Vertical Notes 2015

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
CVEN4502 Coastal Engineering
CVEN9640 Waves, Beaches and Coastal Infrastructure
Vertical Coastal Structures


1 Vertical Breakwaters, Caissons and Revetments

1.1 Vertical Breakwaters
Vertical breakwaters are constructed in a different manner to rubble mound structures and
can be generally classified as (p107 [11]):
• vertical,
• composite, or
• mound.

Figure 1: Main types of caisson breakwaters: vertical, composite and mound breakwaters.
(Figure 1 in [17])
These breakwater types “deal” with the incident wave energy in essentially two different
ways. Vertical breakwaters function to reflect most of the incident wave energy; mound
breakwaters trigger wave breaking and thereby dissipating the wave energy. Composite
breakwaters consist of a vertical structure atop a mound. At low water, the composite
breakwater acts as a mound breakwater but at high water, it acts as a vertical breakwater.
1.2 Caissons
“A caisson is any marine structure which is pre-‐fabricated in a substantially complete form
onshore (usually in a dry dock) and then transported by means of its own buoyancy to its
permanent offshore site. There it is sunk into the seabed by flooding and, if necessary,
ballasted by means of sand fill to increase its stability against imposed loads. In the case of a
breakwater, caisson-‐type construction usually takes the form of a rectangular cellular box of
reinforced concrete with vertical walls” [20].
The calculation of the forces on vertical walls is the first step in caisson design.

CVEN4502/CVEN9640 – Coastal Engineering 2


1.3 Seawalls
Seawalls [8] are self-‐supporting structures (unlike revetments) used to protect a backshore
area of land against wave action. They do not protect the fronting beach if there is one.
Seawalls may be constructed of sheet-‐piling in regions of low wave energy; or massive
concrete or masonry walls in moderate to severe wave climates. If nearby beaches were
being supplied with sand from the area being protected by a new seawall, the beaches will
be starved of sand and will experience increased erosion. Seawalls are built more-‐or-‐less
parallel to the shoreline.
“Seawalls generally reflect wave energy which causes increased scour immediately in front
of the seawall. Wave run-‐up and overlapping of the wall may scour the backfill. A seawall
should be considered only for a shoreline where loss of the fronting beach is an acceptable
consequence or where the seawall will be located so high on the beach that it will be
exposed to waves only during extreme and rare storm surges ” [8].
Concrete and masonry seawalls are gravity structures which rely on their weight to prevent
overturning by waves and to mobilise sufficient friction with the underlying soil to prevent
lateral movement.
A vertical seawall design is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Concrete seawall. (Source: {8])
In Figure 2 there are a number of design features that are commonly used in practice:
1. the weephole releases pore pressures behind the wall,

2. graded gravel or geotextile fabric prevents scour of material in the vicinity of the
weephole,
3. the sloping landward face of the wall results in the backfill tending to add to the
weight of the structure,



4. rubble at the seaward base of the seawall is aimed at avoiding scour at the toe. The
loss of fines through the voids in the quarrystone at the toe is avoided by placing an
underlayer of geotextile material.
5. rubble at the top of the seawall forms a splash apron which is aimed at stopping
erosion of the backfill behind the seawall,
6. the wide base tends to stabilise the seawall against overturning and distribute the
load over the soil at the foundation.
A second seawall design is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Concrete seawall with combination stepped and curved seaward face. (Source: [8])
In Figure 3, the main design features of this seawall are:
1. a drain hole leading to the seaward side of the seawall helps drain away any
seawater which has overtopped the wall,
2. a sloping promenade helps drain away any water as well as protect the backfill when
the seawall is overtopped by waves,
3. piles beneath the wall proper prevent any lateral movement of the seawall or
support the wall if constructed over weak soils,
4. the stepped seaward face of the wall helps dissipate wave energy,
5. the curved seaward face deflects the waves and reduces overtopping, splash and
spray on the landward side of the seawall,
6. the sheetpile cut-‐off wall reduces groundwater pore pressures and this:
a. protects the toe of the seawall from scour, and
b. reduces uplift pressures under the seawall,



The construction of vertical faced, concrete seawalls is less expensive than curved faces
which require complicated formwork and often, the placement of foundation piling.
Concrete seawalls may be intolerant of settlement which may lead to cracking of the rigid
structure.
Both masonry and concrete seawalls require maintenance:
• to control spelling of the concrete, or

• cracking of the masonry joints.

2 Hydrostatic Forces on Vertical Walls

Consider the water pressure acting on a vertical wall in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Hydrostatic pressure on a vertical wall.
Q: What is the hydrostatic force (Rstat) On the wall per metre run of wall where the depth
of water is d and the specific weight of water is γ = ρ.g ? What is the moment (Mstat)
about the toe of the wall due to Rstat?
! !
A: 𝑅!"#" = 𝑝. 𝐴 = !
𝛾𝑑 . 𝑑×1 = ! 𝛾𝑑 ! ;
𝑑 1
𝑀!"#" = 𝑅!"#" = 𝛾𝑑 !
3 6



3 Dynamic Wave Forces on Vertical Walls

The magnitude of wave forces on vertical walls depends upon:
• whether the wave is (i) broken, (ii) breaking or (iii) non-‐breaking,
• wave obliquity with respect to the wall,
• the texture of the surface of the wall, particularly if the waves are breaking on the
structure,
• the location of the wall with respect to the mean water level,
• the height of the wall.
One of the most significant factors affecting the wave forces on a vertical wall is the nature
of the incident wave. We will consider the time history of the pressure exerted by a wave on
a vertical wall as the wave changes from one which is purely sinusoidal to one which is
breaking.
If a small (relative to the depth) amplitude wave approaches a wall, the incident wave will
be completely reflected and a standing wave will form in front of the wall. The pressure is
largely hydrostatic and varies sinusoidally with time. See the time history of the pressure
variation in Figure 5 (a).

Figure 5: Transition from standing wave pressure to impulsive breaking wave pressure.
(Figure 2.8.2 in [13])
Larger waves produce a double peak in the time history of the pressure -‐ see Figure 5(b).
When the incident wave height produces standing waves which break, the wave crests
“crumble to produce an asymmetric wave pressure form” in which the first part of the
double peak grows and the second peak plateaus out -‐ see Figure 5 This stage represents
the transition from standing wave pressure to breaking wave pressure. Finally, as the
incident wave height is increased further, the critical condition is reached in which there is
an impulsive breaking wave pressure on the wall -‐ see Figure 5 (d). Beyond this stage, the
broken waves produce a pressure which is less than the maximum impulsive pressure.



3.1 Non-‐Breaking Waves on Vertical Walls
Non-‐breaking waves occur in protected regions or where the fetch is limited, i.e. when [9]:
ds > 1.5Hmax (approximately) ...where ds = depth at structure. (1)
Various investigators have produced methods for estimating the pressure on a vertical wall
due to non-‐breaking waves. They include Sainflou, Miche and Rundgren.
In non-‐breaking waves, the pressures are primarily hydrostatic. Consider the case of an
incident wave which is perfectly reflected from a smooth vertical Wall (→ no energy losses).
According to linear wave theory, the resulting water surface elevation, is given by:
! !
𝜂 𝑥, 𝑧, 𝑡 = ! cos 𝑘𝑥 − 𝜔𝑡 + ! cos 𝑘𝑥 + 𝜔𝑡 (2)
= 𝐻 cos 𝑘𝑥 cos 𝜔𝑡
This expression gives the free-‐surface elevation for any value of position x and time t where
H = the wave height which would exist if the structure were not present, ω is the angular
frequency (ω = 2π/T) and k is the wave number (k = 2π/L).
The non-‐dimensional pressure head is given in equation (3) where z is the distance above
the free-‐surface, it consists of a hydrostatic and a dynamic component.
!(!,!,!) !"#$ !(!!!)
!"
= −𝑧 + 𝐻 cos 𝑘𝑥 cos 𝜔𝑡 !"#$ !"
(3)

hydrostatic dynamic pressure h ead
pressure h ead

We see that the term outside the square brackets is simply the water surface elevation
given in equation (2).
p ( x, z , t ) ⎡ cosh k ( z + d ) ⎤
= −z +η ⎢ ⎥
ρg ⎣ cosh kd ⎦
If the seawall is at x = 0, cos kx = 1 and so equation (3) simplifies to:
!(!,!,!) !"#$ !(!!!)
!"
= −𝑧 + 𝐻 cos 𝜔𝑡 !"#$ !"

At the seabed, z = -‐d and so the term cosh k(z+d)=1:

!(!,!!,!) !
!"
= 𝑑 + cos 𝜔𝑡 !"#$ !"



Thus we can calculate the maximum pressure when ωt = 0 or 2π and minimum when ωt = π (i.e.
when the cos ωt term is equal to +1 or -‐1).
!!"# !
!"
= 𝑑 + !"#$ !" under the crest
!!"# !
!"
= 𝑑 − !"#$ !" under the trough
Thus pressure at the bed is in the range:

!!" !"#$"% !
!"
= 𝑑 ± !"#$ !" (4)
When there is a standing wave (or clapotis) in front of a seawall, the mean Water level
(MWL) is raised by Δh above the still water level (SWL) which is a second order term
deduced from higher order wave theory.
!! ! ! ! (according
Δℎ = !
1 + ! !"#! ! !" − ! !"#!! !" coth 𝑘𝑑 to M iche, (5)
P26 in [19], 1 944)
!! ! (according to Sainflou,

≈ !
coth 𝑘𝑑
p211 in [1],1928)
(6)
Notes on Δ h due to Waves:
• Sainflou’s expression for Δh is based on: (i) trochoidal wave theory which is a
rotational wave theory (p91 [13]) and in which he omitted some of the 2nd order
terms i.e. his solutions are only partly second order in the parameter (H / L), (ii)
100% incident wave reflection from the seawall (pages A.73 -‐ A.81 in [12]).
• Δh = 0 if 1st order theory is used.
• Rundgren expanded Miche’s theory for Δh by allowing for partial reflection from the
seawall. While the expanded theory is known as Miche-‐Rundgren theory, in these
notes, we will only consider fully reflected waves (i.e. Miche’s expression for Δh).
The theory due to Miche and Miche-‐Rundgren are complete 2nd order theories in the
parameter (H/L).
• Miche’s formula for Δh is generally preferred over that of Sainflou’s (especially for
!
steep waves p7-‐161 [9]), and is the basis of the SPM Figure 8 for !!!! > 0.003 (with
! ! !
!
= 0.10) and !!!! > 0.009 (with ! = 0.60). For flatter waves (i.e. lower values of
!! !!
!! !
), the curves in Figure 8 are forced through ! = 1.0 which represents the limit of
a solitary wave.



Q: What is the difference between MWL and SWL?
A: MWL is the level of the centre of surface wave orbital motion and SWL would be the
water level without any fluid motion.
Q: In equation (3), is pdyn > 0 or < under a wave crest?



The pressures acting on a vertical breakwater are depicted in Figure 6.

Figure 6a: Wave force diagrams for fully reflected waves. Pressures on the seaward face of a
breakwater. (Source: [19])

Figure 6b. Pressures on both sides of a breakwater with the left hand side free from waves.
(Source: [19])



Referring to Figure 6b (above) where there is water on both sides, the forces under the
crest and trough (Rc and Rt) can be calculated by integrating the pressure distribution over
the submerged height of the wall.

average pressure
over the vertical
area
! ! !! !
at crest… 𝑅! = ! 𝑑 + !"#$ !!" !
𝑑 + Δℎ + 𝐻 − !
(7)
! ! !! !
at trough… 𝑅! = ! 𝑑 − !"#$ !!" !
𝑑 + Δℎ − 𝐻 − !
(8)
The moments about the bed under the crest and trough can be calculated by multiplying the
resultant force by the distance from the bed to the line of action (on the exposed side,
moment arm is 1 (d + Δh + H ) and d/3 on the lee side):
3
! ! ! !! !
at crest… 𝑀! = ! 𝑑 + !"#$ !!" !
𝑑 + Δℎ + 𝐻 − !
(9)
! ! ! !! !
at trough 𝑀! = ! 𝑑 − !"#$ !!" !
𝑑 + Δℎ − 𝐻 − !
(10)
on side of wall exposed to waves on lee side
2π
NOTE: k =
L
3.1.1 Notes
• In Figure 6, the pressure diagrams have been simplified in that the dynamic
pressures due to waves have been approximated by a linear variation with depth.
Equations (7) to (10) are also based on a linear variation of the total pressure
(hydrostatic plus dynamic) with depth. It has been noted [9] that in the case of steep
waves near the breaking limit, these estimates may be 50% out.
• Δh is important for wall height but is less important in terms of the wave force. This
is reflected in equations (7) to (10) in which the area term includes Δh but the base
pressure term does not.
• In the case of the wall being overtopped by a wave, the usual approach is to simply
neglect (i.e. truncate) that part of the pressure diagram above the seawall. The
remainder of the pressure diagram is assumed to be unchanged from the non-‐
overtopping case. This method is probably conservative since the flow over the top
of the seawall relieves the pressures on the wall just below the crest [18].



Q: In the case of a breakwater forming part of a harbour wall, with non-‐breaking waves
inside the harbour as well as outside, what is the severest load condition?



3.1.2 Example 1: Wave Forces due to Non-‐Breaking Waves
Incident waves 1.8m high and 30m long are perfectly reflected by a vertical impervious wall
standing in 6m of water. Still water the same depth backs up the sea wall. Determine the
forces when the wave crest and wave trough arrive at the wall. Use γ = ρseag = 1025 x 9.81
N/m3 (seawater).
! !
Solution: With ! = !", we find using a scientific calculator or the SPM wave tables which
2π
can be found at the back of these notes (NOTE: k = ):
L
!!"
sinh !
= 1.614
2𝜋𝑑 𝐻 1.8
cosh = 1.899 ⇒ = = 0.948𝑚
𝐿 cosh 2𝜋𝑑 𝐿 1.899
!!"
tanh !
= 0.8501
Find Δh
!! ! ! !
Miche formula ⇒ Δℎ = !
1 + ! !"#! ! !" − ! !"#!! !" coth 𝑘𝑑
!×!.!! ! ! !
= !"
1 + ! ×!.!"#! − ! ×!.!""! !.!"#$

= 0.486𝑚
!! !
Sainflou formula ⇒ Δℎ = !
coth 𝑘𝑑
𝜋1.8! 1
=
30 0.8501
= 0.399𝑚 (for comparison with Miche formula)
Find Rc
γ⎛ H ⎞ γd 2
⇒ Rc = ⎜⎜ d + ⎟⎟(d + Δh + H ) −
2⎝ cosh (2πd L ) ⎠ 2
1025 × 9.81
(6.0 + 0.948)(6.0 + 0.486 + 1.8) − 1025 × 9.81× 6.0
2
=
2 2



= 289,446 − 180,995
= 1.08 × 105 N / m
= 108kN / m
Find Rt
H ⎞ γd 2γ⎛
⎜
⇒ Rt = ⎜ d − ⎟(d + Δh − H ) −
2⎝ cosh (2πd L ) ⎟⎠ 2
1025 × 9.81 1025 × 9.81 × 6.02

= (6.0 − 0.948)(6.0 + 0.486 − 1.8) −
2 2
= 119,022 − 180,995
= −6.197 × 10 4 N / m
= −62 kN / m
Notes:
• The minus sign in Rt = -‐62 kN/m => the force Rt is directed towards the sea.
• In the example of Section 3.1.2, there were waves on the exposed seaward side of
the breakwater and still water on the lee side. By calculating the total force (Rm due
to both waves and hydrostatic pressure) under the wave crest and subtracting the
hydrostatic force as is done in equation (11), the result is effectively the same as
calculating the force due only to the waves on the seaward side alone.
𝑅! = 𝑅!"! − 𝑅!"#"
𝛾 𝐻 𝛾𝑑 !
= 𝑑+ 𝑑 + Δℎ + 𝐻 −
2 cosh 2𝜋𝑑 𝐿 2
• If a seawall is backed by earth fill on the lee side, the lee side hydrostatic pressure
diagram in Figure 6 would need to be replaced by a soil pressure diagram.

Q: Breakwaters also fail by falling in the seaward direction. How could this be explained?



3.1.3 Example 2: SPM Approach for Wave Forces due to Non-‐Breaking Waves
For the same data as was used in the previous example (H=1.8m, d=6m, L=30m), use the
graphs from the 1984 Shore Protection Manual [9] to estimate Δh and the wave forces
(Fwave) and moments (Mwave). Note that the SPM values for the wave forces, be they under
the wave crest or trough, do not include the static force or moment e.g. 𝐹!"#$ = 𝐹!"! −
!
!
𝛾𝑑 ! . Since in this example, there is water on both sides of the breakwater, the wave
forces and moments from the SPM are equal to the required forces Rwave (and moments)
from the example in Section 3.1.2.
Solution: The following figures from the 1984 Shore Protection Manual [9] will be used:
!! ! !
• Figure 7 ⇒ !
= function !! !
, ! … to find Δℎ,
!!"#$% ! !
• Figure 8 ⇒ !! !
= function !! ! !
, … to find 𝐹!"#$% ,
𝐹!"#$%! 𝐻 𝐻
⇒ !
= function , … to find 𝐹!"#$%! ,
𝛾𝑑 𝑔𝑇 ! 𝑑
!!"#$% ! !
• Figure 9 ⇒ !! !
= function !! ! !
, … to find 𝑀!"#$% ,
𝑀!"#$%! 𝐻 𝐻
⇒ !
= function , … to find 𝑀!"#$%! ,
𝛾𝑑 𝑔𝑇 ! 𝑑
where (Fcrest, Ftrough) are the dynamic wave forces under the wave crest and trough
!
respectively. They do not include the hydrostatic pressures (= ! 𝛾𝑑 ! ). The same comments
also apply to the moments about the seabed (Mcrest, Mtrough) which do not include the
!
moment of the hydrostatic force about the bed (= ! 𝛾𝑑 ! ).
The SPM Figures 7-‐90 to 7-‐92 are reproduced in Figures 7 to 9.
The Shore Protection Manual also contains graphs for the case Kreflect = 0.9 in Figures 7-‐93 to
7-‐95. These graphs have not been included here. (Adoption of Kreflect = 0.9 would require use
of the Miche-‐Rungren expression for Δh (not given in these notes) rather than the
expression by Miche).



! !
To use the SPM figures, the dimensionless ratios !! !
and !
both need to be evaluated.
Find T
𝑑 6
=
𝐿 30
= 0.200
!
⇒ ! = 0.1700 (from the SPM tables)
!
6
⇒ 𝐿! = = 35.29m
0.1700
𝑔𝑇 !
=
2𝜋
⇒ 𝑇 = 4.75s
! !
Find !! !
and !

𝐻 1.8
!
= = 0.0081
𝑔𝑇 9.81×4.75!
! !.!
! = !
= 0.300
Find Δh from Figure 7

∆ℎ
= 0.27
𝐻
∆ℎ = 0.27×1.8 = 0.486m (same as for Example 1)
Find Fcrest from Figure 8
𝐹!"#$%
= 0.21
𝛾𝑑 !
𝐹!"#$% = 0.21 1025×9.81 ×6! = 76,018 N/m
= 76 kN/m (cf. 108 kN/m from Example 1)
Find Ftrough from Figure 8
𝐹!"#$%!
= −0.18
𝛾𝑑 !
𝐹!"#$%! = −0.18 1025×9.81 ×6! = −65,158 N/m
= −65 kN/m (cf. -‐62 kN/m from Example 1)



Figure 7: Graph for finding Δh (≡ ho). Notation: Kreflect ≡ χ. (Figure 7-‐90 in [9])



Figure 8: Graph for finding Fcrest and Ftrough. Notation: Kreflect ≡ χ, w=γ. (Figure 7-‐91 in [9])



Figure 9: Graph for finding Mcrest and Mtrough. Notation: Kreflect ≡ χ, w=γ. (Figure 7-‐92 in [9])



3.1.4 Partial Reflection of Non-‐Breaking Waves
So far it has been assumed that the waves are fully reflected by the wall, i.e. a reflection
coefficient of unity (Kreflect = 1) where K reflect = H H reflect . This is arguably the case for
smooth vertical walls; “arguably” because, as noted in [9], some investigators also report
reduced Kreflect values for increasing wave steepness (H/L) and increasing (H/d) ratios. In
general therefore:
! !
𝐾!"#$"%& = function ! !
, , wall surface roughness
H reflect
K reflect = (12)
H
The standing wave height at the structure is the sum of the incident (H) and reflected
(Hreflect) wave heights:
H + H reflect = (1 + K reflect )H (13)
The crest and trough of the clapotis (standing wave) are at elevations (yc, yt) above the bed:
𝑦! = 𝑑 + ∆ℎ + 0.5 1 + 𝐾!"#$"%& 𝐻
𝑦! = 𝑑 + ∆ℎ − 0.5 1 + 𝐾!"#$"%& 𝐻
As defined above, the non-‐dimensional pressure at the bed is defined in equation (4):
p seabed ⎡ H ⎤
=d ±⎢ ⎥
ρg ⎣ cosh kd ⎦
For the case of partial reflection, the wave height term is replaced with 0.5(1+Kreflect)H:
!!"#$"% !
!"
= 𝑑 ± 0.5 1 + 𝐾!"#$"%& !"#$ !"
(14)
The expressions for Rc, Rt, Mc and Mt (eq. 7 to 10) can then be rewritten for partial reflection
using the modified version of the wave amplitude
H
1 + K reflect . ( )
2
Q: Write down the expression for the (total force at the wall Rc when there is partial wave
reflection, with water on only one side of the wall and no overtopping.
! !!!!"#$"%& ! !!!!"#$"%&
A: 𝑅! = ! 𝛾 𝑑 + ! !"#$ !"
𝑑 + ∆ℎ + !
𝐻



3.2 Breaking Waves on Vertical Walls
The difference between non-‐breaking and breaking or broken waves is in the dynamic load.
In the third diagram in Figure 5 it can be seen that for a breaking wave, the waves exert
short (≈ 0.001 — 0.01 s [18]) but high, dynamic pressures on the wall. These impact or shock
pressures act near where the wave crests hit the structure and can lead to damage of a.
seawall.
Bagnold conducted wave tank experiments and found that impact pressures occur [9]:
• “at the instant that the vertical front face of a breaking wave hits the wall, and
• only when a plunging wave entraps a cushion of air against the wall.”
Figure 10 illustrates the pocket of air trapped between the breaking wave and the seawall
which gives rise to the shock pressures.

Figure 10: Top: Schematic of a pressure record for a breaking wave and Bottom: Conditions
for the occurrence of a shock pressure. (Source: [20])



These shock pressures:
• rarely occur in prototype structures due to the critical dependence of the dynamic
pressure upon wave geometry. Shock pressures greatly in excess of the bourrage
pressures are very infrequent (~ 1 in 1000 waves).
• are highly localised,
• act over very short time intervals. The rise time for the pressure depends on the
amount of air entrained by the wave. For example, at a rocky location where the
waves may have broken and reformed before impinging on the seawall, large
volumes of air may be entrained. This results in long rise times and correspondingly
low impact pressures. In contrast, in a model, where the surface tension effects are
significant, little air is entrained and the resulting impact pressures are high (p341
[5]).
• are probably unimportant in a mechanical sense i.e. with regard to overturning or
sliding of the wall [9].
However, the shock pressures may be of greater significance in several other respects:
• in the hydraulic sense due to the creation of both an upward and downward moving
jet when the wave impacts the wall. The downward moving jet may cause enhanced
toe scour at the base of the seawall unless adequately provided for,
• in the sense of the material strength of the wall i.e. panel loading or possible
degradation of the material making up the seawall due to cracking, erosion and
pitting of the surface.



3.2.1 Minikin’s Method for Determining Breaking Wave Forces
Minikin developed a method based on prototype measurements as well as the model study
results of Bagnold. Minikin’s method can yield impulse pressures which are 15 to 18 times
as high as for non-‐breaking waves and [9] advises caution in their use.
The pressures due to breaking waves are depicted in Figure 11.
The maximum dynamic pressure pm is assumed to act at SWL1 and in the SPM is given by:
!! !!
𝑝! !"# = 101𝛾 !! !
𝐷 + 𝑑! (15)
where... Hb, = breaking wave height (see Figure 15)
ds = depth at the toe of the wall
D = ds + mLds
= depth one wavelength in front of the seawall
Lds = wavelength in water of depth ds
m = seaward slope of the seabed
LD = wavelength in water of depth D

1
The SPM version of Minikin’s formula i.e. equation (15) is erroneous and excessively conservative. For these
reasons, in these notes, the SPM version of Minikin‘s formula for the impact pressure due to waves has been
explicitly labelled with the subscript ( )SPM. See Section 3.2.5.



Figure 11: Minikin wave pressure diagram. (Figure 7-‐99 in [9])
The depth profile of the dynamic pressure in Figure 12 is parabolic above and below SVVL,
decreasing from pm at SWL to 0 at an elevation ±0.5Hb either side of SWL at the structure.
The dynamic force and moment in Minikin’s method are:

!! !"# !!
𝑅! = !
(16)
𝑀! = 𝑅! 𝑑! (17)
!! !"# !! !!
= !
(18)
Both (pm)SPM and Rm can be determined from Figure 13 from [9]. The total force and
moment are found by adding the hydrostatic contributions to the dynamic components. In
Figure 12, note how the hydrostatic pressure distribution increases with depth from 0 at the
breaker crest (rather than SWL).



Figure 12: Minikin dynamic pressure and force graph – for finding Rm and (pm)SPM. Notation:
w=γ. (Figure 7-‐100 in [9])



3.2.2 Example 3: Loads due to Breaking Waves according to Minikin’s Method
A 4.5m caisson is located in a water depth of 2.5 m. The seabed slopes away at 1:20 and T =
10 s. Use Minikin’s method to determine the following parameters corresponding to waves
breaking on the structure: (i) (pm)SPM, (ii) Rm, and (iii) the total overturning moment Mtot.
Solution
Find Hb using Figure 13
𝐻! 𝑑!
= function 𝑚, !
𝑑! 𝑔𝑇
𝑚 = 0.05
𝑑! 2.5
= = 0.00255
𝑔𝑇 ! 9.81×10!
!
⇒ !! = 1.28
!
𝐻! = 1.28×2.5
= 3.2m
Find (pm)SPM using Figure 12

!! !"#
!!!
= 5.7
𝑝! !"# = 5.7𝛾𝐻!
= 183,408 𝑁/𝑚! = 183 𝑘𝑁/𝑚!
Find Rm using Figure 12
3𝑅!
= 5.7
𝛾𝐻!!
!!!!
𝑅! = 5.7 !

= 195,635N/m = 196kN/m
Find Mtot
1 𝐻!
𝑀!"! = 𝑅! 𝑑! + 𝑑! + 𝑅!"#"
3 2
!
1 𝐻!
= 𝑅! 𝑑! + 𝛾 𝑑! +
6 2



1 3.2 !
= 195,635×2.5 + 9.81×1025 2.5 +
6 2
= 489,088 + 115,503 𝑁𝑚 = 605 𝑘𝑁𝑚
Variations of the present problem which are considered in the Shore Protection Manual [9]
include:
• caissons which are placed atop an artificial mound of rubble, and
• overtopping, breaking waves.

Figure 13: Dimensionless wave breaker height vs relative depth at the structure – for finding
Hb. (Figure 7-‐4 in [8])



3.2.3 Caution on the Use of Minikin’s Method for Calculation of Impact Pressures due to
Breaking Waves
Minikin’s formula (as reported in [9]) is known to yield results for the maximum pressure
which are too conservative i.e. they can be 10 times too large (p38-‐41 [15], p342 [5] and
p4.23 [2]).
The true Minikin formula as reported by Minikin is (equation (12) on p46 of [16]):
! !! !!
𝑝! = ! 𝐶!" 𝜋𝛾 !! !
𝐷 + 𝑑! (correct) (19)
where… Cmk ≈ 2 (to fit Rouville’s

prototype data

accounting for typical air pocket sizes)
!! !!
⇒ 𝑝! = 𝜋𝛾 !! !
𝐷 + 𝑑! (correct) (20)
!! !!
𝑝! !"# = 101𝛾 !! !
𝐷 + 𝑑! (incorrect) (21)
where… 101 = πg = 3.14 x 32.3(ft/s2) (22)
Notes:
• In Equation (21) the acceleration due to gravity (g) has erroneously been included
twice -‐ once in the factor of 101 as well as in γ = ρg. Moreover, the confusion created
by the SPM version of Minikin’s formula has been compounded by equation (28)
through the use of the imperial units (p4.23 [2], p2513 [3]) -‐ despite the fact that
equation (21) is dimensionally homogeneous.
• Equation (19) was developed for breakwaters depicted in Figure 16.

Figure 13: Breakwater configuration for which Minikin developed his formula for the
maximum impact wave pressure. (Figure 23 in [16])
• Equation (20) was adopted in British Standard, BS6349 Part 1, BSI(1984).
• Moreover, noting that Minikin’s expression has some basis in Bagnold’s model
experimental results, impact pressures from scaled models can overestimate the
prototype pressures by between one and two orders of magnitude.

• Particular deficiencies of the Minikin formula are:



o there is no evidence for parabolic distribution of impact pressure (p344 [5]).
o p ↑ as T ↓ in the Minikin formula but this contradicts theoretical models of
liquid-‐solid contacts (p270-‐271 [4]).
o the effects of aeration and seabed roughness are not included in the Minikin
formula and yet they both influence wave impact pressures (p270 [4]).
o in the prototype, the effects of seabed slopes up to 1:10 do not strongly
affect prototype wave impact pressures; the effects of slopes steeper than
1:10 lead to a decrease in wave impact pressure.
o In model tests, contradictory trends are observed in which wave impact
pressures increase up to a maximum for seabed slopes between 1:10 to 1:5
(p271 [4]).
To conclude this section on Minikin’s equation, Goda is quoted (p4.24 [2]) as saying that
Minikin’s formula (presumably the SPM version) “can be considered to belong to a group of
pressure formulae of historical interest”.
3.3 Broken Waves on Vertical Walls

When waves break seaward of the structure, the broken wave travels forward as a surge of
water with “particles” of water moving in a translatory (not oscillatory) motion. The speed
of the water particles is taken to be the speed of the wave at break. At the structure, the
velocity head of the water is assumed to be converted into pressure head. The total load on
the structure consists of a dynamic component and a hydrostatic component. There are 2
cases:
1. structure located seaward of SWL, and

2. structure located shoreward of SWL.
Here we consider only case (1). Case (2) is considered in [9].
The celerity of the broken wave (or surge) cb, is assumed equal to the velocity of the water
particles, and is approximately:
𝑐! = 𝑔𝑑! (23)
where. . . db = wave breaking depth which can be (24)
found from Figure 14.
The dynamic pressure pm is found by the assumption that the velocity head is converted to
pressure head:
pm cb2 gd b
= = (25)
γ 2g 2g
!!!
⇒ 𝑝! = !
(analogous to stagnation pressure) (26)



Figure 14: Dimensionless plot of depth at breaking versus wave height at breaking – used to
find db. (Figure 7-‐2 in [9])

Figure 15: Broken wave pressure distribution.



The dynamic pressure diagram is rectangular with a constant magnitude of pm over a
vertical distance which is hc above SWL.
There has been a downwards revision of the area (and hence hc) over which pm acts. The
method for evaluating the dynamic load in the Shore Protection Manual [9], Section 7.III.4.a
is overly conservative and has been updated by Camfield ([7]. (The difference between the
2 approaches is that the older SPM method did not allow for wave decay after wave break.)
The definition sketch showing the various parameters is in Figure 16, where:
hs = predicted broken wave height at the shoreline (not the structure),
hc = broken wave crest height above SWL at the structure,
db = water depth at wave breaking point,
ds = water depth at the structure,
Hb = wave height at break point, where water depth is db

Figure 16: Broken wave decay. (Figure 1 in [7])
The broken wave height at the shoreline is hs = 0.2Hb. The broken wave height is assumed
to attenuate linearly with distance; the portion of the wave crest above SWL diminishes
from 0.78Hb ([19]) where the wave first breaks to hs at the shoreline. From Figure 16:
ℎ! = 𝐾 + 0.2𝐻! (27)
!! !
Similar triangles ⇒ = (28)
!! !.!"!!
!
𝐾 = 0.58 ! ! 𝐻! (29)
!
!
ℎ! = 0.2 + 0.58 ! ! 𝐻! (30)
!



The dynamic wave force Rm is then given by:
𝑅! = 𝑝! ℎ! (31)
!!! !
= !
0.2 + 0.58 ! ! 𝐻! (32)
!
The hydrostatic load is found from the triangular pressure diagram with zero hydrostatic
pressure at the wave crest he above SWL to γ(ds + hc) at the base of the structure.
Q: Write down an expression for the dynamic overturning moment Mm.
!!
A: 𝑀! = 𝑅! 𝑑! + !

3.3.1 Notes
• All the momentum of the wave is assumed to be above SWL. This is partially
consistent with a solitary wave in which all the wave is above SWL, but the water
particles below SWL still undergo a translatory motion (a forward stroke only).
• It is also assumed that the kinetic energy per unit weight is converted to pressure
head. This is similar to the stagnation pressure in steady flow.
• Breaker wave height is assumed to decay linearly with distance inshore from the
point of first wave breaking.
• In situations with multiple foreshore slopes or other than the most simple geometry,
there is a need to undertake physical model studies.
• Large mass walls subjected to very high but short duration pressure pulses are
generally not vulnerable to failure [14].
• Most formulas predict the average secondary pressures rather than the peak shock
pressures. (See Figure 5.) Only for small mass structures (such as sheetpile seawalls)
might the peak shock pressures be of any significance [14].
• laboratory experiments on vertical walls rarely produce high shock wave pressures,
probably due to scale effects. Waves in the laboratory contain little entrained air
due to surface tension and all other considerations being equal, there is less
cushioning in the model waves.
• One unusual aspect of Minikin’s method for estimating the pressures and forces of
waves breaking on walls is that they decrease with increasing wave period and
wavelength. This is counterintuitive [14].



3.4 Caisson Failure Modes
Most of the vertical breakwaters constructed in the last few decades are built from caissons.
The three main types of caissons used in breakwaters are shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Main types of caisson breakwaters. (Figure 1 in [17])
Various reasons have been postulated or identified for the failure of caisson breakwaters
[17]:
• even in deep water, waves breaking on the structure and causing its failure, have
been observed. Breaking wave impact loads are the most important source of
damage.
• vertical reflective walls may cause seabed scour and toe erosion (”a hidden gradual
ruin”) -‐ particularly, if one storm follows another without the damage from the first
being repaired. A geotechnical analysis of the bearing capacity of the foundation
should include dynamic as well as static analyses.
• most failure modes are associated with an interaction between the dynamic nature
of the loading and transient geotechnical/hydraulic phenomena. Overcoming such
failures requires an integrated design approach.
3.5 Other Forces on Coastal Structures
Apart from wave forces, there are some other forces on coastal structures which may
warrant attention in particular circumstances:
• wind forces,
• ice forces, and
• earthquake loads.



3.6 Selection of Design Wave Height
The selection of the design wave height for a structure depends on the type of structure and
its degree of failure [1]:
• for a rigid structure such as a seawall which is subject to sudden failure, an
appropriate design wave height might be H = H1/100 which is the mean of the highest
1% of all waves. Note however, it is possible that a smaller wave which breaks right
on the structure, may well produce higher wave forces than H1/100 which may break
further offshore and therefore be less critical in terms of wave loading on the
structure.
• for a semi-‐rigid structure such as cantilevered sheetpiling, H = H1/100 to H1/10. The
same comments on the particular wave height producing the worst wave loading
apply here as for seawalls.
• for a “flexible” structure such as a rubble mound breakwater, H = Hs, the significant
wave height.





7 REFERENCES
[1] M. Muir Wood and C. A. Fleming. Coastal Hydraulics. Macmillan Press Ltd,
London, second edition, I981. ISBN 0 333 26129 1.
[2] N. W. H. Allsop. Wave Forces on Vertical and Composite Walls, volume 12,
chapter 4, pages 4.1-‐4.47. McGraw-‐Hill, New York, 2000. Handbook of Coastal
Engineering, J. B. Herbich (editor), ISBN 0 07 134402 0.
[3] N. W. H. Allsop, J. E. McKenna, D. Vicinanza, and T. T. J. Whittaker. New Design
Methods for Wave Impact Loadings on Vertical Breakwaters and Seawalls, volume
2, chapter 194, pages 2508-‐2521. ASCE, New York, 1997. Coastal Engineering
1996, Proceedings of the Twenty-‐Fifth International Conference, 2 -‐ 6 September,
Orlando, Florida, Billy L. Edge (editor), ISBN 0 7844 0242 6.
[4] W. Allsop and G. Müller. Discussion on Technical Note 2575: “Comparative study
on breaking wave forces on vertical walls” by Aysen Ergin and Saleh Abdalla.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 121(5):270~271,
September/October 1995.
[5] P. A. Blackmore and P. J. Hewson. Experiments on full-‐scale wave impact
pressures. Coastal Engineering, 8(4):331—346, November 1984. ISSN 0378 3839.
[6] F. E. Camfield. Wave forces on wall. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 117(l):76—79, J
anuary/February 1991.
[7] Coastal Engineering Research Center. Broken wave forces. Technical Note CETN-‐I-‐
50, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississipi, USA,
December 1991.
[8] Coastal Engineering Research Center. Seawalls -‐ their applications and limitations.
Technical Note CETN-‐III-‐8, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississipi, USA, March 1981.
[9] Waterways Experiment Station Coastal Engineering Research Center. Shore
Protection Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180,
fourth edition, 1984. 2 volumes.
[10] A.G. Eddie. Caisson Breakwaters. The University of New South Wales Water
Research Laboratory, 1980. Coastal and Offshore Structures, Short Course held
July 7-‐11, 1980 at the University of New South Wales.
[11] Yoshimi Coda. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. University of
Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1985. ISBN 0860083691.
[12] J. B. Herbich, editor. Handbook of Coastal Engineering. McGraw-‐Hill, New York,
2000. ISBN 0 07 1344 02 0.
[13] K. Horikawa. Coastal Engineering. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1978. ISBN
0860081990.



[14] Todd L. Walton Jr., John P. Ahrens, Clifford L. Truitt, and Robert G. Dean. Criteria
for evaluating coastal flood-‐protection structures. Technical report cerc-‐89-‐15, US
Army Waterways Experimental Station, December 1989.
[15] J. E. McKenna. Wave Forces on Caissons and Breakwater Crown Walls. PhD
dissertation, Built Environment, Department of Civil Engineering, Belfast, Ireland,
September 1997.
[16] R. R. Minikin. Winds, Waves and Maritime Structures. Griffin, London, second,
revised edition, 1963. ISBN 0 947711 77 5.
[17] H. Oumeraci. Vertical breakwaters -‐ a plea for an integrated design approach,
pages 205-‐231. ASCE, New York, 1995. In: Wave Forces on Inclined and Vertical
Wall Structures, Task Committee on Forces on Inclined and Vertical Wall
Structures of the Committee on Waves and Wave Forces of the Waterway, Port,
Coastal and Ocean Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, ISBN 0 7844
0080 6.
[18] R. M. Sorensen. Basic Coastal Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978.
ISBN 0 471 81370 2.
[19] R. L. Wiegel. Oceanographical Engineering. Prentice-‐Hall International Series in
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. Prentice-‐Hall and Sons, 1964.
[20] D. L. Wilkinson, editor. Coastal and Offshore Structures. The University of New
South Wales Water Research Laboratory, 1980. Notes from a Short Course, July 7-‐
11.



4 Tutorial
1. Four second incident waves 1.0 m high are perfectly reflected by a tall, vertical
impervious wall standing in 4m of water (i.e. SWL not MWL). In the last construction
phase of the seawall, seawater is on one side only and the backfill material is yet to
be placed on the leeward side (i.e. no water or earth on the lee side of the seawall).
Determine the following by using the expressions in the notes (rather than the SPM
graphs):
(a) Rc = the force on the wall when the crest of the clapotis is at the wall,
(Ans: Rc = 120 kN/m)
(b) Rt = the force on the wall when the trough of the clapotis is at the wall,
(Ans: Rt = 56 kN/m)
(c) the ratio Rc/Rt,
(Ans: Rc/Rt ≈ 2.1)
(d) Mc = the moment about the base of the wall when the crest of the clapotis is at
the wall,
(Ans: Mt = 208 kN.m/m)
(e) Mt = the moment about the base of the wall when the trough of the clapotis is at
the wall,
(Ans: Mt = 60 kN.m/m)
(f) the ratio Mc/Mt.
(Ans: Mc/Mt ≈ 3.5)
(Intermediate Results: d/Lo = 0.1601, L = 20.86 m, tanh kd = 0.835, sinh kd
=1.518, cosh kd = 1.818, Δh = 0.225 m)

2. If the seawall In Question 1 is just 4.6 m, high, estimate:
(a) the total force on the seawall when the crest is at the wall,
(Ans: Rc = 118 kN/m)
(b) the moment about the base of the seawall when the crest is at the seawall.
(Ans: Mc = 200 kN.m/m)
What assumptions have you made?

(Ans: (i) Δh is the same as if no overtopping had occurred, (ii) Δh is neglected in the
hydrostatic pressure at the base of the seawall.)
3. Based on the force diagram for impulsive pressures due to breaking waves according
to Minikin, deduce the expressions for the total load (Rm) and total moment (Mm)
about the base on a. structure in terms of the impulsive load (Rm) and impulsive
moment (Mm).
! ! !! ! ! ! !
(Ans: 𝑅!"! = ! 𝑝! 𝐻! + ! 𝛾 𝑑! + !
, 𝑀!"! = ! 𝛾 𝑑! + 0.5𝐻! + ! 𝑝! 𝐻! 𝑑!
Rm Mm




Vertical Notes 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 Notes 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

School of Civil and Environmental Engineering

CVEN4502 Coastal Engineering

CVEN9640 Waves, Beaches and Coastal Infrastructure

Vertical Coastal Structures

1 Vertical Breakwaters, Caissons and Revetments

A vertical seawall design is depicted in Figure 2.

1. the weephole releases pore pressures behind the wall,

A second seawall design is depicted in Figure 3.

Both masonry and concrete seawalls require maintenance:

• to control spelling of the concrete, or

2 Hydrostatic Forces on Vertical Walls

3 Dynamic Wave Forces on Vertical Walls

3.1 Non-­‐Breaking Waves on Vertical Walls

ds > 1.5Hmax (approximately) ...where ds = depth at structure. (1)

At the seabed, z = -­‐d and so the term cosh k(z+d)=1:

Thus pressure at the bed is in the range:

!! ! (according to Sainflou,

Notes on Δ h due to Waves:

Q: What is the difference between MWL and SWL?

on side of wall exposed to waves on lee side

3.1.2 Example 1: Wave Forces due to Non-­‐Breaking Waves

1025 × 9.81 1025 × 9.81 × 6.02

Find Δh from Figure 7

= −65 kN/m (cf. -­‐62 kN/m from Example 1)

3.1.4 Partial Reﬂection of Non-­‐Breaking Waves

H + H reflect = (1 + K reflect )H (13)

3.2 Breaking Waves on Vertical Walls

These shock pressures:

3.2.1 Minikin’s Method for Determining Breaking Wave Forces

where... Hb, = breaking wave height (see Figure 15)

ds = depth at the toe of the wall

= depth one wavelength in front of the seawall

Lds = wavelength in water of depth ds

m = seaward slope of the seabed

LD = wavelength in water of depth D

The dynamic force and moment in Minikin’s method are:

Find Hb using Figure 13

Find (pm)SPM using Figure 12

= 183,408 𝑁/𝑚! = 183 𝑘𝑁/𝑚!

Find Rm using Figure 12

= 489,088 + 115,503 𝑁𝑚 = 605 𝑘𝑁𝑚

where… Cmk ≈ 2 (to fit Rouville’s

where… 101 = πg = 3.14 x 32.3(ft/s2) (22)

3.3 Broken Waves on Vertical Walls

1. structure located seaward of SWL, and

hc = broken wave crest height above SWL at the structure,

db = water depth at wave breaking point,

ds = water depth at the structure,

ℎ! = 𝐾 + 0.2𝐻! (27)

The dynamic wave force Rm is then given by:

3.4 Caisson Failure Modes

3.5 Other Forces on Coastal Structures

3.6 Selection of Design Wave Height

What assumptions have you made?

You might also like

3.1 Non-‐Breaking Waves on Vertical Walls

At the seabed, z = -‐d and so the term cosh k(z+d)=1:

3.1.2 Example 1: Wave Forces due to Non-‐Breaking Waves

= −65 kN/m (cf. -‐62 kN/m from Example 1)

3.1.4 Partial Reﬂection of Non-‐Breaking Waves