See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282673500

Performance analysis of vertical breakwaters designed by partial safety factor

method

Article  in  Journal of Coastal Research · January 2013

DOI: 10.2112/SI65-051

CITATION READS

1 238

2 authors:

Seung-Woo Kim Kyung-Duck Suh

Seoul National University Seoul National University
34 PUBLICATIONS   228 CITATIONS    167 PUBLICATIONS   1,890 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Retirement View project

Investigation of large swell waves and rip currents and development of the disaster response system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kyung-Duck Suh on 06 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 296 Kim and Suh

Performance Analysis of Vertical Breakwaters Designed by Partial

Safety Factor Method
Seung-Woo Kim†, Kyung-Duck Suh‡

†Dept. of Civil and Environmental ‡ Dept. of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Seoul National University,
Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-744, Korea
esfpknu7@snu.ac.kr
Engineering & Engineering Research
www.cerf-jcr.org
Institute, Seoul National University, 1
Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-744,
Korea
kdsuh@snu.ac.kr (Corresponding author)

ABSTRACT

Kim, S.-W. and Suh, K.-D., 2013. Performance analysis of vertical breakwaters designed by partial safety factor
method In: Conley, D.C., Masselink, G., Russell, P.E. and O’Hare, T.J. (eds.), Proceedings 12th International Coastal
Symposium (Plymouth, England), Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, pp. 296-301, ISSN 0749-0208.
www.JCRonline.org
The partial safety factor method has been developed in Europe, Japan, and Korea to overcome the limitations of the
deterministic method for design of the vertical breakwater. The practical engineers prefer the partial safety factor
method because this method is relatively simple to use compared with other probabilistic methods. However, the partial
safety factor method does not evaluate the displacement of the vertical breakwater, while only defining the boundary
between safety and failure domains within a given target safety level. Therefore, it is required to examine the
performance of the breakwater designed by the partial safety factor method in terms of caisson sliding distance. In the
present study, the partial safety factors developed by an advanced research for vertical breakwaters are used with the
target reliability indices of 2.33 and 2.0. The performance analysis of 12 cross-sections of five vertical breakwaters was
conducted by the method based on the Monte-Carlo simulation. Especially, this method considers a technique to
eliminate the unrealistic extreme values of the design variables. As a result, the breakwaters designed by the partial
safety factor method with the target reliability index of 2.0 are found to be stable except for one cross-section with high
uncertainty of wave height. On the other hand, all the breakwaters with the reliability index of 2.33 are found to be
stable irrespective of any uncertainty of wave height. Finally, it is found that the vertical breakwaters designed with the
reliability index of 2.33 satisfy the allowable exceedance probabilities for both repairable and ultimate limit states.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Partial safety factor, performance-based analysis, caisson sliding, target reliability
index, uncertainty

INTRODUCTION performance-based analysis. In this analysis, the uncertainty of the

The partial safety factor method for caisson sliding of a vertical
breakwater has been developed in many countries. The partial
safety factors proposed by U.S. Army (2006) are used in the
design of coastal structures in Europe and North America. In
Japan, OCDI (2009) suggested the partial safety factors for
different types of vertical breakwaters. Recently, Kim and Suh
(2011) evaluated the partial safety factors for each safety level by
analyzing the existing vertical breakwaters in Korea and Japan
with FORM (First-Order Reliability Method) and compared them
with the results of OCDI (2009).
Even though the vertical breakwaters are designed by the partial
safety factor method so as to satisfy a given target reliability index,
the method does not consider a probabilistic variation of the
caisson sliding distance. In this study, the partial safety factors
proposed by Kim and Suh (2011) for each safety level are
examined by conducting the performance-based analysis of the
vertical breakwaters designed by the proposed safety factors.
From this analysis, a relationship between the two different
methods will be found. The relationship is analyzed by comparing
the reliability indices with the probability exceeding an allowable
sliding distance for the existing breakwaters. Based on this result,
the cross-sections are designed by the partial safety factors for two
target reliability indices of 2.0 and 2.33 and examined by the
____________________
DOI: 10.2112/SI65-051.1 received 07 December 2012; accepted 06
March 2013.
© Coastal Education & Research Foundation 2013
estimated wave height is represented by the coefficient of
variation of 0.1 and 0.2, respectively. For the performance-based
analysis, we used the improved model of Shimosako and
Takahashi (2000). The present model especially considers the
minimal random number generator (Park and Miller, 1988) and
the doubly normal truncated distribution to eliminate an unrealistic
random variable (Kim and Takayama, 2003).
As a result, the partial safety factors in accordance with two target
reliability indices will be examined by the performance-based
analysis.
PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS
Partial safety factors for each safety level
Table 1 shows the target reliability indices proposed by Kim
and Suh (2011). The target reliability indices of 2.0 and 2.33 are
applied for the normal-importance and high-importance structures,
respectively. On the other hand, JPHA (2007) and OCDI (2009)
suggested the target reliability index of 2.38 for the typical vertical
breakwater without specifying the importance of breakwater. This
value is similar to that of the high-importance structures in Table 1.
Table 2 shows the partial safety factors for various design
variables for each target reliability index suggested by Kim and
Suh (2011). Here, the resistance safety factors are composed of the
factors of friction coefficient f and weight of caisson Wa ,
whereas the load safety factors consist of the factors of horizontal
wave force FP , uplift force FU , and tidal level WL . The

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

 Performance Analysis of Vertical Breakwaters Designed by Partial Safety Factor Method 297

dominant design variables among them are the friction coefficient, Table 1. Target reliability index corresponding to 50-year
horizontal wave force and uplift force as shown in Table 2. When lifetime of structure for different safety levels.
a partial safety factor approaches 1.0, the design variable rarely Safety level T
influences the design of the structure.
High 2.33
Normal 2.00
Designed Cross-Sections Low 1.65
The caisson width of a vertical breakwater is calculated by the
following equation. Table 2. Partial safety factors for each design variable.
T ( Pf ) f  FP  FU  Wa  WL
 FP FP
B (1) 2.33 (0.01) 0.78 1.19 0.84 1.00 1.03
[(  Wa (h'  hc )  s g  ( WLWL  h' ) 0 g   FU FU / 2] f f 2.00 (0.02) 0.83 1.16 0.83 1.00 1.03
1.65 (0.05) 0.88 1.13 0.82 1.01 1.02
where  X i is the partial safety factor of the design variable X i ,
Table 3. Caisson width and reliability index calculated by the
and the geometric variables of hc and h ' are described in Figure partial safety factors.
1.  s and 0 are the densities of concrete and water, respectively, T  2.00 T  2.33
Harbor name
No.
and g is the gravity acceleration. Table 3 shows the caisson width /Cross-section B (m)  B (m) 
calculated by the partial safety factors in Table 2 and Eq. (1). The 1 Okgye 20.77 2.02 22.72 2.35
breakwater type of Okgye, Hwasun, and Donghae harbors is a 2 Hwasun 31.06 2.02 34.80 2.35
typical composite breakwater, and that of Uleung and Ulsan is a 3 Donghae/NG(Aft) 14.76 2.02 16.14 2.35
sloping-top caisson composite breakwater. The evaluated 4 Donghae/NH(Aft) 14.77 2.01 16.16 2.35
reliability indices are slightly larger than the target reliability 5 Donghae/I(Aft) 18.50 2.02 20.23 2.36
index with the maximum difference of 10%. 6 Donghae/NG(Bef) 19.46 2.02 21.29 2.35
7 Donghae/NH(Bef) 19.38 2.02 21.20 2.36
STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF 8 Donghae/NI(Bef) 25.53 2.02 27.93 2.36
DESIGN VARIABLES 9 Uleung 18.17 2.16 19.86 2.48
10 Ulsan/A 21.02 2.19 22.99 2.51
11 Ulsan/B 19.71 2.20 21.55 2.51
Wave Height and Wave Period 12 Ulsan/C 16.16 2.20 17.67 2.52
The significant wave height and period corresponding to 50-
year return period and the parameters of Gumbel distribution of
extreme wave height are given in Table 4. The wave height Table 4. Significant wave heights and periods of 50-year
distribution at the breakwater site follow the Gumbel distribution return period and the estimated parameters of Gumbel
and the parameters were estimated by the method of Kim and Suh distribution of extreme wave height.
(2010). Harbor name Hs Ts Paramters
No.
/Cross-section (m) (s)  
F ( x)  exp[  exp{ ( x   )}] (2) 1 Okgye 7.7 14.0 1.050 3.976
2 Hwasun 9.4 14.0 1.276 6.335
where x is the extreme significant wave height,  and  are the 3 Donghae/NG(Aft) 7.4 12.0 0.960 3.324
scale and location parameters, respectively. The method of Kim 4 Donghae/NH(Aft) 7.4 12.0 0.960 3.324
and Suh (2010) includes some uncertainty because limited wave 5 Donghae/I(Aft) 7.3 12.0 0.973 3.279
data were used to estimate the wave height. Moreover, because the 6 Donghae/NG(Bef) 7.4 12.0 0.960 3.324
wave data in the method were calculated by a numerical wave 7 Donghae/NH(Bef) 7.4 12.0 0.960 3.324
transformation model, the wave model’s uncertainty is also 8 Donghae/NI(Bef 7.3 12.0 0.973 3.279
included in the parameters. In order to consider these uncertainties, 9 Uleung 6.7 13.0 1.125 3.224
10 Ulsan/A 6.3 13.0 1.197 3.031
11 Ulsan/B 5.4 13.0 1.396 2.598
12 Ulsan/C 7.0 11.0 1.156 3.615

the coefficients of variation of 0.1 and 0.2 were used as shown in

Table 5 (Burcharth, 1992).
The significant wave period is calculated by Goda’s (2003)
formula as follows:

Ts  3.3 H s0.63 (3)

The uncertainty of the wave period was proposed by Suh et al.

(2010) as in Table 6. The coefficient of variation of wave period is
distributed between 0.1 and 0.2 in most cases, which is similar to
the value of Burcharth (1992).
Figure 1. Typical cross-section of vertical breakwater.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

 298 Kim and Suh

Wave Forces and Friction Coefficient Table 5. Typical coefficients of variation CVX ( X /  X ) for
Oumeraci et al. (2001) proposed the bias and coefficient of measured and calculated sea state parameters.
variation (CV) of the ratio of the measured force to the calculated CVX
Parameters Methods Bias Comments
force by Goda’s (1974) formula as shown in Table 7. These values
are compared and examined with the results of Takayama and Significant wave
Ikeda (1993). The bias and CV of the friction coefficient were height nearshore CVX can
used as 0.06 and 0.15, respectively. determined from
Numerical 0.1- be much
In general, it is assumed that the design variables follow the offshore signficant 0.1
methods 0.2 larger in
normal distribution. When the normal distribution is used in the wave height
accounting for some case
Monte-Carlo simulation, some unrealistic values can be sampled.
To eliminate these values, the truncated normal distribution shallow-water effects
suggested by Kim and Takayama (2003) was used for the friction Mean wave period
Hindcast,
coefficient and horizontal wave force. This method is to truncate offshore on condition 0.1-
numerical 0.0 -
the unrealistic two tails of the normal distribution based on of fixed significant 0.2
models
various experimental tests. The upper and lower limit values were wave hegiht
determined by the hydraulic test results of Takayama and Ikeda
(2003) as shown in Table 7. Here XE and XC denote the measured Table 6. Coefficient of variation of significant wave period
and calculated values, respectively. The theoretical process is depending on significant wave height in Korea.
described in Kim and Takayama (2003) in detail. Figure 2 East sea West sea South sea
describes the random samples of the friction coefficient and Hs=0- Hs=10- Hs=0- Hs=6- Hs=11-
horizontal wave force by using the truncated normal distributions. Hs=0-15m
10m 15m 6m 11m 15m
0.13 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.05
PERORMANCE-BASED ANALYSIS METHOD
Table 7. Typical coefficients of variation CV for measured and
Caisson Sliding calculated parameters.
The equation of motion for sliding of a caisson without Bias Upper Lower
CV
negligible wave-making resistance force is expressed as follows: Parameter (=μX/XC- limit limit
(=σX/μX)
1) (=XE/ XC) (=XE/ XC)
2 Horizontal
 Wa  dx 0.222 -0.10 0.48 1.42
  M a  G2  FP  FR (4) force
 g  dt Vertical force 0.260 -0.23 - -
Friction
0.15 0.06 0.71 1.43
where Wa is the caisson weight in air, M a ( 1.0855 0h'2 ) is the coefficient

added mass, 0 is the density of sea water, h ' is the water depth
from the bottom of caisson to the design water level, FP is the
horizontal wave force, FR{ f (W '  FU )} is the frictional
resistance force, f is the friction coefficient, W ' is the caisson
weight in water, FU is the vertical wave force, and xG is the
sliding distance of the caisson.

2
2

1.6
1.6
Ratio of friction coefficient

Ratio of wave force

1.2

1.2
0.8

0.8
0.4

0.4 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Sample number Sample number

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Random values of design variables sampled from truncated normal distributions: (a) friction coefficient; (b) horizontal wave
force.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

 Performance Analysis of Vertical Breakwaters Designed by Partial Safety Factor Method 299

In this study, the sliding distance is calculated by Shimosako Table 8. Comparison of relative execution time and
and Takahashi’s (2000) model. The mathematical model for characteristics among four generators
calculating the horizontal and vertical wave forces is not described Relative execution
Generator Characteristics
in this paper because Shimosako and Takahashi (2000) described time
this procedure in detail. Figure 3 only shows the flow of ran 0 1.0 Minimal standard generator
calculation of the expected sliding distance and the exeedance Minimal standard generator with
probability. It is assumed that one storm occurs every year and ran 1 1.3
Bays-Durham shuffle
then the sliding distance is calculated by accumulating the sliding Long-period generator with Bays-
ran 2 2.0
of the caisson during one storm (i.e. 2 hours). By repeating this Durham shuffle
procedure during the lifetime of the structure, the total sliding ran 3 0.6 Subtractive congruential generator
distance is evaluated. Finally, the expected sliding distance (ESD)
is calculated by ensemble-averaging the total sliding distance for
more than several thousand simulations. The exceedance which is based on a subtractive congruential generator, is shorter
probability (ExP) is evaluated with given allowable sliding than ran 0, 1, and 2, but this generator has not been studied
distance for the same simulations. This simulation takes into enough for various engineering applications. Table 8 shows a
account the uncertainties of the design variables described in the comparison of relative execution time and characteristics among
previous chapter. four generators. Figure 4(b) shows that the exceedance probability
A main process in the Monte-Carlo simulation is a generation of of the Okgye harbor breakwater with various allowable sliding
random values according to the prescribed probability distribution distances is stable for different initial random seed’s sets when ran
function. To adequately extract random samples, an excellent 1 is used.
random number generator should be used. Park and Miller (1988)
have shown that inadequate generators have been used widely
over the last three decades. If an inadequate generator is used to
calculate the ESD and the ExP, the results can be useless. 4
Therefore, it is very important to select a good random number
ran1
generator in the Monte-Carlo simulation. In this study, four ran0
generators in Press et al. (1992) are examined as shown in Figure ran2
Expected sliding distance (m)

ran3
4(a). Finally, ran 1 was selected because not only the calculation 3
time of ran 1 is shorter than that of ran 0 and 2, but also ran 1 was
verified in many applications. ran 1 based on multiplicative
generator has Bays-Durham shuffle effect which breaks up serial 2
correlations in the generation of samples. ran 0 does not consider
this effect and ran 2 is recommended to use for more than
1  108 generation for a single simulation. Execution time of ran 3,
1

0
Extreme wave height distribution 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Initial random seed's sets

(a)
Annual offshore storm wave event

Tide level and

wave transformation
100
Significant waves at design site
PE(S > 0.1 m)
Rayleigh - distributed wave PE(S > 0.3 m)
heights and breaking for 80 PE(S >1.0 m)
Exceedance probability (%)

service 5000
Individual wave height and period
lifetime simulations
for (TL )
Sliding model one
60
storm
Sliding distance by each wave

Summation for one storm

40
Accumulated sliding distance by a storm event

Summation until t year

20
Total sliding distance, S(t), t = 1 to TL

Expected sliding distance, SE(t), 0

by averaging over 5000 simulations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Exceedance probability, Pf(t) = Pr[S(t) > Sa] Initial random seed's sets
among 5000 simulations
(b)
Figure 4. ESD and ExP calculated by different random number
Figure 3. Flow chart for calculation of expected sliding distance generators and initial random seed’s sets for Okgye harbour
and exceedance probability. breakwater: (a) ESD; (b) ExP.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

 300
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Relationship between Reliability Indices and
Exceedance Probabilities
To examine the relationship between the reliability index (i.e.
the design criterion of the partial safety factors method) and the
exceedance probability (i.e. the criterion of the performance-based
design method), the existing breakwaters was analyzed by the
performance-based analysis. If the relationship between the
reliability index and exceedance probability is obtained, the partial
safety factors method could be used to evaluate the sliding of the
caisson without carrying out the performance-based analysis.
However, as shown in Figure 5, the relationship between them is
roughly linear with R2 = 0.61, but the variation of the exceedance
probabilities in the vicinity of the reliability index of 2.0 is quite
large. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the cross-sections
designed by the partial safety factors method by using the
performance-based analysis in order that the calculated
exceedance probabilities of the structures be within the allowable
exceedance probability.
Exceedance probability
The cross-sections designed by the partial safety factors
corresponding to the target reliability indices of 2.0 and 2.33 were
analyzed by the performance-based analysis. To consider small or
large uncertainty of the design significant wave height due to the
estimation and measurement errors, the coefficients of variation of
the wave height were used as 0.1 and 0.2, respectively. Table 9
shows the allowable exceedance probability of the allowable
sliding distance proposed by JPHA (2007) and OCDI (2009). This
criteria include different limit states and importance of structure.
In this study, the criterion corresponding to the ordinary structure
and the repairable and ultimate limit states were used.
Figure 6 shows the exceedance probabilities of the designed
breakwaters with different limit states and target reliability indices.
When the breakwaters are designed by the partial safety factors
with a given target reliability index, the calculated reliability
indices of the structures are almost constant and the same as the
target reliability index as shown in Table 3. However, the
exceedance probabilities of the same structures are not constant as
shown in Figure 6. This is the reason why the relationship
50
R2 = 0.61
40
PE(S > 0.1m) (%)
30
20
10
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
b (Reliability index)
Figure 5. Relationship between reliability index and exceedance
probability for existing breakwaters.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
Kim and Suh
Table 9. Allowable exceedance probability (%) of allowable
sliding distance (m) by JPHA (2007) and OCDI (2009).
Limit state Importance of structure
(Allowable sliding
distance)
High Ordinary Low
Repairable (0.1) 15 30 50
Ultimate (0.3) 5 10 20
Collapse (1.0) 2.5 5 10
between the exceedance probability and the reliability index for
the structures with the same design conditions is not clearly shown
(see Figure 5). The exceedance probability changes with the wave
condition and geometric variables. Therefore, the partial safety
factor method should be examined by the performance-based
analysis method.
For the repairable limit state shown in Figures 6(a) and 6(c), all
the breakwaters with the target reliability indices of 2.00 and 2.33
were found to be stable, although the exceedance probability
reaches 16% for the Ulsan/C breakwater. On the other hand, for
the ultimate limit state shown in Figures 6(b) and 6(d), all the
breakwaters except the Ulsan/C breakwater designed with βt =
2.00 were found to be stable. The breakwaters designed with βt =
2.00 and 2.33 also satisfy the design criterion of the collapse limit
state, but the results are not shown in this paper. Conclusively, if a
breakwater is designed by the partial safety factors with the target
reliability index of 2.33 (i.e. probability of failure of 1%), the
structural stability is guaranteed in terms of caisson sliding during
the lifetime of the structure.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the performance-based analysis and design method
is a strong tool to assess the stability of a structure during the
lifetime, it is not easy for a designer to use this method in the real
application. Furthermore, recently the partial safety factors system
was adopted in several technical standards for port and harbor
facilities (U.S. Army, 2006; JPHA, 2007; OCDI, 2009). However,
the partial safety factors system does not evaluate the
displacement of the structure. Therefore, in this study, the
breakwaters designed by the partial safety factors with different
target reliability indices were analyzed by the performance-based
analysis method, and an appropriate target reliability index for the
partial safety factor method was found. Then, it is possible to
include the advantage of the performance-based analysis method
in the partial safety factor system. As a result, if a breakwater is
designed by the partial safety factor method with the target
reliability index of 2.33, it not only locates within the safety
domain but also satisfies the allowable caisson sliding distances
for various limit states.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the Project for Developmenet of
Reliability-Based Design Methods for Port and Harbor Structures
sponsored by Korea Ministry of Martine Affairs and Fisheries.
This work was conducted at the Engineering Research Institute of
Seoul National University.
LITERATURE CITED
Burcharth, H. F., 1992. Uncertainty related to environmental data and
estimated extreme events, Final Report of PIANC Working Group 12,
Group B, June 1992.
Goda, Y., 1974. A new method of wave pressure calculation for the design
of composite breakwater. Proceedings of 14th International of
 Performance Analysis of Vertical Breakwaters Designed by Partial Safety Factor Method 301

Conference on Coastal Engineering (Copenhagen, Denmark), ASCE,
pp. 1702-1720.
Goda, Y., 2003. Revisiting Wilson's formulas for simplified wind wave
prediction. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
Engineering, 129 (2), 93-95.
Japan Port and Harbor Association (JPHA), 2007. Technical Standards and
Commentaries of Port and Harbor Facilities in Japan. Japan Port and
Harbor Association (in Japanese).
Kim, S.-W. and Suh, K.-D., 2010. Reliability analysis of breakwaters
armor blocks: case study in Korea. Coastal Enginering Journal, 52(4),
1-20.
Kim, S.-W. and Suh, K.-D., 2011. Evaluation of target reliability indices
and partial safety factors for sliding of caisson breakwaters.
Proceedings 11th International Coastal Symposium (Szczecin, Poland),
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 64, pp. 622-626.
Kim, T.-M. and Takayama, T., 2003. Computational improvement for
expected sliding distance of a caisson-type breakwater by introduction
of a doubly-truncated normal distribution. Coastal Engineering Journal
45(3), 387-419.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., Allsop, W., de Groot, M., Crouch, R.,
Vrijling, H. and Voortman, H., 2001. Probabilistic design tools for
vertical breakwaters, Sweta & Zeitlinger B.V., Lisse: A.A. Balkema,
93p.
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan (OCDI), 2009.
Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbor facilities in
Japan. Ports and harbours bureau, ministry of land, infrastructure,
transport and tourism, National institute for land and infrastructure
management, Port and airport research institute.
Park, S.K. and Miller, K.W., 1988. Communications of the ACM, 31,
1191-1201.
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. and Flannery, B. P.,
1992. Numerical recipes in FORTRAN; The art of scientific computing,
2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266-276.
Shimosako, K. and Takahashi, S., 2000. Application of deformation-
based reliability design for coastal structures. In: Lodada (ed.),
Proceedings of International Conference on Coastal Structures’s 99
(Santander, Spain), pp. 363-371.
Suh, K.-D., Kwon, H.-D. and Lee, D.-Y., 2010. Some characteristics of
large deepwater waves around the Korean Peninsula. Coastal
Engineering, 57, 375-384.
Takayama, T. and Ikeda, N., 1993. Estimation of sliding failure probability
of present breakwaters for probabilistic design. Report of the Port and
Habour Research Institute, 31(5), 3-32.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Coastal Engineering Manual, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., EM 1110-2-1100 (in 6
volumes).

100 100
COVFHs = 0.2 COVFHs = 0.2
COVFHs = 0.1 COVFHs = 0.1
(PE)a = 30 % (PE)a = 10 %
80 80
PE (S > 0.1 m) (%)

PE (S > 0.3 m) (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Breakwater's number Breakwater's number
(a) (b)

100 100
COVFHs = 0.2 COVFHs = 0.2
COVFHs = 0.1 COVFHs = 0.1
(PE)a = 30 %
80 80 (PE)a = 10 %
PE (S > 0.1 m) (%)

PE (S > 0.3 m) (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Breakwater's number Breakwater's number
(c) (d)
Figure 6. Exceedance probability of the breakwaters designed with different limit states and target reliability indices: (a) repairable
limit state with T  2.00 ; (b) ultimate limit state with T  2.00 ; (c) repairable limit state with T  2.33 ; (d) ultimate limit state
with T  2.33 .

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013

View publication stats