Technical Note

Earthen Levee Shear Stress Estimates for Combined Wave

Overtopping and Surge Overflow
Steven A. Hughes, M.ASCE1; Justin M. Shaw, M.ASCE2; and Isaac L. Howard, M.ASCE3

Abstract: A total of 25 small-scale laboratory experiments simulating combined wave overtopping and storm-surge overflow on a trap-
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.

ezoidal levee were conducted at a nominal prototype-to-model scale of N L ¼ 25. Time series measurements of irregular and unsteady flow
thickness and velocity were acquired at two locations on the landward-side, 1V : 3H slope. These measurements were used to calculate the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

time series of instantaneous shear stress representing the average over a 4.8-m-long (prototype scale) levee slope between the two meas-
urement locations. Empirical relationships are presented for estimating the mean shear stresses for steady overflow and for combined wave
and surge overtopping. For the latter case, additional formulas are given for estimating representative parameters of the irregular shear stress
peaks associated with individual overtopping waves. The collected data were intended primarily for the design of rapidly deployable levee
armoring systems; however, the data could also be used to evaluate the erosion of soil or vegetated levees and dikes. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
WW.1943-5460.0000135. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Levees; Dikes; Wave overtopping; Shear stress; Steady flow; Overflow; Storm surges.
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.

Author keywords: Leeves; Wave overtopping; Shear stress; Physical model; Steady overflow; Laboratory study; Peak shear stress.

Introduction shear stresses caused by levee overtopping. Engineering recom-

Earthen levees are used throughout the world to protect commun-
ities and resources from elevated water levels in coastal and inland
areas. After Hurricane Katrina and recent Mississippi River flood-
ing, interest has grown in rapidly deployable armoring systems
(RDAS) for temporary use on levees in danger of overtopping.
Design of an RDAS requires estimates of expected shear stress ex-
erted on the system by steady overflow or overflow combined with
wave overtopping. Shear stress estimates can also be used to assess
grass/soil erosion potential.
This paper presents new, small-scale laboratory measurements
from 25 experiments of combined wave overtopping and surge
overflow of earthen levees with the purpose of initially character-
izing representative shear stress parameters induced on the
landward-side of the levee. A key feature of the collected data
was the coincident measurements of instantaneous flow thickness
(perpendicular to the slope) and slope-parallel velocity at two sep-
arate locations on the landward-side slope. Previously, measure-
ments of this type were not available for shear stress analysis.
The structure of this paper is as follows: First, previous pertinent
literature is briefly summarized, followed by a description of the
experiments and data analysis. Results are presented as tentative
empirical equations intended for use in engineering analyses of
1
Senior Research Scientist, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523; formerly, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180 (cor-
responding author). E-mail: steven.a.hughespe@gmail.com
2
Engineer, C. H. Fenstermaker and Associates, Inc., Lafayette,
LA 70508.
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Mississippi State Univ., MS State, MS 39762.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 31, 2011; approved on
October 12, 2011; published online on October 14, 2011. Discussion period
open until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Waterway,
Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 3, May 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X/2012/3-267–273/$25.00.
mendations and caveats are provided in the paper summary.
Summary of Previous Research
Earlier research on wave overtopping of dikes and levees was
mostly based on physical model experiments restricted almost
entirely to wave-only overtopping. The EurOtop manual (Pullen
et al. 2007) summarized several accepted methodologies and em-
pirical equations for levee and dike wave-only overtopping. Field-
work using the Dutch Wave Overtopping Simulator (Van der Meer
et al. 2006, 2008) has also helped researchers understand levee
grass-cover response to sustained wave overtopping. Recently,
phase-resolving numerical models (Boussinesq and Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes) have been successfully applied to un-
steady overtopping flows caused by wave-only and combined wave
and surge overtopping (e.g., Reeve et al. 2008; Losada et al. 2008;
Lynett et al. 2010).
Schüttrumpf (2001) and Schüttrumpf et al. (2001) gave equa-
tions for dimensionless average wave overtopping discharge based
on laboratory experiments with zero freeboard; slightly revised ver-
sions of the equations appear in the EurOtop manual(Pullen et al.
2007). Pullen et al. (2007) proposed calculating wave and surge
overtopping discharge by superposition of the surge discharge
(broad-crested weir formula) and wave discharge at zero freeboard;
however, the equation was acknowledged as being tentative until
supporting experimental data could be collected.
Hughes and Nadal (2009) studied combined wave overtopping
and surge overflow of a trapezoidal levee using a small-scale physi-
cal model with embedded pressure cells at multiple locations to
measure flow thickness and a laser Doppler velocimeter (LDV)
to measure velocities on the crest. They developed an average
discharge relationship for combined wave and surge overtopping
by using colocated measurements of flow depth and velocity on
the crest, and empirical equations were given for distribution of
instantaneous discharge and distribution of individual overtopping
wave volumes. The equations strictly apply for landward-side
slopes of 1V : 3H with a small friction factor.

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 267
 The estimation of shear stress on the landward-side levee slope
as a result of unsteady, nonuniform overtopping flow requires
synoptic time series of slope-perpendicular flow depth and
slope-parallel flow velocity at two downslope locations to evaluate
flow accelerations. Nadal and Hughes (2009) and Hughes and
Nadal (2010) estimated overtopping shear stresses for combined
wave overtopping and surge overflow using measurements reported
in Hughes and Nadal (2009). The measurements included synoptic
time series of flow thickness at two locations on the levee slope but
only velocity measurements (LDV) at the upslope location. The
velocity time series at the second location was synthesized on
the basis of the hypothesis that the time series of instantaneous
discharge was the same at both locations, with a short time lag
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
being the only difference. This hypothesis (later proven in Hughes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
and Shaw 2011) allowed the discharge time series of the first lo-
cation to be shifted to the second location and allowed the sub-
sequent calculation of the velocity time series at the second
location using the discharge divided by the flow thickness; that
is, v2 ðtÞ ¼ q1 ðt þ τ Þ∕h2 ðtÞ, where τ is the time shift.
Hughes and Nadal (2010) calculated the shear stress time series
for 27 experiments and presented an empirical relationship between
hydrodynamic parameters and the corresponding mean shear
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.
stresses estimated from the synthesized shear stress time series.
An empirical expression was developed relating mean shear stress
to the specific weight of water and the root-mean square of the peak
flow thickness. Nadal and Hughes (2009) identified the peak shear
stresses of the calculated instantaneous shear stress time series for
individual waves by using standard upcrossing analysis, and they
developed empirical equations for representative peak shear stress
values corresponding to average of the highest one-third (τ p;1∕3 ),
highest one-tenth (τ p;1∕10 ), and highest one-hundredth (τ p;1∕100 )
of the peak shear stresses. The peak shear stresses act for a short
duration as the waves pass down the slope, but the peak magnitudes
can be several times the mean shear stress. Therefore, the peak
shear stresses may be the defining parameter with respect to the
stability of armoring alternatives or for determining rates of soil
erosion.
The new measurements and analysis presented in this paper im-
prove on the landward-side empirical shear stress equations of
Nadal and Hughes (2009). The main improvement stems from
the calculation of shear stresses on the basis of direct measurements
of flow thickness and velocities at two downstream locations rather
than having to calculate shear stress by using synthesized velocities
at the lower location.
Experiment Description
Measurements of instantaneous flow parameters necessary to esti-
mate the hydrodynamic shear stresses were acquired during
laboratory tests that simulated combined storm-surge overflow
and wave overtopping of a levee with a trapezoidal cross section.
2.8 6.2 3.2 2.7
−Rc 6.37
+Rc
P1 P2 P3
Seaward Side
1V:4.25H
Dimensions of centimeters
Fig. 1. Geometry and measurement locations on the levee model cross section
268 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
The study was conducted in a two-dimensional (2D) laboratory
flow/wave flume at a nominal prototype-to-model length scale
of 25-to-1 (N L ¼ 25). Small-scale hydrodynamic laboratory
experiments raise concerns about scale effects that might influence
model results and lead to an inaccurate representation of real-world
flow behavior (see Schüttrumpf 2001 and Pullen et al. 2007 for
excellent summaries). Hughes and Shaw (2011) presented results
that used the same test facility and hydrodynamic conditions, and
they discussed potential scale effects. The main identified scale
effect was the lack of air entrainment during overtopping in the
small-scale model compared to the considerable air entrainment
at full-scale. The authors concluded that the consequences of this
scale effect have not yet been resolved, but they were optimistic that
the small-scale measurements were reasonable predictors of the
macro features of full-scale flow behavior.
The experiments were conducted in a 0.9-m-wide wave flume at
the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
(ERDC) Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) in Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Pertinent details of the levee cross section replicated in
the physical model are shown in Fig. 1. Surge and waves that over-
topped the levee flowed into the reservoir, and a pump recirculated
the water to the seaward end of the flume. Nine combinations of
wave height and peak period (H m0 ¼ 0:9, 1.8, and 2.7 m; and
T p ¼ 6, 10, and 14 s) were scaled and simulated in the model
at three different negative freeboards (Rc ¼
0:3,
0:9, and

1:5 m), giving a total of 27 distinct hydrodynamic conditions.
Further description of the flume and details of wave generation
and operating procedures can be found in Hughes et al. (2011).
Time series of hydrostatic flow depth (vertical distance) at two
locations on the levee crown and flow thickness (slope-
perpendicular) at five locations on the landward-side slope were
measured using pressure gauges (P1–P7) embedded in the model
levee (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 also shows the LDVs that measured time series
of flow velocity positioned at pressure gauge locations P4 and P7.
At these locations, the LDV beam crossing points were on a line
perpendicular to the levee slope and centered on the pressure sen-
sor. The LDVs were oriented to measure slope-parallel velocity at
positions that were generally half of the steady overflow thickness.
The exceptions were tests with the lowest steady overflow. In these
cases, the flow thickness for steady overflow was quite thin, so the
LDV beams were moved closer to the upper limit of the flow
thickness or even slightly above the steady flow water surface.
The drawback to placing the LDV beams at midflow thickness
or above was the loss of velocity signal during wave troughs, when
the water level fell below the elevation of the laser beams.
Data Collection, Processing and Analysis
Data collection was completed in the same manner as described in
Hughes and Shaw (2011). Briefly, the steady overflow was adjusted
to the correct level, and then the wave motion was started. Data
LDV Landward Side
1V:3H
6.48
6.43 LDV
6.27
P4
P5 6.45
P6 P7
 collection began when the wave board motion began. Time series of
sea-surface elevation data at four wave gauges and flow thickness at
seven pressure gauges were collected at a 100-Hz rate on one
system, and velocity data were collected from two interconnected
Dantec FlowExplorer LDVs using a different computer system.
Data from the two systems were then synchronized. The LDVs col-
lected velocity data at a nonuniform rate that was considerably
faster than 100 Hz.
Each experiment lasted for 600 s, producing approximately
200 waves for experiments with the longest peak spectral periods
and approximately 280 waves for the shortest peak periods. The
wave and pressure time series contained 60,000 time steps for each
data channel, with the first 1,000–1,600 time steps recording only
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
the steady overflow before the arrival of the first wave.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
Sea-surface elevation time series from a three-gauge array close
to the model levee were analyzed for incident and reflected wave
energy (Goda and Suzuki 1976), and the results were expressed in
terms of energy-based incident significant wave height, H m0 .
Henderson (1966) provided an expression for slope-perpendicular
flow thickness on steep slopes (i.e., landward-side slope at gauges
P3–P7) that is a modification to the hydrostatic pressure. The ex-
pression was given by the formula h ¼ ðp∕γw Þ∕ cos θ, where γw is
the water specific weight, and θ is the angle from horizontal of the
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.
landward-side slope. Complete details of the data postprocessing
are given in Hughes et al. (2011).
The instantaneous discharge passing over the levee crest and
down the landward-side slope at each time step was estimated
at locations P4 and P7 on the landward-side slope as the product
of horizontal velocity and water depth. These estimates assumed
that instantaneous velocity was parallel to the levee surface and
constant throughout the water thickness at each location. An aver-
age of the discharge between time steps 100 and 1,000 was taken as
the steady overflow discharge for the experiment because the first
waves generated in the flume had not yet reached the levee model.
The target negative freeboard values were set on the basis of point
gauge measurements, and these values were refined during postpro-
cessing because there is a slight slope to the water surface in the
flume, making precise measurement of the water surface elevation
suspect. A more accurate estimate of the surge elevation above the
levee crest (negative freeboard Rc ) was calculated from the
measured steady overflow discharge using the generally accepted
equation for flow over a broad-crested weir given by open channel
flow texts (e.g., Henderson 1966):

3∕2
2 pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
qs ¼ gð
Rc Þ3∕2 ¼ 0:5443 gð
Rc Þ3∕2 ð1Þ
3 for example measured time series.) The calculated time series of
where qs = steady overflow discharge per unit length measured for
the experiment; g = gravity; and Rc = negative freeboard (the differ-
ence between levee crest elevation and surge elevation). Average
overtopping discharge, qws , caused by combined wave and surge
overtopping was calculated at locations P4 and P7 by using time
steps 3,000–59,400 (564 s at 100-Hz rate) for each time series. It
was assumed that the best estimate of the mean discharge came
from the gauges located at position P4 because the flow thicknesses
were greater at this location and pressure gauge zeroing errors
would be less influential. Consequently, it was necessary to slightly
adjust the measured flow thickness at location P7 to match the total
average discharge at location P4, as required by mass continuity.
The discharge estimates at location P7 were consistently greater
than at location P4 by about 7%, so the flow thicknesses at P7 were
multiplied by a reduction factor of 0.94 to give a better match of
total discharge for each experiment. Full details are provided in
Hughes et al. (2011), along with tabulated prototype-scale results
JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 269
for steady overflow discharges (qs ) and combined wave and surge
overtopping discharges (qws ) per unit length at locations P4 and
P7, negative freeboard (Rc ), resolved incident wave parameters
(H m0 and T p ), and mean spectral energy wave period (T m
1;0 ).
Results
Estimation of Shear Stress
The general expression for 2D hydrodynamic shear stress on a
slope is given by the following equation (e.g., Sturm 2001):

 
∂h ∂ v2 1 ∂v
τ 0 ¼ γw h sin θ



∂s ∂s 2g g ∂t
ðUnsteady; non-uniform flowÞ ð2Þ
where γw = water specific weight; h = flow thickness perpendicular
to the slope; θ = angle of the slope; s = slope-parallel coordinate;
v = slope-parallel velocity; g = gravitational acceleration; and
t = time. Eq. (2) is appropriate for unsteady, nonuniform flows
on plane slopes that have both convective and temporal accelera-
tions. Instantaenous shear stresses resulting from combined wave
overtopping and steady overflow must be evaluated using Eq. (2).
Steady overflow without waves does not change with time
(ignoring turbulent fluctuations), so the temporal acceleration term
[the right-most term in Eq. (2)] can be discarded, leaving an equa-
tion for steady, nonuniform flow that accounts for convective ac-
celerations on the landward-side slope in the region that is upslope
from the location at which terminal velocity is reached. Farther
down the slope, where the steady overflow has reached terminal
velocity, there is no acceleration, and the expression for shear stress
simplifies to the following expression for steady, uniform flow:
τ 0 ¼ γw h sin θ ðSteady; uniform flowÞ ð3Þ
Eq. (3) will typically estimate shear stresses larger than flows of
the same discharge in which acceleration is still occurring.
Estimation of Mean Shear Stress between Locations
P4 and P7
Steady Overflow
Steady, nonuniform overflow shear stresses were estimated from a
discrete version of Eq. (2) by using measured time series of flow
thickness and velocity acquired at the initial portion of each test
when only steady overflow occurred. (See Hughes et al. 2011
steady overflow shear stress was averaged to determine the mean
shear stress for each experiment. The calculated mean shear
stresses strictly represent the mean shear stress over the 4.8-m
section (prototype scale) of the landward-side slope starting at a
distance 2.3 m down from the levee crest and ending at a location
7.1 m down from the levee crest. Convective acceleration was still
occurring over this section. Tabulated results are given in Hughes
et al. (2011). Estimates were not available for the tests that have
the lowest surge level because velocity was not measured during
the steady overflow portion of the tests.
Mean shear stress estimates were also calculated using Eq. (3),
which provides an estimate of the maximum shear stress
[ðτ o;mean Þmax ] that would be expected under the same overflow con-
ditions farther down the slope, where there is no flow acceleration.
These maximum terminal condition estimates are conservative
because the measured values of mean flow thickness used in
Eq. (3) were larger than the flow thickness that would occur at
the terminal flow farther down the slope.
 Empirical correlations were sought that linked the calculated
mean shear stresses to the steady overflow discharge. The best cor-
relation for the mean shear stress between locations P4 and P7
is shown in Fig. 2. The best-fit equation, shown by the solid line
in Fig. 2, is given by Eq. (4) as follows:

2 1∕3
qs
τ 0;mean ¼ 0:106 γw
g to determine the mean shear stress for each experiment, and
ðSteady overflow between P4 and P7Þ
This equation had a correlation coefficient of r ¼ 0:924 and
an RMS error of 73 N∕m2 . Eq. (4) is dimensionally consistent,
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
from when waves first arrived at the levee until the end of each
experiment. Shear stress estimates were calculated using a discrete
version of Eq. (2). A filter was used to remove unrealistically large
shear stress spikes (increases of more than 2,000 N∕m2 over
a 0.05-s span in prototype-scale units) caused by errant velocity
measurements.
The calculated time series of unsteady shear stress was averaged
ð4Þ this mean strictly represents the average shear stress over the
4.8-m-long (prototype scale) landward-side slope starting at a dis-
tance 2.3 m down from the levee crest and ending at a location
7.1 m down from the levee crest. The maximum mean shear
stresses [Eq. (3)] that would occur at the terminal conditions were

so it can be used with either SI or English units. Because the value

of qs is the same everywhere on the landward-side slope for a given also calculated. (Tabulated results are given in Hughes et al. 2011).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

condition, the numeric coefficient in Eq. (4) must be a function of
spatial position on the slope. Strictly, the empirical correlation
given by Eq. (4) is only applicable to landward-side slopes of
1V : 3H having similar roughness as the laboratory model, and
this equation provides mean shear stress estimates for sections
of the landward-side slope, where the steady overflow has not
yet reached terminal velocity.
A scatter plot of mean shear stress estimates from Eq. (2) to
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.
A reasonable correlation was found (Fig. 3) that related mean
shear stress to the root-mean square of the individual wave dis-
charge peaks, Qp;rms . (The parameter of the individual discharge
peak is determined from the maximum instantaneous discharges
associated with all the individual overtopping waves.) A linear
equation fit to the data shown in Fig. 3, representing the mean shear
stress between locations P4 and P7, is given by Eq. (6):

2 1∕3

estimates of the maximum mean shear stress at terminal velocity Qp;rms

τ 0;mean ¼ 0:104 γw
from Eq. (3) yielded a simple linear relationship for maximum g
mean shear stress at the terminal condition corresponding to surge ðCombined overtopping between P4 and P7Þ ð6Þ
overflow given by Eq. (5):

ðτ 0;mean Þmax ¼ 1:41 τ 0;mean ðTerminal steady overflowÞ ð5Þ where the root-mean square of the individual wave discharge peaks
was given by Hughes and Shaw (2011) as
with τ 0;mean calculated using Eq. (4). For steady overflow, Eq. (4) 
 
should provide reasonable first estimates of actual mean shear Qp;rms
Rc 0:88
¼ 1 þ 4:18 exp
1:56 for ðRC < 0Þ
stresses that occur over the portion landward-side slope qws H m0
2.3–7.1 m down from the crest, and Eq. (5) should give a ð7Þ
conservative estimate of the maximum mean shear stress farther
down the slope, where terminal velocity is reached. with the average wave overtopping discharge for combined wave
and surge overtopping (qws ) determined from the equation (Hughes
Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping
and Nadal 2009) as
Wave overtopping, combined with steady overflow, is unsteady in
time and nonuniform over distance. The time series of instantane-
1:58
qws
Rc
ous shear stresses for combined overtopping were calculated using pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ¼ 0:034 þ 0:53 ; Rc < 0 ð8Þ
the measured time series of flow thickness and velocity acquired gH 3m0 H m0

1500 3000

Surge Overflow Combined Wave and Surge Overtopping

2500

1000 2000
τ0,mean [N/m ]
τ0,mean [N/m ]

2
2

1500

500 1000

500

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
2 1/3 2 2 1/3 2
γω [ (qs )/g ] [N/m ] γω [ (Qp,rms )/g ] [N/m ]

Fig. 2. Surge overflow mean shear stress as a function of discharge Fig. 3. Combined overtopping mean shear stress as a function of Qp;rms
(prototype scale) (prototype scale)

270 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
 The best fit of Eq. (6) to the data had a correlation coefficient of
r ¼ 0:914 and an RMS error of 162 N∕m2 . The correlation did not
include the seven tests at the lowest surge level because values of Rc
could not be determined, and thus, Qp;rms could not be calculated.
Eqs. (6)–(8) are dimensionally consistent, so they can be used with
either SI or English units. Note that Eq. (6) is nearly identical to
Eq. (4) for steady overflow, with the exception that the discharge
parameter is Qp;rms instead of the steady overflow discharge, qs , that
is used in Eq. (4). Because the value of Qp;rms is the same every-
where on the landward-side slope for a given condition (Hughes
and Shaw 2011), the numeric coefficient in Eq. (6) must be a func-
tion of spatial position on the slope. Thus, Eq. (6) is strictly the
mean shear stress over the 4.8-m-long levee slope between meas-
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
Estimation of Peak Shear Stress Parameters between
Locations P4 and P7
Nadal and Hughes (2009) observed that the mean shear stress val-
ues estimated for combined wave and surge overtopping provide an
overall average that occurs during a combined overtopping event.
However, in the time series of instantaneous shear stress acting on
the landward-side slope, the peak stresses associated with the over-
topping wave crests can be several times the magnitude of the mean
shear stress. The peak shear stress acts for a short duration as the
wave passes down the slope, but the peak shear stress may be the
defining parameter with respect to the stability of rapidly placed
protection alternatives or for determining rates of soil erosion.

urement locations, and the equation is applicable only to landward- The calculated time series of instantaneous shear stress from all
of the experiments were analyzed in the time domain by using stan-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.

side slopes that have slopes of 1V : 3H and similar roughness as

the laboratory model. Finally, note that Eq. (6) supersedes the equa-
tion for mean shear stress given by Hughes and Nadal (2010) be-
cause better measurements were used to develop Eq. (6).
As was the case for steady overflow, a scatter plot of mean shear
stress [from Eq. (2)] versus maximum mean shear stress at the ter-
minal conditions [from Eq. (3)] yielded a simple equation for maxi-
mum mean shear stress corresponding to combined wave and surge
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.
dard upcrossing analysis. The maximum shear stress values for
each identified wave were rank-ordered, and representative values
were determined for the average of the highest one-third, highest
one-tenth, and highest one-hundredth of the peak shear stresses.
These values were denoted as τ p;1∕3 , τ p;1∕10 , and τ p;1∕100 , respec-
tively. Results are tabulated in Hughes et al. (2011).
Good linear correlations were found between the representative

overtopping given by peak shear stresses and the mean shear stress estimated by Eq. (6).
The resulting best-fit correlations are shown in Fig. 4(a) for τ p;1∕3,
Fig. 4(b) for τ p;1∕10, and Fig. 4(c) for τ p;1∕100. Notice the high mag-
ðτ 0;mean Þmax ¼ 1:42 τ 0;mean nitudes of peak shear stress on the ordinate axes compared to the
ðTerminal combined wave∕surge overtoppingÞ ð9Þ mean values given on the abscissa, and also note that scatter about
the central trend increases for the larger representative shear stress
parameters.
with τ 0;mean calculated using Eq. (6). As previously mentioned, the The solid lines in Figs. 4(a)–4(c) are the best-fit linear equations
estimate of maximum mean shear stress is conservative. forced through the origin given by Eqs. (10)–(12), shown

5000 7000

6000
4000
5000
τp,1/10 [N/m ]
τp,1/3 [N/m ]

2
2

3000 4000

2000 3000

2000
1000
1000

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
2 (b) 2
(a) τ0,mean [N/m ] τ0,mean [N/m ]

12000 12000

10000 10000
Predicted τp,1/n [N/m ]
2
τp,1/100 [N/m ]

8000 8000
2

6000 6000

4000 4000 τp,1/3

τp,1/10
2000 2000 τp,1/100

0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 1000012000
2 2
(c) τ0,mean [N/m ] (d) Measured τp,1/n [N/m ]

Fig. 4. Representative peak shear stresses as functions of mean shear stress (prototype scale): (a) τ p;1∕3 versus τ 0;mean ; (b) τ p;1∕10 versus τ 0;mean ;
(c) τ p;1∕100 versus τ 0;mean ; and (d) measured versus predicted peak shear stresses

JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 271
 subsequently, with correlation coefficients of r ¼ 0:964, 0.925, and
0.865, respectively. The associated RMS errors for Eqs. (10)–(12)
were 297, 648, and 1;425 N∕m2 , respectively:
τ p;1∕3 ¼ 1:64 τ 0;mean
τ p;1∕10 ¼ 2:30 τ 0;mean
τ p;1∕100 ¼ 3:35 τ 0;mean
Eqs. (10)–(12) supersede similar expressions given by Nadal
and Hughes (2009). The estimation of the peak shear stress param-
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
eters (τ p;1∕3 , τ p;1∕10 , and τ p;1∕100 ) requires an estimation of the mean
shear stress, τ 0;mean , from Eq. (6) by using an estimated value of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
Qp;rms [Eqs. (7) and (8)]. Each of these empirical equations repre-
sents a central trend, with data scatter about the trend. Therefore,
the combination of multiple empirical equations to estimate
the peak shear stress parameters could introduce a cumulative error
that might degrade the resulting estimates. This possibility was
tested by comparing calculated peak shear stress values based
on measurements to shear stress peak values estimated using the
empirical equations. The comparison is shown in Fig. 4(d) for
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.
all 25 experiments. The solid line in Fig. 4(d) is the line of equiv-
alence. Generally, the empirical equations provided reasonably
good predictions, with the poorest comparison (understandably)
for τ p;1∕100. Overall, the RMS error was 915 N∕m2 . The conclusion
is that cumulative error from the empirical equations does not
have an adverse effect on the quality of the peak shear stress
estimates.
Summary and Conclusions
Small-scale, 2D flume experiments, with a nominal prototype-to-
model length scale of 25, simulated combined wave overtopping
and storm-surge overflow on a trapezoidal levee cross section. Over
the course of 25 experiments, time series measurements were made
of instantaneous flow thickness and velocity at two locations on the
levee landward-side slope, separated by a distance of about 4.8 m in
prototype-scale units. Flow thickness was measured perpendicular
to the levee slope, and velocity was measured parallel to the levee
slope. The purpose of the experiments was to develop estimates of
mean and peak shear stresses acting on the landward-side levee
slope during combined wave and surge overtopping events associ-
ated with a broad range of wave conditions and negative freeboard.
The predictive equations presented in this paper are only strictly
applicable for levees that have landward-side slopes of 1V : 3H,
with similar roughness as the laboratory model. The majority of the
predictive equations were for the landward slope in the range of
2.3–7.1 m from the levee crest, a reach in which the unsteady flow
was still accelerating. The measured data were also used to develop
conservative predictive mean shear stress estimates farther down
the slope, where there are no accelerations and terminal velocity
would be reached.
Shear stress time series estimates were based on the measured
time series of flow thickness and velocity at the two locations on the
landward-side slope. For steady overflow, shear stress was esti-
mated using the formulation for steady, nonuniform flow on a slope
that included the convective acceleration terms. Once waves also
began to overtop the levee, it was necessary to include the temporal
acceleration term in the shear stress calculation. These values of
instantaneous shear stress represented the average instantaneous
shear stress over the 4.8-m-long (prototype scale) levee slope be-
tween the two measurement locations.
272 / JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
Simple empirical equations were proposed for steady overflow
and combined wave/surge overtopping that relate the mean shear
stress in both of these cases to the specific weight of water and
an appropriate discharge parameter (qs for steady overflow and
ð10Þ Qp;rms for combined wave and surge overtopping). Conservative
estimates for the maximum mean shear stresses associated with
ð11Þ terminal flow conditions farther down the slope were found to
be approximately 40% greater than the estimated mean shear
stresses. The more extreme shear stress peaks that represent the
ð12Þ
average of the highest one-third, one-tenth, and one-hundredth
of the peaks for combined wave and surge overtopping were found
to be linearly related to the estimated mean shear stress. The aver-
age of the highest one-hundredth peaks was about 3.3 times the
mean shear stress.
The results presented in this paper are tentative, but they could
be used to assist in the design of a rapidly deployable armoring
system to resist levee overtopping caused by river flooding and hur-
ricanes. Estimates of mean shear stress and maximum instantane-
ous peak shear stresses for specified combined wave and surge
would indicate the required tensile strength needed by geosynthetic
covers to avoid failure by tearing under the applied loading. The
results also might be useful in estimating erosion rates of grass-
covered levees, if these erosion rates can be correlated to applied
shear stress.
Acknowledgments
The research described and the results presented in this paper, un-
less otherwise noted, were obtained with support from the research
project titled “Increasing Community Disaster Resilience Through
Targeted Strengthening of Critical Infrastructure at Mississippi
State University,” under project number 70015 and principal
investigator Isaac L. Howard. This research was funded by the
Department of Homeland Security, which sponsored the Southeast
Region Research Initiative (SERRI) at the Department of Energy’s
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Permission was granted by
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to publish this
information. Special thanks to Hugh Acuff, Julie Cohen, and
Tim Nisley for their careful and critical support of the laboratory
experiments.
References
Goda, Y., and Suzuki, Y. (1976). “Estimation of incident and reflected
waves in random wave experiments.” Proc., 15th Int. Coastal Engineer-
ing Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA, 828–845.
Henderson, F. M. (1966). Open channel flow, MacMillian, New York.
Hughes, S. A., and Nadal, N. C. (2009). “Laboratory study of combined
wave overtopping and storm surge overflow of a levee.” Coast. Eng. J.,
56(3), 244–259.
Hughes, S. A., and Nadal, N. C. (2010). “Flow parameters of combined
wave overtopping and storm surge overflow of a trapezoidal levee.”
Proc. of Coasts, Marine Structures and Breakwaters: 9th Int. Break-
waters Conf. 2009, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 562–573.
Hughes, S. A., Sharp, J. A., Shaw, J. M., Howard, I. L., and
McAnally, W. H. (2011). “Physical testing and hydraulic simulation
of wave overtopping of earthen levees.” SERRI Rep. 70015-009,
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate,
Washington, DC, 〈http://www.cee.msstate.edu/cmrc-reports.html〉.
Hughes, S. A., and Shaw, J. M. (2011). “Continuity of instantaneous
overtopping discharge with application to stream power concepts.”
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 137(1), 12–25.
Losada, I. J., Lara, J. L., Guanche, R., and Gonzalez-Ondina, J. M. (2008).
“Numerical analysis of wave overtopping of rubble mound break-
waters.” Coastal Eng., 55(1), 47–62.
 Lynett, P. J., Melby, J. A., and Kim, D.-H. (2010). “An application of
Boussinesq modeling to hurricane wave overtopping and inundation.”
Ocean Eng., 37(1), 135–153.
Nadal, N. C., and Hughes, S. A. (2009). “Shear stress estimates for com-
bined wave and surge overtopping at earthen levees.” Coastal and
Hydraulics Engineering Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-III-79,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg,
MS, 〈http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/
chetn-iii-79.pdf〉 (Mar. 18, 2012).
Pullen, T., Allsop, N. W. H., Bruce, T., Kortenhaus, A., Schüttrumpf, H.,
van der Meer, J. W. (2007). “EurOtop: Wave overtopping of sea defen-
ces and related structures: Assessment Manual.” 〈www.overtopping-
manual.com〉 (Mar. 18, 2012).
Reeve, D. E., Soliman, A., and Lin, P. Z. (2008). “Numerical study of com-
No other uses without permission. Copyright (c) 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers. All rights reserved.
bined overflow and wave overtopping over a smooth impermeable
seawall.” Coastal Eng., 55(2), 155–166.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Sardar Vallabhbhai Natl Inst. on 07/26/12. For personal use only.
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 2012.138:267-273.
JOURNAL OF WATERWAY, PORT, COASTAL, AND OCEAN ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 273
Schüttrumpf, H. (2001). “Wellenüberlaufströmung bei Seedeichen—
Experimentelle und theoretische untersuchungen.” Ph.D. thesis,
Leichtweiss-Institut Wasserbau, Technische Universität Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, Germany, 〈http://www.biblio.tu-bs.de/ediss/data/
20010703a/20010703a.html〉 (Mar. 18, 2012) (in German).
Schüttrumpf, H., Möller, J., and Oumeraci, H., Grüne, J., and Weissmann,
R. (2001). “Effects of natural sea states on wave overtopping of sea-
dikes.” Proc., 4th Int. Symp. Waves 2001, Ocean Wave Measurement
and Analysis, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1565–1574.
Sturm, T. W. (2001). Open channel hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Van der Meer, J. W., Bernardini, P., Snijders, W., and Regeling, E. (2006).
“The wave overtopping simulator.” Proc., 30th Int. Conf. on Coastal
Engineering, World Scientific, Singapore, 4654–4666.
Van der Meer, J. W., Steendam, G. J., de Raat, G., and Bernardini, P. (2008).
“Further developments on the wave overtopping simulator.” Proc., 31st
Int. Conf. Coastal Engineering, World Scientific, Singapore, 2957–2969.