Vertical Breakwaters PDF

ehapter 4
VERTICAL BREAKWATERS
S. KATHIROLI
Project Director
National Institute ofIndian Ocean Technology
Chennai
India
&
S.A.SANNASIR.4]
Senior Research Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering
National University of Singapore
Singapore
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The growing concern for the proper utilization of the coastal zone resulted in increased
efforts by researchers in understanding the coastal zone dynamics. The final objective of
these efforts being understanding the phenomenon of interaction of ocean waves with
coastal zone features and the· coastal protection wor1,(s and preparation of a set of
guidelines for coastal zone management and proper design of protective structures. The
wall type structures are widely adopted by coastal engineers for the purpose of
breakwaters and coastal protection works. These structures are designed to withstand the
environmental loads due to waves, tides and currents. The interaction of these loads and
their variability makes design of these structures complicated. The shape, size and
location ol"lhese structures are decided to suit their functional requirements and overall
economic criteria.
Breakwaters are one of the essential coastal structures and these are constructed to provide
a calm basin for ships and to protect harbour facilities. Since sea waves have enormous
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 287

Harbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) : Vol. I
power, the construction of structures to mitigate such power is not easily accomplished.
The history of breakwaters, therefore, can be said to be one of much damage and many
faih.Jres. These structures have been built throughout the centuries but their structural
development as well as their design procedure are still under massive change. The reasons
for this are limited reliability and high costs. On the other hand, maritime technology has
progressed a great deal, especially since 1945 and this has gradually made it possible
to construct breakwaters having high stability against waves. However, major research
activities are necessary to gain better knowledge of the physical background of
the performance of the structure. Some of the new aspects for the performance of
breakwaters are:
• High reliability and less repair work

• Less influence on the environment
It Multi-purpose structures
,J.
Breakwaters are generally classified into three major categories according to the
functional requirements: Mound Breakwaters, Vertical Breakwaters and Mixed
or Composite Breakwaters.
Fllnctionally, mound breakwaters dissipate the incident wave energy by forcing them to
break on a slope, and thus they do not produce appreciable reflection. Vertical
breakwaters on the other hand, reflect the incident waves without dissipating much wave .
energy. Composite breakwaters function as mound breakwaters when the tide level is low )
and as vertical breakwaters when the tide level is high. The construction of mound
breakwaters has been confined to shallow waters and comp:->site or '!erticaVcaisson
breakwaters are best suited for intermediate to deep waters. By using caissons as vertical
wall, vertical and composite breakwaters provide an extremely stable structure even in
rough, deep seas. Such strength has led to their use throughout the world. In Western
countries, vertical breakwaters are usually built in deep water 'Waere wave breaking is not
a problem, while Japan has built primarily to withstand breaking waves. In the present
context, the design principles adopted for vertical breakwaters are explained. The failures
of breakwaters are then discussed in brief to demonstrate crucial points in their
stability design.
4.2 VERTICAL BREAKWATERS
Vertical breakwaters especially the single unit monolithic types are sometimes preferred to
the rubble. mound breakwaters mainly for two reasons: (a) Saving in material due to
288
I
Vertical Breakwaters
smaller body width and (b) Rapidity in construction. Obviously, the vertical structure is
preferred in deep waters and when rock quarries are not located near the harbour site and
transportation of large quantities of stones (required for rubble mounds) from distant
quarries becomes expensive.
The vertical breakwater occupying less space than the rubble mound type provides larger
harbour area and well-defined entrance widths. It also limits the impact on sea bed life.
It has the added advantage that the Ice-side of the structure could be used for berthing.
The top width of the structure can accommodate promenades, roads and allow movement
of construction equipment as well as cargo loading and unloading facilities. It is a
permanent structure requiring little or no maintenance provided it is properly designed for
the maximum storm waves to be encountered during the life of the structure.
Normally the vertical breakwater is constructed in locations where the depth of the sea (d)
is greater than twice the design wave height, H (d > 2H), in order to ensure that the waves
do not break on the structure. Unbroken waves are reflected with formation of standing
waves in front of the structure and as such the hydrodynamic forces are considerably less
than the impact forces exerted by waves breaking on the structure in shallow depths. The
design of vertical breakwater cross sections are amenable to exact analysis for given
environmental conditions.
The disadvantages of vertical sea walls lie in the requirement of a good foundation that
dces not allow erosion or uneven settlement. The sea bottom has to be levelled and
prepared for placement of large blocks or caissons. Foundations made of fine sand may
cause erosion and settlement. The structures are inflexible to foundation settlement;
Erosion may cause tilting or displacement of large monoliths. The structure, if dan/aged
due to foundation problems or exceedance of design wave heights, are difficult and
expensive to repair. Refloating of caissons dislodged and entangled with inter
neighbouring caissons sometim~s becomes almost impossible. Building of caissons and
launching or towing them into position require special land and water areas beside
involvement of heavy construction equipment. They require form work, quality concret~,
skilled labour, batching plants and floating crafts. Vertical breakwaters also do not
become economically viable in very deep waters as the cross-section becomes large with
accompanying difficulties in erection. Full reflection of waves results more environmental
impa<:t due to less water exchange. Figure 4.1 illustrates the various parts of a vertical
breakwater.

Harb:JlIr & Coastal Engineering (I1ldian Scenario) Vol. I
B ~I
Crest Elevation
Seaward
Side Harbour
Concrete Crown
Side
Upright Section
(Caisson)
Armor Blocks Asphalt Mat

(Blocks)
RUBBLE MOUND }<'OUNDATION
Fig.4.1 Vertical Breakwater - Definition Sketch
4.3 TYPES OF VERTICAL BREAKWATERS
4.3.1 Small Blocks
In earlier years when handling equipment were of limited capacity, vertical walls were
built of small blods of masonry or concrete as shown in Figure 4.2. The weight of each
block varied from 10 to 15 tonnes (typical size of say 3 m x 1.5 m x 1.5 m) Figure 4.2(a)
shows piano-key block type 0f construction while Figure 4.2(b) shows saw-tooth blocks.
Figure 4.2(c) shows dovetail blocks followed by sloping blocks or slice work illustrated in
Figure 4.2(d). In all these types, continuous horizontal joints are avoided and adjacent
blocks are keyed to one anoUler by dowels, joggles or dovetailed. This method is now
more or less obsolete except in coastal protection works of small heights, since it entails
skilled labour and large construction time.
290
(a) Saw -tooth blocks

(a) Piano-key blocks
(c) Dove-tail blocks (d) Slaping blocks
Fig.4.2 Types of Small Blocks
4.3.2 Large Blocks
Large blocks of size 400-500 tonnes (typical sizes used - 9 m x 5.0 m x 2.5 Jl1 or
12 m x 4.5 m x 3 m or 8 m x 5 m x 3.33 m) are shown in Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3 (a)
illustrates smaller blocks with staggered joints and Figure 4.3 (b) shm'.':; two blocks placed
adjacent to each other. Figure 4.3(c) has a single block for the entire width. Figure 4.3(d)
shows large blocks with R.C dowels to provide vertical monolothicness.
.. ---~"'--"
Harbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
in site cop
3m
2.5m
~
~
Fig.4.3 Large Block Construction
4.3.3 l\lonolithic Caissons
Caissons are box-type units with closed bottom with longitudinal and crosswise diaphragm
walls dividing the box into several compartments. Most of the caisson construction work
is carried Ollt on shore or in a dry dock. Concrete caissons are initially built to a certain
height in a dry-dock or slipway and then floated out and built to the required height. This
procedure reduces the construction time in water and henctt highly suitable in a rough, sea
environment where working time in calm weather is limited. For actual installation and
sinking of caissons in position. fair weather is required. 1 he caisson is towed out and
sunk in position by ballasting the compartments initially with water. Tilts in caissons can
be easily adjusted by pumping water in or out of the compartments, After the caissons are
erected in position, the compartments may be filled with dredged material or sand or
gravel depending on the availability of the materials, Figure 4.4 shows typical cross
sections of monolith used,
Caisson length may va!'y from 20 to 30 m and the cross walls may be spaced at 3 to 5 m.
The end wall thickness are of t:le order of 20 to 30 cm and the inner diaphragm walls
about 15 cm, As in the case of large blocks, the capping is generally laid using in situ
concrete \\'hkh provides longitudinal continuity of adjacent blocks. Adjacent blocks are
also interlocked to each other by the provision of dowels or joggles,
The foundation for the caisson is invariably on a prepared level bed of quarry spalL
The toe of the structure is protected against erosion by rubble stones at slopes not steeper
than 1.5 to 1.
292
Pavement
Insitu Concrctc'---->t<
Filling
9.5m
Rubble Protection
Fig. 4.4 Monolithic Caission
4.3.4 Sloping Faces
The side walls of a caisson may be inclined if the lee-side of the breakwater is not to be
used for berthing and narrow top widths are acceptable as shown in Figure 4.5. This will
reduce the cost of the caisson; the vertical component of the weight of still water on the
sloping faces will contribute to the stability of the breakwater. However the section
should be analysed for stability at all levels. Sloping fronts have reduced reflection
coefficients and the wave height in front of the structure will be less than 2H as is
obtained for a normal standing wave with full reflection of the oncoming wave of
height H. Therefore the waH height can be reduced and the force on the wall is also
reduced.
4.3.5 Hanstholm Type of Breakwater
An other example of the sloping breakwater known is the Hanstholm Breakwater.

The upper portion of the vertical face slopes back at angle of 45° as shown in Figure 4.6.
S. Katlriroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 293

"'-"\----Insitu Concrete
6.511
Rubble Protection
7.5m
Fig. 4.5 Sloping - Face Breakwater
The ocean side of the breakwater is cylindrical in shape with radial hydrodynamic and
hydrostatic pressure acting on it. Horizontal forces and moments are reduced by half
II
~
compared to the vertical walL The lee side is vertical with provision for quay facilities.
This type has the advantage of economy of material, less cost, less reflection of wave
energy, and reduced wave pr('ssure .
.... .-" ....... --,-- -,I
...;....,.....
1,5 to 60• fI
:r--L I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I- -
I
I
I
I
I
I" J 2 •LII'L--t-----t.r
I I I
I I I
Plan Vt'ew
Fig. 4.6 Hanstholm Breakwater
294
I
..J
4.3.6 Cellular Sheet Pile Breakwaters
In the Cellular shell pile shown in Figure 4.7a, each cel~ is self-supporting and
independently stable. The sheeting must be driven to a depth below the sea bed to prevent
undermining of the cell by erosion. Minimum depth of penetration recommended is not
less than 3 m unless rock is met. Top of sheeting should extend atleast a little above the
mean high water level. Concrete capping may be used to build the top of the wall to a
height twice the height of the design wave (2H) above mean sea level. Closures between
adjacent cells are indicated in the Figure 4.7b. The sheet piles are also liable for corrosion
and depths may be limited to the available lengths of sheet piles in the country. Sheet
piles are not suitable in rough seas as it is difficult to position the sheet piles and hold
them during driving. In India, the sheet piles are used for construction of Coffer dams in
river and coastal works.
__22_m_ _ - \
1-_.--,.:.._ _,....,.
(a) Cylindrical shells (b) Oblong shells
Fig. 4.7 Cellular sheet piles
4.3.7 Vertical Parallel Sheet Piles
When the water depth is shallow and wave heights are small, two parallel lines of sheet
piles 'lre used with the distance between the two parallel sheet piles being equal to depth
of water plus twice the wave height (d + 2H). The sheet piles are connected by the rods at
suitable intervals as shown in Figure 4.8. The space between the two rows of piles is
filled with granular fill and the capping may consist of stones weighing approximately
7 to 20 tons or concrete.
I
I
~,
Capping stones
"--++-~ BectJing stones
__--l+-- Run of the quarry
d -t2H
Fig. 4.8 Parallel sheet piles
4.3.8 Metal Box Caisson
Metallic box caissons with mild steel plates (Figure 4.9) on the outside sidewalls and
bottom supported by steel frames were used in earlier times but they are now obsolete.
They had very light draught and the side walls were usually backed by concrete to get the
desired draft for stability during towing. A typical size of such a caisson could be
25 m 10llg x 10 m wide with varying heights depending on the depth of water.
4.3.9 Perforated Breakwater
The front face of a porous breakwater has a number of holes (Figure 4.10) through which
waves can rush in and out of a wave chamber which is ventilated at the top for the
entrapped air to escape during wave uprush and allow air to enter the chamber during
wave downrush. Part of the wave energy is dissipated (or absorbed) inside the chamber
and the porous face reflects only a part of the incoming wave energy. Wave energy
devices (Figure 4.11) may be considered as logical extension of this concept with a
properly designed wa\'e chamber and entrance to it coupled with a turbine mounted o\er
the air vent which converts the air flow into electrical energy.
296
I Vertical Breakwaters
Metal Caisson
Fig. 4.9 l\1etal Caisson
It requires high quality concrete and workmanship. A level bottom is essential as it is

susceptible to settlement. Severe damage may occur if design conditions are exceeded.
For minimum reflection, the ratio of solid surface to total surface area has been found to
be 0.75 and the reflection coefficient varies between 10% to 20%. The length and
diameter of hole should be around Uloa where L is the length of the significant wave .
. The lee side may be used for berthing.
n , r-=
I I I I
~
Wove puor')
fZ chamber til!
( 0.15
OJm)
t;:;
1mm
dlo "
-... ..
- O.Sm
holes
~ Sm
~~- ~
0.4 m- r- r-0.4m
I
( 0.6 m ')
J
\ 18 ml!!.-_ _ _ _.. :i
Fig. 4.10 Porous Breakwater Fig.4.11 Wave Energy Device
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj 297

Harbour & Coastal Engineering (11ldu11l Scenario) Vol. I
4.3.10 Composite Breakwaters
This is a combination of a vertical monolithic breakwater founded on a rubble-mound base

as shown in Figure 4.12.
vertica I
Monolith
Rubble Mound
LFoClndalion for rubble base
Fig. 4.12 Composite Break water
The advantage of a composite breakwater is the judicious and economical use of materials.
It has the advantage of adopting itself to uneven bottom. The height of the monolith is
reduced. The disadvantages are that the wave break on the structure and the impact forces
are several fold larger than the forces exerted by standing waves.' It may reflect long
waves and these waves can damage the rubble base during troughs (suction action).
Rubble mounds which are submerged must be carefully designed and constructed to give a
good foundation for the monolithic top. The composite breakwater may be destroyed if
design wave conditions are exceeded.
4.4 FORCES ON VERTICAL BREAKWATERS
The external forces acting on vertical bn~akwaters are wave forces, hydrostatic pressure,
uplift pressure or buoyancy. The evaluation of static pressure and buoyancy are straight
forward, while the dynamic pressure exerted on vertical walls has to be estimated with
care due to the possible creation of standing waves and wave breaking on walls. A number
of pressure theories were proposed for non-breaking standing waves and breaking waves
based on linear and non-linear theories. In the following sections. we can see the
evaluation of these external forces.
298
4.4.1 Nonbreaking Wave Force on Non-overtopping Walls
The action of waves on vertical breakwaters exert pressure which is the main design
criteria for stability and foundation design. The type of wave action exerted on the
vertical wall depends on the height of its rubble foundation. When the height of the rubble
foundation above sea bed is small, i.e., the water depth (d) in front of the vertical wall
component, is equal to or greater than approximately twice the height of the incident
wave. H (d/H:2: 2.0), the incoming waves are fully reflected giving rise to a pure standing
wave in front of the structure with their heights equal to 2H. In the absence of overtopping
of waves and strong winds, the ir.cident waves will get reflected from the wall and the
wave energy concentrates just in front of the wall. Thus, perfect standing waves are
generated in front of the vertical wall. The wave energy is the greatest at ·the points of
anti node and thus the breaking point of wave is always situated at antinodes. The vertical
face is an antinode with no horizontal movement of fluid particles which however move in
the vertical direction with an amplitude of H. Such antinodes are located at distances
which are even multiples of U4 from the structure (i.e. at 0, U2, L, 3U2 etc.), shown in
Figure 4.13. Nodes are situated at odd multiples of U4 from the structure (i.e. at U4,
3U4, 5U4 etc.) and at these nodes water particles move only in the horizontal direction
with no vertical displacement.
;
/ Orbital axis
;
_.. ---,-----
, /
1"- ........
;
........... 2H,,: ... '
Z =0
/
x=o X L/4 X:::L/2 X::: 3Li4
Fig. 4.13 Standing Wave on a Vertical Wall
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sallilasiraj 299

!
i
L
Harbour & Coastal Engineering (IndUIn Sce1lario) Vol. I
4.4.1.1 Height of Orbital Axis
Linear theory predicts that the progressive waves and standing waves are symmetric about
the MSL (mean sea level). Non-linear theories, however, show that the orbital axis about
which the waves undulate symmetrically is not situated along the MSL but at a height of 8
above it. For a progressive wave of height, H, the rise in MSL, 8 is given by
b == TCH2]
4L coth(kd) + higher order terms (4.1a)
[
where L is the wave length at the location of the breakwater and the wave number,
k = 2rrfL. Since the height of standing waves is 2H, 8 becomes
i
b == TCH2]
(L coth(kd)
(4.lb) I
More generally, we can express the above equation as 8 = f(HIL, dlL). An important
I
corollary of this finding is that the wave crest elevation reaches a height of (H+8) above
the MSL (wave pressure p= 0 at z = H+8) and the trough occurs at an elevation of (H-8)
below the MSL. .
When the wave steepness is greater than 0.14, the crests of clapotis will be breaking and is
called as 'Standing wave with breaking crest'. It has been proved that standing wave with
breaking crest will yield almost equal pressures as due to ordinary standing v:ave, but
result in more up rush values. The concentration of energy in front of'the wall results in
change in the limits of wave breaking depth which is larger than that for a natural beach
without any protruding structure. The behaviour of wave action on the vertical wall is
presented in Table 4.1.
The wave induced dynamic pressures exerted on the vertical walls due to regular waves
have been evaluated using various formulae proposed by past researchers. The estimation
of wave pressure on vertical breakwaters can be based on breaking wave approach or non
breaking wave approach. In this chapter, some of the most widely used formulae
are discussed.
300
I
I Vertical Breakwaters
Table 4.1 Classification of Waves before Vertical Wall
Condition of
SI.No. Type of rubble mound foundation Wave behaviour

i! existence
!
1 Underground foundation or d>2H Standing wave
I
foundation with a small height above
seabed [dido> 2/3] d < 2H, m < 1110 I Broken wave I
2 Foundation with a middle height d:::: 1.8 H Standing wave

[ 2/3 :::: dido > 113 ]
d> 1.8 H Broken wave
!
3 Foundation with large height I d.2:: 1.5 H Standing wave

, [ dido ::;;113]
d < 1.5 H Broken wave
a
do
d
Water depth in front of the breakwater
- Depth of wall above the rubble foundation upto MSL
m - Sea bottom slope near the breakwater
4.4.1.2 Small Amplitude Wave Theory
It has been shown that the pressure distribution (p(z»along a vertical wall in a progressive
wave field is given by the linear '~vave theory
yH coshk(d + z)
p - yz + COS(J)t ( 4.2a)
2 coshkd
where
z = Vertical axis along the vertical wall and is measured negative along the
depth with z = -d at the bottom
y = Specific weight of water
co =2rrlT
For a standing wave of height equal to 2H, the pressure distribution becomes (Figure 4.13)
(i.e. replaceH by 2H in the above equation),
S. Kalhiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj

I
'Ii
Harbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I I

.i
•
p - yz + yH
coshk(d + z)
coshkd
coscot (4.2b) I
The maximum and minimum pressures occur when cos rot = ±l corresponds to when the
wave strikes the wall at crest and trough position respectively. It is readily seen that
p = -yz is the hydrostatic pressure distribution proportional to the depth below mean sea
level and the second part of the expression gives the hydrodynamic pressure. The above
equation indicates that the nondimensional value of positive peak dynamic pressure
(p/yH) is 1.0 at the water surface and decreases along the vertical wall down to the bottom,
being (l/cosh kd) there. Obvious then, for shallow water waves, the wave pressure is
constant along the vertical wall in the direction of water depth as cosh kd --t approaches
the values of 1.0.
When the \vave is in its crest position on the wall, the net force is acting from the seaward
side towards the harbour side, while at the trough position, the direction of net force is
from harbour side to seaward side. It is important to note the reversal in direction of the
force in each wave cycle. The maximum force however occurs when the wave is at its
crest position and the wall must be designed accordingly.
Equation (4.2b) also implies that longer wave gives a larger wave force on the vertical
wall when the water depth and wave height are same. The small amplitude wave theory
explains the basic concept regarding wave pressure on a vertical wall. This expression is
valid in the region dIL 2': 0.5 and for small H/L values.
4.4.1.3 Standing Wave Theory
If a vertical breakwater is constructed in water deeper than twice the height of the design
wave on a flat bottom with a slope of less than 1/20, and the crown of the breakwater is
high enough to prevent overtopphg of waves, standing waves will be formed in front of
the breakwater. The progressive (rl!) and retrogressive (lh) waves with small amplitude
'a' are given by,
111 =a cos (h - rot) and 112 =a cos (kx + (Dt) (4.3)
Therefore, the standing waves are obtained by.

a
11 = 11\ + 112 = a cos (kx -(Dt) + a cos (kx + (Dt)
I
= 2a cosrot. coskx (4.4)
302
j
Vertical B-reakwaters
Then, the pressure at water depth Z below the still water surface is given by,
ply == - z
(4.5)
This equation indicates that the pressure fluctuation at still water surface, z = 0 is nearly
equal to the surface fluctuation due to standing wave on the surface, when the steepness of
wave is small. The. pn;ssure at the bottom oscillates with a frequency twice that of the
surface standing wave. This is because the centre of gravity of the water column between
the free surface and bottom rises and falls at twice the frequency of the standing wave on
the surface.
Considering standing waves in shallower water depths where relative water depth
d!L < 0.5, the pressure at water depth z below the MSL (mean sea level) is obtained as
coshk(d + z) coshk(d +TJ)]

+ TJ [1 + - - - - (4.6a)
coshkd coshkd
Thus the pressure at the bottom, where z = -d, is
£. = d + H[l + 1 _ coshk(d +H)] (4.6b)

y coshkd coshkd
For standing waves in shallow waters (d/L < 0.5), the wave pressure from bottom to MSL
fluctuate with the same frequency of standing wave when the steepness of a progressive
wave, H!L is smaller than 0.02 (Figure 4.14a). When H!L becomes larger then pressure at
bottom begin to fluctuate with twice the frequency of standing wave on the surface
(Figure 4.14b). As H!L increases further more, the pressure fluctuates from the bottom to
the surface at twice the frequency of standing wave (Figure 4.14c).
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sanllasiraj 303

H / L == 0.018 - - A I SWL
d = 15 m ; T = 9.3285 ------ A I boltom
30'-~~~~-------------------------------------,
N
E 15
--z o.
Q -15
-30L-____ ~ ____ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~:_--------~~------~
o 10 20 30 40
t(s)
o 10 20 30 40
t(s)
H/L = 0.072
Fig. 4.14 Pressure Variation at SWL and at Sea Bottom - Standing wave Theory
TrocllOidal Stallding Waves:
Elliptically trochoidal standing waves (Gerstner, 1802) are obtained by superimposing

progressive and retrogressive elliptically trochoidal waves. In the movement of the
I
I
standing waves, a particle with coordinates (xm-zo) at rest describes an orbit represented by
' 2n
x Xu + 2 r Sin-COS
T L
and z = -z + -4nrr' , 2 2m
-Sin -
' , 2m , 2nxo
+ 21' S I n - S I n - - (4.7)
o LT T L
30"'
where rand r' are the half of the major and minor axes of elliptical orbit of a water
particle.
H
r = coshk(d zo); r H sinhk(d zo) (4.8)
2sinhkd 2sinhkd
The wave pressures can be obtained from nonlinear wave theories using perturbation or by
other methods. The pressure equation in which the standing wave is at the crest position
on the wall,
1: Zo + H 2sinh + kH 2[COSh2kCd - zo) sinh2k(d zo) - cot h2kd + -1 cot hkdJ +
----'-:2,...--~
y sinh2kd . sinh2kd 4sinh kd 2
(4.9)
2 3 4
k H3 [COSh3k(d - zo) - COSh3kd] + k H [COSh4k(d - zo) 1 8cothkd]
6 sinh 2 kdcoshkd 32 sinh 3 kdcoshkd
4nrr' ,
and the pressure acts at a water depth of Z "" -Zo +-- + r .
L
The pressure described by above equation is zero at the crest of the standing wave and
thus, the maximum elevation to which the wave pressure exerted is given by,
11 • = Y2 kH 2 cotll kd + H (4.10)
/
The pressure at the bottom where Zo= d is given by
p
d+ H +kH 2 [ 1 -coth2kd+.!.cothkdJ+
y cosh kd sinh2kd 2
(4.11)
2 3 4
k H3 [ I cosh3kd ] k H cothkd
6 sinh2 kdcoshkd 4
The resultant of the pressures can not be obtained by the integration of Equation (4.7) and
hence, must be evaluated numerically or graphically by use of Equations (4.7) to (4.11).
It is, however, not easily determined the wave pressures due to the possible wave
breaking, overtopping, sea bottom slope and the presence of rubble mound foundation. In
particular, when the sea bottom slope is steep, impulsive pressures will be generated due
to wave breaking. The wave overtopping usually reduces the wave pressure intensity
especially the impulsive wave pressure. The wave pressures on vertical wall are, hence,
S. Katlziroli & S.A. Sallnasiraj 305

Harbour & Coastal Engi.'leerillg (Ill dian Scenario) : Vol. I
determined by model experiments or by empirical formulas f(~rmulated from model

experiments. There are several semi-empirical fonnulas proposed to evaluate the wave
pressures on vertical walls. Some of the established theories are discussed in the following
sections.
4.4.1.4 Hiroi Formula
Hiroi (1919) considered wave pressure as similar to the pressure of a water jet l:'.nd derived
the following formula using an analogy of the hydrodynamic pressure. The wave
pressure (p) at the wave crest is
p = 1.5 yH (4.12)
The wave pressure is assumed to act uniformly over the full depth of a vertical wall
(Figure 4.15) and to act up to the wave crest elevation, 11 from the mean sea level. The
maximum wave crest elevation is of 1.25 times the wave height above the mean sea leveL
Hiroi's formula was based on field measurements obtained by Stevenson type pressure
gauges (Stevensen, 1886), and it was intended for calcu!ating the pressure caused by
breaking waves in relatively shallow seas. It is very simple, yet it reasonably describes the
design pressure and has been so used in breakwater design in Japan for more than sixty
years until the development of the Goda formula. The design wave is usually significant
wave height (HlI3)' Hiroi recommended taking 0.9 times the water depth as the design
wave height in shallow waters where informat:on on the design wave is unreliable.
Hiroi's formula is applicable for breaking waves when H1!3/d > 0.5.
4.4.1.5 Sainflou Formula
Sainflou (1928) proposed a formula for dynamic pressures on a vertical wall in a

simplified form based on trochoidal wave theory due to standing waves in finite water
depth. This formula is based on non-breaking waves and is simplified such that it provided
the wave pressure distributions at the wave crest and trough (Figure 4.16). Sainflou
assumed that the pressure curve described by Gers~ner' s elliptcally trochoidal wave theory
(Equation 4.7) approximated by a straight line and thus the dynamic pressure at the bottom
of the vertical wall (P2) is approximately given by
P2 = yH/cosh(kd) (4.13a)
306
p
I
V/ / / / / / /".
~ /
V ~
~
/
".
/ \1
=
V /
V "
~
/
/
V ". d
~
/
/
~
/
,
" " " ". ". ". ". ". "
Fig. 4.15 Pressure Distribution along the Depth Hiroi Method
This equation can be obtained by omitting higher order terms in Equation (4.11).
Now, the pressure at MSL (PI), by the assumption of linear variation,
PI (P2 + yd)(H + S)/(d + H + S) (4.13b)
whereas, that at the wave trough PI and P2' are
(4.14a)
p~ = pz yH/cosh(kd) (4.l4b)
8 is the rise of MSL given by Equation (4.lb). Pz' is the pressure the clapotis adds to or
subtracts from still water pressure when the crest or trough strikes the wall. The behaviour
of the pressure-time curves of standing waves varies at the bottom and on the water
surface, depending upon the steepness of incident wave, HIL, and the relative water depth,
dIL. Therefore, the vertical distributions of pressures simultaneously exerted by a
standing wave on a vertical wall also vary greatly with time. The resultant pressures
S. Katiliro/i & S.A. Sallllasiraj 307
-~---- --~- _..

llarbour & Coastal engineering (fndian Scenario) Vol.l
GQrstnlZr
pnzSSUr"'l curw d
..
. _-- .--J
.---- -f~
/
/
I
/
I
/
___L _ _- - I _ . . L . _ L
EI-J'z.t ; .!'2~ -~ E ~
~- ;----)ld ~._I"" __ ...i_Vel-- ___ j.lJ..!
I , I
Thrcvgh P""ssUr< "--1t-- Crest pr.ssu"",,
Fig.4.16 Pressure Distribution along the depth: Sainflou method
308
compute<:: by Sainflou' s method is applicable only in a limited region in which 0.135 < dIL
< 0.20 and HIL ~ 0.035. For dlL > 0.35, the Sainflou'$ pressure is two to three times
larger than the actual pressure on a vertical wall. The major problem in the formulas of
Hiroi and Sainflou was the ambiguity of the wave height to be used in design works, i.e.
which wave height, H II3 , H lIlO , or Hmax should be substituted into the wave pressure
formulas. In any case, it is recommended that the maximum wave height be applied fer
the design wave.
4.4.1.6 Nagai Formula
The maximum simultaneous pressures of the standing waves occur in most cases when the
waves are at the crest position on a vertical wall. The single elements in the breakwater
should be able to withstand forces by waves possibly or probably including breaking
waves because some part of a breakwater will always be located in a zone of wave
breaking but not necessarily broadside to the breaking waves. It is therefore necessary to
know the order of magnitude of these forces with reasonable accuracy.
Experiments by many researchers, particularly by Nagai (1969), proved that Sainflou

method was an oversimplification. Based on experimental studies on the dynamic
pressures on the vertical wall due to regular wave conditions ranging from deep to shallow
water depths. Nagai (1969) highlighted the regions of application of the different theories.
He considers three regions:
I. Region of shallow-water waves, 0.135 ~ dIL < 0.35

ll. Region of very shallow-water waves, dIL < 0.135 and HIL < 0.04
iii. Region of deep-water waves, dlL ~ 0.35
i) Region of shaIlow:-water waves (0.135 ~ dlL < 0.35)
The pressure-equation for pressure at depth z below the still water surface is
p coshk(d + z) k == 2n
-7 + 2a coswt, (4.15a)
y coshkd L
The maximum pressure (Pmax) is exerted on the section of a veltical wall when the wave is
at the crest position on the walL At crest, 2a cos (1)t =2a =H,

Harbour & Coastal Engilleeri:lg (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
Pmax =_z+Hcoshk(d+z) (4.1Sb)

y coshkd
If the vertical distribution of the pressures above the still water surface is assumed to be
triangular (i.e., p = 0 at z = H, and p = yH at the still water surface, z = 0), the resultant
pressure, (Pc,) from the water surface to the bottom is:
1 , , H
Pc = -y(d~ + H~) + y-tanhkd (4.16)
2 k
(d/L < 0.135 and BIL < 0.04)
The vertical distribution of the pressures above the still water surface is triangular as p 0 =
=
at z 1.30 Hand p = 1.3 yH at z=O. The distribution of the pressures below the still water
surface is given by
p Hcoshk(d + z) O.30H(d + z)
z+ + ----'--"- (4.17)
y coshkd d
Hence the resu ltant of the pressures from the water surface to the bottom is:
(4.18)
(d/L ~ 0.35)
The standing wave pressure lluctuates with twice the frequency of incident wave from
mean sea level to bottom of the wall for higher steepness values. The vertical distribution
of the pressures from the water surface to the bottom with the wave at the crest pocition on
a vertical wall is
p
(4.19a)
y
in which p = 0 at z H. while at z =0
310
Vertical Breakl'Jaters
E. = H coshkd (4.19b)
Y coshk(d+H)
The resultant of the pressures
~y(d2 + H2) + yH tanhk(d + H) (4.20)

2 ~ I k
Nagai and Kurata (1974) elaborated on developing a comprehensive wave pressure

formula, which indicates the importance of the depth (d) in front of the upright section
relative to the site's water depth (do) and berm width (B).
4.4.1.7 Third Order Wave Theory
Tadjbaksh and Keller (1960) solved the nonlinear kinematic and dynamic free boundary
conditions for standing wave pressures on a vertical wall to the third order. The wave
pressures were expressed as power series in terms of a small quantity, kH. The third order
solutions of pressures (p) were obtained by perturbation method and given as,
PlY = - z + A' coswt + ~kH2(lIsinh2kd) [l-2sinh 2 ked + z)]

· 4 .
+ B' cos2wt + c' cos wt D' cos 3mt (4.21)
where
A' H coshk(d + z) (4.22a)

coshkd
B' 1 ~ 1 [3COSh2k(d
kH:- 2
+·z) . 2 . ]
-1 + 2smh ked + z) -2 tanh(kd)smh(2kd) (4.22b)
4 sinh 2kd sinh kd
2
C' = k H 3 [4(90'- 8 _ 120'- 4 -3 -20'4) coshk(d + z)
256 0 0 0 coshkd
+ 24 cosh ked + Z)-COS~3k(d + z)
cosh(kd)sinh (kd)
+ (1 + 3O'~)(3O'~8 - 5 + 20':) cosh3k(d + z)j (4.22c)

cosh3kd
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sarmasiraj 311

Harbour & Coastal Ellgilleerillg (Illdiall Scellario) Vol. I
k H 3 [3(9cr~8 + 62cr~4
2
D' 31) coshk(d + z)
256 coshkd
+ 24 coshk(d + z)-cosh3k(d + z)
cosh(kd) sinh 4 (kd)
~ 4)( - 9 cr-12 + 22cr -8 - 13(j -4) ~----'---

+ (1 + .)0 3cosh3k(d + Z)] (4.22d)
o 0 0 0 cosh3kd
where cr~ tanhkd
The pressure variation at MSL and at sea bottom is shown in Figure 4.17. The variation is
similar to that pressure variation following standing wave theory. The wave pressure from I
bottom to MSL fluctuate with the same frequency of standing wave (Figure 4.17a) when i
the steepness of a progressive wave smaller, while HlL becomes larger, the pressure at
bottom begin to fluctuate with twice the frequency of standing wave on the surface
(Figure 4.17b). As HIL increases further more, the pressure fluctuates from the bottom to
the surface at twice the frequency of standing wave (Figure 4.17c).
For deep water condition (dlL > 0.5) with lower wave steepness (HIL < 0.02), the linear
theory predicts the exerted wave pressure on the vertical walls reasonably well. For
higher steepness waves, higher order wave theory such as third order wave theory
discussed here, should be used to evaluate the wave pressures. The use of higher order
wave theory is enslaved due to the complications involved in the derivation of pressure
formulas.
The regions of applications of linear and third order wave theory are:
d/LzO.5& - Small amplitude wave theory (Standing Wave Theory) is

H/L < 0.02 applicable.
dlL < 0.135 & - The small amplitude wave theory is inapplicable. The third
0.02 < HIL < 0.05 order solution of the finite amplitude wave theory is applicable.
HIL > 0.05 - Third order theory fails to predict the wave pressure.
312
H/l .. 0.018 - '- At SWL
H/ L = 0.045
N
E
Z
..><
a. -25
-5~L--------J10---------~2~0----~---3~0~------~40
t(s)
80
N
40
-
Z
.x
E
0
-40
0
-80b
0 10 40
Fig. 4.17 Pressure Variation at SWL and at Sea Bottom

Third Order Wave Theory
4.4.1.8 Alternative Solutions
There are other approximations for the pressure distributions based on different
assumptions by different investigators. Some of them are reproduced here for comparison
(Table 4.2).
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj

313
Table 4.2 Pressure Distribution Theories
Location of
Pressure at MSL pressure at bottom z =-d
Author zero pressure
above MSL PI P2
yo yH
Iribarren H+o y (H + 0) +
COSh2 kd coshkd
Benezit H+o ~ H+o )

2 L/2+ H+o
Pl (1 - 2dlL)
Gourret H+o ( + dl H +0
P2 Y ~ d+ H +0
J rcoshH kd
Y 2 - nH'
--tanh
L
2
kd 1
\ I
Minikin 1.67 H yH yH I
i
Gouda H(l + kH) ynH21L yH(e- kd - kHI2)

\ 2
ykH 2
Lira - ynH21L
2cosh 2 kd
4.4.2 Wave Forces on Overtopping Vertical Breakwaters
It may be economical to allow the less frequent storm waves to spill over the crest of the
breakwater rather than to build the wall to its full height to reflect fully all extreme waves.
The disadvantage, however, is that overtopping waves plunge over the crest and into the
harbour disturbing the tranquil conditions inside the harbour. Due to overtopping the
pressure diagram is modified as shown in Figure 4.18. If h.: is the height of top of wall
above MSL, we may assume the height of siJill over the crest is (H + 0 - he).
Considering the normal pressure distribution without overtopping of waves, if F is the

total force (including both hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces) that would act if the wall
had extended upto the crest of the clapotis, we neglect the force diagram ABC above the
crest of the wall and consid~r only the truncated portion over the wall of height
hw d+ he). Then the modified (reduced) force is
F' =Yr F
314
13
yh
yd
coshkd
Fig. 4.18 Overtopping Breakwaters
where Yf ( hw
H+b+d
)l( 2 - h
H+b+d
for 0.50< hw
H+b+d
< 1.0
= 1.0 for (4.23a)
If M is the moment due to force F, the reduced moment, M' about the base is similarly
expressed
M' =YmM (4.23b)
hw
where - hw
(
Ym- H+b+d) Y( 3 2hw
H+b+d
) for 0.5<
H+5+d
< 1.0
hw (4.24)
= 1.0 for ~1.0
H+b+d
\
~"
Harbour & Coastal Engine'ering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
4.4.2.1 Goda Formula
On realising the shortcomings of Hirbiarid Sainflou formulas~ G023." U~974) proposed a

single wave pressure formula, asshriIil!Z ~a tiapezoid~J..pressur~:'(Hst,ribution along the
vertical wall (Figure 4.19), regardl~sd ofAvh6ther the wavbs ~r~'~ta~dTng or breaking, on
the upright;section of a vertical break~ater fot design purpbses. This fonnula was derived
based on the~'result of experiments on, wav.cptessure and in_con~deration of the results of
application to several bre1kwaters at site. ILis specified H~< as the height to be employed.
It is partially., based on nonlineai wav~ ;theory and !can represent~ave pressure
characteristics by considering two~ressure components: the breaking 'a~d slowly varying
pressure components. It is based on the prin,ciple that a breakwater should be designed to
be safe against the single wave with the largest pressure amongstonn waves. It clarifies
the concept elf uplift pressure on the caisson bottom, since the buoyancy of the upright
section in stiJI water and its uplift pressure d,ue to the wave action are defined separately.
The distributiQnoftl}t?uPIift pressure has a triangular shape.
-, ., • ..~ • "- • ~ __ •• _r _ __ • _".
''''.
The irregularity of waves and the wave direction are other important parameters in wave
pressure estimation. To (ulfiJl,these additional requirements, Tanimoto et a1. (1976) later
modified Goda' s formula for the effect of oblique wave approach, and Takahashi et a1.
~:,_, .~,., "'~.~ (".~~.,
.' ·"-~;.i ~ ~< ~ ~ ~. ,"',J
(1994) introduced the impUlse' ~press\1re' 'co6ffident . (aD "m' the formula. There are
• ,. A
I
modification factors (1'1, A2and A3) proposed for the application of Goda's fonnula to
other types of vertical walls.
In Figure 4. i 9, do denctes:th~ '\~ater depth in front of the break~ater, d'-thedepth:ab~~nh~

armor layer of the rubble foundation, h the distance from the design water level to the
bottom of the upright section, and he the crest elevation of the breakwater abovethe design
water level. ,. " ,. ! ,
f ;
. '(4.25)
in which 0 denotes the angle between the direction of wave approach arid a linenormal to
the breakwater. For waves approaching normal to the vertical wall breakwater (8 = 0°),
*
T] =1.5 Hmax·
316
J
Venical Breakwaters
SWL
P2
Fig. 4.19 Pressure Distribution along the Depth (Goda Method)
Wave pressure on the front of a vertical wall at MSL (pd,
(4.26)
Wave pressure at the bottom of the foundation (Pz),
(4.27)
Wave precsure at the bottom of the vertical wall (P3),
(4.28)
Wave pressure at the top of the vertical wall (P-l)
(4.29)
The uplift pressure <.It the toe of the upright section is,
(4.30)
--_.. _ .. __ ._
... _-------
flarbour& Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
where (XI:= O,6+0.5[ 2kd o ]2 (4.31a)

sinh(2kd o)
(4.31d)
(4.3 Ie)
(4.3 It)
where
== Water depth at the location at a distance five times the

significant wave height,
= Seaward of the breakwater

min {a,b} = Represents the smaller of a and b
max {a,b} = Rrepresents the maximum value of a and b.
The above pressure intensities are assumed not to change even if wave overtopping takes
place.
al is the impulsive pressure coefficient and is discussed below. Sainflou formula gives
conservative results when compared to Goda formula.
3lS
,
J
4.4.2.2. Pressure Coefficients
Figure 4.20 shows the transition of wave pressure from non breaking to impulsive pressure
where the pressure component is indicated by coefficient aJ, a2 and aI' The value of the
coefficient al has been empirically determined on the basis of laboratory data. The
formula for the coefficient al represents the mean tendency of wave pressure in that it
increases with the wave period, i.e. it represents the slowly-varying pressure component;
its functional representation does not carry any theoretical significance. The simple
functional form of the coefficient a2 represents the tendency of the pressure to increase
with the height of the rubble foundation, i.e., it is the breaking pressure component. The
increase of wave pressure due to the presence of a rubble foundation may be regarded as
. result of the change in behaviour of waves from non-breaking to breaking, although actual
waves never exhibit such marked changes. With this consideration, the reduction factor
cos 2e for the effect of oblique wave attack is multiplied to the coefficient a2 in addition to
the general reduction factor 0.5 (l + cose). The coefficients a3 and a4 were derived based
on the simplifying assumption of a linear pressure variation between PI and P2 along the
vertical wall.
2.0 2.0 2.0

p .f
1.5 - 1.5 )"H 1.5 tt2
P
;.0
-tH
1.0 .- c{2
1.0
-rH 0.5
0
}l 0.5
a
c(1
0.5
0
-0.5 - 0.5 -0.5
'"
-1. () -1.0 -1.0
";a; Standing Pressure (b) Brearling

L.. P ressure (c) Impulsive Pr2ssure
Fig. 4.20 Transition of Wave Pressure
al represents the impulsive pressure component, which includes the dynamic response
effect on the caisson sliding. al increases from 0 to 1.1 as the relative depth decreases,
and a2 increases as d/d b decreases, though it peaks and then decreases as d/d b decreases,
ranging 0 to 1.0. The effect of the dynamic (impulsive) pressure indicated by a2 in Goda's
formula does not under all conditions accurately estimate the effective pressure
(equivalent static pressure) due to impulsive pressure, and therefore, aI was introduced.
When dido> 0.7, al is always close to zero and is less than a2. The value of aI reaches a
maximum of 2 at BIL = 0.12, dido = OA, and Hid > 2. It should be noted that the impulsive
S. Kathiroli & 5.4. SallllGsiraj 319

pressure significantly decreases when the angle of wave incidence 8 is oblique. Takahashi
et aL (1994) discussed the impulsive pressure coefficient, (x, in detail.
4.4.2.3 Modification Factors
The modification factors were introduced to accommudate the various other forms of
vertical breakwaters like permeable structure. The modification factor AI represents the
reduction or increase of the wave's slowly-varying pressure component, A2 repres.:nts
changes in the breaking pressure component (dynamic or impulsive pressure component),
while A3 represents changes in the uplift pressure. For the ordinary vertical breakwater,
these values are taken as unity since the Goda formula was originally proposed for this
type of breakwater.
4.4.2.4 Total Pressure alld Momellt
The total pressure and its moment about the bottom of an upright section (Figure 4.19) can
be calculated with the following equation.
F (4.32)
(4.33)
The total uplift pressure and its moment about the heel of the upright section are
calculated with
U 0.5 PuB (4.34)

M,: = 1/3 Pu B: (4.35)
wlJcre 13 is the width of the bottom of the upright section.
4.4.2.5 Pressure Under a Wal'e Trough
\Vhen the trough of an incident wave attack a vertical wall, the pressure exerted on the
\\all becomes less than the hydrostatic pressure under the mean sea level. As a result, the
vertical wall experiences a net pressure directed seaward. Such a pressure may govern the
stability of an upright section against sliding seaward, the structural design of the front
walls of concrete caissons. etc. In comparison to the onshore-directed pressure under a
\\'U \'c crest ihi! pressure under a trough is seen to become larger than that under a crest if
320
Vertical Breal.."Waters
the relative wave length exceeds about 0.25. This is caused bytheappearance'c)f second
harmonic pressure components of appreciable amplitude due to wave non-linearity. The
progressive waves as they transform from deep to shallow water; the nonlinear'effects
make wave crest sharper and trough flatter. 'This 'results-ir{ higher dyriamicwave'pressure
under the crest when compared to that under the trough. Contrast to this'phenomena, the
pressure under the crest of antinbde bf the standing :wave· is lower than tliat tindertlie
trough due to the presence of second· harmonic. Under such a condition; -an upright
se:::tion may slide toward the offshore during heavy wave action.' ;, .
4.4.2.6 Design Wave Height and Length
The design wave height is the maximum wave height 'The height Hmax is a probabilistic
quantity and shall be of the value for the water depth db at the point o~f the fro,nt of thq
vertical breakwater by the distance of five times the significant wave height. A definite
value of H,mx=1.8 HJI3!s recommended in consideration iofthe performanseofulany;
prototype breilkwaters as well as with" regard to the ~ccur~FY ~f the.;\\,av~ .. p~e,ssure
estimation. However, the design engineer can have the libertYJo.fhoos~ ~th? :v:~l,<,e 0rHma,,;
between 1.6 HlI3 and 2.0 HII3 or some other value. When the breakwater is located within
the breaking zone, the maximum wave height is calculated in consideration of breaking
deformation of irregular w~yes. The wav~ length of the' highest wave shalIb~ that
corresponding to the significant wave period.
4.4.2.7 Limitations
Goda formula underestimates pressure, if the vertical wall is located on:a steep sea bed or
on a high mound and is subject to a strong shock wave pressure due to breaking waves.
Its application should be made carefuliy with;conslderrationof-the possibility of
occurrence of shock wave pressure due to breaking wave.' The formula is not yet fully
verified for the vertical wall close toshoreline so that the application should be,carefully
exercised. The hydrostatic pressure difference between the offshore and onshore sides of
the walL if exists, should be considered separately. Further, the formula gives the
maximum resultant force of the wave pressure in front of the wall when therds breaking
wave action. It does not necessarily the local maximum wave pressure at the various
sections. It is, thus, important to consider this in the examination oLthe stress of
individual members.

llarbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
4.4.3 Example Problem
Analyse the wave forces exerted on a caisson breakwater of width 12m and height 25m, is
filled with quarry spall. The breakwater is rested on low mound rubble base. The sea
bottom slope is 1 in 100. Discuss the wave forces exerted on the caisson under the action
of waves with a significant wave height of 4m and peak period of 8s, evaluated using
different methods. The design water depth in front of the breakwater is 15m and tbe
protrusion of rubble base above the sea bottom is feeble.
Solution:
General: y = 10.25 kN/m 3 ; D = 15 m; m = 11100 = 0.01

Wave data: H I13 = 4m; T= 8s
The maximum wave height, H lIlax =1.8Hl/3=7.2 m, is taken as design wave height. The
average of highest one-third wave height is taken as design wave height only for the
evaluation using Hiroi formula.
d
The deep water wave length, L0= 1.56 T2::: 99.92m =} - =0.1501
Lo
d 2n
From the tables. - 0.1834 =} L = 81.8m; k::: -::: 0.0768
L L
HI-I.,. == 0.0489 and.H max = 0.0880
L L
!1113 = 0.2667 and Hm~ = 0.48
d d
The rise of mean sea level from Equation (4.1b), 8 = 2.43 m
Here, the wave pressures are evaluated at MSL, i.e. at z = 0 and at bottom z :::: -d. Then
the pressure will be integrated from bottom of the wall to the zero pressure point to obtain
the total resultant seaward force. It is noted here that only dynamic wave induced pressure
is calculated. The static pressure must be added separately.
Standing Wal'e TheOl)':

For wave crest at the \\lall. the maximum crest pressures are evaluated from Equation (4.6)
for dl'L < 0.5.
322
f Vertical Breakwaters
I
i
The pressure at MSL (z = 0),
The pressure at bottom (z = -d),
PI = 43.05 kN/m 2
P2 = 34.97 kN/m2
r
Total net force = [pressure contribution from -d to 0] + [pressure above MSL upto the
I level (H+8)]
i o
f + ~ x 43.05 x (7.2 + 2.43) =767 kN/m
I =
-d
pdz
II Iliroi Formula:
Hirai assumed uniform pressure distribution over full depth of the vertical wall.
The design wave height is taken as the average of the highest one third wave height.
t
f The intensity of pressure from Equation (4.12),
I p == 1.5 YH = 61.5 kN/m
Total net force

2
=61.5 x (15 + 1.25 H) =1230 kN/m
I
}
Saillflou Formula:
For wave crest at the wall, the bottom pressure, P2 is given by Equation (4.13)
2
P2 == 42.40 kN/m
The pressure at MSL, PI = 76.70 kN/m2

1 1
Total net force == - [76.70 + 42.40] x 15 + - x 76.70 x (7.2 + 2.43) == 1263 kN/m
2 2
As dIL is in the range between 0.135 and 0.20, the Sainflou method can predict the
pressure reasonably well when, HIL ~ 0.035. However, in this case HIL == 0.088.
Nagai Formula:
According to Nagai classification of waves, the wave action on the vertical wall falls in
the region of shallow water waves ( 0.135 ~ dlL < 0.35).
L S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj 323

llarbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) : Vol. I
The pressure at top and bottom of the vertical wall, from Equations (4.15 a & b),
c
PI = 73.80 kN/m
P::! =42.40 kN/m 2

Total net force from Eq. (4.16) = 1052 kN/m
Third Order Theory:
The design wave height is the l:laximum wave height. The wave pressures can be
evaluated using Equation (-1..21) and Equations (4.22 a to d). The coefficients A' to D'
are, thus evaluated as.
At z=o At z = -d
A' 8 4.1362
B' 0.4852 -1.5340
C' -0.4043 -0.0386
D' 1.6608 1.2075
Thus, at t=O and z=(). PI :::: 56.85 kN/m2
At t :::: 0 and z = -d. P2 43.54 kN/m2
The integration of Eq.(-L21) from -d to 0, gives the resultant force between MSL to sea
boltom. The total resultant force, thus, can be calculated by adding the triangular pressure
variation above :vlSL upto (Hm+O).
o I
Total net force = J pdz + 2 x 56.85 x (7.2 + 2.43) = 983 kN/m
-c!
Howen~r. the integration of Eq. (-1-.:21) involves more computation and the assumption of
linear variation of pressure distribution results in conservative results.
Correctioll for Ol'ertoppillg of Break\mfers:
The reduction facwr for o\ertoppil1g breakwaters is calculated from Equation (-L23),
11, :::: 10m: h.,,:::: 25m
324
The rise of water level for Hmax =7.2m is, 0 = 2.43 m.

h
~ 1.015 which is greater than 1.0.
H+ +d
Hence, there is no overtopping of waves.
Goda Formula:
Hmax = 1.8 HlI3 = 7.2 m
0:.( =. 0.0 for dido> 0.7.
The maximum crest elevation from Equation (4.25),
r( = lO.8 ITt
The pressure coefficients, o:.'s are evaluated from Equation (4.31a) to Equation (4.31 f),
0:., =0.7080
0:.2 = min [0,4. 17] = 0
0:." =max[O, OJ = 0
0:.3 =0.5746
~" = min[ 10.8, 10] = 10 m
0:.4 = 0.074
The pressure at MSL from Equation (4.26),
PI = 52.32 kN/m2
As there is no rubble foundation, from Equations (4.27 & 4.28),
P2 P3 = 30 kN/m2
The uplift pressure intensity from Equation (4.30),

2
pu = 30 kN/m
325
S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj
Harbour & Coastal Engineering (IndulIl Scenario) Vol. I
Wave pressure at the top of the verlicai wall Equation ( 4.29),
p.; = 3.87 kN/m"
From Equation (4.32),
Total net force = 899 kN/m
It should be noted that Goda's method predicts overtopping of waves, while in the other
methods the top of vertical wall is high enough to avoid overtopping.
The wave exerted dynamic pressure at MSL and at the bottom of vertical wall are
compiled in Table 4.3 along with the resultant force from seaward side using different
methods.
Tabie 4.3 Pressures Computed Using Different Methods - Example Problem 1
Pressure at
Resultant force (F)
(kN/m)
899
767
1263
Typical curves of pressure variation with wave steepness, sho\"n in Figure 4.21, give an
idea of pressure estimation using dift'erent methods. This varintion is for a particular
reiJtive wa\(: length of d/L = 0.1834. However, the selection of design pressure should be
based on physical modeling .
..fAA Enlluation of Pressure Estimation using Difierent Methods
The presence of variolls formulae gives a cumbersome to a design engineer to decide upon
which methods to adopt. To have a bctter idea on the wave pressure distributions. the
pressure contours ha\e been plotted in Figures 4.22(a) to (f) using Standing wave theory
(SWT), Hiroi formula, Sainfloll formula. :.Jagai formula, Third Order wave thcory and
316
3000~--------------------------------------1
d I L :::. 0 .1834
Goda
SWT
- - e - Sainflou
- 0 - Nagai
- 0 - Thi rd order
2000 _ 6 . _ Hiroi
N
E
0..
1000
O~~----~------~~----~~----~~
o 0.04 0.08 0.12 0 . 16
Hmax IL
Fig.4.21 Variation in Pressure Estimated Using Different Approaches
Goda formula respectively. The pressure estimation is based on the assumption of a

vertical wall resting on a rubble foundation with bottom of the wall at the sea floor or with
low rubble base height. A uniform water depth of 15m and a sea bottom slope of 1 in 100
are assumed. The crest level of the vertical structure is assumed to be high so that no
overtopping is allowed.
L~
Uarboflr & Coastal Engil1eerillg (Illdian Scenario) Vol. I
--
...J
J:
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

djl
a) Based on Standing Wave Theory
./
o
-~-
208 ---~-
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

d/l
h) Based 011 Hiroi Formula
Fig. 4.22 Pressure Contours
328
'l00
OC-L ______~______~IL_______L __ _ _ _ _ _~------~------

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30. 0.35
I dJl
c) Based on Sainflou Formula
)
0.15
0.10
-' g
?:o~) ~
~-'QO
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
d/L
d) Based on Nagai Formula
Fig. 4.22 Pressure Contours (Contd.)

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

d/l
e) Based on Third Order Wave Theory
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

d/l
o Based on Goda Formula

Fig. 4.22 Pressure Contours (Contd.)
330
4.4.5 Walls on High Rubble Base
When a vertical wall is founded on a high rubble base, standing waves are rarely furmed in
shallow coastal depths and the waves invariably break on the structure. These type of
structures are classified as composite breakwaters as explained in the Section 4.3.10. The
force due to breaking waves depends on the type and location of breaking waves as
classified below.
(i) Waves may break away from the structure and after breaking, the waves run-up
gently on the coastal structure or coastal slopes as shown in Figure 4.23. These
forces on coastal structures are dealt in the chapter on coastal processes and coastal
protection works.
(ii) The waves break on the structure with an air gap between the wave front and the
structure. This is designated as an ordinary breaking wave. A part of the wave
energy is consumed in compressing the entrapped air column which transmits the
shock pressure to the wall. If the water depth above the air column is thin, then the
air pressure can overcome the weight of water above it and a vertical plume of water
is thrown up and the built-up air pressure is released. The pressures developed in
such cases are described in Section 4.5.
(iii) Steep waves may break directly on the structure without any air gap and the impact
pressures felt are high in such conditions. Such waves may be designated as
extraordinary breaking waves and dealt in Section 4.5.3.
Airgap
Wave or cushion
breaking
{a} Wave break:ng away (b) Wave breaking on fhe (c) Wave breaking
away from fhe wall wall with an air cushion directly on fhe wall
Fig.4.23 Wave Breaking Relative to Structure

Harbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. [
4.4.6 Buoyancy and Uplift Pressure
For the structural section of breakwater below the mean sea level, the buoyancy shall be
considered. If there· is a difference in the mean sea level between the hArbour and seaward
side breakwater. the buoyancy can be assumed to act on the structural: section below the
water surface connecting the water levels on both sides of breakwater.
Where the crown level of a structure is higher than (H + 8) in the case of standing waves.
or 1.25H in the case of breaking waves, above the still water surface, it is assumed that no
overtopping is produced, and the uplift acting on the bottom of the upright section should
be considered in addition to the buoyancy acting all the portion below the still water
surface. The buoyancy is to be calculated for the displacement volume of the upright
section in still \\ater below the design water level, and the uplift pres~'lre acting on the
bottom of the upright section is assumed to have a triangular distribution with toe pressure
Pu and a rear toe pressure of zero. The uplift pressure, pu is calculated as below:
For standing waves (d 2' 2H 10 ),
Pu yHI cosh kd (4.36)
For breaking waves (d < 2HI!,)'
pu = 1.25 Y H (4.37)
According to Goda's approach. it is given by the Equation (4.30). Where the crown level
of a structure is low enough to induce overtopping. it is assumed that the entire structure
has buoyancy Jckd [hereupon. and the uplift is considered to be included in the buoyancy.
The dead weight of the breakwater may be calculated by using the unit weights of
respective materials on the aS~lIll1ed section and is the important counter force to resist [he
uplift pressure. \Yhen thl're i~ a difference in the mean sea level between the harbo~lr and
seaward side break\\ater. the hydrostatic pr.?ssure corresponding to the water le\el
difference shall be consid'~r,,>(l.
4...+.7 Impact Pressure due to Breaking Waves
When the wave is not breaking. the wave pressure is not so impulsive. \Vhen the \va\c.
hits just before breaking. the wave front slap the \"l~rlical wall witbout entrapping an air
layer. This would results an significant increase in \Va\e pressure in the order of ten times
332
yR. However, for a wave hitting the wall after breaking, ~he impulsive pressure intensity
is significantly reduced.
It should be noted that two types of impUlsive pressures exist depending on the air layer
entrapped in between the wave front and the vertical wall: impulsive pressure occurring
without air entrapment is termed "Wagner type pressure", while that with air entrapment is
"Bagnold type pressure". The most severe impulsive pressure takes place in the transition
region between these types. A brief discussion on the impulsive pressures is depicted in
the following sections.
4.4.7.1 Bagnold Approach
Bagnold (1939) after careful consideration of experimental results proposed a model

shown in Figure 4.24.
P
,.._.
,,
T ,,
T
!
ip (~.
.
,
_c
t
Po
1
.J..q;
L. ......
Fi1'!.4.24 Breakilll! Wave Action on a Vertical Surface
I This approach compares the advancing column of water of length 'I' and area A moving
with a velocity 'c' to a piston compressing the entrapped air in the cylinder adiabatically.
As the air pressure in:::reases, it retards the advance of the water column. Maximum
pressure occurs when the thickness, 'e' of the air gap is a minimum and the velocity of the
water column becomes zero. Bagnold derived an expression for the maximum intensity of
pressure occurring at mean sea level from momentum considerations supported by
experimental data. The pressure diagram (Figure 4.24) shows that the peak pressure is
developed in a short interval of time, 't ( of the order of 0.1 sec or less) and the rise and fall
of pressure is almost linear. Hence the force can be approximately calculated by
fo pdt A h(Pmax - Po),A (4.38)

It is shown by Bagnold (1939) that oj' is nearly equal to H/5 and ePn"" - Po) =0.54 P c 2 Hie
The thickness, e' of the air cushion is a function of HIL and dlL and the velocity,
c is proportional to ,@
v
+ do) .
2
Minikin manipulated these relationships to finally yield
yH 0 d
Pmax := 101-- - (d + d ) (4.39)
Ld do ()
Hb is the breaking wave height and Ld is the wave length at depth do. In the absence of a
lower base. the depth. do is taken as the depth at wave length Ld . If m is the slope of the
sea bottom. then do = d + mLd'
The maximum pressure occurs at MSL and the pressure decreases parabolically to a zero
value on either side at iJeights of ± HJ2 as shown in Figure 4.25.
Tr---"'--'"
Z
-*- t"'-----~--o.:::;.
YHb
2
Rubble bose
Fig. -.. 25 Pressure Distrihution due to a Breaking Wave on Vertical Wall
1
The total force acting at MSL is,
Hb 12 [
F -
- f
-Hb /2
Pmax
1- z
H 12
b
(4.40)
This method, even though it gives overly conservative results, is widely accepted by
design engineers. The Minildn method i,s modified to apply to cases of non-horizontal sea
beds with slope, m as presented in the shore protection manual (1984). The other
approach for breaking wave force estimation, is based on Gada (1985) as given in
Section (4.4.10). The both methods exhibit distinctly different characteristics of wave
forces on vertical walls (Chu, 1989). Minikin predicted shorter period waves exert larger
wave forces on the walls, while the Gada breaking wave forces decrease with wave
period. Due to this contradictory trend, the Gada method may predict larger forces for
long period waves in shallower waters tban by the other.
4.4.7.2 Nagai Approach
Nagai (1969) following dimensional reasoning and supported by a large number of

experimental results obtained the maximum pressure for a high rubble mound base with
dido < 0.40 to 0.50
Pmax = 4 + 500yd d tlm2 (4.41)

do L
However, it is given that the vertical distributIOn of pressure is of three types:
a) For large wave steepness HIL > 0.045, shallow depths dJH < 1.0 and narrow crest
width of rubble base, the pressure distribution is similar to that given by Miniki:1
(Figure 4.25), i,e., the maximum pressure occurs at MSL and decreases parabolically
to a zero value at heights of ± HJ2. The total breaking fQrce/moment, thus, can be
obtained as
F = 1/3 pmax ~ and M=F.d (4.42)
b) For waves of high steepness in larger depths with a high rubble base, the pressure is a
maximum at the base of the vertical structure and decreases to a zero value at a height
Hb above the base as shown in Figure 4.26(a). The resultant force, F and moment,
M about the bottom of the vertical wall are,
-"-,-- -----
Harbour & Com,tal Engincering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
1\:1 = II.! F H, (4.43)
c) For greater wave steepness H/L > 0.05, the maximum pressure occurs at the base of
the structure but the zero pressure occurs ;It a height 3Htl2 above the base
(Figure 4.26b). The resultant force and moment, tb'.ls ca:1 be \'Titlen c:s
and M =3/8 F Hb (4.44)
T /
_____ P = Pmax(1 -
_
2
z ;
3Hb )
I
Z
I
~____
I
-k,~ ~maL-":
•
~")QO c;::>"~~ b:d '?~ - "
/ '~"
Fig. -1.26 l'iagai breaking wave pressure Distribution
-1.4.7.3 ExtraordillaJ} Breakillg lravcs
For low rubble mounJ~. OA 0.) < dido dJ.75, and high H/L values severe breaking of
\vave directly on the structure may take place but as dId" approaches 0.75, non-breaking
waves may prevail \\i:h near ,lanJing wave conditions. PI1l..JyH is a function of dido. BId,
dJL. d./H. The base rubble mOtlllJ h~lS 110 crr,~ct if did., > 0.75 and djE >2.0
For extraordinary bre~l]"'ing Wil\CS. the lower and upper envelopes of maximulll pressure
arc given by the follo\\ ing ellllCltion5 based on Nagai (\969),
,... l!' ;,
Pn~ = 9610.008 + d ~~' .!:it.: I ILuwC'r envelop of maximum pressure) (4.45a)

Y L J.. L ij
336
Pm"x = 103 0.01 + d~ ~J

\]113 (Upper envelope
y [ (
do \ L
of maximum pressure) . (4.45b)
For high wave steepness and low ratio of dido. the above expression may be nearly 1.5 to 3
times the pressure given by Minikin (1963).
4.4.7.4 Overtopping Breakwaters
For walls of low height, waves wash over the crest of the wall. Then the modified wave
force is given by F' = Yr F (Equation 4.23a) where Yf is the reduction factor which is a
function of d/Hb as given below in Table 4.4. F is the breaking wave force with no
overtopping gi ven by Minikin or Bagnold or Nagai.
The reduced moment about the base is also by modified equation M' =F [ Yf (d + a) - a]
where 2a1Hb is a function of d/Hb'
2a1Hb = 0.4 + 0.6/0.44 ( d/Hb - 0.56 ) for d/Hb > 0.56 (4.46)
and the values of 2a1Hb are given in Table 4.5 for d/Hb < 0.56.
Table 4.4 Force reduction factor Table 4.5 Values of2a/Hb as a

for overtopping breaking waves function of d/Hb
I
diRb
0.1
0.2
Yf
0.015
0.065
i
dlHb
0.05
0.1
2a1Hb
0.010
0.015
I
i
I
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.155
0.290
0.500
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.050
0.110
0.190
i
t
0.6
0.7
0.710
0.850
I 0.5
0.56
0.300
0.400
0.8 0.935
0.9 0.980
1.0 1.000

Harbour & Coastal Engilleerillg ([ndian Scenario) Vol. [
-L5 DESIGN OF VERTICAL BREAKWATERS
4.5.1 Design Aspects
The main factors w be considered for the detailed planning a breakwater include:
Layout of the breakwater. Inlluence on surrounding topography, Inlluence on water
ecology. Design conditions. Structural type of breakwaters. Design method, Execution
method and Construction cost. The determination of the layout of breakwaters requires the
detailed im'estigations on the en\'ironmental conditions, tranquillity requirements in the
harbour basin, maneuverability of moving ships, water quality in the harbour basin and its
maintenance cost. The future plans of the port and harbour also inlluences the layout.
Breukwaters inllucnce 011 the surrounding topography due to reflection and, hence, the
cnvironI11e-nt water conditions also help determine the- layout. The determination of the
structural design conditions llel~ds the required calmness in the harbour, wind and wave
data, lidallcvels, \\;l[er depth and sea bottom conuitions.
There are e-ssenlia!ly three types of failures of vertical walls:
;1) Settling in quicksand when the breakwater is founded on fine sand
b) Horizontal sliding at the foundation levei
c) Overturning
Settlement in quicksand conditions takes place due to reversal of forCes alternatively for
successi\'e crest and trough positions in each \Va\'e cycle occurring at high frequency of
the order of hertz, These wav-:s can aiso cause failure due to horizontal sliding and
overturning. All foundation problems must be carefully analysed by classical methods
such as slip circk analysis. stresses in soil, dynamic response of soil mass due to vibration
of structure, total and differential settle-ll1elliS under impact wave pressure.
4.5.2 Dynamic Response of Upright Wall
The equations of motion can be written in the x and z directions and for rotation about the
y-axis in the follo\\ing form. The damping component is omitted without any serious
error.
(4.47a)
(4.47b)
338
Verlical Breakwaters
(4.47c)
where mB = mass of breakwater; m" and msz are virtual soil mass components in x and z
directions acting together with the breakwater; and mw is virtual water mass.
Fz(t) and Fx(t) are the time varying impact forces in the z and x directions. My(t) is th~
overtuming moment about the y axis. r is the virtual inertia with subscripts, B, sy and wy
denoting those inertia values for breakwater, soil and water respectively. Such dynamic
systems have a natural frequency, Wll given by
(4.48)
MT is the total mass and c is the spring constant. In the x direction,
(4.49)
The response is dependent on the characterization of F(t). If F(t) is represented by a block

function as shown in Figure 4.27(a) such that
F(t) =0 t = 0;
F(t) = Constant =F (4.50)
F(t) 0
F(t)
tfO t=tl
(a) (b)
Fig.4.27 Impact Pressure Distribution
S. KathiroU & S.A. Sannasiraj 339

llarbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) : l'ol. I
Referring the Figure 4.28. the solution for the dynamic equation (Equation 4.47b) can be
written as
F
X=Z-[ COS (On\: (t t 1) - COS(Vnx t) fort>t j (4.51 )
x
The contact force between breakwater and the ground
(4.52)
qt) F(t)
Fig .....28 Mathematical ,Model
The second derivative or x can be obtained from Equ:ltiol1 (4.51) and substituted ll1
Equation (4.52).
(4.53)
wc can substitute for (!)" from Equarion (-1..-1.9).
(4.5-1.)
The result is useful fl)r an impact lo::ding pattern shll\vn in Fif:urc 4.27(b) since the actual
p:lltcrn can be appro\.im~lted by a ~um or sc\cral sllch hlock functions. For other types of
loading and detaii<.x! analysis. reference may be? made to the work of Luma and
Esveld ( (976).
3.tO
It is enough to emphasis here that for responses to impact loads lasting a few millisecond
to tenth of a second, dynamic analysis is absolutely necessary especially if the impact load
periods are close to the natural period of vibration of the structure. However, for standing
waves, the analysis follows as though the structure is under static loading equal to the
maximum wave loads in either direction.
4.5.3 Design Procedure
The step by step procedure in the design of breakwaters is shown below:
• Layout planning
• Investigation of Design environmental conditions such as wind, wave, tide etc.
• Assume cross sectional details from the guidelines given in Section 4.8.4.
• Evaluate external forces based on Goda's formula
• Stability check for sliding of vertical wall
• Stability check for overturning of vertical wall
• Check for the bearing capacity of foundation and stability of mound
• Stability check of entire structure
• Arrive final cross sectional details
• Detailed design
4.5.4 Specifications of Vertical Breakwater
From technical standards for port and harbour facilities in Japan (1980), the specifications
of vertical breakwater cross-sectional details are reproduced in this section.
4.5.4.1 Determination of Cross Sectioll
In determining the cross section of vertical breakwaters, the following points should be
kept in mind.
1. The crown height of breakwater should be not less than about 0.6 times the design
significant wave height above the mean spring high water level.
2. In a port where the basin behind the breakwaters is small in water area and is used for
small ships, considerable overtopping waves should be preferably prevented. Hence
the crown height of the breakwaters may be 1.25 HI!) above the mean spring high
water level.

lIarbollr & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) \'01. I
3. The crown height is preferably made higher than 0.6HlI3 above the spring high water
level. when incoming waves close to the design wave height frequently attack the
breakwaters and the duration of \Va ve continuation is long.
4. In such a port, where the influence of storm surge should be considered, the tidal level
obtained by adding a proper rise based on the past records to the mean spring high
water level should be preferably used as the datum level for determining the crown
height of the breakwaters.
S. Since the shallow part of the harbour side of the breakwater may be buried with sand
carried by over topping waves, the breakwater on a shallow sand beach should have a
sufficient C1"Own height.
6. The standard thickness of the crown concrete shall be 1m or more for significant
design wavc height of 2 111 or more and at least 50 cm or more even for less than 2m of
significant design wave height.
7. The top elevation of concrete block type vertical breakwater should be preferably
above atleast the mean sea water level. And if possible, it should be preferably above
me,':l spring high water level to facilitate the placing of crown concrete.
-1.5.4.2 Details of Structures
• The thickness of a concrete cap of caisson type and cellular concrete block type
breakwater shall usually b~ 30 cm, and 50 cm or more for rough sea.
• The crown concrete should be placed to ensure solidity with the breakwater structure.
Joints should be provided in the alignment direction at JO to 20 m intervals or for the
r~specti\"c caissons, when caissons arc used.
• Th~ blocks of concrete block type breakwaters should be as large as possible.

Esp~cialJy, for the lowest block. one unit block without joints in the cross-sectional
direction should be preferably used.
• For the 10\\'est bl.xk of cellular concrete blocks, the footing should be preferably
provid~d to ensure the stability.
• In the case of mass concrete type breakwaters, each block should be 5 to 10 m long, to
prevent shrinkage and uneven settlement.
3-U
4.6.5 Size of Armor Stone for Rubble Base and Toe Protection
The weight of armor stones for the base of a composite breakwater and for toe protection
of a vertical breakwater is given by the equation (Brebner and Donnelly (1962)].
(4.55)
Here, s = ysfy, y, is the specific weight of stone and the stability number Ns is given in the
Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Stability number Ns as a function of dido for a Vertical Breakwater
Ns 3
dido For rubble base For rubble as toe protection
Figure 4.29(a) Figure 4.29(b)
0.10 7.2 13.8
0.20 10.0 24.0
f-
0.30 13.0 41.0
0.40 15.5 70.0
0.50 18.5 115.0
0.60 20.5 178.0
0.70 22.5 255.0
0.75 23.2 300.0
4.6 STABILITY
In the clapotis formulation, the analysis follows as though the structure is under static
loading equal to the maximum wave loads in either direction. With regard to the vertical
"~-
breakwaters, the sliding and overturning of the structure, the stability due to buoyancy
while under installation and the bearing capacity of the foundation at the bottom of the
structure shall be examined. The design of a breakwater upright section must be stable
against sliding and overturning and to accomplish this, safety factors against sliding and
I
..•
Ilarbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I
006000J~ Rubble Base
(a) Rubble Base (b) Toe Protection
Fig.4.29 Vertical breakwa ter
overturning must be greater than 1.2. In most cases, sliding IS more severe than
overturning, especially when the breakwater crown is relatively low. The dynamic water
pressure during earthquake should be considered as an external force for stability
c:.t1culation of the structure against overturning and the bearing capacity of the foundation.
4.6.1 Sliding of Breakwaters
The forces acting on the breakwater are shown in Figure 4.30 anrl these are
(a) the net or resultant wave force. F acting horizontally at a height (z )above the base
(b) uplift due to the dynamic wave action (0) transmitted along the structure
(c) Buoyant or uplift force, (U b ) due to static depth of water on either side of the
breakwater acting uniformly over the entire hase width (8)
(d) Self .weight (W o ) of structure itself. For no movement of structure (F) should not
exceed the friction force (F f ) which is the friction factor times the net vertical
force. The safety factor against sliding (SF,) of a vertical caisson type
break\\·aters shall sarisI'y the following condition:
uW
SFS <

.~-
F
(4.56)
344
where
W = Resultant of vertical forces (= Wo - UT )
UT = Total uplift force (= U + Ub)
Il = Coefficient of friction between the bottom of the wall and the foundation.
r w = wO-U-U2
F c::=>
t
z
1
Pu
Fig.4.30 Forces acting on vertical breakwaters
The values of U and F per unit extension can be calculated using Equation (4.34) and
Equation (4.32). The friction coefficient (Il) between a concrete slab and rubble stones is
usually taken as 0.6. Since the structure is always under water, there may be marine
growth of lichen etc. which may lubricate the joint between the concrete structure and the
foundation. The periodic waves change the direction of forces which may also reduce
such contact friction. Hence a low value of 0.5 for Il is often recommended for safety in
design.
4.6.2 Overturning of Breakwaters
As in the case of sliding, the safety factor against overturning (SF b ) of a vertical
breakwater shall satisfy the following condition:
S. Katlziroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 345

\Vt
SFt ~ (4.57)
-
Fz
where
= Dist3l1ce froIll the application line of the resultant force of the vertical forces
to the front toe of the breakwater
z = H eight from the application line of the resultant force of the horizontal
fl)rces to the bottom of the wall
4.6.3 Hearing Capacity of Foundation
The vertical breaK\\aters shall be examined for the bearing capacity of foundation, as a
shallo\\' foundation or pik foundation according to the structural type. In case of
examination as a shallow foundation, the force acting on the bottom of the wall is the
resultant force of \ertical loads and horizontal loads. It is usually eccentric and inclined
and, therefore, eccentricity and inclination of loads must be considered for the
examination of the bearing capacity of the foundation and the number of methods are
available for calculating the same for one-stratum subsoil and two-stratum subsoil.
The thickness of a foundation mound is determined by examining the bearing capacity of

the foundation, the flatness of mound surface for installing the vertical breakwater and the
alleviation of partial stress concentration in the ground. The minimum thickness
according to technical standards of Japan port and harbour authority, should be 0.5 m or
more, and 3 time s or more of t he diameter of the rubbles for water depth of less than
4.5 m. For water depth more than 4.5 111, the corresponding values are 1.0 In or more, and
3 times or more of the diameter of the rubbles.
The ma.\.imulll bearing pressure, sometimes called toe pressure, can be taken
400 to SOO kN/m::, although this limit can be increased to 600 kN/m c or greater 1'01' deei~
water breakwaters. In the procedure to evaluate the heel and toe bearing pressures, a
trapezoidal or triangular distribution of bearing pressure is assumed to exist beneath the
upright \\all as sl1O\\n in Figure 4.31, where the total bearing pressure is equal to Wand
the moment due to the bearing pressure should be equal to \1" (= Wt F z).
eccentricity of resultant force (tJ is.
(4.58 )
3.l6
The bearing pressures at toe(q;) and at heel(q2) can be calculated using
4,> B/3 :' ql = (2WfB) (2-3tefB)

(4.59)
ql;:: 2W! 3te
q2 =0 (4.60)
F c::::::>
t
Wt-FZ
Z 1~
t
te
W
~
q2
C] ql te > 2/3
q2
~ ql = 2w/3te t,,:::; 2/3
"'4-3t" ----....
Fig.4.31 Bearing pressure diagram at bottom of the wall
4.6.4 StabiEty due to Buoyancy
The stability for buoyancy has to be checked while caisson type breakwater module is
towing into place to ensure that capsize or tilting will not occur. For caisson to be stable,
the metacentric height should be positive. i.e.

llarbour & Coastal Engineering (Indiall Scenario) Vol. I
I
- - CG GM>O (4.61)
V
Here
V Volume of displacement of water by the submerged portion of the wall
I = r-.foment of Inertia of area about the long axis at the draft level
C = Centre of buoyancy
G = Centre of gravity
M Metacentre.
To ensure the safety of caisson while buoyancy, it is desirable to make GM to be 59( or

more of draft.
Apart from the above stability criterion. the stability of the block masonry wall should be
examined at each level of the blocks. The pressure existing between blocks, which acts as
an uplift pressure on the upper block. can be assumed to be equal to the horizontal
pressure occurring at the same level (Tanimoto and Ojima, 1983). The other problems
related to wave forces are:
L The reflection and diffraction due to the breakwater alignment like concave section
etc. The diffraction coefficient in some cases will exceed 2.0.
11. The meandering dfect, that is. the \\U\'e height fluctuates along the breabvater
alignment and significantly increases near th..: breakwater head.
Ill. In the presence of long caisson in an oblique sea. the wave crest moves along the
vertical waiL Although the average forcl' (kcr~as~s as angle of wave approach
increases. the stability against horizontal rotation or the caisson nevertheless bl'comes
crucial.
4.6.5 Sliding against Impact Loads
l'nder high impact loads, there 11lav be s!i;ht movements of th,.; wall. We write til:
equation of motion in the form
dv - [
111- == F~in (J)[ - ~l \\ (4.62)
dt
348
--
U d may be written as etlFsin wt, F is the amplitude of the dynamic force.
Implicit motion starts when the friction force is equal to the wave force or,
dv
o at time, t tl (4.63)
dt
= Sin-l[W-Ustaticl
F
!l
\ 1 + !let[
j'] (4.64)
Integrating the first equation, Equation (4.62)
[,
r£ ~(w~ Us) it (4.65)

Jrn rn
II
W
cos wt j ) - ~ --""-(t 2 - tj) (4.66)
rn
The horizontal movement ceases when Va 0 since !leW-Us) =F O+j.ld j ) sin Wth the
above relationship is simplified as
For known values of Wtlo the value of Wt2 can be found. The displacement x of the
breakwater can be derived
t,
Xit:12 = JVdt
II
or x
[he following Table 4.7 gives the values of wt 2 and f(cut l) for assigned values of rotl

lIarbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) : Vol. I
Table 4.7 Function Values For Estimation of Displacement of Breakwater
0.2000
0.3000 4.4407 1.0472 2.6332 0.0830
0.4000 4.1451 1.9513 1.1000 2.5233 0.05-1.5
0.5000 3.8771 1.3802 1.2000 2.3176 0.0211
0.5236 3.8168 1.2658 1.3000 2.11"+"+ 6.0202x 10. 3
0.6000 3.6276 0.9427 1.4000 1.9129 9.5548x1O"~
0.7000 3.3913 0.6167 1.5000 1.712..+ 2.8258xlO-5
0.785..+ 3.1974 0.4115 1.5708 1.5708 0.00
0.8000 3.1648 0.3823
0.9000 0.2212
Example: Caisson
Assumption: Breakwater height = 16m

Depth of water = 12m
Width of breakwater 10m
Design wave height = 12m
p =0.5; T L.O S
xl = b/2h = 1O/2x12 = 0.417
Mass density of caisson = 1800 kg/m'

F is estimated from various theories
m = 16 x 10 x 1800 - 2.88x 105 = 1.25 X Hi' N/m length of caisson
1.25 X 10 6 (l -1- 0.5 x OA17)

0.1329
5 [/211:
2.88 x 10 x ._
\ 1
w 2.88 X 105 x 9.81 = 2.83 x lO6 ;'\/m
U s1 •He = yw x 10 x 12 (assuming full uplift)
1080 x 9.81 x to x 12= 1.21 x lO6 N/m
350
(2.83 - 1.21) x 10 6 0.5

0.5364
1.25 x 10 6 1+ 0.5 x OA17
wtl = sin- l 0.536 == 32.91 0 = 0.566 radians from thl! Table No. 4.7 f(wtl) = 1.088 and the
displacement (x) =0.1329 x 1.088 = 0.14 m
If this is very much below the permissible movement, then the width of caisson can be
reduced by trial and elTor to obtain an option solution. On the other hand; if the result is
above the permissible movement the width has to be increased.
4.7 WAVE TRANSMISSION AND REFLECTION OF VERTICAL WALLS
When waves act on breakwaters, some of the incident wave energy is dissipated. Some of
the remaining energy, however, is reflected and generates reflected waves in front of the
breakwaters. The rest is transmitted and yields transmitted waves behind them. Wave
reflection is sometimes a problem because it creates additional agitation. Minimisation of
wave transmission is especially important in breakwater design since the principal
function of breakwaters is to prevent wave propagation from occurring; thereby creating a
calm water area behind them.
The amount of wave reflection and transmission are usually measured by the reflection
coefficient (KR ) and transmission coefficient (KT ) being defined by the following
relations:
(4.67)
(4.68)
where
HI = Incident wave height
HR = Reflected wave height
HT = Transmitted wave height

Harbour & Coas-tal Ellgilleering (Illdian Scel/ario) Vol. I
4.7.1 \V.• ye Transmission
Transmitted waves are caused by wave transmission through the structure (Kn) and
overtopping (K lO )' The total transmission coefficient by both causes is:
KT (4.69)
Because wave transmission by overtopping waves is produced by wJ.ves generated at the

lee, which result due to the impact from the fall of the overtopping mass, the transmitted
waves have a complicated form with high frequency components. Thcrefore, in general,
not only the w;\\'c height but also the \\'~I\e frcquency of transmitted waves are different
from those of the incident waves, i.e .. the wavc period of transmitted waves is generally
smaller. Another interesting phenomenon is that Lransrnitted irregular waves chunge
characteristics as they propagate over a long d istancc.
Wave transmission of vertical wall breakwaters is mainly by overtopping, and therefore,

the ratio of the breakwater's crest height (h,.) to the incident wave height is the principal
parameter governing the wave transmission coefficient. Based on regular wave tests.
Goda (1969) proposcd the following equatiolls to represent the transmission coefficient
for vertical breakwaters.
O.l(l-hl (4.70)
where a =: 1.1 and B is obtained from Figure 4.31. The abO\c relations are also applicable
to the transmission coefficient of irregular ',vaves with a significant wave height. Most
hreakwaters in Japan are designed \\"ith a rela!i\'e CI\~st heigh!. hjHw = 0.6.
The transmission coefficient calculated by Equation (.:t.70) is [h;?11 about 0.2 for a typical
condition of d/d,,=O.6 and h/d,,=O.7. Figure -+.33 sho\\"s the transmission coefficient for
vertical wall break\'aters using Equation (4.70).
4.7.2 Wave Reflection
The waves in front of the vertical breakwaters are standing \\"a"·es. being reflected by the
wall. The retlection coefficient K" of vertical breakwaters is therefore generally high:
though less than 1.0 due to the effects of the rubble 1l10l:nd foundation and wave
352
I
0.1. . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - : : ; : > ' 1
0.2
0.2 -
j3 0.1
0.1
0.2~-~-~----~--+-~
o 0.2 0.1. 0.5 0.8 1.0
d/h
Fig. 4.32 Nomograph for determining J3
~ 1.0.---~--------------------------
)C
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 a 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Fig. 4.33 Transmission Coefficient for a Vertical Brakwater (Goda 1969)
overtopping. In particular, KR is considerably reduced when breaking waves act on the

breakwaters. The ratio of the incident wave height to the depth in front of the vertical wall
above the armor layer (Hl/3/d) is a principal factor representing the degree of wave
breaking. Another important parameter is the relative crest height to the incident
significant wave height (hclHlI3) which strongly influences wave overtopping. The

Harbour & Coastal Ellgilleering (llldiall Scellario) : Vol. I
reflection coefficient KR is proportional to the overtopping parameter (hc/Hw) and

inversely proportional to the wave breaking parameter (Hlf3/d.).
4.8 REVIEW OF VERTICAL BREAKWATER FAILURES
Figure 4.3-1. shO\'iS the possible modes of major failures of vertical breakwaters by wave
action. These are sliding. over turning of the upright section as weIl as failure of the
rubble mound foundation or original sea bed. The displacement of individual foot
production blocks and armor stones may also occur under wave action.
p (c) Sliding
(b) Overturning
tu
8
(c) Failure of
p
foundation
Planar slip
Fig ..... 3 ... !\Iajor Failure !\lodes of Vertical Breakwaters
35'"
4.8.1 Japanese Breakwater
Japan is the country with the largest stretch of vertical and composite breakwaters in the
world. There are in average more than six disasters per year caused by wave action to
these structures. Goda (1973) has reviewed the performance of 34 caisson breakwaters
built in between 1921 and 1972 and which were subjected to storm waves with heights
nearly equal or greater than the heights of the design waves.
21 of the 34 caisson breakwaters failed and the predominant mode of failure was sliding.
Tile analysis of Nagai and Kurata (1974) on these failure cases have clearly shown that the
Japaneses code of practice (HIROI pressure formula) largely underestimates the impact
loads. In fact, the Hiroi pressure formula failed in predicting the sliding in more than
80 % of the failure cases, and the Sainflou pressure formula in more than 60 %. While,
Minikin formula appears to result in unrealistically small safety coefficients (0.15 to 0.52)
in vieW of the extent of the slidiilg distance experienced. The best agreement was
achieved by the Goda pressure formulae, although it failed to predict the sliding in about
10 % of the fail ure cases. The Goda formulae also failed in 5 of the 13 cases (- 40 %) of
non damage cases. Based on the results and data of Goda, it appears that there is ~till no
reliable formulae to predict the design load.
The reasons for failures experienced by the Japanese caisson breakwater based on the data
and information available shows:
• For most of the damaged structure, the design wave conditions were not or only
slightly exceeded;
• The collapse generally took place by sliding. This is certainly due to the frequent
occurrence of wave breaking on the structure caused the rubble mound berm which is
generally too broad and too high. This has also led to the erosion of the toe beam.
• In a number of cases, particularly at the head, the structures were not completed, so
that breaking and overtopping could induce the inferred damage. In this case,
excessively wide caissons (head caissons) did not tilt seawards, but slides shoreward;
• Settlement and shear failure of the foundation also contributed in a number of cases to
the collapse.
• Most of the failures occurred directly at or near singular points (bound, joint between
two different structures, head).
S. Kal'hiroli & S.A. Satltlasiraj 355
-.-----------------------
---~ ......
Harbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) ~lol. I
4.8.2 Chennai Breakwater
The breakwater of Chennai was built 1980 by using blocks of 27 tons without any bond
(Figure 4.35a). The sea bed consists of shifting s:md overlaying a small layer of firm sand
on stiff blue clay. The slope of the sea bed in front of the breakwater was steep, and
severe wave breaking was very often observed on the shore. The most striking feature of
the breakwater is the free board which is only 1.0m as related to the high water level. A
cyclone coming from EEK assailed the breakwater in November 1881. The failures which
resulted are mentioned in Fibure 4.3Sb.
The maximum impact pressure on the front of the structure were evaluated to more than
30 tIm=', i.e. wave hreaking took place. Considerable ''lave overtopping was also
observed. The outer blocks were "dragged" towards the sea as the breaking and
('vertopping waves receded. The breakwater was rebuilt as shown in Figure 4.35e. The
head of the breakwater (Point D in Figure 4.35b) \vhich was rebuilt as a monolith of 5000 t
on a rubble mound foundation tilted into a scour hole of 3 m depth which developed at tht'
pier-head ouring a severe cyclone in November 1916.
The reasons for fai lures experienced by the Chcnnai breakwater arc:
• No bonding and jointing of the blocks
• Wave brc~!l..,:ing and overtopping
• Scouring l,f the sea bed and (,l"OSiOll of the rubbk' Illl)Llnd foundation
:'-56
4.8.3 Summary of Failures of Case Histories
Seventeen failure cas~s are summarised in Table 4.8 in which are given the type of
structure, the design wave conditions, the wave conditions responsible for the damage, the
depth conditions. the various characteristics of the structure and its foundation, the nature
of the sea bed and (he major reasons for failure. The notations used in Table 4.8 are
defined in Figure 4.36.
1----- 8 --.~-..;
Fig. 4.36 Vertical Breakwater Symbol Definition

Table 4.8: Review of Vertical Breakwater Failures (Oumeraci, 1992)
BW _ _ HIT _~ Nature r-" r~ I h, 1_];I~M'imR'MO",lm

Country Type
I AC~seabed ] Failure {Major
I7.~
Year
Design of he dw hfi---l b, 11m d f FI ~
~ -~-
_ mo e 0 al ure
MADRAS BCY ~~T- 7.3 2 7.2 14,6 -Breaking waves
(India,
2' -Overtopping
1881) 9,' 2 7.2 1 11 -Scour & erosion
(seaward tilt)
BIZERTA
(Tunesia,
1915)
VALENCI
1"
UCY - 7/14 Nne
8
13
12
17
8
12
5 10 10 -Breaking waves
-Overtopping
:r:l:/o5~ -Exceedance design
-Erosion of RMF
A (Spain,
sand, wave
1926) mud I 14.4 ' 9,5 2.7 ,10 1;3 -Breaking waves
-Overtopping
-Seabed scour (seaward
tilt)
, --
ANTOFA UCY 6/8 9/15 10 30 7,5 -Exceedance design
GASTA
(Chile,
!
16,9 9.4 3.5 ' 112
3.~ 4/3
wave
-Non-monolithicity
~29) ! -Breakinq waves . ,
358
Table 4.8: Review of Vertical Breakwater Failures (Ourneraci, 1992) (Contd.)
BW
Country Type
HiT Nature
of
B do hro
~ Major Reasons for Failure
(Major
Design Actual he dw 11m
Year seabed mode of Failure)
CATANIA UCY 6/7 7/9 dense 12 17.5 7.5 - - -Exceedance design wave
(Italy, sand -Non-monolithicity
1930-33) 7.5/12 20 12.5 4.0 - -Breaking waves
-Overtopping
-Differential Settlement
(slidinQ & seaward tilt)
GENOA WEl 5.517 7/12 fine 12 17.5 7.4 8.7 -Exceedance design wave
(Italy, UCY sand -Non-monolithicily
1955) CEl 17.9 10.5 3.0 12 ~/1 -Breaking waves
-Wave overtoppinq (s!idinq)
ALGIERS BCY 517.4 6.5/11 silty 11 20 6.5 7.3 7.7 -Exceedance design wave
(Algeria, sand, -Breaking & overtopping
1930, 9/14 mud 216 13 3.0 3.7 1/2 -Difierential Settlement
1934) -Seabed scour
-Erosion RMF (seaward tilt)
NIIGATA CAl 7/13 7/13.5 silty 15 17 4.5 9.0 4.0 -Breaking waves
(Japan, sand -Overtopping
1976) 10 4.5 7.0 1/3 -Differential Settlement
(seaward tilt)
BARI WEl - - 9.5 15.5 4.5 5 5 -Exceedance design wave
(Italy, -Wave Breaking
1974) 15 9.0 3.0 2 1/2 -Erosion RMF
PAlERM UCY 5.517 6.1/11. - 9 36 9.0 10 - -Exceedance desigr. wave
o (Italy, 3 -Wave Breaking
1973) 2.6 10 5.0 5 11 -Erosion RMF
1.5

Harbour & Coastal Ellgilleering (ll/dial/ Scellario) l'ol. I
Table 4.8: Review of Vertical Breakwater Failures (Oul11erad. 1992) (Contd.)
I.· BW
Countl)' Type
HlT
Design Actual
I Year i ~====~~===9~~~~==+===~=~=9====T====?==~~~~~~==~
I NAPLES WEl -~
6.8/
. (Italy, CEl, I
~
98T CAl I :
GENUA CAl 5.5/10

6,6/12
(Japan)
-Wave Breaking
6.0 3.9 10 1/3 -Ove,1opping (non-completed
2.9m
CAl 7.6111 5.3i 13 -+,05 15 2.5 17 r~ -Wave Breal<ing
Japan -Overtooping (non-corrpieted
112.5 11 2.5 12 1113 at head)
I -Erosion RMF
I
13 55 7.0 5.5 10 2.5 -Exceedar:ce design wave

Japan
10 I 2.9 25 4.5 1/1.5
117.5
15 9
Japan ,
~AI
135 I 45 50 I 5.0 1/3
HeAl
7.5/
115
7,5/ 11
.~-+-_--+-~ 175
I 7/13 7.1/
-
JTl
I
I
18
15
18
11
15
I
I
4.5
45
45
12 6.5
!
-'Nave Breaking
-OvertoPPing
I J,p" I I 13.5 1
I 18 11
I
T : Wa\'e Period eey : Cyclopean Block Type (uI11xllll1ded)

R"fi : Ruhble l\lo11l1d Foundation C'EL : Cellular 131 •. )(..:k Type
CAl : Caisson Type
BCY : Cyclopean Block Type (bounded)
360
4.8.4 Lessons of Failures and Further Research
The doubt of several scientists and practitioners about the reliability and the performance
of our design concept for breakwaters led to the definition of 'Five lessons' and discussed
by Oumeraci(1994).
1. Design Wave Height Criteria the inadequate concept

This should be replaced by a design wave load concept.
2. Reflective breaA.'Waters - the outdated concept

Breaking wave impact pressures are still the most important sources of failure
3. Wave Overtopping - a neglected source ofdamage

Wave overtopping represents a functional design aspect and a severe source of failure
4. Sea Bed Scour, toe erosion and subsoil deformations - the hidden gradual ruin
The incremental weakening of the foundation must be a part of the dynamic analysis
5. Design Method~ - the Ileedfor an integrated approach

The dynamic natur~ of the wave loads and the highly transient geohydraulic
phenomena are involved in the wave-structure-foundation-soil-interaction, suggesting
an urgent need for the development of a new integrated rational design approach.
In order to use these lessons as a guideline we have to change the widely used black box
concept and adapt the physical behaviour of all involved fields more for design purposes:
• Static behaviour Forces, Moments, Stresses
• Dynamic behaVIOur Motion and Movement of Water and

Structural body
• Energy flux Wave Transmission and Energy Dissipation
• Geophysical behaviour: Pore Pressure Scours.
The major design uncertainties are related to the process of defining and quantifying the
entities. One has to always aware that little changes of the design parameters may cause
remarkable changes in structure dimensions. A review of the results may indicate the
different understanding of the scientists but also show some obviously involved
S. Kathiroli & SA. Salllzasiraj 361
L
parameters. In future, we have by alt means to consider the performance of the structure
within the design concept, called: integrated design approach dealing not only with the
initial entities but also with the resp)nse of the structure and the environment. For
example, the main source for damages on vertical breakwaters are breaking waves, but we
still do not know a general method to evaluate a representative design wave load which
cap be used for a dynamic stability analysis. Nevertheless, the conventional vertical
breakwater design procedure will still be used, the CERC variation of the Minikin formula
or the British Standard formula 63-19 are still up for research and change as shown by
r-.1uller et al. (1996).
362
REFERENCES
Bagnold, R.A. (1939). "Interim Report on Wave Pressure Research", Journal of Inst.
Civil Eng., pp.202-226.
Bruun, P. (1993). Port Engineering. Vol. 1. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.
Chakrabarti, S.K. (1987). "Hydrodynamics of Offshore, Structures", Springer-Verslag

Berlin, Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, Boston.
Chu, Y., (1989). "Breaking Wave Forces On Vertical Walls'" Jour. of Waterway, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, 115, No.1, 58-65.
Fenton, J.D., (1985). "Wave Forces on Vertical Walls". Jour. of Waterway, Port, Coastal
and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, 111,693-717.
Goda, Y. (1969). "Reanalysis of Laboratory Data on Wave Transmission Over

Breakwaters". Report of Port and Harbour Res InsL, vol. 8, No.3, pp.3-18.
Goda, Y. (1974). "A New Method Of Wave Pressure Calculation For The Design Of
Composite Breakwater". Proc. i4th Int. COllf 011 Coastal Engg., ASCE, Copenhagen,
pp.1702-1720.
Goda, Y. (1985). Random Seas and Design vf Maritime Structures. University of Tokyo
Press, Japan.
Gouda, M.A., (1960). "Hydrodynamic Wave Pressure On Breakwaters". Jour. of

Watenvays and Harbour Div., ASCE, 86, 13-25.
Haung Peiji and Zhao Binglai, (1984). "The Probability Characteristics of Waves and
Wave Pressures at a Vertical Brc:.lkwatcr", 19th 1m. Conf on Coastal ElIgg., Houstan,
Texas, 741-754.
Herbich, J.B. (1990). Hand Book of Coastal alld Oceall Engineerillg, Wave Phenomena
and Coastal Structures, Gulf Publishing Company, Houstan, Texas.
Hiroi, 1. (1919). "On a Method of Estimating The Force of '.Vaves", Memoirs of Engg.
FaCility, imperial Ullil'ersity, Tokyo. Vol. X, No.1, pp. 19.
Hittori, C, Shibata, K. and Ohori, K.(1984). Disasters of breah1'Gters by wave actioll
(Part 3). Technical note No. 485. Port and Harbour research Instittue (PHRI), pp. 1-28,
June. (In Japanes).
Hunt, LA., (1959). "Design of Seawalls and Breakwaters", Journal of the Watenvays alld
Harbors division, 85, 123-152.

Harbour & Coastal Engineering (lndiall Scenario) : \/01. I
Iribarren, R. (1965). "t:onuula pour Ie caieul des digues en encrochment naturels ou

elements artiliciel. XXI il1lem(l{ioll(ll Nm'ig{{tioll Congress, Stockholm, SIJ-l.
Kaldenhoff. H. (1996). "Recent Developments in the Construction of Breakwaters".
Internatiollal Conrerellce ill Decal! Engineering, 1vladras, India.
Minkin. R.R. (1963). "Winds, \m)'cs and maritime strllctllres: stl/dies ill harbour making
and ill the predictioll of' CO{{sts ". 2nd edition, Griffin. London.
Muller, G., Whittaker, TJ.T. (1996). "Evaluation of Design Wave Impact Frcssures",
JO/lmal 0/ W(/!cn!'(/\', Port, Co({swl {{lid Ocean Engilleering, ASCE. vol. 122, no. I.
Nagai. S., (1969). "Pressures of Standing \\'a\\~s on a Vertical Wail" . .10111'. 0/ the
Wmenl'ays {{lid H(/rbollr Dil'., ASCE, 95, 53- 76.
Nagai, S., (1969). "Shock Prl~ssures Exerted By Breaking Wav;::; on a Vertic::!l Wall".
JOllr. of the Warenmys (/l/(llloriJolir DiI'., ASCE. 95.
Nagai, S. and Kurata, K. (1974). ''In\estigatiolls of Wave Pressure Formulas Due [0
Damages of Breakwaters". Pmc. leCE, ASCE, 1721-39.

Oumeraci, H. (1994). "Revicw and Analysis of Vertical Breakwater Failures - Lessons
Learned", Coo.l'ftll Ellglllcerillg, Elsevicr, Amsterdam. voL:?2. nos. 112.
Sainnoll, G .. ([ (28). "Essai Sur Les Diques Maritime Verticals", /1II110/CS des Pollfs ct
Cho/lssees, Paris. Frollce.
Sabkiyama. T.. Kajill1a. R. and Kyoya, O. (! C)(J-h "\\\m; POJ'ces nn A Caisson Due to
Large Wa\'es Causing Ddormatioll oJ Armour Layer". IJroc. oj' flit. SYlllpo.liwll Oil
Wm'cs: Physical (/wl NlIIl!ericul ModeliJlg. Vancou\er. Canada. 3, 1384-1393.
Sen. D. (1993). "Interaction of Steep Waves With Verrical Walls". Jow. \\

Port, Coost(/I alld OCC(llI I:llgg.. ASCE, lIS. 453--+ 73.
Silore f'rofcctiOlI (19S..J.1. 4th cd., lJS Army Engr. Waterway.; Exp. staticn.
;\/([111111/ C\'~I,tal
Engine,'ring. Res~'~IITh Cenlre. US Gcnt. Printing Office. '.\'~I'hi;lgtoll. D.C.
Stevenson. Th .. 1.1886). Tlte design lind COlIstmcri,m ilifF/H)]I"'\
Charles Black.
itude·'.
Journal nr FI/(id Mccliani,s, \'01,8. pp.442-..J.51.
Takaha:shi. S. (199(). "De,ign 0[' Vertical Breakwaters". j( ;~"I)(). :\,;,[
research institute. ~vlinistry ,)1' transport. Japan.

Takahashi, S .. Tanimoto. K. :md Shilllo~ako. K. (199-+'1. ".\ "I I!11pll:si\;:, i):c:~>:tlre
Coefficicnr for Design ()j CUIllpl1sirc i3reak\\aters". f':"ne. (if ·m!. ·,mf. ':)1' ;-LJro
364
technical Engg. For Port and Harbour construction, Port and Harbour research Institute,
Japan.
Tanimoto, KK., Mota, S. Ishizuka, and Gada, Y. (1976). "An Investigation on Design
Wave Force Formulae of Composite Type Breakwaters". Proc. 23 rrl Japanese Calif
Coastol Eng., pp. 11-16.
Tcchni<~alStandards for Port and Harbour facilities ill Japan. (1980). The overseas
Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan. Tokyo, Japan.
Tsai, C.P. and Jeng, D.S. (1990). "Forces on Vertical Walls Due to Obliquely-Incident
Waves", Int. COllf all Coastal El1gg.. ASCE, 1743-1754.
Wegge/, J.R. and Maxwell, W.H.C. (1970). "Numerical Model for Wave Pressure
Distributions", jOllr. oj Waterway, POrI. CO(1swl {[nd Oceal1 Engg., ASCE, 96, 623-642.
Whillock, A.F. (1987). "Measurements of Forces Resulting from Normal and Oblique
\Vavc Approaches to Small Scak Sea Walls", Co{[swl Engineering, 11,297-308.
Yu-Cheng, L., Yu, Yu-Xiu and Xoy. (1985). "Investigation of Wave Pressure on Vertical
Wall", Physicai Modellillg ill Coastal Engilleering. Ed: D~lIrymple, R.A., 219-236.
S. Kathiroli & SA.. Sal1l1asiraj 365

;!
L
Harbour & CO(1swi Engineeri1lg (Illdian Scel/ario) Va!' I
NOTATIONS
a Wave amplitude
B Width of vertical wall in the direction of wave
C Centre of buoyancy
d Water depth just before the vertical wall above the rubble foundation
db Water depth at a distance of five times H1f3 from the structure
do Water depth before the breakwater
F Resultant seaward force
G Centre of gravity
h Distance from MSL to the bottom of the upright section
he Crest elevation of the breakwater above t,,1SL
H Incident wave height
I Moment of Inertia of area for the long axis at the draft level of vertical wall
k Wave number: k = 21UL
L Wave length
m Sea bottom slope
M Metacentre
Mp Uplift moment
P Wave pressure at segment
pu Uplift pressure
t Time
T Wave period
s(x,y) Cartesian coordinate system
U Wave uplift force
V Volume displacement of water by the vertical wall
W Resultant of vertical forces (= W o - U)
Wo Weight of the upright section
ex Pressure coefficient
S ~isc of mean sea level in the presence of standing waves
y Specific wcight of water (=: lO,25 KNfm 3)
.
11
11
Wave elevation
Wave crest elevation from mean sea level on a vertical wal!
A Odification factor
e Wave directic;;
'Wave angular frequency: (J) = 21t1T
Coefficient of friction between the bottom of the wall and the foundation.
366
--------_._--

Vertical Breakwaters PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vertical Breakwaters PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ehapter 4

National Institute ofIndian Ocean Technology

Department of Civil Engineering

National University of Singapore

S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 287

• High reliability and less repair work

4.2 VERTICAL BREAKWATERS

S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 289

Armor Blocks Asphalt Mat

RUBBLE MOUND }<'OUNDATION

Fig.4.1 Vertical Breakwater - Definition Sketch

4.3 TYPES OF VERTICAL BREAKWATERS

4.3.1 Small Blocks

(a) Saw -tooth blocks

(c) Dove-tail blocks (d) Slaping blocks

Fig.4.2 Types of Small Blocks

4.3.2 Large Blocks

S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 291

4.3.3 l\lonolithic Caissons

Fig. 4.4 Monolithic Caission

4.3.4 Sloping Faces

4.3.5 Hanstholm Type of Breakwater

An other example of the sloping breakwater known is the Hanstholm Breakwater.

S. Katlriroli & S.A. Sallllasiraj 293

Fig. 4.5 Sloping - Face Breakwater

.... .-" ....... --,-- -,I

Fig. 4.6 Hanstholm Breakwater

4.3.6 Cellular Sheet Pile Breakwaters

(a) Cylindrical shells (b) Oblong shells

Fig. 4.7 Cellular sheet piles

4.3.7 Vertical Parallel Sheet Piles

"--++-~ BectJing stones

__--l+-- Run of the quarry

Fig. 4.8 Parallel sheet piles

4.3.8 Metal Box Caisson

4.3.9 Perforated Breakwater

Fig. 4.9 l\1etal Caisson

It requires high quality concrete and workmanship. A level bottom is essential as it is

Fig. 4.10 Porous Breakwater Fig.4.11 Wave Energy Device

S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj 297

4.3.10 Composite Breakwaters

This is a combination of a vertical monolithic breakwater founded on a rubble-mound base

LFoClndalion for rubble base

Fig. 4.12 Composite Break water

4.4 FORCES ON VERTICAL BREAKWATERS

4.4.1 Nonbreaking Wave Force on Non-overtopping Walls

........... 2H,,: ... '

Fig. 4.13 Standing Wave on a Vertical Wall

S. Kathiroli & S.A. Sallilasiraj 299

4.4.1.1 Height of Orbital Axis

Table 4.1 Classification of Waves before Vertical Wall

SI.No. Type of rubble mound foundation Wave behaviour

2 Foundation with a middle height d:::: 1.8 H Standing wave

3 Foundation with large height I d.2:: 1.5 H Standing wave

4.4.1.2 Small Amplitude Wave Theory

S. Kalhiroli & S.A. Sannasiraj

Harbour & Coastal Engineering (Indian Scenario) Vol. I I

4.4.1.3 Standing Wave Theory

111 =a cos (h - rot) and 112 =a cos (kx + (Dt) (4.3)

Therefore, the standing waves are obtained by.

coshk(d + z) coshk(d +TJ)]

Thus the pressure at the bottom, where z = -d, is

£. = d + H[l + 1 _ coshk(d +H)] (4.6b)

Fig. 4.17 Pressure Variation at SWL and at Sea Bottom