pp. 1562–1573.
Elsafti, H., Oumeraci, H., 2017. Analysis and classification of stepwise failure of
monolithic breakwaters. Coast. Eng. 121, 221–239.
EurOtop, M., 2016. Manual on Wave Overtopping of Sea Defences and Related Structures.
van der Meer, JW and Allsop, NWH and Bruce, T and De Rouck J, J and Kortenhaus,
A and Pullen, T and Schüttrumpf, H and Troch, P and Zanuttigh, B. www.
overtopping-manual.com.
Franco, L., 1996. History of coastal engineering in Italy. In: Kraus, N.C. (Ed.), History and
Heritage of Coastal Engineering. ASCE, New York, pp. 275–335.
Franco, L., Arena, F., Mazzola, O., Petrosemolo, L., 2013. The new deepwater marina di
cicerone at formia (i). In: ICE Conference Coasts, Marine Structures and Breakwaters
2013. Thomas Telford.
Franco, L., De Gerloni, M., Van der Meer, J., 1995. Wave overtopping on vertical and
composite breakwaters. In: Coastal Engineering 1994, pp. 1030–1045.
Gibson, F.W., 1970. Measurement of the effect of air bubbles on the speed of sound in
water. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 48 (5B), 1195–1197.
Goda, Y., 2010. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. World scientific.
15
Coastal Engineering 136 (2018) 1–15
Hattori, M., Arami, A., Yui, T., 1994. Wave impact pressure on vertical walls under
breaking waves of various types. Coast. Eng. 22 (1–2), 79–114.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2013a. Realistic wave generation and active wave
absorption for Navier–Stokes models: application to openfoam®. Coast. Eng. 71,
102–118.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2013b. Simulating coastal engineering processes with
openfoam®. Coast. Eng. 71, 119–134.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2014a. Three-dimensional interaction of waves and
porous coastal structures using openfoam®. part i: formulation and validation. Coast.
Eng. 83, 243–258.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2014b. Three-dimensional interaction of waves and
porous coastal structures using openfoam®. part ii: Application. Coast. Eng. 83,
259–270.
Isaacson, M., 1991. Measurement of regular wave reflection. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean
Eng. 117 (6), 553–569.
Kisacik, D., Troch, P., Bogaert, P.V., 2012a. Description of loading conditions due to
violent wave impacts on a vertical structure with an overhanging horizontal
cantilever slab. Coast. Eng. 60, 201–226.
Kisacik, D., Troch, P., Bogaert, P.V., Caspeele, R., 2014. Investigation of uplift impact
forces on a vertical wall with an overhanging horizontal cantilever slab. Coast. Eng.
90, 12–22.
Kisacik, D., Troch, P., Van Bogaert, P., 2012b. Experimental study of violent wave impact
on a vertical structure with an overhanging horizontal cantilever slab. Ocean. Eng.
49, 1–15.
Korobkin, A., Pukhnachov, V., 1988. Initial stage of water impact. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.
20 (1), 159–185.
Kortenhaus, A., Haupt, R., Oumeraci, H., 2002. Design aspects of vertical walls with steep
foreland slopes. In: Breakwaters, Coastal Structures and Coastlines: Proceedings of
the International Conference Organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers and Held
in London, UK on 26-28 September 2001. Thomas Telford, p. 221.
Kortenhaus, A., Pearson, J., Bruce, T., Allsop, N., Van der Meer, J., 2003. Influence of
parapets and recurves on wave overtopping and wave loading of complex vertical
walls. Proc. Coast. Struct. 2003, 369–381.
Martinelli, L., Lamberti, A., 2011. Dynamic response of caisson breakwaters: suggestions
for the equivalent static analysis of a single caisson in the array. Coast Eng. J. 53 (01),
1–20.
Mei, C.C., Stiassnie, M., Yue, D.K.-P., 2005. Theory and Applications of Ocean Surface
Waves: Nonlinear Aspects, vol. 23. World scientific.
Murakami, K., Irie, I., Kamikubo, Y., 1997. Experiments on a non-wave overtopping type
seawall. In: Coastal Engineering 1996, pp. 1840–1851.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., Allsop, W., de Groot, M., Crouch, R., Vrijling, H.,
Voortman, H., 2001. Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters. CRC Press.
Owen, M., Steele, A., 1993. Effectiveness of Recurved Wave Return Walls. Technical
Report. HR Wallingford.
Pearson, J., Bruce, T., Allsop, W., Kortenhaus, A., van der Meer, J., 2004. Effectiveness of
recurve walls in reducing wave overtopping on seawalls and breakwaters. In: Coastal
Engineering Conference, vol. 29. ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 4404.
Peregrine, D., 2003. Water-wave impact on walls. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 35 (1), 23–43.
Plumerault, L.-R., Astruc, D., Maron, P., 2012. The influence of air on the impact of a
plunging breaking wave on a vertical wall using a multifluid model. Coast. Eng. 62,
62–74.
Ramkema, C., 1978. A model law for wave impacts on coastal structures. In: Coastal
Engineering 1978, pp. 2308–2327.
Ravindar, R., Schimmels, S., Sriram, V., Stagonas, D., Murthy, M.R., 2016. Spatial
distribution of impact pressure on a parapet using tactile sensors. In: PIANC
COPEDEC 2016, At Rio de Jeneiro, Brazil.
Sainflou, G., 1928. Essai sur les digues maritimes verticales. Tech. rep.. Ecole
nationale
des Ponts et Chauss
ees.
Scott, J.C., 1975a. The preparation of water for surface-clean fluid mechanics. J. Fluid
Mech. 69 (02), 339–351.
Scott, J.C., 1975b. The role of salt in whitecap persistence. In: Deep Sea Research and
Oceanographic Abstracts, vol. 22. Elsevier, pp. 653–657.
Stagonas, D., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., Higuera, P., Jaime, F.F., Muller, G., 2014. Large scale
measurements of wave loads and mapping of impact pressure distribution at the
underside of wave recurves. In: Proceedings of the HYDRALAB IV Joint User Meeting.
Takahashi, S., 1996. Design of vertical breakwaters. breakwater design. In: International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Orlando. Short Course.
Van Doorslaer, K., Romano, A., De Rouck, J., Kortenhaus, A., 2017. Impacts on a storm
wall caused by non-breaking waves overtopping a smooth dike slope. Coast. Eng.
120, 93–111.
Von Karman, T., 1929. The Impact on Seaplane Floats during Landing.
Wagner, H., 1932. Über stoß-und gleitvorg€ange an der oberfl€ache von flüssigkeiten.
ZAMM-J. Appl. Math. Mech./Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 12 (4), 193–215.
Wood, D.J., Peregrine, D.H., 1999. Two and three-dimensional pressure-impulse models
of wave impact on structures. In: Coastal Engineering 1998, pp. 1502–1515.
Wood, D.J., Peregrine, D.H., Bruce, T., 2000. Wave impact on a wall using pressure-
impulse theory. i: trapped air. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 126 (4), 182–190.