Experimental study on wave-in-deck

loading under focused wave conditions

Tien Trung Duong
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/experimental-study-on-wave-in-deck-loading-under-fo
cused-wave-conditions-tien-trung-duong/
 Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Experimental study on wave-in-deck loading under focused

wave conditions
Tien Trung Duong a, Kwang Hyo Jung a, *, Gang Nam Lee a, Hyun Jung Park a, Jaeyong Lee b,
Sung Bu Suh b
a
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Pusan National University, 2, Busandaehak-ro, Busan, 46241, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, Dong-Eui University, 176, Eomgwang-ro, Busan, 47340, Republic of Korea

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

Keywords: This paper presents experimental results related to the wave-in-deck phenomena caused by focused waves. A
Wave-in-deck load series of experiments were conducted in a two-dimensional wave flume using varying deck clearances and
Particle image velocimetry focused waves with varying wave crest heights to measure the water velocity profiles, vertical forces, and
Vertical force
pressure distributions under the deck. The velocity fields of the water under the deck were obtained using the
Pressure distribution
particle image velocimetry (PIV) system, which was synchronized with the force and pressure measurement
Focused wave
Water kinematics systems. The linear momentum and kinetic energy with and without the deck were calculated from the PIV
velocity maps. The velocity profiles, linear momentum, and kinetic energy of the water under the deck were
compared with those of the incident focused waves to investigate the effect of the deck on the water kinematics
in relation to the force and pressure measurements recorded during the loading process. Meanwhile, the forces
and pressure caused by the focused waves were compared with those caused by regular waves, and the results
indicated that the upward vertical force and pressure caused by the focused waves were larger than those caused
by the regular waves but that the downward force exhibited an opposite behavior. Based on the force mea­
surements, the peak and impulse of the vertical force indicated negative linear relationships with the deck
clearance, whereas the wave crest height was found to have a less significant effect on the vertical force than the
deck clearance. The distribution of the peak pressure along the deck was analyzed in terms of the corresponding
impulsiveness and pressure impulse to evaluate the severity of the local wave loads, and the results indicated that
the region near the leading edge would likely experience a greater structural damage due to the wave-in-deck
load compared with the region near the trailing edge.

1. Introduction In recent decades, numerous studies related to the wave-in-deck

The decks of offshore platforms are typically designed to be located
at a higher level than the maximum predicted wave crest to avoid
interaction with the waves. However, under severe environmental
conditions, the deck structures could be subjected to large wave forces,
and significant local damage or even structural failure may occur. For
example, Energo (2010) reported that 252 platforms in the Gulf of
Mexico experienced wave-in-deck loading during hurricanes Ike and
Gustav in 2008, and approximately 10% of them were destroyed.
Furthermore, the clearance between the lowest deck and the still-water
level could be reduced due to foundation subsidence and reservoir
compaction during the operation of the platform (Broughton and Horn,
1987).
phenomena have been conducted. Here, Kaplan (1992) investigated
the wave impact on a flat plate deck and proposed a momentum
approach that reflected the DNV-GL standards (DNV-GL, 2019) as a
robust method for computing the wave forces on deck structures.
Meanwhile, Isaacson and Bhat (1996) experimentally investigated the
vertical force acting on a fixed horizontal plate and suggested a range of
0.5–0.7 for the empirical added mass factor to align the predicted forces
with the experimental results. Moreover, Murray et al. (1997) conducted
a series of three-dimensional (3D) model tests using a jacket structure
model under regular and irregular wave conditions. They concluded that
there was no notable difference between the forces in regular and
irregular waves with the same crest height and that the peak force
increased linearly according to the crest height increment. For their part,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kjung@pusan.ac.kr (K.H. Jung).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110146
Received 24 May 2021; Received in revised form 31 October 2021; Accepted 1 November 2021
Available online 10 November 2021
0029-8018/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.T. Duong et al.
Baarholm and Faltinsen (2004) studied the global vertical forces on
fixed horizontal decks using a simplified Wagner-based approach and
two boundary-element methods, which were employed to solve the
perturbation velocity potential and total velocity potential, respectively.
Across the entire process, the boundary-element methods agreed well
with the experimental data, whereas the Wagner-based method indi­
cated significant differences in the water exit process. Baarholm (2009)
investigated the 3D effects on the vertical wave-in-deck forces using a
series of model tests in a two-dimensional (2D) wave flume. Here, the
model test results suggested that the wave force was reduced due to the
3D effects and that a correction factor accounting for these effects was
subsequently applied to the Wagner-based method and the simple von
Karman approach. Cuomo et al. (2007) proposed an empirical method
based on dimensionless analysis to predict the wave forces on decks,
with the predicted forces demonstrating good agreement with the
measured data. Moreover, Ding et al. (2008) conducted various 3D ex­
periments to study the slamming characteristics of unidirectional
irregular waves with various wave directions. The results indicated that
the significant peak pressure was symmetrically distributed in terms of
the wave direction, and the center region of the deck experienced
significantly larger pressure than the surrounding region. Duong et al.
(2019) reported experimental results for the wave impact on a fixed
horizontal deck subjected to regular waves, which revealed a linear
relationship between the wave-in-deck vertical forces and the square of
maximum vertical water particle velocity predicted by the linear wave
theory. Meanwhile, the effect of the current speed on the wave-in-deck
forces was experimentally studied by Santo et al. (2020), who found that
the vertical forces were not dependent on the current speed but that the
horizontal forces varied according to the speed. For their part, Ma and
Swan (2020) proposed a load model named the Lagrangian momentum
absorption scheme to predict horizontal wave-in-deck loads. The pre­
dicted results demonstrated good agreement with the experimental data
in terms of both the maximum load and time history. Sivagamasundari
and Sannasiraj (2020) experimentally investigated the actions of regular
and focused waves on a thin plate. They suggested that the deck should
be elevated above 0.68 times maximum wave height to avoid the wave
impact. Elsewhere, Lee et al. (2020a) applied the particle image veloc­
imetry (PIV)-based pressure estimation method to calculate the pressure
distribution under fixed decks using velocity maps. Here, the results
demonstrated that the overall pressure agreed well with the measure­
ments obtained via the pressure sensors but that the calculated peak
pressure was underestimated. The focused wave forces acting on coastal
bridges with box girder was investigated by Fang et al. (2021). The re­
sults showed that the vertical quasi-static force had a nearly linear
relationship with the main crest and the clearance, but a complicated
tendency was found in the slamming forces.
In addition to the investigation of wave forces on decks using
experimental and theoretical methods, the computational fluid dy­
namics (CFD) technique has become a powerful tool in this field. Here,
Kendon et al. (2010) simulated vertical wave deck loading and
compared the numerical results with the experimental data and theo­
retical results obtained using the methods proposed by Baarholm
(2009). The profile of the second wave crest was found to be flattened by
the first impact event, which led to a significant increase in the vertical
force. Meanwhile, Abdussamie et al. (2014) numerically studied the
wave-in-deck loading using the volume of fluid method and validated
their model in relation to the experimental results. These authors also
modified Kaplan’s method by adding a term that accounts for the
Froude–Krylov effect and buoyancy force. Here, the CFD results were in
agreement with the measured results, whereas the modified Kaplan’s
method was found to underestimate both the horizontal and vertical
wave-in-deck forces. Wu et al. (2016) developed a numerical approach
based on the NewWave theory to model extreme waves and employed
the approach to predict the wave-in-deck loading using OpenFOAM. The
proposed approach produced similar horizontal and vertical downward
forces with the numerical results using the Stokes 5th order wave with
2
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup in the 2D wave tank.
Table 1
Main dimensions of the prototype and the model (λ = 1/56).
Prototype Model
Length (L, m) 22.00 0.40
Breadth (b, m) 18.00 0.60
Thickness (m) N/A 0.008
Water depth (D, m) 33.50 0.60
Deck clearance (c, m) 4.56 0.08
identical wave crest (Iwanowski et al., 2002), but the vertical upward
force was one half of that simulated using the Stokes 5th order wave.
Furthermore, Qin et al. (2017) numerically investigated the impact
beneath a 2D fixed deck induced by a freak wave with and without the
hydroelasticity of the deck. The results indicated that the freak wave
induced a significantly larger force than the regular wave with an
identical crest height. Meanwhile, Chen et al. (2018) presented the
numerical results for directional wave-in-deck loading on porous and
plate decks supported by I-beams. They concluded that the wave im­
pacts on the decks with I-beams and/or open bottoms were larger in
magnitude than in the case of the simple box.
In the current paper, the wave-in-deck phenomena caused by focused
waves are investigated using a series of experiments in a 2D wave flume.
The vertical forces and pressures exerted on the deck were measured,
whereas the velocity fields under the deck were obtained using the PIV
method to investigate the flow kinematics of the loading under the deck.
The effects of the test parameters, including crest height and deck
clearance, on characteristics such as the peak value and impulse of the
measured forces and pressures were also examined. To determine the
differences in the loading characteristics of focused and regular waves,
the force and pressure caused by a focused wave were compared and
discussed in relation to those caused by a regular wave with an identical
crest height and a zero up-crossing period. The severity of the local
pressures under the deck was evaluated according to the impulsiveness
obtained using the method proposed by Lee et al. (2020b).
2. Experiment
2.1. Experimental setup
The experimental setup in this paper was similar to that in Duong
et al. (2019), which focused on the wave-in-deck load due to regular
waves. The experiment was conducted in a glass-walled laboratory wave
flume with a length of 32 m, width of 0.6 m, and depth of 1 m. A
schematic of the experiment and coordinate system is presented in
Fig. 1. Here, a piston-type wave maker was installed at the end of the
wave flume, with a wave absorber having a slope of 1:3 placed at the
opposite end to eliminate any wave reflections. The deck model was
made of acrylic with a scale factor (λ) of 1:56 based on the fixed jacket
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

calculate the velocity vectors (Theunissen et al., 2007); the interrogation

area was set to 64 × 64 pixels with a 50% overlap, and the spatial res­
olution was 5.95 mm between adjacent velocity vectors. A median filter
was employed to remove any spurious vectors included in the vector
fields obtained using the PIV method (Westerweel, 1994). The error of
the PIV measurements was approximately 0.06 pixels corresponding to
approximately 2.55% of the maximum particle velocity (0.3 m/s) ob­
tained from the present PIV measurements (Lee et al., 2020a).
The experiment was conducted to obtain the wave elevations at the
center of the deck and velocity profiles of the incident wave without the
deck model and to measure the vertical wave forces, pressure distribu­
tions, and velocity profiles under the fixed deck. The sampling frequency
for the wave elevation measurement was set to 100 Hz. All the mea­
surement systems, including the load cells, pressure sensors, PIV system,
and wave gauge, were synchronized with the wave maker to investigate
the relationship between the water wave kinematics and loading phe­
nomena. The estimated errors were 0.3% for the pressure measure­
Fig. 2. Positioning of the load cells and pressure sensors on the model. ments, 0.5% for the force measurements and 0.3% for the wave
elevation measurements.
platform in the Gulf of Suez (Abdel Raheem, 2014). The main di­
mensions of the prototype and deck model are listed in Table 1. The deck
model was mounted on an aluminum frame that was rigidly fixed to the 2.2. Experimental conditions
flume at a location 15 m from the wave maker. The breadth of the deck
model was fitted to the width of the wave flume, and the water depth All the wave conditions in the experiment were selected based on the
was maintained at 0.6 m during the entire experimental process. 100-year return period wave in the Gulf of Suez, which involved a 7.92
To measure the vertical wave forces acting on the deck model, four m wave height and an 8.0 s wave period (Abdel Raheem, 2014). In this
two-component Wonbang Forcetech Model MCL-2A01-100 load cells study, the focused waves were generated to model more severe wave
(LC1, LC2, LC3, LC4) were installed on the aluminum frame, whereas conditions with higher wave heights than the regular wave conditions
five Kistler 4043A2 piezoresistive pressure sensors (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) reported in Duong et al. (2019). Two regular wave components were
were equally spaced along the centerline of the deck model to measure utilized to generate each focused wave. The first wave component with a
the pressure distributions under the deck. The positions of four load cells shorter period was generated, followed by the second wave component
and pressure sensors are presented in Fig. 2. The sampling frequency was with a longer period, with these two wave components subsequently
set to 5 kHz for both the force and pressure measurements based on a
convergence pressure test with a varying DAQ rate. To remove any noise Table 2
from the measured pressure data, a finite impulse response low-pass Individual wave components for focused wave generation.
filter with a cut-off frequency of 150 Hz and an order of 91 was used, Wave condition Wave component 1 Wave component 2
based on the method proposed by Lee et al. (2020b). T (s) H (m) T (s) H (m)
The velocity fields under the deck model were obtained using the PIV
FW1 1.04 0.108 1.25 0.109 Group 1
technique; the details of the PIV setup are presented in Fig. 3. A FW2 1.04 0.117 1.25 0.125
continuous laser source (max. 8 W, wavelength = 532 nm) was used to FW3 1.04 0.108 1.25 0.148
illuminate the seeding particles with a mean diameter of 57 μm and a FW4 1.07 0.115 1.36 0.108 Group 2
specific gravity of 1.02. A digital CCD camera (Redlake Y5) equipped FW5 1.07 0.124 1.36 0.123
FW6 1.07 0.142 1.36 0.130
with a 105 mm, f/1.8 macro focal lens set to f/2.8 was used to capture
FW7 1.07 0.097 1.60 0.107 Group 3
PIV images at an acquisition rate of 500 Hz. Here, the camera resolution FW8 1.07 0.115 1.60 0.109
was 2352 × 1728 pixels, and the corresponding field of view (FOV) was FW9 1.07 0.133 1.60 0.113
0.44 × 0.32 m. Meanwhile, the adaptive correlation method was used to

Fig. 3. PIV setup.

3
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 4. Wave elevation measured at center of the deck.

superposed at the location of the center of the deck model. Table 2 front steepness ε, vertical asymmetry factor λ, and horizontal asymmetry
presents the characteristics including wave period (T) and wave height factor μ, were also utilized to characterize the single zero down-crossing
(H) of the two wave components for all focused wave conditions. To waves in the time series. Fig. 5 presents the parameters used for the
study the effect of wave crest height on the vertical wave-in-deck calculation of the asymmetry factors using the following equations:
loading, the amplitude of each wave component was adjusted to wave crest front steepness:
generate three focused waves with different crest heights, which were
Hc
then assigned to one group. A total of nine focused waves were included ε= g , (1)
T T
in the experiment. Fig. 4 shows the time histories of the measured wave 2π Zd r

elevations for nine focused wave conditions and the PIV measuring
vertical asymmetry factor:
window.
The wave elevation η provided fundamental information on the λ=
Tf
, (2)
characteristics of the focused waves, whereas the asymmetry factors Tr
proposed by Myrhaug and Kjeldsen (1986), including the wave crest horizontal asymmetry factor:

4
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

up-crossing wave period as the focused wave.

The pressure distributions under the deck were integrated and
compared with the measured vertical force to verify the consistency of
the pressure and force measurements. To integrate the pressure distri­
butions along the deck center, the trapezoidal rule was employed in the
areas between two consecutive pressure sensors. Fig. 6 presents a
comparison between the pressure integration and measured vertical
force for test condition FW9-A, which were found to be largely similar.
Each peak in the pressure integration corresponded to the peak in the
individual pressure time history measured by each pressure sensor, with
the coarse spaces (0.07 m) between the consecutive pressure sensors
causing the high peaks in the pressure integration.

Fig. 5. Wave parameters for the calculation of the crest front steepness, the
3.1. Loading phenomena and water kinematics
vertical asymmetry factor, and the horizontal asymmetry factor.
To investigate the vertical wave loading phenomena, the non-
dimensionalized vertical force was plotted along with the elevation of
H
μ = c′ , (3) the incident wave without (w.o) the deck model for test condition FW9-
H
A, that is, for the largest wave height and the smallest deck clearance of
where H , Hc , and g denote the zero down-crossing wave height, wave
′
the test conditions, as presented in Fig. 7. Here, the pressure time his­
crest height, and gravitational acceleration, respectively, while Tzd , Tzu tories are also shown to demonstrate their relationship in the time
denote the zero down-crossing period, zero up-crossing period, respec­ domain with the vertical force. The eight vertical lines represent the
tively. Tr and Tf are time differences defining the position of the wave eight phases corresponding to the predominant wave loading phases,
crest relative to the zero up-crossing and zero down-crossing points, including at (a) the instant of the initial contact at the leading edge, (b, c,
respectively. The wave phase in radian was used as the horizontal axis to
describe the time series of the physical quantities within the time in­ Table 4
terval of one zero up-crossing period. Here, the zero-phase corresponded Deck clearance values.
to the time instant of the zero up-crossing elevation measured at the Deck clearance A B C
deck center, as presented in Fig. 5. Table 3 and Table 4 present the
c (m) 0.06 0.07 0.08
properties of all the wave conditions and the values of the deck clear­ c/D 0.100 0.117 0.133
ances, respectively.
In this study, the deck clearance c was defined as the distance from
the still-water level to the underside of the deck, with various distances
of 0.06, 0.07, and 0.08 m used for the test. Here, it should be noted that
only the focused wave with the largest wave crest height in the wave
trains impacted under the deck installed in the 2D wave tank. To
elucidate the test conditions, the notations for the wave conditions are
listed in Table 3. Meanwhile, letters A, B, and C in Table 4 denote the
deck clearances of 0.06, 0.07, and 0.08 m, respectively, with test case
FW1-A, for example, indicating the focused wave condition FW1 with a
deck clearance of 0.06 m.

3. Results and discussion

In this study, the pressure along the deck center and vertical force
loading under the deck were non-dimensionalized with the terms ρw2max
and ρw2max bL, respectively, where ρ denotes the water density; b and L,
the deck model breadth and length, respectively; and wmax , the
Fig. 6. Comparison between pressure integration and measured force for test
maximum vertical particle velocity determined according to the linear
condition FW9-A.
wave theory for the regular wave with an identical wave height and zero

Table 3
Properties of the generated focused waves.
Wave conditions FW1 FW2 FW3 FW4 FW5 FW6 FW7 FW8 FW9

Hc (m) 0.093 0.102 0.118 0.093 0.103 0.114 0.092 0.105 0.118
Hc/D 0.155 0.170 0.197 0.155 0.172 0.190 0.153 0.175 0.197
Ht (m) − 0.070 − 0.070 − 0.069 − 0.078 − 0.080 − 0.077 − 0.083 − 0.087 − 0.084
H (m) 0.163 0.172 0.187 0.171 0183 0.191 0.175 0.192 0.202
H’ (m) 0.147 0.160 0.182 0.146 0.160 0.175 0.132 0.149 0.165
Tr (s) 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.33 0.31 0.3
Tf (s) 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.19
Tzd (s) 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.19 1.17 1.15 1.41 1.35 1.26
Tzu (s) 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.19 1.16 1.16 1.31 1.25 1.22
ε 0.21 0.24 0.31 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.13 0.16 0.20
λ 0.88 0.84 1.00 0.79 0.78 0.84 0.70 0.68 0.63
μ 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.70 0.70 0.72

5
T.T. Duong et al.
Fig. 7. Time histories of wave elevation, vertical force and pressures for test
condition FW9-A.
d, e, and f) the peak pressure moments measured at five pressure sensors,
(g) the maximum negative pressure measured at P1, and (h) the
maximum downward force moment.
Fig. 8 presents the PIV images with overlaid measured velocity fields
at the eight phases shown in Fig. 7. Here, the Canny edge detector
(Canny, 1986) was used to detect the focused wave surface at the same
phases from the captured PIV images without the deck model; these
wave surfaces are represented by the red dashed lines. The error in the
detection of the wave surfaces was estimated to be 1.67% when
comparing the crest height determined using the Canny edge detector
(0.116 m) with the measured crest height obtained using the wave gauge
(0.118 m) at the center of the deck. It should be noted that there was no
trapped air under the deck during the wave loading process. Fig. 9
presents the details of the instantaneous water velocity profiles under
the pressure sensors for the eight phases (a–h), with each horizontal row
presenting the velocity profiles below the pressure sensors at the same
phase. The velocity profiles measured using the deck model were
compared with those of the incident wave without the model to inves­
tigate the change in water kinematics due to the model. The horizontal
and vertical velocities u and w non-dimensionalized by the wave celerity
C (1.79 m/s) were plotted in relation to the z-axis non-dimensionalized
by the water depth D, whereas the horizontal black line indicates the
vertical level of the deck.
During the phases from (a)–(f), the loading process was character­
ized by an upward force acting on the deck, which is known as the water
entry process (DNV-GL, 2019). At phase (a), when the water surface
made contact with the leading edge, the upward force started to develop
before it gradually increased with the extension of the wetted length
under the deck. The water surface with (w.) the deck and the focused
wave surface without (w.o) the deck were found to be in line (Fig. 8a),
and the velocity profiles with and without the deck were identical
(Figs. 9a–1 to 9a–5), indicating that the deck had no effect on the water
kinematics at this phase. At phase (b), which corresponded to the peak
pressure moment at P1, the water reached the P1 position (Fig. 8b), but
the focused wave surface without the deck did not, whereas the P1
pressure sharply increased to a high peak value and the horizontal water
velocity under P1 increased by approximately 1.5 times compared with
that without the deck model (Figs. 9b–1). Meanwhile, the vertical
6
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
velocity slightly below P1 dramatically dropped to zero. The increment
in horizontal water velocity along the wave propagation direction
created a waterfront immediately beneath the deck, which moved faster
than the wave front without the deck. This effect could be clearly
observed when the wave propagated along the deck (Fig. 8b and f).
Meanwhile, as presented in Figs. 9b–2, the moving waterfront affected
the kinematics of the water on the right of P1, with the horizontal and
vertical velocities of the water under P2 increasing in comparison with
those without the deck. The effect of the deck on the water kinematics
disappeared with the increase in the distance from P1, as presented in
Figs. 9b–3 to Figs. 9b–5. At phase (c), when the water contacted at P2
(Fig. 8c), the same phenomena as observed with phase (a) occurred,
with the water slightly below P2 moving four times faster in a horizontal
direction compared with that without the deck. The velocity profiles on
the left of P2 (Figs. 9c–1) exhibited a magnitude reduction in both the
horizontal and vertical directions compared with those in the previous
phase (Figs. 9b–1). On the right of P2 (Figs. 9c–3 to 9c–4), the deck had
the effect of increasing both the horizontal and vertical velocities
compared with those without the deck. The common phenomena during
the water entry process could be obtained at phases (d), (e), and (f), as
presented in Fig. 9. It should be noted that at phase (e), which corre­
sponded to the instant of the P3 peak pressure of the upward force
reaching the maximum value, the wave crest was almost above the
leading edge; this finding is consistent with the DNV-GL standards.
From the above observations, the change in the water kinematics and
loading process during the water entry process can be summarized as
follows (assuming the wave propagates from left to right):
• When the waterfront reaches a certain position under the deck (the
“intersection point”), the pressure sharply increases to a high peak.
The horizontal velocity under the intersection point dramatically
increases and could be up to six times larger than that without the
deck (Figs. 9e–4), whereas the vertical velocity decreases.
• On the right of the intersection point, the horizontal and vertical
velocities increase due to the effect of the deck. This effect disappears
with the increase in the distance from the intersection point.
• On the left of the intersection point, the pressure acting under the
deck mildly decreases. The water particles move horizontally under
the deck, and the velocity magnitudes decrease compared with those
at the previous phase.
The loading process at phases (g) and (h) presented in Fig. 7 was
characterized by a downward wave-in-deck force, which is known as the
water exit process (DNV-GL, 2019). At these phases, the water started to
leave the leading edge of the deck (Fig. 8g and h). The water without the
deck moved obliquely downward under P1 and P2 when the wave crest
passed these locations, whereas the water with the deck simply began to
shift toward a downward direction. During the water exit process, the
deck had the effect of delaying the downward movement of the water
particles, with the water under P3–P5 continuing to move horizontally
with a lower velocity than that without the deck. It should be noted that
at phase (h) of the maximum downward force, the wave crest passed the
center of the deck (Fig. 8h), which was similar to the observation re­
ported in DNV-GL (2019).
To quantitatively investigate the water kinematics under the deck
during the loading process, the linear momentum and kinetic energy
(KE) of the water within the FOV were computed with the velocity maps
obtained via the PIV measurements using the following equations:
∫c ∫L
→
p (t) = ρb →
u (x, z, t) + ρb→
w (x, z, t)dxdz, (4)
s 0
∫c ∫L
1 [ 2 ]
KE(t) = ρb u (x, z, t) + w2 (x, z, t) dxdz, (5)
2
s 0
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 8. PIV images and overlaid velocity vectors at eight predominant phases. (The red dashed line indicates the focused wave water surface without the deck
model.). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

7
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 9. Instantaneous velocity profiles under the pressure sensors at eight predominant phases.

8
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 10. Comparison of (a) linear momentum and (b) kinetic energy with and without the deck.

where → p , KE, and s denote the linear momentum, kinetic energy, and
vertical position of the bottom of the FOV, respectively. Meanwhile, the
first and second terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (4) are the horizontal
momentum, vertical momentum, respectively. The linear momentum
and kinetic energy were non-dimensionalized using the terms ρCbLD and
ρC2 bLD.
Fig. 10 presents a comparison of the linear momentum and kinetic
energy with and without the deck for test condition FW9-A. Following
phase (h) shown in Fig. 7, the PIV measurements could not capture the
entire fluid domain due to the water falling in the gaps between the wall
of the wave flume and the vertical side of the deck; thus, the linear
momentum and the kinetic energy of the water under the deck, calcu­
lated up to this phase. In the water entry process, when the wave
propagated along the deck, the vertical momentum was transferred from
the water to the deck and an upward force was created. As Fig. 10 shows,
from phase (a) to phase (f), the vertical momentum was lower than those
without the deck, whereas both the horizontal momentum, the kinetic
energy increased compared with the case without the deck. The deck’s
effect of increasing the horizontal velocity and decreasing the vertical
velocity was likely the main reason for the change in these quantities
during these phases. Shortly after phase (f), both the horizontal mo­
mentum, the kinetic energy reached their maximum values before they
steadily declined up to phase (h). It should be noted that following phase Fig. 11. Comparison between the wave elevation of the focused wave (Hc =
(f), the waterfront passed P5, and the deck had the effect of decreasing 0.093 m, Tzu = 1.19 s) and that of the regular wave (Hc = 0.093 m, T =
the horizontal velocity magnitude of the water on the left of the inter­ 1.20 s).
section point. Meanwhile, following phase (h), the wave began to leave
the leading edge, and the vertical and horizontal velocities began to regular wave were 0.19, 1.0, and 0.58, respectively. The wave trough
develop, which resulted in the increment across the momentum and following the crest of the focused wave had larger amplitude compared
kinetic energy values. with the trough of the regular wave.
Fig. 12 presents the time series of the non-dimensionalized vertical
forces of the deck with clearances of 0.06 and 0.07 m. Here, it was clear
3.2. Comparison of loading characteristics between focused wave and that the upward forces caused by the regular wave were 1.5 and 1.6
regular wave times larger than those caused by the focused wave with deck clearances
of 0.06 and 0.07 m, respectively. In contrast, the downward forces
Regular wave with only one wave component was used in the wave- generated by the focused wave were 1.3 and 1.13 times larger than the
in-deck experiments as well as numerical simulations in most studies, downward forces generated by the regular wave with deck clearances of
however, focused wave, which was generated by superposition of 0.06 and 0.07 m, respectively.
several wave components, should be more preferable to model the Fig. 13 presents a comparison of the time series of the non-
realistic extreme wave condition. Therefore, it is important to investi­ dimensionalized pressure measured using five pressure sensors for the
gate the differences in the loading characteristics between regular waves regular and focused waves shown in Fig. 11 with a deck clearance of
and focused waves with the same crest height. Fig. 11 shows the time 0.06 m. The shape and duration of the positive pressure in the focused
series of the wave elevation of the focused wave FW4 and a regular wave wave were found to be similar to those in the regular wave. However,
with a 0.093 m crest height and a 1.2 s period (Duong et al., 2019), the the peak pressures in the regular wave were higher than those induced
wave elevation calculated from the Stokes 3rd order wave theory is also by the focused wave. It was evident that in the focused wave condition,
plotted to validate the measured data. Here, the crest front steepness, the peak pressure of P1 occurred sooner than that of the regular wave. It
vertical asymmetry factor, and horizontal asymmetry factor of the

9
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 12. Comparison of the non-dimensionalized vertical wave-in-deck forces induced by the regular wave and the focused wave: (a) c = 0.06 m, (b) c = 0.07 m.

Fig. 13. Comparison of the measured pressures for the regular wave and the focused wave (c = 0.06 m).

should be noted that the water surface of the regular wave that con­
tacted the deck was disturbed due to the interaction of the previous
wave with the deck; the disturbed surface of the regular wave was flatter
than the regular wave surface without the deck. The disturbed surface of
the regular wave would likely lead to a spiky-shaped upward force with
a larger magnitude compared with that of the undisturbed wave (Ken­
don et al., 2010).
Fig. 14 shows the instantaneous velocity profiles of the focused wave
and the regular wave measured from the PIV technique and the theo­
retical profiles of the regular wave calculated from the Stokes 3rd order
wave theory under zero up-crossing point, wave crest, zero down-
crossing point, wave trough. It is clear that the measured velocity pro­
files of the regular wave were in good agreement with the theoretical
profiles obtained from the Stokes 3rd order wave theory. Under the zero
up-crossing point, the water particles of the regular wave moved with
larger vertical velocity than those of the focused wave as shown in
Fig. 14a, this would attribute to the larger upward force and peak
pressures generated by the regular wave in comparison to those caused
by the focused wave. However, under the zero down-crossing point, the
vertical velocity of the focused wave was obviously larger than those of
the regular wave as presented in Fig. 14c. This would be the reason for
the larger downward force induced by the focused wave than that
induced by the regular wave. Additionally, under wave crest and wave
trough, the water particles of the focused wave had larger horizontal
velocities than those of the regular wave as shown in Fig. 14b and d.
Fig. 15 presents the occurrence time and time differences for the
peak pressures measured using the regular and focused waves. In
Fig. 15b, the term tij denotes the time difference for the peak pressures
measured at two consecutive pressure sensors, namely, i and j. In the
focused wave, there were slight changes (0.031–0.037 s) in the time

10
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 14. Comparison of the instantaneous velocity profiles between the regular wave and focused wave. (a) under zero up-crossing point, (b) under wave crest, (c)
under zero down-crossing point, (d) under wave trough.

Fig. 15. (a) The occurrence time and (b) the time differences of the peak pressures measured for the regular and focused waves.

differences among the peak pressures, which are represented by the red
straight line in Fig. 15a. Meanwhile, in terms of the regular wave, the
time differences significantly varied and were shorter than those in the
focused wave. Here, the disturbed water surface of the regular wave
would have led to the variation of the time differences among the
occurrence times of the peak pressures.
3.3. Effect of the deck clearance on the vertical force
Deck clearance is a crucial parameter for the wave-in-deck loading
phenomena. Fig. 16 presents the time series of the non-dimensionalized
vertical forces with varying deck clearances for all the test conditions.
With the location closer to the still-water level, the momentum of the

11
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 16. Non-dimensionalized vertical force time histories with varying deck clearances.

water transferred to the deck tended to be larger, and the wetted length
under the deck also expanded, resulting in an increase in the upward and
downward peak forces. It should be noted that the maximum upward
force phase was largely consistent at 0.3 π , regardless of the deck
clearance; this phase corresponded to the instant of the wave crest
passing the leading edge. It was clear that the magnitude of the
downward force was larger than the magnitude of the upward force in
all cases, indicating the greater risk posed by the downward force to the
structural integrity. Both Murray et al. (1997) and Duong et al. (2019)
demonstrated that for regular waves, the downward peak forces tend to
be less sensitive to the deck clearance compared with the upward forces;
however, in this study, for the focused waves, the deck clearance

Fig. 17. Non-dimensionalized peak forces versus non-dimensionalized deck clearance.

12
T.T. Duong et al. Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146

Fig. 18. Positive and negative impulses versus deck clearance.

Fig. 19. Non-dimensionalized vertical force time histories with different crest heights.

significantly influenced both the upward and downward forces. leaving all the other parameters unchanged. The positive values indicate
Fig. 17 presents the non-dimensionalized peak forces plotted against the upward peak forces, and the negative values present the downward
the non-dimensionalized deck clearance for all wave conditions while forces. The straight lines plotted in Fig. 17 were determined using linear

13
T.T. Duong et al.
Fig. 20. The pressure peaks under the deck for all test conditions.
regression and the corresponding coefficients of determination R2 were
presented to evaluate the relationship between the peak forces and deck
clearance. The terms R2 ( +) and R2 ( − ) denotes the coefficients of
determination for the upward forces and the downward forces, respec­
tively. Here, the R2 values were over 0.939 for all wave conditions,
indicating a negative linear relationship between the vertical peak forces
in both the upward and downward directions and the deck clearance.
The impulse of the vertical force represented by the area under the
force time history was equivalent to the change in the vertical mo­
mentum of the water. Here, the impulse JF was calculated using the
following equation:
∫te
JF = Fz (t)dt, (6)
ts
where ts and te denote the starting and ending time of the acting dura­
tion, respectively. In this study, the impulse was non-dimensionalized
using the term ρw2max bLTzu .
Fig. 18 presents the non-dimensionalized impulse plotted in relation
to the non-dimensionalized deck clearance. Here, the positive and
14
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
negative values represent the impulses during the water entry and water
exit processes, respectively. The terms R2 ( +) and R2 ( − ) denotes the
coefficients of determination obtained from linear regression for the
positive and negative impulses, respectively. Similar to the peak forces,
the impulse increased linearly with the reduction in the deck clearance,
as indicated by the high values of the coefficient of determination
(R2 ≥ 0.928).
3.4. Effect of the wave crest height on the vertical force
Fig. 19 presents a comparison of the time series of the non-
dimensionalized vertical forces with the variation in the crest wave
height. Each subfigure presents the force time series of three focused
waves in the same group in Table 2 interacting with the deck model with
the same deck clearance (e.g., test conditions FW1-A, FW2-A, and FW3-
A). Here, it was clear that the maximum upward force increased with the
increase in crest height. With the smallest deck clearance = 6 cm (sub­
figures in the left column), the non-dimensionalized upward force time
series of the different crest heights significantly coincided, whereas the
difference between these time series became larger when the deck
clearance increased (subfigures in the right column). It was also
T.T. Duong et al.
Fig. 21. The rise time of the peak pressure along the underside of the deck model.
observed that the time series of the non-dimensionalized downward
forces were essentially identical, regardless of the crest height. It in­
dicates an almost linear relationship between the square of the
maximum vertical particle velocity of the incident wave and the
downward force. In addition, the effect of crest height on the non-
dimensionalized force was found to be less significant than the effect
of deck clearance, as presented in Fig. 16.
3.5. Effect of the deck clearance on the pressure measurements along the
deck
In addition to the vertical wave force, investigating the distribution
of pressure under the deck is important for the examination of the local
structural damage and protection of the deck against extreme wave
conditions. Fig. 20 presents the non-dimensionalized peak pressures
15
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
under the deck model for different deck clearances. Overall, it was clear
that the peak pressure was sensitive to the deck clearance, with a
reduction in deck clearance resulting in an increase in the peak pressures
measured at all the pressure sensor points. For the same condition, the
peak pressures in the region near the leading edge were generally larger
than those in the region near the trailing edge.
Fig. 21 presents the rise time of the peak pressure measured at the
pressure sensors. The rise time was calculated according to the DNV-GL
(2016) recommendations, that is, twice the time difference between half
the peak value and the peak value. The rise time measured at P1 and P2
slightly varied in the range of 0.005–0.007 s for all test conditions,
whereas the rise time at the other pressure sensors significantly varied.
The rise time at P5 was the largest, up to four times larger than that
measured at P1 as shown in Fig. 21i. The overall trend was that an in­
crease in the distance from the leading edge resulted in an increase in the
T.T. Duong et al.
Fig. 22. Impulsiveness of the measured local pressures.
rise time.
As noted in Subsection 3.1, the pressure time series was character­
ized by a rise of considerable magnitude within a very short duration. To
examine the severity of the pressure rise, the impulsiveness of each
pressure was calculated based on the method proposed by Lee et al.
(2020b), as described using Eq. (7),
dP
IP = 0.5dtρw2 , (7)
max
Tzu
where the term dP/dt was calculated based on the triangular shape of
peak pressure modeling (DNV-GL, 2016).
Fig. 22 presents the impulsiveness values in relation to the pressure
sensor locations for all test conditions. The impulsiveness of the pres­
sures measured in the region near the leading edge (e.g., P1, P2) was
found to be larger than those near the trailing edge (e.g., P4, P5). This
could have been a result of the higher peak and shorter rise time of the
pressures measured near the leading edge compared with those near the
16
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
trailing edge, as presented in Figs. 20 and 21.
The pressure impulse defined as the area under the pressure time
series presents a consistent quantity and is commonly used for structural
damage assessment. In this study, the pressure impulse was calculated
over the duration of the positive pressure according to Eq. (8):
∫tpe
JP (x) = P(x, t)dt, (8)
tps
where tps and tpe denote the starting and ending time of the positive
pressure, respectively. In this study, the pressure impulse was non-
dimensionalized using the term ρw2max Tzu .
Fig. 23 presents the non-dimensionalized pressure impulse plotted in
relation to the non-dimensionalized deck clearance for all pressure
measurements. Here, linear regression was adopted to plot the straight
lines and the corresponding R2 values in Fig. 23. Despite the relatively
smaller R2 values of 0.849 and 0.860 for the pressure impulse measured
T.T. Duong et al.
Fig. 23. Pressure impulses versus deck clearance.
at P5 under wave conditions FW1 and FW9, respectively, the R2 values
obtained using linear regression of the pressure impulses at the other
pressure sensors were all above 0.902, indicating a linear relationship
between the pressure impulse and deck clearance. Generally, the pres­
sure impulse underwent a reduction when the distance from the leading
edge was increased. Both the pressure impulse and impulsiveness indi­
cated the higher tendency of the region near the leading edge of the deck
to experience greater local structural damage.
4. Conclusions
This paper presented the experimental results for the wave-in-deck
loading under a fixed horizontal deck subjected to focused waves.
Through a series of 2D experiments using the PIV technique, the vertical
forces, pressure distributions along the underside of the deck, and water
particle velocity maps under the deck were measured to better under­
stand the loading phenomena. The changes in the water kinematics due
to the presence of the deck were investigated in relation to the force and
pressure measurements. Furthermore, the experiments were conducted
17
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
using different wave parameters and deck clearances to examine their
influence on the loading characteristics.
From the comparison of the water velocity profiles with and without
the deck at different predominant phases in the loading process, the
change in the water kinematics and loading characteristics can be
summarized as follows (assuming the wave propagated from left to
right):
• During the water entry process, when the waterfront reached a
certain position under the deck, the pressure measured at this point
sharply increased to a high peak within a short duration. The hori­
zontal velocity under the intersection point significantly increased
compared with those without the deck, whereas the vertical velocity
decreased.
• On the right of the intersection point, the horizontal and vertical
velocities increased. This effect disappeared with the increase in the
distance from the intersection point.
• On the left of the intersection point, the pressure acting under the
deck slowly decreased. The water particle velocity became the
T.T. Duong et al.
horizontal velocity with smaller magnitudes than those at the pre­
vious phase.
• During the water exit process, an effect of delaying the downward
movement of water particles was observed, which was not observed
in the case without the deck.
The vertical force reached the maximum upward and downward at
the phases of the wave crest passing the leading edge and the center of
the deck, respectively.
A comparison of the loading characteristics and wave surfaces in the
regular and focused waves was performed. Here, it was clear that the
downward peak force in the focused wave exceeded that in the regular
wave, whereas the upward peak force and the peak pressure in the
regular wave were higher than those in the focused wave. This would be
attributed to the larger vertical particle velocity under the zero up-
crossing and the smaller vertical particle velocity under the zero
down-crossing of the regular wave in comparison to those of the focused
wave.
The peaks and impulse of the vertical force indicated a negative
linear relationship with the deck clearance, which was indicated by the
high value of the coefficient of determination (R2 ≥ 0.9). It was also
demonstrated that the upward vertical force increased with the increase
in crest height. However, the crest height had a comparatively less sig­
nificant effect on the vertical force than the deck clearance.
The impulsiveness values of the measured local pressures were
calculated to evaluate the characteristics of the pressure rise, and the
pressure impulse, which is widely used in structural damage assess­
ments, was estimated. Here, it was clear that the peak, impulsiveness,
and pressure impulse of the pressures measured at the region near the
leading edge were generally higher than those measured near the
trailing edge. This indicates that the region near the leading edge could
experience greater local structural damage. A negative linear relation­
ship was also observed between the pressure impulse measured at the
same pressure sensor and the deck clearance under all wave conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tien Trung Duong: Methodology, Investigation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft. Kwang Hyo Jung: Conceptualization, Meth­
odology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Gang Nam Lee: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review & edit­
ing. Hyun Jung Park: Writing – review & editing. Jaeyong Lee: Writing
– review & editing, Supervision. Sung Bu Suh: Writing – review &
editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the R&D Platform Establishment of Eco-
Friendly Hydrogen Propulsion Ship Program (No. 20006636) and the
Global Advanced Engineer Education Program for Future Ocean Struc­
tures (P0012646) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy
(MOTIE, Korea).
18
Ocean Engineering 242 (2021) 110146
References
Abdel Raheem, S.E., 2014. Nonlinear behavior of steel fixed offshore platform under
environmental loads. Ships Offshore Struct. 11 (1), 1–15.
Abdussamie, N., Thomas, G., Amin, W., Ojeda, R., 2014. Wave-in-deck forces on fixed
horizontal decks of offshore platforms. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng. ASME, San Francisco, California.
Baarholm, R., Faltinsen, O.M., 2004. Wave impact underneath horizontal decks. J. Mar.
Sci. Technol. 9, 1–13.
Baarholm, R., 2009. Experimental and theoretical study of three-dimensional effects on
vertical wave-in-deck forces. In: Proceedings of the ASME 28th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng. ASME, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Broughton, P., Horn, E., 1987. Ekofisk platform 2/4C: re-analysis due to subsidence.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1 (82), 949–979.
Canny, J., 1986. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal.
Mach. Intell. 8 (6), 679–698.
Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Bahuguni, A., Gullman-Strand, J., Lv, X., Lou, J., Ren, W., 2018.
Directional wave-in-deck loading on offshore structures with porous and plated
decks with supporting I-beams. Coast. Eng. 137, 79–91.
Cuomo, G., Tirindelli, M., Allsop, W., 2007. Wave-in-deck loads on exposed jetties. Coast.
Eng. 54 (9), 657–679.
Ding, Z., Ren, B., Wang, Y., Ren, X., 2008. Experimental study of unidirectional irregular
wave slamming on the three-dimensional structure in the splash zone. Ocean. Eng.
35 (16), 1637–1646.
DNV-GL, 2019. Recommended Practice DNVGL-RP-C205: Environmental Conditions and
Environmental Loads. DNV-GL, Norway.
DNV-GL, 2016. Sloshing analysis of LNG membrane tanks. Det Norske veritas AS.
Classification Notes No 30 (9).
Duong, T.T., Jung, K.H., Lee, G.N., Kim, D.S., Suh, S.B., Kim, M.S., 2019. Experimental
study on wave impact under deck due to regular waves. J. Coast Res. 91 (sp1),
81–85.
Energo, 2010. Assessment of Damage and Failure Mechanisms for Offshore Structures
and Pipelines in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. Report to MMS by Energo Engineering,
Inc.. TAR No. 642.
Fang, Q., Liu, J., Hong, R., Guo, A., Li, H., 2021. Experimental investigation of focused
wave action on coastal bridges with box girder. Coast. Eng. 165, 103857.
Isaacson, M., Bhat, S., 1996. Wave forces on a horizontal plate. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng.
6, 19–26.
Iwanowski, B., Grigorian, H., Scherf, I., 2002. Subsidence of the Ekofisk platforms: wave
in deck impact study — various wave models and computational methods. In:
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Eng.
ASME, Oslo, Norway.
Kaplan, P., 1992. Wave impact forces on offshore structures: reexamination and new
interpretations. In: Proceedings of the 24th Offshore Technology Conference.
Houston, Texas, pp. 79–86 paper 6814.
Kendon, T.E., Pakozdi, C., Baarholm, R.J., Berthelsen, P.A., Stansberg, C.-T., Enger, S.,
2010. Wave-in-deck impact: comparing CFD, simple methods, and model tests. In:
Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering. ASME, Shanghai, China.
Lee, G.N., Duong, T.T., Jung, K.H., Suh, S.B., Lee, J.Y., 2020a. Study on PIV-based
pressure estimation method of wave loading under a fixed deck. J. Ocean Eng.
Technol. 34 (6), 419–427.
Lee, G.N., Jung, K.H., Malenica, S., Chung, Y.S., Suh, S.B., Kim, M.S., Choi, Y.H., 2020b.
Experimental study on flow kinematics and pressure distribution of green water on a
rectangular structure. Ocean. Eng. 195 (1).
Ma, L., Swan, C., 2020. The effective prediction of wave-in-deck loads. J. Fluid Struct. 95,
102987.
Myrhaug, D., Kjeldsen, S.P., 1986. Steepness and asymmetry of extreme waves and the
highest waves in deep water. Ocean. Eng. 13 (6), 549–568.
Murray, J.J., Winsor, F.N., Kaplan, P., 1997. Impact forces on a jacket deck in regular
waves and irregular wave groups. In: Proceedings of the 24th Offshore Technology
Conference. Houston, Texas, pp. 45–54 paper 8360.
Qin, H., Tang, W., Xue, H., Hu, Z., 2017. Numerical study of nonlinear freak wave impact
underneath a fixed horizontal deck in 2-D space. Appl. Ocean Res. 64, 155–168.
Santo, H., Taylor, P.H., Dai, S.S., Day, A.H., Chan, E.S., 2020. Wave-in-deck experiments
with focused waves into a solid deck. J. Fluid Struct. 98, 103139.
Sivagamasundari, V., Sannasiraj, S.A., 2020. Experimental study of vertical wave-in-deck
force and pressure on a thin plate due to regular and focused waves. J. Ocean Eng.
Mar. Energy 6, 199–210.
Theunissen, R., Scarano, F., Riethmuller, M.L., 2007. An adaptive sampling and
windowing interrogation method in PIV. Meas. Sci. Technol. 18 (1), 275–287.
Westerweel, J., 1994. Efficient detection of spurious vectors in particle image
velocimetry data. Exp. Fluid 16 (3–4), 236–247.
Wu, Y.L., Stewart, G., Chen, Y., Gullman-Strand, J., Lv, X., Kumar, P., 2016. A CFD
application of NewWave theory to wave-in-deck simulation. Int. J. Comput. Methods
13 (2), 1640014.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
[6] Et disent que on tenoit à grant sens d’un signeur,
quant il a pluiseurs guerres en un temps, et il en poet
l’une atriewer, l’autre apaisier et le tierce guerroiier.
Tant li moustrèrent de raisons qu’il s’i acorda et pria
5 au prelat dessus dit qu’il y volsist aler. Li evesques
ne li volt mies escondire, ains se mist au chemin et
en ala celle part, mais il perdi sa voie et revint en arrière
sans riens faire. Si raporta au roy d’Engleterre
que li rois David d’Escoce n’avoit point de conseil
10 de donner triewes ne souffrance, ne de faire pais ne
acord, sans le gret et le consent dou roy Phelippe de
France. De ce raport eut li rois englès plus grant
despit que devant; si dist tout hault que ce seroit
amendet temprement, et qu’i[l] atourroit telement le
15 royaume d’Escoce que jamais ne seroit recouvret. Si
manda par tout son royaume que cescuns fust à
Evruich à le feste de Paskes, apparilliés d’aler là où
il les vorroit mener, excepté chiaus qui s’en devoient
aler en Bretagne avoecques monsigneur Robert d’Artois
20 et la contesse de Montfort.

§ 184. Li jours de le Paske et li termes vint. Li

rois Edowars tint une grant court à Evruic. Tout li
prince et li signeur et li chevalier d’Engleterre, qui
pour le temps y estoient, y furent et ossi grant fuison
25 de le communauté dou pays. Et furent là par l’espasse
de trois sepmainnes sans chevaucier plus
avant, car bonnes gens s’ensonniièrent entre le roy
englès et le roy d’Escoce, par quoi il n’i ot adonc
point de guerre. Et fu une triewe prise, jurée et
30 acordée à tenir deux ans, et le fisent li Escot contremer
deu roy de France. Par ensi se deffist ceste
[7] grosse chevaucie, et departi li rois englès ses gens et
leur donna congiet de raler en leurs hostelz. Et il
meismes s’en revint à Windesore et envoia adonc
monsigneur Thumas de Hollandes et monsigneur
 5 Jehan de Hartecelle à Bayone à tout deux cens armeures
de fer et quatre cens arciers, pour garder les
frontières contre les François.
Or vous parlerons de l’armée monsigneur Robert
d’Artois [et de sa compaignie[251]], et comment il arrivèrent
10 en Bretagne. En ce temps escheirent les Paskes
si hault que, environ closes Paskes, on eut l’entrée
dou mois de may. De quoi, en le moiiené de ce mois,
la triewe de monsigneur Charles de Blois et de la contesse
de Montfort devoit fallir. Si estoit bien messires
15 Charles de Blois enfourmés dou pourcach que la contesse
de Montfort avoit fait en Engleterre et de l’ayde
et confort que li rois li devoit faire. Dont messires
Loeis d’Espagne, messires Charles Grimaus, messires
Othon Doriie estoient establi sus le mer à l’encontre
20 de Grenesie, à trois mille Geneuois et mille hommes
d’armes en trente deus gros vaissiaulz espagnolz tous
armés et tous fretés, et waucroient sus le mer attendans
leur revenue. D’autre part, messires Gautiers
de Mauni et li signeur de Bretagne et d’Engleterre,
25 qui dedens Hembon se tenoient, estoient durement
esmervilliet de leur contesse de ce que elle demoroit
tant, et si n’en ooient nulles certainnes nouvelles.
Nompourquant moult bien supposoient que elle ne
sejournoit mies trop bien à se grant aise, et ne se
30 doubtoient de aultre cose que elle n’euist aucun dur
[8] encontre sus mer de ses ennemis; se n’en savoient
que penser.

§ 185. Ensi que messires Robers d’Artois, li

contes de Pennebruc, li contes de Salebrin et li
5 aultre signeur et chevalier d’Engleterre et leurs gens,
avoech la contesse de Montfort, nagoient par mer au
lès devers Bretagne et avoient vent à souhet, au departement
de l’isle de Grenesie, à l’eure de relevée,
il perchurent le grosse navie des Geneuois dont
10 messires Loeis d’Espagne estoit chiés. Dont disent
leur maronnier: «Signeur, armés vous et ordenés,
car veci Geneuois et Espagnolz qui viennent et qui
vous approcent.» Lors sonnèrent li Englès leurs
trompètes et misent leurs pennons et leurs estramières
15 armoiies de leurs armes et de Saint Jorge.
Et s’ordonnèrent bien et sagement et s’encloirent de
leurs arciers; et puis nagièrent à plain voile, ensi
que li tamps l’aportoit. Et pooient estre environ quarante
six vaissiaus, que grans que petis. Mais [nuls[252]]
20 si grans ne si fors de trop n’en y avoit que messires
Loeis d’Espagne en avoit neuf; et entre ces neuf
avoit trois galées qui se remoustroient dessus tous les
aultres. Et en cescune de ces trois galées qui se
remoustroient
dessus tous les aultres estoient li troi
25 corps des signeurs, messires Loeis, messires Charles
et messires Othes.
Si s’approcièrent li vaissiel, et commencièrent Geneuois
à traire de leurs arbalestres à grant randon,
et li arcier d’Engleterre ossi sus eulz. Là eut grant
[9] tret des uns as aultres, et qui longement dura, et
maint homme navret et bleciet. Et quant li signeur,
li baron, li chevalier et li escuier s’approcièrent, et
qu’il peurent des lances et des espées venir ensamble,
5 adonc y eut dure bataille et crueuse, et trop bien s’i
portèrent et esprouvèrent li un et li aultre. Là estoit
messires Robers d’Artois qui y fu très bons chevaliers,
et la contesse de Montfort meismement armée, qui
bien valoit un homme, car elle avoit coer de lyon, et
10 tenoit un glave moult roide et bien trençant, et trop
bien s’en combatoit et de grant corage.
Là estoit messires Loeis d’Espagne en une galée,
comme bons chevaliers, qui moult vaillamment et
de grant volenté requeroit ses ennemis et se combatoit
15 as Englès, car moult les desiroit à desconfire,
 pour li contrevengier dou damage qu’il avoit eu et
receu ceste propre anée, assés priès de là, ou camp de
Camperli. Et y fist li dis messires Loeis grant fuison
de belles apertises d’armes. Et jettoient li Espagnol
20 et li Geneuois, qui estoient en ces gros vaissiaus, d’amont
gros barriaus [de fer[253]], et archigaies dont il
travilloient moult les Englès. Là eurent li baron et
li chevalier d’Engleterre moult à faire et un dur rencontre,
et trouvèrent l’armée des Espagnols et des
25 Geneuois moult forte et gens de grant volenté.
Si commença ceste bataille moult tart et environ
vespres, et les departi li nuis, car il fist moult obscur
sus le vesprée; et se couvri li airs moult espès, si
ques à painnes pooient il recognoistre l’un l’autre.
30 Si se retraisent cescuns et se misent à l’ancre, et
[10] entendirent [à] appareillier les bleciés et les navrés et
remettre à point; mais point ne se desarmèrent, car
il cuidièrent de rechief avoir le bataille.
 § 186. Un petit devant mienuit s’esleva uns vens,
5 uns orages et uns tempestes si très grans et si très
horribles que il sambloit proprement que li mondes
deuist finer. Et n’i avoit si hardi ne si oultrageus, de
l’une part ne de l’autre, qui ne volsist estre bien à
terre, car ces barges et ces naves hurtoient les unes
10 as aultres telement que ce sambloit proprement que
elles deuissent ouvrir et fendre. Si demandèrent
conseil li signeur d’Engleterre à leurs maronniers,
quel cose leur estoit bon à faire. Il respondirent que
d’yaus traire [à terre[254]] au plus tost qu’il poroient,§
15 car la fortune estoit si grande sus mer que, se li vens
les y boutoit, il seroient tout en peril d’estre noiiet.
Dont entendirent il generalment à traire les aultres
amont, et misent les singles ensi qu’à demi-quartier;
et tantost eslongièrent il le place où il avoient jeu à
20 l’ancre.
D’autre part, li Espagnol et li Geneuois n’estoient
mies bien assegur de leurs vies; ançois se desancrèrent
ensi que li Englès, mais il prisent le parfont,
car il avoient plus grans vaissiaus et plus fors que li
25 Englès n’euissent; si pooient mieulz souffrir et attendre
[le hustin et[255]] le fortune de le mer que li Englès
ne fesissent. Et ossi, se leur gros vaissiel euissent froté
à terre, il euissent esté en peril d’estre brisiet et
[11] romput. Pour tant, par grant sens et avis, il se boutèrent
avant ou parfont. Mès, à leur departement,
il trouvèrent quatre nefs englesces cargies de pourveances
et de chevaus, qui s’estoient tenu en sus de
5 le bataille. Si eurent bien conscience, [quel tamps
ne[256]] quel tempès qu’il fesist, de prendre ces quatre
vaissiaus et d’atachier as leurs et emmener après
yaus. Et saciés que li vens et li fortune qui estoit si
grande les bouta, avant qu’il fust jours, plus de cent
10 liewes en sus dou lieu où il s’estoient combatu. Et
 les nefs monsigneur Robert d’Artois prisent terre à
un petit port assés priès de le cité de Vennes, dont
il furent tout resjoy, quant il se trouvèrent à terre.

§ 187. Ensi et par ceste grant fortune se desrompi

15 la bataille sus mer de monsigneur Robert d’Artois et
de se route à l’encontre de monsigneur Loeis d’Espagne
et de ses gens. Si n’en scet on à qui bonnement
donner l’onneur, car il se partirent tout maugret
yaus et par le diverseté dou temps. Toutes voies,
20 li Englès prisent terre assés priès de Vennes, et issirent
hors des vaissiaus et misent leurs chevaus sus
le sabelon et toutes leurs armeures et leurs pourveances;
et puis eurent conseil et avis dou sourplus,
comment il se maintenroient. Si ordonnèrent à
25 traire leur navie devers Hembon, et yaus aler devant
Vennes, car assés estoient gens pour le assegier; si
s’esmurent et chevaucièrent tout ordeneement celle
part, et n’avoient mies grant fuison à aler, quant il
s’i trouvèrent.
[12] Adonc estoient dedens le cité de Vennes, [pour
monsigneur Charlon de Blois[257]] messires Hervis de
Lyon et messires Oliviers de Cliçon, doi vaillant
chevalier durement, comme chapitainne; et ossi y
5 estoient li sires de Tournemine et li sires de Lohiac.
Quant cil chevalier de Bretagne veirent venus les
Englès, et qu’il s’ordonnoient pour yaus assegier,
si n’en furent mies trop effraet, mès entendirent au
chastiel premierement et puis as garites et as portes.
10 Et misent à çascune porte un chevalier et dix hommes
d’armes et vingt [archiers parmi les[258]] arbalestriers,
et s’aprestèrent bien pour tenir et garder le
cité contre tous venans.
Or, vous parlerons de monsigneur Loeis d’Espagne
15 et de se route.
 § 188. Saciés que, quant cilz grans tourmens et
ceste fortune eurent pris et eslevet et boutet en mer
le dessus dit monsigneur Loeis, il furent toute ceste
nuit et l’endemain tant c’à nonne moult tourmenté
20 et en grant aventure de leurs vies. Et perdirent par
le tourment deux de leurs vaissiaus et les gens qui
ens estoient. Quant ce vint au tierc jour environ
prime, li temps cessa, li mers s’aquoisa. Si demandèrent
li chevalier as maronniers de quel par il
25 estoient plus priès de terre, et il respondirent: «dou
royaume de Navare.» Lors furent li patron moult
esmervilliet, et disent que li vens les avoit eslongiés
ensus de Bretagne plus de six vingt liewes. Si se misent
[13] là à l’ancre et attendirent le marée: si ques,
quant li flos de le mer revint, il eurent assés bon
vent pour retourner vers le Rocelle, et costiièrent
Bay[o]ne, mais point ne l’approcièrent. Et trouvèrent
5 quatre nefs de Bayonois qui venoient de Flandres;
si les assallirent et prisent tantos, et misent à
bort tous chiaus qui dedens estoient. Et puis nagièrent
vers le Rocelle, et fisent tant en briefs jours
qu’il arrivèrent à Garlande, et là se misent il à terre.
10 Si entendirent des nouvelles que messires Robers
d’Artois et ses gens estoient à siège devant le cité de
Vennes. Si envoiièrent devers monsigneur Charlon
de Blois qui se tenoit à Rennes, à savoir quel cose il
voloit qu’il fesissent. Or lairons nous un petit à parler
15 François, et parlerons de chiaus qui estoient au siège
devant Vennes.

§ 189. Messires Robers d’Artois, si com vous poés

oïr, avoit assegiet le citet de Vennes à mille hommes
d’armes, et trois mille arciers, et couroit tout le pays
20 environ et l’ardoit, exilloit et destruisoit tout jusques
à Dinant [en Bretaigne[259]] et jusques à le Roce Periot
et jusques à Ghoy le Forest. Et n’osoit nulz demorer
 sus le plat pays, s’il ne voloit le sien mettre en aventure,
tout jusques au Souseniot et le Roce Bernart.
25 Le siège durant devant Vennes, il y eut as bailles
de le ville tamainte escarmuce et maint assaut et
tamaint grant fait d’armes fait. Li chevalier qui dedens
estoient, li sires de Cliçon et messires Hervis de
Lyon et leur compagnon s’i portoient vaillamment,
[14] et moult y acqueroient grant grasce, car bien estoient
songneus de deffendre et garder le cité de leurs ennemis.
Et toutdis se tenoit la contesse de Montfort
au siège de Vennes avoech monsigneur Robert d’Artois.
5 Ossi messires Gautiers de Mauni, qui s’estoit
tenus en Hembon un grant temps, recarga le ditte
ville et le chastiel à monsigneur [Guillaume] de Quadudal
et as deux frères de Pennefort, puis prist
avoech lui monsigneur Yvon de Tigri et cent hommes
10 d’armes et deux cens arciers. Et vinrent en l’ost devant
Vennes, et leur fisent messires Robers d’Artois
et li chevalier d’Engleterre grant feste.
Assés tost apriès que messires Gautiers de Mauni
fu là venus, se fist uns assaus devant Vennes moult
15 grans et moult fors. Et assallirent la cité, cil qui assegiet
l’avoient, en trois lieus et tout à une fois. Et trop
donnèrent à faire à chiaus de dedens, car li archier
d’Engleterre traioient si ouniement et si espessement
c’à painnes s’osoient cil qui deffendoient amoustrer
20 as garittes. Et dura cilz assaulz un jour tout entier.
Si y eut pluiseurs bleciés d’un lès et de l’autre. Quant
ce vint sus le soir, li Englès se retraisent à leurs
logeis, et cil de Vennes as hostelz, tous lassés et moult
travilliet; si se desarmèrent. Mais chil de l’host ne
25 fisent mies ensi; ançois se tinrent en leurs armeures
et ostèrent tant seulement leurs bacinès, et burent
un cop cescuns et se rafreschirent.
Or avint que là presentement et tantost, par l’avis
 de monsigneur Robert d’Artois, qui fu uns grans et
30 sages guerriières, ilz s’ordonnèrent de rechief en
trois batailles, et envoiièrent les deux as portes là où
il faisoit le plus fort assallir, et la tierce fisent tenir
[15] toute quoie couvertement. Et ordonnèrent que, si
tretost comme li aultre aroient assalli une longe espasse,
et que cil de Vennes entenderoient à yaus
deffendre, il se trairoient avant sus ce plus foible lès,
5 et seroient tout pourveu d’eschelles cordées à grawès
de fier, pour jetter sus les dis murs et atachier as garittes,
et assaieroient se par ceste voie il le poroient
jamais conquerre. Tout ensi comme li dis messires
Robers l’ordonna et avisa, il le fisent. Et s’en vint li
10 dis messires Robers en le première bataille assallir et
escarmucier à le baille de le porte, et li contes de
Salebrin ensi à l’autre. Et pour ce qu’il faisoit tart, et
afin ossi que cil de dedens en fuissent plus esbahi, il
alumèrent grans feus, si ques li claretés en respondoit
15 dedens le cité de Vennes. Dont il avint que li
homme de le ville et cil dou chastiel cuidièrent
soubdainnement que leurs maisons ardissent; si criièrent:
«Trahi! Trahi! Armés vous, armés vous!» Jà estoient
li pluiseur retret et couchiet pour yaus reposer, car
20 moult avoient eu grant traveil le jour devant. Si se
levèrent soudainnement et s’en vinrent cescuns qui
mieulz mieulz, sans arroi et sans ordenance, et sans
parler à leurs chapitainnes, celle part où li feus estoit.
Et ossi li signeur, qui en leurs hostelz estoient,
25 s’armoient.
Endementrues que ensi il estoient entouelliet et
empeeciet, li contes de Kenfort, messires Gautiers
de Mauni et leurs routes, qui estoient ordonné pour
l’eschellement, entendirent à faire leur emprise. Et
30 vinrent de ce costé où nulz n’entendoit ne gardoit,
et drecièrent leurs eschelles, et montèrent amont,
les targes sus lors testes, et entrèrent par les dis murs
[16] tout paisievlement en le cité. Ne onques ne s’en
donnèrent garde li François et li Breton qui ens estoient;
si veirent leurs ennemis sus le rue et yaus
assallir devant et derrière. Dont n’i eut si hardit ne
5 si aviset qui ne fust tous esbahis, et tournèrent en
fuites cescuns pour lui sauver. Et cuidièrent encores
de premiers que li meschiés fust plus grans qu’il
n’estoit. Car se il se fuissent retourné et deffendu
de bonne volenté, il euissent bien mis hors les Englès
10 qui entret estoient dedens. Et pour ce que riens
n’en fu fait, perdirent il meschamment leur ville. Et
n’eurent mies li chevalier chapitainne loisir de retraire
ou chastiel, mès montèrent tantost à cheval et
partirent par une posterne et prisent les camps pour
15 yaus sauver, et furent tout cil ewireus qui issir
porent. Toutes fois, li sires de Cliçon, messires Hervis
de Lyon, li sires de Tournemine et li sires de
Lohiac se sauvèrent et une partie de leurs gens. Et
tout cil qui furent trouvet et attaint des Englès furent
20 mort ou pris. Et fu la cité de Vennes toute courue
et robée. Et y entrèrent ens toutes manières de gens,
et meismement la contesse de Montfort dalès monsigneur
Robert d’Artois qui en eut grant joie.

§ 190. Ensi que je vous compte, fu la cité de

25 Vennes à ce temps prise par l’emprise de monsigneur
Robert d’Artois, dont tous li pays d’environ
fu durement esmervilliés. Et en murmurèrent grandement
sus le partie des chevaliers qui dedens estoient
au jour que elle fu prise, comment que je
30 cuide bien que ce fust à grant tort, car il y perdirent
plus que tout li aultre. Et de l’anoi qu’il en eurent,
[17] il le demonstrèrent assés tost apriès, si com vous
orés avant en l’ystore.
Au cinquième jour que la cité de Vennes eut esté
prise, s’en retourna la contesse de Montfort dedens
 5 Hembon, et messires Gautiers de Mauni avoech li, et
messires Yves de Tigri et pluiseur aultre chevalier
d’Engleterre et de Bretagne, pour le doubtance des
rencontres.
Et se partirent encores de monsigneur Robert
10 d’Artois li contes de Sallebrin, li contes de Pennebruch,
li contes de Sufforch et li contes de Cornuaille,
à bien mille hommes d’armes et trois mille arciers,
et s’en vinrent assegier le cité de Rennes. Si s’en
estoient parti, quatre jours devant, messires Charles
15 de Blois et ma dame sa femme et venu à Nante;
mais il avoient laissiet en le cité de Rennes grant
garnison, chevaliers et escuiers a plenté.
Et tout dis se tenoit messires Loeis d’Espagne sus
le mer à tout ses Espagnols et ses Geneuois. Et gardoit
20 si près et si songneusement les frontières d’Engleterre
que nulz ne pooit aler ne venir d’Engleterre
en Bretagne qu’il ne fust en grant peril. Et fist celle
saison as Englès moult de contraires et de damages.

§ 191. Pour le prise et le perte de le cité de Vennes

25 fu li pays durement esmeus et courouciés, car bien
cuidoient que li dessus dit signeur et chapitainne,
qui dedens estoient quant elle fu prise, le deuissent
deffendre et garder un [grant[260]] temps contre tout
le monde, car elle estoit forte assés et bien pourveue
[18] de toute artillerie et d’autres pourveances et bien
garnie de gens d’armes. Si en estoient pour le mesavenue
tout honteus li sires de Cliçon et messires
Hervis de Lyon, car ossi li envieus[261] en parloit
5 villainnement sus leur partie. De quoi li doi seigneur
ne vorrent mies plenté sejourner, ne yaus endormir
en le renommée des mesdisans; ains cueillièrent
grant fuison de bons compagnons, chevaliers et escuiers
de Bretagne, et priièrent à ces chapitainnes
 10 des forterèces qu’il vosissent estre à ce jour, que ordonné
et nommé entre yaus avoient, sus les camps, à
tel quantité de gens qu’il poroient. Tout y obeirent
de grant volenté, et s’esmurent telement toutes manières
de gens de Bretagne qu’il furent sus un jour
15 par devant le cité de Vennes plus de douze mille
hommes, que frans, que villains, et tous armés. Et là
vint bien estoffeement messires Robers de Biaumanoir,
mareschaus de Bretagne. Et assegièrent le cité
de Vennes de tous costés, et puis le commencièrent
20 fortement à assallir.

§ 192. Quant messires Robers d’Artois se vei assegiés

dedens Vennes, si ne fu mies trop esbahis de
lui tenir vassaument et de deffendre le cité. Li Breton,
qui devant estoient comme tout foursenet de
25 chou, che leur sambloit, que perdu l’avoient si simplement,
s’aventuroient à l’assallir durement et corageusement,
et se hastoient d’yaus aventurer, par quoi
cil qui se tenoient devant Rennes et cil qui estoient
ossi dedens Hembon ne leur venissent pour yaus
[19] brisier leur emprise. Dont il avint que li Breton qui
là seoient fisent et livrèrent à le ditte cité un assaut
si dur et si bien ordonné, et si corageusement s’i
esprouvèrent li assallant, chevalier et escuier, et
5 meismement li bon homme dou pays, et tant donnèrent
à faire à chiaus de dedens, qu’il conquisent les bailles
dou bourch et puis les portes de le cité. Et entrèrent
ens par force et par proèce, vosissent ou non li
Englès, et furent mis en cace; et moult en y eut adonc
10 grant fuison de mors et de navrés. Et par especial
messires Robers d’Artois y fu durement navrés; et à
grant mescief fu il sauvés et gardés d’estre pris. Et se
parti par une posterne derrière, et messires Richars
de Stanfort avoecques lui, et cil qui escaper peurent;
15 et chevaucièrent devers Hembon. Et là fu pris et
 fianciés prisons de monsigneur Hervi de Lyon li sires
Despensiers d’Engleterre, filz à monsigneur Huon le
Despensier de jadis, dont cilz livres fait mention ens
ou commencement; mais il fu si dur blechiés à cel
20 assaut qu’il ne vesqui depuis que trois jours.
Ensi eurent li François et reconquisent le ville et
le cité de Vennes, et misent hors tous leurs ennemis
par sens et par proèce. De quoi li signeur d’Engleterre,
qui seoient devant Rennes, furent durement
25 courouciet. Et ossi fu la contesse de Montfort, qui se
tenoit en Hembon; mais amender ne le peut, tant
c’à celle fois. Si demora messires Robers d’Artois un
temps bleciés et navrés, si com vous avés oy. En le
fin, il li fu consilliet et dit, pour le mieulz mediciner
30 et garir, qu’il s’en repairast en Engleterre, car là
trouveroit il surgiiens et medecins à volenté. Si crut
ce conseil, dont il fist folie; car au retourner en
[20] Engleterre il fu durement grevés et appressés de le
marée. Et s’en esmurent telement ses plaies que,
quant il fu venus et aportés à Londres, il ne vesqui
point longuement depuis; ançois moru de ceste maladie:
5 dont ce fu damages, car il estoit courtois chevaliers,
preus et hardis, et dou plus noble sanch dou
monde. Si fu ensepelis à Saint Pol à Londres. Et li
fist li rois englès faire son obsèque ossi solennelment
comme c’euist esté pour son cousin germain le conte
10 Derbi. Et fu li dis messires Robers moult durement
plains dou roy, de ma dame la royne, des signeurs
et des dames d’Engleterre.
Si tretost que messires Robers d’Artois fu trespassés
de ce siècle, et que li rois englès en seut les nouvelles,
15 il en fu si courouciés qu’il jura et dist, oiant
tous chiaus qui oïr le porent, que jamais n’entenderoit
à aultre cose si aroit vengiet le mort de lui, et
iroit meismement en Bretagne, et atourroit tel le pays
que dedens quarante ans apriès il ne seroit point
 20 recouvret. Si fist li rois englès tantost escrire lettres
et mander par tout son royaume, que cescuns, nobles
et non nobles, fust appareilliés pour mouvoir
avoecques lui au chief dou mois. Et fist faire tantos
grant amas de naves et de vaissiaus, et bien pourveir
25 et estofer de ce qu’il apertenoit. Au chief dou mois,
il se mist en mer à grant pourveance de navie et de
gens d’armes, et vint prendre port assés priès de
Vennes, là où messires Robers d’Artois et se compagnie
arrivèrent, quant il vinrent en Bretagne. Si descendirent
30 à terre, et misent par trois jours hors leurs
chevaus et leurs pourveances. Et puis au quatrime
jour, il chevaucièrent par devers Vennes. Et toutdis
[21] se tenoit li sièges dou conte de Salebrin et dou conte
de Pennebruch et des Englès dessus dis, devant
Rennes.

§ 193. Tant esploita li rois englès, depuis qu’il

5 eut pris terre en Bretagne, qu’il vint à toute son
host par devant le cité de Vennes, et le assega de tous
poins. A ce donc estoient dedens messires Oliviers
de Cliçon, messires Hervis de Lyon, li sires de Tournemine,
messires Joffrois de Malatrait et messires
10 Guis de Lohiac. Si pensoient bien cil chevalier et
avoient supposé de lonch temps que li rois englès
venroit moult efforciement en Bretagne, si comme il
fist. Pour quoi il avoient le cité et le chastiel de
Vennes pourveu très grossement de toutes pourveances
15 necessaires, et ossi de bonnes gens d’armes
pour le deffendre. Et bien leur besongnoit, car si
tost que li rois englès fu venus et logiés par devant,
il les fist assallir moult asprement, et venir les arciers
par devant et traire de grant randon à chiaus de le
20 cité très fortement. Et dura cilz assaus bien demi
jour, mais riens n’i fisent fors yaus lasser et travillier,
tant fu la cité bien deffendue. Adonc se retraisent li
 Englès en leurs logeis. Si tost que la contesse de
Montfort sceut la venue dou roy englès, elle fu
25 moult resjoye et se parti de Hembon, acompagnie
de monsigneur Gautier de Mauni et de pluiseurs
aultres chevaliers et escuiers; [et s’en vint devant
Vennes[262]] conjoïr et festiier le roy d’Engleterre et les
[22] barons de l’host. Li rois recueilla la dame moult
liement, et adonc eut entre yaus là pluiseurs parolles
qui toutes ne poeent mies estre escrites. Et quant la
contesse ot là esté devant Vennes avoech le roy ne
5 sçai trois jours ou quatre, elle s’en parti et retourna
en Hembon avoecques ses gens.
Or vous parlerons de monsigneur Charlon de Blois
qui se tenoit dedens le cité de Nantes. Si tost qu’il
sceut que li rois englès estoit arrivés en Bretagne, il
10 le segnefia au roy de France son oncle, et y envoia
devers lui grans messages de Bretagne, pour mieulz
esploitier et pour priier qu’il fust aidiés et confortés
à l’encontre des Englès, car il estoient venu en son
pays à grant poissance. Li rois oy et reçut les messages
15 moult liement, et en respondi courtoisement, et
dist qu’il envoieroit à son neveut si grant confort
que pour bien resister contre ses ennemis, et yaus
bouter hors de Bretagne. Voirement y envoia il depuis
le duch de Normendie son fil à grant poissance,
20 mais ce ne fu mies si tretost. Ançois eurent li Englès
moult adamagiet et destruit le bon pays de Bretagne,
si com vous orés avant en l’ystore.

§ 194. Quant li rois englès, qui seoit devant

Vennes, vit la cité si forte et si bien furnie de gens
25 d’armes, et entendi par ses gens que li pays de là
environ estoit si povres et si gastés qu’il ne savoient
où fourer ne avoir vivres pour yaus ne pour leurs
chevaus, tant estoient il grant nombre, si s’avisa qu’il
en lairoit là une partie pour tenir le siège, et à tout
 30 le remanant de son host il se trairoit devant Rennes,
et veroit ses gens qui là seoient, qu’il n’avoit veus
[23] de grant temps. Si ordonna le conte de Warvich, le
conte d’Arondel, le baron de Stanfort, monsigneur
Gautier de Mauni, monsigneur Yvon de Tigri et les
deux frères de Pennefort, à cinq cens hommes d’armes
5 et mille arciers, à tenir le siège devant Vennes.
Puis s’en parti li rois à tout le remanant de son
host, où bien avoit quinze cens hommes d’armes et
six mille arciers. Et chevauça tout ardant et essillant
le pays d’un lès et d’autre, et fist tant qu’il vint
10 devant Rennes, où il fu moult liement veus et receus
de ses gens qui là seoient et avoient sis un grant
temps. Et quant il ot là esté environ cinq jours, il
entendi que messires Charles de Blois estoit dedens
la cité de Nantes et faisoit là son amas de gens d’armes;
15 si dist qu’il se trairoit celle part.
Et se parti dou siège de Rennes, et y laissa chiaus
que trouvés y avoit; et chevauça tant qu’il parvint à
toute son host devant Nantes: si l’assega si avant
qu’il peut, car toute environner ne le peuist mies,
20 tant est grande et estendue. Si coururent li mareschal
et ses gens environ, et gastèrent et essillièrent durement
le plat pays; et prendoient vivres et pourveances
par tout où il les pooient avoir. Et furent li
rois d’Engleterre et toutes ses gens ordonné sus une
25 montagne au dehors de le cité de Nantes un jour,
dou matin jusques à nonne, par manière de bataille.
Et cuidoient bien li Englès que messires Charles de
Blois et ses gens deuissent issir, mès non fisent.
Quant li Englès veirent ce, si se retraisent à leur
30 logeis; mès li coureur le roy d’Engleterre coururent
adonc jusques as barrières de le cité, et à leur retour
il ardirent les fourbours.
[24] § 195. Ensi se tint li rois d’Engleterre par devant
Nantes. Et messires Charles de Blois estoit dedens,
qui souvent escrisoit et envoioit lettres et messages
et l’estat des Englès, devers le roy de France, son
5 oncle, et le duch de Normendie, son cousin, qui le
devoit conforter, car il en estoit cargiés. Et estoit jà
trais et venus li dus de Normendie en le cité d’Angiers,
et là faisoit son amas de toutes manières de
gens d’armes qui li venoient de tous costés. Entrues
10 que ces assemblées se faisoient, se tenoit li rois d’Engleterre
devant Nantes, et le avoit assegie à l’un des
costés, et y faisoit souvent assallir et escarmucier et
esprouver ses gens. Mès en tous assaus petit y conquist;
ançois y perdi par pluiseurs fois de ses hommes,
15 dont moult li anoia.
Quant il vei et considera que par assaut il n’i pooit
riens faire, et que messires Charles de Blois n’isteroit
point as camps pour lui combatre, si s’avisa qu’il
lairoit là le plus grant partie de ses gens à siège, et se
20 trairoit aultre part tout dis, en gastant et essillant le
pays. Si ordonna le conte de Kenfort, monsigneur
Henri visconte de Byaumont, le signeur de Persi, le
signeur de Ros, le signeur de Montbrai, le signeur de
le Ware, monsigneur Renault de Gobehen et monsigneur
25 Jehan de Lille à là demorer et tenir le siège
à six cens armeures de fier et deux mille arciers; et
puis si chevauça o le demorant de ses gens. Si
pooient estre environ quatre cens lances et deux
mille arciers, tout ardant et essillant le bon pays de
30 Bretagne par devant lui, de l’un lès et d’autre, tant
qu’il vinrent devant le bonne ville de Dignant dont
messires Pières Portebuef estoit chapitainne. Quant
[25] il parfu venus devant Dignant, il mist le siège tout
environ, et le fist fortement assallir. Et cil qui dedens
estoient entendirent ossi à yaus deffendre. Ensi assega
li rois d’Engleterre tout en une saison, et en un
 5 jour, [luy et[263]] ses gens, trois cités en Bretagne et une
bonne ville.

§ 196. Entrues que li rois d’Engleterre aloit et

venoit et chevauçoit le pays de Bretagne, ses gens
qui seoient devant le cité de Vennes y faisoient et
10 livroient tous les jours tamaint assaut, car durement
le convoitoient à gaegnier par fait d’armes, pour
tant que li chevalier qui dedens estoient l’avoient
reconquis sus yaus en celle meisme saison. Dont il
avint un jour, le siège pendant, que, à l’une des
15 portes, uns très grans assaus se fist. Et se traisent de
celle part toutes les bonnes gens d’armes, de l’un
costé et de l’autre. Et là eut tamainte belle apertise
d’armes fait. Car cil dedens Vennes avoient, comme
bon chevalier et hardi, ouvert leur porte et se tenoient
20 à le barrière, pour le cause de ce qu’il
veoient le banière le conte de Warvich et ceste dou
conte d’Arondiel et dou baron de Stanfort et de
monsigneur Gautier de Mauni qui s’abandonnoient,
ce leur sambloit, assés folement. De quoi li sires de
25 Cliçon et messires Hervis de Lyon et li aultre chevalier
plus corageusement s’en aventuroient. Là y eut
fait tant de belles apertises d’armes que merveilles
seroit à recorder. Car li Englès, qui veoient le porte
ouverte, le tenoient en grant despit, et li aucun le
[26] reputoient à vaillance. Là eut lanciet et estechiet d’un
lès et de l’autre moult longement. Finablement, cilz
assaus se porta telement que [de premiers[264]] li Englès
furent reboutet et reculet moult arrière des barrières.
5 Et à ce qu’il reculèrent, li chevalier de Bretagne s’avancièrent
et ouvrirent leur baille, cescuns son glave en
son poing, et laissièrent six chevaliers des leurs pour
garder le baille, avoec grant fuison d’autres gens. Et
puis tout à piet, en lançant et escarmuchant, il
10 poursievirent les chevaliers englès qui tout en reculant
 se combatoient. Là eut très bon puigneis et fort
bouteis de glaves, et mainte belle apertise d’armes
faite. Toutefois, li Englès montepliièrent et fortefiièrent
telement qu’il couvint les Bretons reculer, et
15 non pas si rieuleement qu’il estoient avalet. Là eut
grant luite et dur encauch. Et remontoient li chevalier
de Bretagne, li sires de Cliçon et messires Hervis
de Lyon, à grant malaise. Si y eut maint homme mort
et blecié. Quant cil qui gardoient le barrière veirent
20 leurs gens cacier et reculer, il retraisent leurs bailles
avant, et si mal à point qu’il couvint le signeur de
Cliçon demorer dehors, [et fu pris devant le barrière;
et ossi fu messires Hervis de Lion[265]]. D’autre part, li
Englès qui estoient monté vistement, et tous premiers
25 li barons de Stanfort, furent enclos et se
banière entre les bailles et le porte. Là eut grant
touellement et dur hustin. Et fu pris et retenus li
sires de Stanfort, onques nulz ne l’en peut aidier; et
ossi furent pluiseur des siens qui estoient dalès lui:
[27] [Oncques[266]] nulz n’en escapa qu’il ne fuissent ou mort
ou pris. Si se departi ceste estourmie atant, et se
retraisent li Englès à leurs logeis, et li [Breton[267]] à
leurs hostelz par dedens le cité de Vennes.

5 § 197. Par tel manière que vous avés oy compter

furent pris li chevalier dessus nommé. Et euissent fait
li Englès grant feste de leurs prisonniers, se li sires
de Stanfort n’euist esté pris. Depuis cest assaut, n’en
y eut [fait[268]] nul si grant ne si renommé d’armes que
10 cilz fu, car cescuns se tenoit sus se garde. Or parlerons
dou roy d’Engleterre qui avoit assegiet le ville
de Dinant. Quant il eut là sis jusques à trois jours là
en dedens, il avisa et ymagina comment il le poroit
avoir. Si regarda que elle estoit bien prendable,
15 car elle n’estoit fremée fors que de palis. Si fist
querre et pourveir grant fuison de nacelles, et entrer
 dedens arciers, et puis nagier jusques à ces palis, et
yaus venu jusques à là, assallir fortement à ceulz qui
les deffendoient, et traire si ouniement que à painnes
20 osoit nuls apparoir as deffenses pour le deffendre.
Entre ces arciers y avoit autres assallans qui portoient
cuignies grandes et bien trençans, dont, entrues
que li arcier ensonnioient chiaus de dedens, il copoient
les palis; et les eurent en brief temps grandement
25 adamagiés, et tant qu’il en gettèrent un grant
pan par terre, et entrèrent ens efforciement. Quant
cil de le ville veirent leurs palis rompus et Englès
entrer ens à grant randon, si furent tout effraet. Et
[28] commencièrent à fuir vers le marchiet: mais petite
ralloiance se fist entre yaus, car cil qui estoient entré
ens par les nacelles vinrent à le porte et l’ouvrirent.
Si entrèrent ens toutes manières d’autres gens qui
5 entrer y vorrent. Ensi fu prise li ville de Dinant en
Bretagne, toute courue et robée, et messires Pières
Portebuef qui capitainne en estoit. Si prisent li Englès
des quelz qu’il veirent[269], et gaegnièrent grant
avoir dedens, car elle estoit adonc durement riche
10 et plainne et bien marchande.

§ 198. Quant li rois d’Engleterre eut fait sen emprise

et sa volenté de le ville de Dinant en Bretagne,
il s’en parti, et le laissa toute vaghe, et n’eut mies
conseil dou tenir; si s’en achemina vers Vennes. En
15 chevauçant celle part, les nouvelles li vinrent de le
prise le signeur de Cliçon et de monsigneur Hervi de
Lyon. Si en fu grandement joians, et tant chevauça
qu’il vint devant Vennes, et là se loga.
Or vous parlerons un petit de monsigneur Loeis
20 d’Espagne, de messire Charle Grimau, de monsigneur
Othon Doriie, qui estoient pour le temps amiral de
le mer, à huit galées, treize barges et trente nefs cargies
de Geneuois et d’Espagnols. Si se tenoient sus