Impact Pressure and Forces on a Vertical Wall with Different

Types of Parapet
Rajendran Ravindar1 and V. Sriram2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper will discuss the variations in wave loads on a vertical seawall structure due to the addition of parapets. A 1:8 model
scale experiments on a wall with parapets will be carried out. The models will be tested for monochromatic waves that have different breaking
characteristics that are identified based on the amount of air entrapped during breaking. These include slightly-breaking waves (SBW), break-
ing waves with small air trap (BWSAT), and breaking waves with large air trap (BWLAT). The relative reduction in impact pressure will be
used to quantify parapet performance. This paper revealed that with the addition of a parapet, wave force increases compared to a vertical wall
(VW) until incident wave height [(Hi < 0.125 m)]. However, with further increases in wave height (H ), the wave force reduces for large (LP)
and medium parapets (MP) compared with a small parapet (SP). The exit angle of the parapet plays a vital role to decrease the wave loads for
higher H; the extent of the decrease is dictated by the movement of deflected water. Based on the tested parapets and wave characteristics, an
LP (45°) attracted less load on the overall structure compared with other parapet types for higher Hi (Hi > 0.125 m). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
WW.1943-5460.0000635. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Recurve; Parapet; Impact pressure; Forces; Effect of curvature; Breaking wave; Return wall.

Introduction performed at three different scales. Recent work includes Mo-

lines et al. (2018), where wave forces were estimated on the
To mitigate loads that are induced by higher wave heights (H ) crown wall based on wave overtopping rates that used neural net-
that occur during extreme events, which can be attributed to works. In addition, through an OpenFOAM-based numerical
an increase in sea level, an overhang structure that faces the sea- study, Molines et al. (2020) demonstrated that the presence of
ward side known as a parapet can be attached to new or existing a parapet increased the force and moments by a factor of two. Re-
vertical seawalls. This modification forces the up rushing sea- cently, Contestabile et al. (2020) tested three crown wall combi-
water and high-rise waves to curl inwards, which discharges nations as a response to wave overtopping for future sea level
them back into the sea. Research has proved that this is more ef- scenarios and highlighted the influence of a nose that was in-
ficient than a vertical seawall and reduces overtopping, therefore stalled on top of the vertical crown wall.
making it a better option than increasing the height of the wall. In general, two different geometrical modifications are intro-
The use of parapets is common in Japan, especially as block duced to the vertical wall (VW): (1) changing the shape of the
mound seawalls with relatively steep slopes that are backed by VW on the seaward side, and (2) fixing a parapet on top of the
a vertical retaining wall along coasts with rough seas (Goda VW. For the first approach, Murakami et al. (1996, 2004) studied
2010). a flaring shaped sea wall and showed that its performance was bet-
Research into wave impact forces induced on crown walls ter than the conventional VW. A similar investigation was carried
dates to the 1980s when Jensen (1984) prescribed several mea- out by Rismiller (1989) and Anand et al. (2011). Parapets attached
sures to prevent failures in a crown wall. Bradbury et al. to the top of the VW were studied by Kortenhaus et al. (2002, 2003)
(1988) evaluated the efficiency of walls that dealt with overtop- and Pearson et al. (2005). They performed a case study of a prom-
ping by analyzing forces imparted onto the front face of the enade wall (recurve k-factor <0.05) and presented a design chart
crown wall. Early work into wave return walls placed over the based on overtopping and load results; the chart was compared
seaward slope was pioneered by Owen and Steele (1991). The ef- with previous studies. Martinelli et al. (2018) studied the load in-
fectiveness of the wave return wall was shown experimentally by duced by nonbreaking waves on recurved parapets with different
studying the discharge factor with and without the return wall. exit angles and suggested that a good compromise between the
Pedersen and Burcharth (1992) presented a parametric model to forces and overtopping was obtained with partially recurved para-
study wave forces and overtopping on rubble mound breakwaters pets with exit angles of 60°. Castellino et al. (2018) studied the
with crown walls. Van Doorslaer et al. (2017) proposed method- pressure and forces on recurved parapet wall numerically using IH-
ologies to redesign a storm wall that were based on experiments FOAM and inferred that a higher load that was induced onto the
recurved parapet was due to the confined crest effect without break-
1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai ing waves. Ravindar et al. (2019) studied the characterization of
600 036, Tamil Nadu, India. Email: itsravindar@gmail.com wave impact on recurve parapets at a large scale and analyzed
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai the impact pressure variations that corresponded to breaking
600 036, Tamil Nadu, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid
types. Stagonas et al. (2020) compared the impact forces on three
.org/0000-0003-3586-9577. Email: vsriram@iitm.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 12, 2020; approved on
types of recurves from large scale experiments and found that the
December 15, 2020; published online on March 8, 2021. Discussion period mean of the largest force peaks increased with an increasing
open until August 8, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for in- angle of curvature. However, they did not investigate the influence
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Waterway, Port, of varying H on the impact force, because the tests were not carried
Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X. out at a large-scale.

© ASCE 04021007-1 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 Oumeraci et al. (1993) studied and classified the wave breaking • Medium parapet (MP): Br = 5.000 cm, Hr = 7.125 cm, and
process based on air entrapment and studied its influence on impact αa = 55°
forces that were imparted on a caisson. Kirkgoz (1995) presented • Large parapet (LP): Br = 7.625 cm, Hr = 7.625 cm, and αa = 68°
breaking wave impacts on vertical and sloping structures using • Small recurved parapet: Br = 2.500 cm, Hr = 6.250 cm, and
model scale experiments and suggested that maximum impact pres- αa = 48°
sure occurred in the vicinity of the still water level (SWL). Bullock • Medium recurved parapet: Br = 5.000 cm, Hr = 7.125 cm, and
et al. (2007) found that the pressure, forces, and impulses associ- αa = 70°
ated with an impact on the sloping wall were lower than those of • Large recurved parapet: Br = 7.625 cm, Hr = 7.625 cm, and
VW under similar conditions. Oumeraci et al. (2001) proposed a αa = 90°
prediction methodology to estimate impulsive and quasi-static • VW: Hr = 7.625 cm
loading that was based on large-scale experiments within the where the horizontal extension of the parapet in front of the main
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

framework of the probabilistic design tools for vertical breakwaters wall = Br; height of the parapet = Hr; and central angle = αa
(PROVERBS) project. Cuomo et al. (2010a) proposed a prediction (Fig. 1). The parameter definition for the structure was based on
formula for impact, quasi-static forces, and overturning moments the EurOtop manual (Van der Meer et al. 2016).
within the framework of the Violent Overtopping by Waves at Sea- The model was constructed from steel, and the slope was con-
walls (VOWS) project. They later extended the formulation and structed from marine plywood that was supported by steel frames
presented a method to scale up the impact pressure and rise-time at the bottom. The still water depth before slope (d) and the
measured in small scale physical tests (Cuomo et al. 2010b). water depth near the structure (hs) were 0.5125 and 0.1 m, respec-
Based on previous studies, parapets significantly reduce over- tively. The freeboard of the VW (without parapets) was 7.375 cm.
topping. In addition, for pressure and forces, parapets induce signif- The wave elevation was measured using six wave probes sampled
icantly higher impulsive pressure compared with a VW without at 100 Hz, and positions of the wave probe were fixed, as shown in
parapets. However, the effect of different types of parapets needs Fig. 2. Between the deployed wave probes, wave probe six (WP6)
to be studied in detail to understand the reason for this type of be- was used to measure incident wave height (Hi), which was18 m
havior. Further insight into impulsive pressures induced on a para- from the wavemaker (or 24.5 m from the structure). It is well
pet would be helpful to modify the structure and use the parapet as a known that with a VW at one end, a strong reflection of the
structural component rather than an overtopping control measure. waves is expected. Therefore, in the analysis of the results, the
This paper aims to study the behavior of parapets for a range of time series record before the reflected wave reached WP6 was con-
breaking monochromatic waves to understand the influence of sidered as the Hi.
the type of breaker–structure interaction on the loading pattern Pressure measurements at the underside of the parapets and the
on the overall structure. This is achieved by measuring pressures vertical part were measured using seven transducers with a sam-
and estimating forces (by the integration of pressures) on the stand- pling frequency of 10 kHz. The value was selected based on the
ard base VW with parapets that have different exit angles. recommendations in Bullock et al. (2007) and Oumeraci et al.
The following section provides a brief description of the exper- (1993), which stated that 10 kHz was adequate, and above that,
imental setup as well as the various types of parapets used in the there was a 0% reduction in the magnitude of peak pressure values.
experiments. This is followed by a detailed classification of the Pressure transducers that were fixed onto the different sections of
tested waves based on Oumeraci et al. (1993) and Kisacik et al. the structure are shown in Fig. 3. Based on the configuration of
(2012). This is followed by a discussion on the experimental re- the pressure transducer location, Lamberti et al. (2011) recom-
sults, such as wave impact pressure variation for different models, mended that the acquisition time interval should be maintained as
impact force variation, and the effect of H on the impact force. Fi- close to the transit time between sensors; otherwise the integrated
nally, the role of the curvature effect is studied by comparing pres- force might be deceptive. In this study, the reduction coefficient
sure and force between; (1) a VW and parapets; and (2) parapets (r) is assumed to be one, based on the spatial correlation obtained
with and without recurve. from the pressure sensors (Martinelli et al. 2007). Therefore, the
wave forces were calculated by integrating the wave pressures ob-
tained from the pressure transducers aligned in an array on the wall,
similar to the study conducted by Oh and Ji (2019). In addition,
Experimental Investigation three video cameras were used to record the impact at the wall
and transformation of the waves near the structure (camera 1),
The experiments were conducted in a shallow wave flume 72 m top view (camera 2), and in front of the structure (camera 3), as
long, 2 m wide, and 2.5 m deep in the Department of Ocean Engi- shown in Fig. 2.
neering at the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, All seven models were tested for regular waves that had differ-
Tamil Nadu, India. The flume was equipped with a piston-type ent wave periods (T ) and H, and the test matrix is given in Table 1.
wavemaker. A 1:8 model scale experiment based on the large-scale Because the adopted slope was 1:10, most of the waves broke near
experiment performed in the Large Wave Flume, Hannover, Ger- the wall. In this experimental program, wave conditions from non-
many (Ravindar et al. 2019; Stagonas et al. 2020) was considered. breaking to broken waves were tested; however, in this paper, only
The structure was placed 42.5 m from the wavemaker. The structure the breaking wave impact conditions are reported.
was a modular system in which a VW was permanently fixed at the
edge of a 1:10 slope, and the top vertical section was replaced with
parapets, as shown in Fig. 1. The overtopping water tank was set up; Wave Breaking Characteristics
however, in this paper, only the results that correspond to nonover-
topping cases are presented (with parapets). A series of experiments Based on the visual observation of the wave profile near the struc-
was performed to accomplish an extensive investigation into the per- ture (camera 1) and pressure measurements, the interaction scenar-
formance of parapets to high-rise waves. Seven different parapets ios were divided into nonbreaking, breaking, and broken cases. In
that had the following dimensions were considered. this paper, only breaking cases were considered for further analysis,
• Small parapet (SP): Br = 2.500 cm, Hr = 6.250 cm, and αa = 45° because the analysis aimed to study maximum impact forces.

© ASCE 04021007-2 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Showing: (a) sketch and dimensions of shallow wave flume in the Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
and six different parapets tested. For each parapet, the name, short-form, Br, Hr, and αa are provided; and (b) the slope (yellow) and VW with recurve
parapet along with overtopping tank (blue).

The characterization of wave breaking has been explained for a The impact pressure was low for this case. However, the impact
large-scale study in Ravindar et al. (2019). In this paper, the break- was recorded by all the transducers, with a significantly low mag-
ing classification is briefly described with a series of images that nitude. For breaking waves with a small air trap (BWSAT)
show the development of the wave surface profile and its interac- [Fig. 4(c)], from development until breaking a small amount of
tion with the VW, as shown in Figs. 4(a–g). air was trapped between the wave and the structure. Due to small
For nonbreaking waves [Fig. 4(a)], the incoming wave did not air entrapment, the impact pressure was high among all the cases.
break on the structure, but slid over and reflected without causing The breaking wave with a large air trap (BWLAT) case [Fig. 4(d)]
any impact load. Therefore, the pressure profile did not have an im- was similar to BWSAT; however, before breaking, the wavefront
pact, and a slowly varying quasi-static pressure was observed. curled, enclosed a large air packet and broke on the structure. The im-
However, in the slightly-breaking wave (SBW) case [Fig. 4(b)], pact occurs below the SWL due to the receding of water before
the wave transformed near the structure with increasing H, and breaking, as shown in Fig. 4(g). From Fig. 4(e), it can be seen that
when it reached the structure, it broke slightly on the structure. the waves broke prematurely before hitting the structure, which

© ASCE 04021007-3 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 Fig. 2. Plan view of the wave flume that indicates the location of the wave probes (1–6 correspond to WP 1–6), and three cameras (C1, C2, and C3
correspond to cameras 1–3 respectively and WP = 41.7 m, WP2 = 37.9 m, WP3 = 37.5 m, WP4 = 36.8 m, WP5 = 31 m, and WP6 = 18 m from the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wavemaker.)

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the front view of the structure showing pressure transducer fixtures for different models. The bottom circular shape
indicates underwater pressure transducer (magenta colour), and the top circular shape indicates nonunderwater pressure transducers (cyan colour)
(cm).

Table 1. Test matrix of regular wave cases The typical case of impact pressure for each breaking scenario is
shown in Fig. 5. However, these do not represent cases where the
Water depth at the T maximum impact pressure for each breaking scenario was observed
structure [hs(m)] (s) H (m)
during the experiments. Fig. 5 represents the time series with transi-
0.1 1.4 0.049, 0.058, 0.067, 0.077, 0.084, 0.094, 0.101, ent and steady state impact pressure recorded at location z =
0.111, 0.119, 0.127, 0.136, 0.144, 0.152, 0.159 −0.0325 m. From the bottom to top, the transition from nonbreaking
1.8 0.055, 0.064, 0.073, 0.081, 0.092, 0.102, 0.110,
to the broken case is shown for a constant T = 2.1 s, which had dif-
0.118, 0.129, 0.134, 0.143, 0.154
2.1 0.057, 0.066, 0.075, 0.085, 0.092, 0.104, 0.113, ferent H from 0.057 to 0.152 m. From Fig. 5 it can be seen that the
0.117, 0.132 impact pressure varied based on the type of breaking wave that inter-
2.5 0.058, 0.066, 0.076, 0.086, 0.097, 0.105, acted with the structure. For nonbreaking and SBW, there was no os-
0.117,0.124 cillation in the impact pressure. However, in the remaining cases, the
2.8 0.061, 0.072, 0.081, 0.089, 0.100, 0.109, 0.120 oscillation increased with an increase in the load on the structure.
3.2 0.063, 0.073, 0.087, 0.097, 0.112, 0.125 These oscillations were related to the natural frequency of the struc-
3.5 0.064, 0.073, 0.085, 0.093, 0.110, 0.125 ture because they occurred after the breaking impact. The BWSAT
induced the highest wave load among all categories, which was ob-
served by Rismiller (1989). It has been reported that the maximum
were considered broken waves. In this paper, another breaking wave shock pressure was caused by the wave with a relatively large break-
type was noticed that had characteristics similar to the BWSAT case. ing height and steepness, but with only a small quantity of air en-
However, it collapsed in front of the structure due to incoming and trapped. However, higher amplitude waves that entrap large air
reflected wave interactions. As it collapsed, a considerable mass of pockets do not necessarily produce the highest impact loads; the en-
water with small air pockets hits the structure. This type of breaking trapped air helps to cushion the crest impact (Ravindar et al. 2019).
occurred for short period waves that had higher wave amplitude. This was similar to the observations made by Bredmose et al. (2015),
Therefore, this was considered a collapsing breaking wave with a where the effect of aeration reduced the maximum impact pressure,
small air trap (CBWSAT), as shown in Fig. 4(f). All the test cases maximum force, and impulse. Because each breaking case has a dif-
were classified based on their wave transformation profile near the ferent range of impact pressures, nonuniform y-axes were used to
structure and presented in Table 2. better understand the loading pattern.

© ASCE 04021007-4 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 (a) the structure. The interaction between descending water and an in-
coming wave was minimal in the VW models. However, with in-
creasing wave steepness, the toe of the wall was affected due to
the free fall of a large mass of water.
For the SP (68°), the mechanism was similar to the VW, but up
rushing occurred in an angular trend. The up rushing water moved
at an angle close to the parapet angle (68°), for a longer vertical dis-
(b)
tance compared with other models. The water displaced at an angle
descended back as droplets and showers over the flume. However,
there was little interaction between the deflected up-rush and the in-
coming waves for the SP. For the MP (55°) and Ls (45°), the deflec-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tion pattern was qualitatively similar. However, due to the change

in the exit angle, the contact between the descending water and in-
(c)
coming wave increased compared with the SP.
In general, the natural flow of the water jet was hindered by the par-
apet, and the highest pressure was exerted where a packet of water first
hit the parapet, as shown in Fig. 6. This pattern was observed for all
parapets, which was similar to the confined crest impact that was pro-
posed by Castellino et al. (2018). Following the impact at the parapet,
(d) the up-rushing jet of water segregated into droplets and descended
back on the seaward side based on the exit angle.

Impact Pressure Variation for Different Parapets

(e) Based on the literature review, the parapet attached on top of the
VW has been studied extensively to understand the overtopping
characteristics of the structure. However, very few studies from
the literature focused on the evaluation of the structural perfor-
mance of the parapet compared with a VW. In this section, the var-
iation of impact pressure for a plain VW and a VW that had
(f) different parapets is discussed.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the pressure–time history for SBW and
BWSAT cases, respectively, which were recorded for different par-
apet models. From these figures it can be seen that: (1) when the
wave steepness was less, there were no oscillations in the impact
pressure–time history, (2) when there were breaking waves with in-
creased steepness and lower air entrapment (BWSAT case), the
parapet was efficient at reducing the impact pressure at the wave
(g) impact location on the structure; however, for waves that had a
low breaking intensity, there was no significant advantage gained
from using a parapet (this agrees with Kortenhaus et al. 2005).
The pressure–time history shown in Fig. 7 is characterized by an
initial ramp-up in the value of the peak impact pressure that was
followed by a quasi-steady pressure profile for the VW and differ-
ent parapets. The initial waves induced an enormous load compared
Fig. 4. Showing: (a) wave transformation profile for a nonbreaking with steady waves as demonstrated in Martinelli et al. (2018). The
case H = 0.058 m, and T = 2.5 s; (b) wave transformation profile of was because, when the transient wave hits the structure it reflects
an SBW case H = 0.076 m and T = 2.5 s; (c) wave transformation pro- and interacts with incoming waves that leads to constructive inter-
file of a BWSAT case H = 0.96 m and T = 2.5 s; (d) wave transforma- ference until the first fully developed wave reaches. This phenom-
tion profile of a BWLAT case H = 0.105 m and T = 2.5 s; (e) wave enon was commonly observed in experiments that involved short
transformation profile of a broken wave case H = 0.124 m and T = period waves where, for a fixed experimental duration, the number
2.5 s; (f) wave transformation profile of a CBWSAT wave case H = of transient waves was higher compared with long-period waves.
0.152 m and T = 1.4 s; and (g) general characterization of the wave The variability in wave-induced pressures for breaking waves as
transformation profile near the structure observed in this study. shown in Figs. 7 and 8 are noted. It is difficult to reproduce the
exact pattern repeatedly. For instance, after waves reach steady
state, the repeatability of wave pressure was higher for the SBW
To investigate the difference in pressure and forces on parapets case (Fig. 7) compared with the BWSAT case (Fig. 8). Second,
and VWs, it is necessary to understand up rushing and the descend- the repeatability was lower for parapets, in general, compared
ing patterns of water. This is shown in Fig. 6. From Fig. 6 (top left), with the VW, because of the complex interactions between the re-
the up rushing and descending pattern for the VW can be seen. flected and incoming waves. The oscillations shown in Fig. 8 were
After the wave impact near the SWL, the water jet moved upward attributed to structural vibrations for larger waves, which was in-
against gravity with overtopping and spillage on the leeward side, ferred from the loud sound heard during the experiments. One of
and the remaining water separated into droplets and fell freely near the challenging aspects when studying wave impacts is the

© ASCE 04021007-5 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 Table 2. Classification of test cases based on breaker types
Nonbreaking cases SBW BWSAT BWLAT Broken wave

H (m) T (s) H/L H (m) T (s) H/L H (m) T (s) H/L H (m) T (s) H/L H (m) T (s) H/L
0.049 1.4 0.019 0.066 2.1 0.015 0.085 3.5 0.011 0.093 3.5 0.012 0.142 3.5 0.019
0.055 1.8 0.015 0.066 2.5 0.012 0.085 2.1 0.020 0.100 2.8 0.017 0.130 2.5 0.025
0.057 2.1 0.013 0.072 2.8 0.012 0.086 2.5 0.016 0.112 3.2 0.016 0.144 2.1 0.033
0.058 2.5 0.011 0.073 3.2 0.011 0.097 3.2 0.014 0.112 3.5 0.015 — — —
0.061 2.8 0.010 0.073 3.5 0.010 0.092 2.1 0.021 0.104 2.1 0.024 — — —
0.063 3.2 0.009 0.073 1.8 0.020 0.097 2.5 0.018 0.105 2.5 0.020 — — —
0.064 3.5 0.008 0.075 2.1 0.017 0.102 1.8 0.028 0.109 2.8 0.018 — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.058 1.4 0.022 0.076 2.5 0.014 0.110 1.8 0.031 0.125 3.2 0.018 — — —
0.064 1.8 0.018 0.081 2.8 0.013 0.118 1.8 0.033 0.125 3.5 0.016 — — —
0.067 1.4 0.026 0.087 3.2 0.013 0.119 1.4 0.046 0.113 2.1 0.026 — — —
0.077 1.4 0.030 0.085 1.8 0.024 0.129 1.8 0.036 0.117 2.5 0.022 — — —
0.084 1.4 0.032 0.092 1.8 0.026 0.127 1.4 0.049 0.120 2.8 0.020 — — —
0.094 1.4 0.036 0.101 1.4 0.039 0.134 1.8 0.037 0.134 3.2 0.019 — — —
— — — 0.111 1.4 0.043 0.136 1.4 0.053 0.117 2.1 0.027 — — —
— — — — — — 0.143 1.8 0.040 0.132 2.1 0.030 — — —
— — — — — — 0.144 1.4 0.056 0.154 1.8 0.043 — — —
— — — — — — 0.152a 1.4 0.059 — — — — — —
— — — — — — 0.159a 1.4 0.061 — — — — — —
a
Corresponds to CBWSAT.

the dotted line correspond to the vertical part and parapets, respec-
tively. By comparing a VW [Fig. 9(a)] and parapet cases
[Figs. 9(b–d)], the location of maximum impact pressure varied
for different parapets. For a VW, the maximum impact pressure oc-
curred at z = 0.01 m (slightly above the SWL), which agreed with
the results of Grace and Carver (1985), Bullock et al. (2007), and
Kirkoz (1995). For parapets, if occasional extreme peaks were ig-
nored, the maximum impact pressure occurred at the same location
(irrespective of parapet geometry) z = −0.0325 m, that is, slightly
below the SWL. As shown in Fig. 9, without taking the extreme
points (red line) into consideration, the magnitude of maximum im-
pact pressure increased in the following order: VW < SP < MP <
LP. The contributing factor for this type of behavior was the dissi-
pation angle that was the same as the angle for each parapet. With a
decrease in the dissipation angle from SP to LP, the quantity of up-
rushed water that interacted with the incoming waves increased
with the interaction that occurred within a shorter duration. This in-
teraction could lead to constructive or destructive interference,
which could (respectively) lead to an increase or decrease in impact
pressure on the structure. Therefore, this interference was responsi-
ble for a change in the hydrodynamic behavior of the VW follow-
ing the addition of parapets.
The extreme events (nonrepeatable maximum events are shown
in Fig. 9) were an occasional occurrence. They might be mislead-
ing, and a thorough analysis was crucial to understanding the par-
apet behavior. To understand the influence of pressures between
different parapet designs, rather than by considering the extreme
events (red line in Fig. 9), the mean of local maximum impact pres-
Fig. 5. Wave impact pressure–time history for different breaking cases
sure (blue line in Fig. 9) was considered. The vertical variation of
from pressure transducer at z = −0.0325 m for VW model.
this mean impact pressure is shown in Fig. 10. Therefore, the mean
pressure values for all the breaking types (i.e., approximately 350
nonrepeatability of wave impact pressure (Bagnold 1939). To data points per location) were used to study the effect of parapet
avoid this complication, Bagnold (1939) suggested that the pres- variation. As shown in Fig. 10, the highest mean impact pressure
sure rise impulse was more repeatable than impact pressure and increased in the following order: VW < SP < MP < LP. The location
forces, and to determine this during experiments would establish of maximum impact pressure was the same for all parapets, which
the reliability of the results. This was carried out for this paper was slightly below the SWL at z = −0.0325 m.
and is reported in the Appendix. The location and magnitude of maximum pressure were at the
Fig. 9 shows the impacts of approximately 2,500 local maxi- initial impact point on the parapets irrespective of the model
mum impact pressure peaks (PI,max) from all breaking scenarios type. The initial point crucial, because it is the first and the only
along the vertical direction (z). The locations below and above point that obstructs the path of the up-rushed water. As the length

© ASCE 04021007-6 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Up rushing and descending water pattern of VW and recurve parapets.

(a) (a)

(b) (b)

(c) (c)

(d)
(d)

Fig. 8. Wave impact pressure–time history for different models from

Fig. 7. Wave impact pressure–time history for different models from pres- pressure transducer at z = −0.0325 m below SWL for BWSAT type
sure transducers at z = −0.0325 m below SWL for an SBW type H = H = 0.143 m and T = 1.8 s: (a) LP (45°); (b) MP (55°); (c) SP (68°);
0.081 m and T = 1.8 s: (a) LP (45°); (b) MP (55°); (c) SP (68°); and (d) VW. and (d) VW.

of the horizontal extension increased from the SP to the LP, the The previous section gave information on different parapets for
contact area reduced at the edge due to the downward pull of de- all the breaking types. However, the category of breaking waves
flected water (gravity), and therefore, the impact pressure decreased where the maximum pressure occurs must be determined. As
at the edges of parapets. shown in Fig. 11, the variation of impact pressure for different

© ASCE 04021007-7 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 higher impact on the structure. Between the three parapet cases,
the severity of impact increased in the following order: SBW <
BWLAT < BWSAT.
Based on previous research results into the wave impact pres-
sure on the parapets, the parapet wall attracted higher impact pres-
sure than the plain VW. This paper agrees with the results in the
literature as shown in Figs. 9–11. However, an interesting observa-
tion is that with an increase in steepness, this behavior pattern of the
MP and LP changed compared with the SP. As shown in Fig. 12,
(a) (b) with an increase in Hi (Hi > 0.125 m), the mean of the 10% highest
impact peaks (Pimp,10%) for the VW and SP increased, but this de-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

creased for the MP and LP. This trend was observed to repeat for a
mean of 33% of the highest impact peaks. This trend confirmed the
significant contribution of parapet types to reduce the loads on the
overall structure for increasing H. In this test configuration, for Hi <
0.125 m, the change in Pimp,10% and Pimp,33% was SP < MP < LP,
whereas for Hi > 0.125 m, the order changed to LP < MP < SP, as
given in Table 3.

(c) (d) Impact Force and Quasi-Static Force Variation

Fig. 9. Variation of local maximum impact pressure for all breaking The maximum stress a structure can withstand without failing is a
cases across the depth for vertical (from top left) to LP (bottom critical parameter that is used in structural design. The impact force
right); solid red line indicates global maximum impact pressure for was evaluated by integrating pressure transducer readings along the
each location and the solid blue line indicates the mean impact pressure vertical part. Similar to the previous section, Figs. 13 and 14 show
calculated from local maximum pressure peak from each respective lo- the impact force–time history for two typical breaking scenarios,
cation. The horizontal dotted line is an indicator to separate pressure respectively: SBW and BWSAT. Fig. 13 shows the impact force
transducer in vertical part and parapet part: (a) VW; (b) SP (68°); variation that was characterized by a typical church roof impact fol-
(c) MP (55°); and (d) LP (45°). lowed by a quasi-static force. Under these conditions, there was no
variation in forces due to the presence of a parapet. As shown in
Fig. 12, the impact force–time history for the test case with an
H = 0.143 m and T = 1.8 s (BWSAT category) is reported. In this
case, there was a significant effect of the parapet that changed the
nature of the forces on the structure as discussed in the previous
section. In addition, the initial impacts were higher than the impact
from the steady wave part, as reported in Martinelli et al. (2018).
To understand the variation of horizontal impact force for differ-
ent parapets, the local maximum impact force peaks were compared
for all structural models as shown in Fig. 15. From Fig. 15 it can be
seen that the maximum impact force events were higher in the par-
apets compared with a simple VW for all cases. This was because,
as discussed for pressure, for the VW, up rushing water overtops,
but in parapets, up rushing water is deflected back toward the sea-
ward side, therefore increasing the interaction between the de-
(a) (b)
scending water and incoming waves. This interaction caused an
increase or decreases in load on the overall structure based on the
Fig. 10. Showing: (a) variation of mean impact pressure of all local
type of interference formed.
peaks from each location plotted across the depth for different parapet;
Based on the distribution shown in Fig. 15, it can be seen that
and (b) zoomed version showing only for parapet part.
until Hi = 0.125 m, the force distribution did not vary considerably;
MP and LP appear to have higher impact forces. However, for Hi >
0.125 m, the LP and MP performed better compared with the SP
breaker types for the different parapet models is shown separately. and VW. However, with an increase in H, the force on the SP in-
There was a significant change in the magnitude and location of im- creased and was higher than the VW. This was attributed to:
pact pressure on the VW due to the breaking type. The location ap- (1) overtopping on the VW was greater than the SP (where overtop-
pears to vary from slightly above the SWL to below the SWL. For ping was >5%) and most of the water was reflected; and (2) dissi-
SBW, the location was z = −0.0325 m, slightly below the SWL ex- pation did not occur in the SP, unlike other parapets, because of the
cept for the SP where the maximum location was z = 0.01 m, above larger central angle. In parapets, the larger the central angle, the
the SWL. For the BWSAT case, the MP and LP had maximum im- longer the time taken for the interaction with the incoming wave
pact pressure at z = −0.0325 m and the VW and SP had a maximum and a lower volume of up rushed water.
impact at z = 0.01 m. For BWLAT, the maximum impact location Between the three parapets, the maximum impact force was
was z = −0.075 m from the bottom edge of the parapet for the SP recorded for the SP with a magnitude of 7 kN. By considering
and MP. The similarity between the plots for different models the overall distribution of the impact force, as shown in
was, between the three breaking scenarios, BWSAT created a Fig. 15, the MP and LP walls tended to perform better than

© ASCE 04021007-8 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 11. Impact pressure peaks variation across the depth for different models: (a) VW; (b) SP; (c) MP; and (d) LP. For different breaking cases, SBW
(left), BWSAT (middle), and BWLAT (right); solid red line indicates maximum values and the solid blue line indicates mean values.

© ASCE 04021007-9 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Mean of 10% and 33% highest pressure peaks recorded for each model types in z-direction. Results plotted for two conditions: Hi < 0.125 m
indicated by blue markers; and Hi > 0.125 m indicated by red markers.

Table 3. Classification of test cases based on breaker types

(a)
H Pressure VW SP MP LP
H < 0.125 m Pimp,10% 22.82406 26.01665 37.69635 44.56313
Pimp,33% 18.1874 18.81366 26.62532 30.32152
H > 0.125 m Pimp,10% 29.52071 47.44676 30.10054 29.37648
(b)
Pimp,33% 22.08363 32.01985 20.96973 19.40963

the SP. The impact force distribution indicated the reflection

characteristics for a given type of parapet. For instance, for
the VW (top left Fig. 15), there was no significant variation in
(c)
impact force above H = 0.1 m and the impact force becomes sa-
turated. It remains at approximately 4 kN. As the wave steepness
increased, the overtopping increased. However, due to the non-
participation of the VW to restrict overtopping water, there was
no difference in the impact pressure.
For the SP, Fh,imp increased linearly with H. For the MP and (d)
LP at Hi = 0.125 m (in the test cases), a nullifying effect oc-
curred, that is, the deflected water interacted with the incoming
waves and reduced the intensity of the waves, therefore leading
to a lower impact force being imparted on the overall structure.
The previous conditions are shown in Fig. 16; with an increase
Fig. 13. Wave impact force–time history of a breaking type SBW H =
in H, the mean of the 10% highest impact force peaks
0.081 m and T = 1.8 s for different models: (a) LP (45°); (b) MP (55°);
(Fh,imp,10%) for vertical wall and SP type increased. In contrast,
(c) SP (68°); and (d) VW.
Fh,imp,10% decreased for MP and LP. The same trend was

© ASCE 04021007-10 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 (a)

(b)

(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c)

(d)

(b)
Fig. 14. Wave impact force–time history of a breaking type BWSAT
H = 0.143 m and T = 1.8 s for different models: (a) LP (45°); Fig. 16. (a) Mean of the 10%; and (b) 33% highest force peaks re-
(b) MP (55°); (c) SP (68°); and (d) VW. corded for each model types are plotted over the exit angle of the par-
apet. Results plotted for two conditions: Hi < 0.125 m indicated by blue
markers; and Hi > 0.125 m indicated by red markers where 0° = VW,
68° = SP, 55° = MP, and 45° = LP.

Fig. 15. Comparison of horizontal impact force peaks from the VW

(top left) and different parapets plotted separately for respective Hi.
Fig. 17. Comparison of horizontal quasi-static force from the VW and
repeated for the mean of the 33% highest force impact peaks. different parapet for respective Hi.
This trend confirmed that the parapet type has a significant con-
tribution to reducing loads on the overall structure. In this test
configuration, for Hi < 0.125 m, the change in Fh,imp,10% and horizontal quasi-static force is plotted for different Hi as shown
Fh,imp,33% was SP < MP < LP, whereas for Hi > 0.125 m the in Fig. 17. The quasi-static force was obtained by removing the im-
order was LP < MP < SP. pact force section of the signal using a low pass filter with a cutoff
The impact force variations have been studied. However, it is frequency of 10 Hz. The magnitude of quasi-static force was ap-
necessary to understand the quasi-static forces to establish the val- proximately similar (within 0.4 kN) for the VW as well as the par-
idity of the previous observations. Therefore, the variation of the apets. In addition, the LP was more efficient at dissipating higher H

© ASCE 04021007-11 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 18. Comparison of (a) horizontal; and (b) vertical impact forces on the parapet part alone plotted. Markers diamond (red), square (blue), and
asterisk (green) indicate the impact forces for SP, MP, and LP, respectively.

Fig. 19. Comparison of impact pressure between recurves and parapets

for recurves.

and reducing the load on the structure compared with other parapet
types.
The previous discussion relates to the impact pressure, horizon-
tal impact force, and quasi-static force variations on the overall (a) (b)
structure. However, the horizontal and vertical force variation on
Fig. 20. Showing: (a) comparison of impact force between recurves
the parapet alone needs to be understood. As shown in Fig. 18,
and parapets for recurves; and (b) quantile–quantile plot between the
the horizontal (Fh,parapet) and vertical (Fv,parapet) impact force that
impact pressures of recurves and the parapets.
was estimated on the parapet region alone is shown for different
values of the Hi.
From Fig. 18 it can be seen that by comparing horizontal and
vertical impact forces on the parapet, the vertical force was higher Effect of Curvature
compared with the horizontal force. This trend was evident because
the parapet restricted the vertical motion of up-rushed water. Be- The comparison of impact pressure between the plain parapet (non-
tween the three parapets, the horizontal impact force increased in recurved types, as discussed previously) and recurved parapets for
the following order: SP < MP < LP. This order indicated that with different geometrical configurations are shown in Fig. 19. This fig-
a decrease in the central angle, a higher horizontal impact force ure shows the relative impact pressure difference between the re-
was observed as reported in Castellino et al. (2018). For the vertical curved and the plain parapet. From the Fig. 19, it can be seen
impact force, the force magnitude was the same for all parapet that the impact pressures of the plain parapets were higher than
types. This indicated that lower restriction was offered by the par- those of the recurved parapets. In addition, there were higher differ-
apets to the movement of up rushing water in the vertical direction. ences were occasionally observed for the SP and MP compared

© ASCE 04021007-12 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 Second, this study aimed to evaluate how the wave impact pres-
sure and forces that were imparted on the structure changed follow-
ing the addition of parapets with and without recurves. Based on
the results, this study demonstrated that the addition of parapets in-
creased the loads on the structure compared with the VW. How-
ever, for lower Hi (Hi < 0.125 m) as the exit angle of the parapet
reduced, the wave loads increased. However, for higher Hi (Hi >
0.125 m) as the exit angle of the parapet reduced, the wave load de-
creased. This was indicated by considering the mean of the 10%
and 33% highest impact pressure and forces. Therefore, the LP
was the most effective at reducing forces on the overall structure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for higher H compared with other parapet types. This conclusion

was drawn for this paper’s nonovertopping testing criteria; a de-
crease in freeboard might result in different trends that need to be
investigated in future studies.
In addition, there was an ambiguity that affected the selection of
parapets for the VW, mainly whether a recurve or a nonrecurve
type of structure should be provided, although the only difference
between the two structures was the angle of wave return. This am-
biguity was caused by the curvature that was present in the recurve
comparison with the case without recurve. For the increased Br, the
impact forces or pressure between the recurved parapet and the
plain parapet were the same. The effect of curvature only played
a role for a small protruding length. It is noted that this paper’s re-
sults and observations were valid for the tested conditions reported
(a) (b) in this small-scale study.
In addition, only monochromatic waves were tested, and the
Fig. 21. Showing: (a) comparison of impact force between recurves breaking waves were intrinsically random. The effect of aeration
and VW with for; and (b) quantile–quantile plot between the impact was not considered in this paper. Furthermore, analysis in different
pressures of recurves and the VW. water depths near the VW with a parapet and large-scale studies are
required to understand the impact force that acts on different types
with the LP. This indicated that for the LP, the plain parapet and of parapet under overtopping conditions.
recurved parapet had a similar pressure distribution compared
with the SP and MP with a maximum observed variation of 10
units. Appendix. Impact Pressure–Rise Time Equation
The comparison of the impact force between the plain parapet
(nonrecurved types) and the recurved parapet for different geometri- One of the most vulnerable parts when studying wave impact is the
cal configurations is shown in Fig. 20. This figure shows the range of nonrepeatability of wave impact pressure (Bagnold 1939). Under
variation in impact force from the parapets, which was higher than the these conditions, it was suggested that the pressure rise impulse
recurves. The corresponding quantile–quantile plot is shown to visu- was more repeatable than impact pressure and forces, and this
alize the difference in forces between the recurved parapets and the needed to be determined during experiments to verify the results.
nonrecurved types. Between the three types, (small, medium, and Therefore, the pressure rise–impulse equation provided by various
large) the LP exhibited a similar behavior across the range of H researchers for the VW was compared with the experimental re-
that were considered. However, for the SPs and MPs, the behavior sults, as shown in Fig. 22.
was similar for small H; however, this diverged for higher waves. From this figure, it can be seen that with the decrease in rise
Similarly, the difference for the VW is shown in Fig. 21. The time, there was an increase in the impact pressure, as mentioned
behavior of the parapets with medium and large recurve was differ- by several researchers. However, for the BWLAT, although the
ent from that of the parapet with small recurve, as well as the VW. rise time was lower than BWSAT, it did not produce a higher im-
This highlighted the effect of curvature on the performance of the pact due to the entrapment of a large amount of air. Therefore, this
parapet that was attached to the VW. emphasized the important role of the breaking type in the determi-
nation of high impact pressures. Between the three cases, the max-
imum number of high-pressure peaks were in the increasing order
Summary and Conclusion SBW < BWLAT < BWSAT. The solid line indicates the upper limit
envelope of impact pressure and rise time relationship from this
In this paper, a 1:8 model investigation was carried out to under- study with the power distribution given by
stand the wave load on a VW that had six different types of parapet. Pmax = 300 × tr−1 (1)
In addition, a VW was tested as a base case to compare the results.
First, the monochromatic waves were classified into different where tr = the rise time (s); and Pmax = the maximum impact pres-
breaker types [based on Oumeraci et al. (1993) and Kisacik et al. sure (kPa).
(2012)], SBW, BWSAT, and BWLAT. Based on the comparison Based on this impact pressure and rise time equation, the com-
of impact pressure, impact force and quasi-static force, the parison was made for different empirical formulas, as shown in
BWSAT waves produced the highest impact on the structure. Fig. 23. This paper agreed with other model scale experiments,
The high amplitude waves with minimum air entrapment were which considered a lot of scattering in the data for breaking wave
the waves that fell in this breaker type. impacts. The other studies, such as Witte (1990) and Rajasekaran

© ASCE 04021007-13 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for
their critical comments and suggestions.

References

Anand, K. V., V. Sundar, and S. A. Sannasiraj. 2011. “Hydrodynamic char-

acteristics of curved-front seawall models compared with vertical sea-
wall under regular waves.” J. Coastal Res. 277: 1103–1112. https://
doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00169.1.
Bagnold, R. A. 1939. “Interim report on wave pressure research.” J. Inst.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Civ. Eng. 12 (7): 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1680/ijoti.1939.14539.

Bradbury, A., W. Allsop, and R. V. Stephens. 1988. Hydraulics perfor-
mance of breakwater crown walls, pp. 1–94. Wallingford, UK: HR
Wallingford.
Bredmose, H., G. N. Bullock, and A. J. Hogg. 2015. “Violent breaking
wave impacts. Part 3. Effects of scale and aeration.” J. Fluid Mech.
Fig. 22. Variation of impact pressure peaks for respective rise time for 765: 82–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2014.692.
different breaking types in vertical seawall model. Rise time = tr, and Bullock, G. N., C. Obhrai, D. H. Peregrine, and H. Bredmose. 2007.
“Violent breaking wave impacts. Part 1: results from large-scale regular
local maximum impact pressure peaks = Pmax.
wave tests on vertical and sloping walls.” Coastal Eng. 54 (8): 602–617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2006.12.002.
Castellino, M., P. Sammarco, A. Romano, L. Martinelli, P. Ruol, L. Franco,
and P. De Girolamo. 2018. “Large impulsive forces on recurved para-
pets under non-breaking waves. A numerical study.” Coastal Eng.
136: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2018.01.012.
Contestabile, P., G. Crispino, S. Russo, C. Gisonni, F. Cascetta, and D.
Vicinanza. 2020. “Crown wall modifications as response to wave over-
topping under a future sea level scenario: An experimental parametric
study for an innovative composite seawall.” Appl. Sci. 10 (7): 2227.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072227.
Cuomo, G., W. Allsop, T. Bruce, and J. Pearson. 2010a. “Breaking wave
loads at vertical seawalls and breakwaters.” Coastal Eng. 57 (4):
424–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2009.11.005.
Cuomo, G., W. Allsop, and S. Takahashi. 2010b. “Scaling wave impact
pressures on vertical walls.” Coastal Eng. 57 (6): 604–609. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2010.01.004.
Goda, Y. 2010. Random seas and design of maritime structures. Vol. 33.
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Grace, P., and R. Carver. 1985. Seawall and revetment stability study, Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse, N.C., 12–39. Technical Rep. No. CERC-85-12.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal
Fig. 23. Comparison of existing empirical equations of impact pres- Engineering, Research Center.
sure and rise time with this paper. Jensen, O. J. 1984. A monograph on rubble mound breakwaters. Hørsholm,
Denmark: Danish Hydraulic Institute.
Kirkgoz, M. S. 1995. “Breaking wave impact on vertical and sloping
et al. (2010), produced higher impact pressure for lower rise time coastal structures.” Ocean Eng. 22 (1): 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016
compared with this paper. The reason might be because the Witte /0029-8018(93)E0006-E.
(1990) experimental study was performed with a slope of 1:6. In Kisacik, D. 2012. “Loading conditions due to violent wave impacts on
Rajasekaran et al. (2010), the wave impacts were based on a focus- coastal structures with cantilever surfaces.” Doctoral dissertation,
ing wave. However, this paper’s results were slightly higher than Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent Univ.
the existing theoretical formula, which was similar to the observa- Kisacik, D., P. Troch, and P. Van Bogaert. 2012. “Experimental study of
violent wave impact on a vertical structure with an overhanging hori-
tion made in Kisacik (2012) in their small-scale experiments.
zontal cantilever slab.” Ocean Eng. 49: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.oceaneng.2012.04.010.
Kortenhaus, A., H. Oumeraci, F. Thorenz, and H. G. Coldewey. 2005.
Data Availability Statement “Innovative overtopping prevention measures at a historical Sea wall
construction at Norderney.” In Int. Conf. on Coastlines, Structures
and Breakwaters, 221–230. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this Kortenhaus, A., J. Pearson, T. Bruce, N. W. H. Allsop, and J. W. Van der
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable Meer. 2003. “Influence of parapets and recurves on wave overtopping
request. and wave loading of complex vertical walls.” Coast. Struct. 2003:
369–381. https://doi.org/10.1061/40733(147)31.
Kortenhaus, A., R. Haupt, and H. Oumeraci. 2002. “Design aspects of ver-
tical walls with steep foreland slopes.” In Proc. of the Int. Conf.
Acknowledgments Breakwaters, Coastal Structures and Coastlines. London, UK:
Institution of Civil Engineers.
The authors would like to express the gratitude to DST-SERB for Lamberti, A., L. Martinelli, M. Gabriella Gaeta, M. Tirindelli, and J.
their extramural funding for performing experiments and research. Alderson. 2011. “Experimental spatial correlation of wave loads on

© ASCE 04021007-14 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007

 front decks.” J. Hydraul. Res. 49 (sup1): 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1080 Owen, M. W., and A. A. J. Steele. 1991. Effectiveness of recurved wave
/00221686.2011.636933. return walls. Rep. No. SR 261. Wallingford, UK: HR Wallingford.
Martinelli, L., A. Lamberti, and P. Frigaard. 2007. “Effect of short- Pearson, J., T. Bruce, W. Allsop, A. Kortenhaus, and J. Van Der Meer.
crestedness and obliquity on non-breaking and breaking wave forces 2005. “Effectiveness of recurve walls in reducing wave overtopping
applied to vertical caisson breakwaters.” Coastal Eng. J. 49 (2): 173– on seawalls and breakwaters.” In Coastal Engineering 2004,
203. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0578563407001599. 4404–4416. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Martinelli, L., P. Ruol, M. Volpato, C. Favaretto, M. Castellino, P. De Pedersen, J., and H. F. Burcharth. 1992. “Wave forces on crown walls.” In
Girolamo, L. Franco, A. Romano, and P. Sammarco. 2018. Coastal Engineering 1992, edited by B. L. Edge, 1489–1502. Reston,
“Experimental investigation on non-breaking wave forces and overtop- VA: ASCE.
ping at the recurved parapets of vertical breakwaters.” Coastal Eng. Rajasekaran, C., S. A. Sannasiraj, and V. Sundar. 2010. “Breaking wave
141: 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2018.08.017. impact pressure on a vertical wall.” Int. J. Ocean Clim. Syst. 1 (3–4):
Molines, J., A. Bayón, M. E. Gómez-Martín, and J. R. Medina. 2020. 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1260/1759-3131.1.3-4.155.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute Of Technology, Madras" on 05/27/25. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

“Numerical study of wave forces on crown walls of mound breakwaters Ravindar, R., V. Sriram, S. Schimmels, and D. Stagonas. 2019.
with parapets.” J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 8 (4): 276. https://doi.org/10.3390 “Characterization of breaking wave impact on vertical wall with re-
/jmse8040276. curve.” ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 25 (2): 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1080
Molines, J., M. P. Herrera, and J. R. Medina. 2018. “Estimations of wave /09715010.2017.1391132.
forces on crown walls based on wave overtopping rates.” Coastal Eng. Rismiller, G. R. 1989. “Dynamic water wave pressures on a recurved
132: 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.11.004. model seawall.” M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas
Murakami, K., I. Irie, and Y. Kamikubo. 1996. “Experiments on a non- A&M Univ.
wave overtopping type seawall.” In Coastal Engineering 1996, edited Stagonas, D., R. Ravindar, V. Sriram, and S. Schimmels. 2020.
by B. L. Edge, 1840–1851. Reston, VA: ASCE. “Experimental evidence of the influence of recurves on wave loads at
Murakami, K., Y. Kamikubo, and N. Takehana. 2004. “Hydraulic efficien- vertical seawalls.” Water 12 (3): 889. https://doi.org/10.3390
cies of non-wave overtopping type seawall installed on a mound.” In /w12030889.
Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Hydrodynamics, 255–260. London, UK: Van der Meer, J. W., N. W. H. Allsop, T. Bruce, J. De Rouck, A. Kortenhaus,
Taylor and Francis. T. Pullen, H. Schüttrumpf, P. Troch, and B. Zanuttigh. 2016. Eurotop:
Oh, S. H., and C. H. Ji. 2019. “Simultaneous measurement of wave forces Manual on wave overtopping of sea defences and related structures: An
and pressures on a double-chamber perforated caisson.” Meas. Sci. overtopping manual largely based on European research, but for world-
Technol. 30 (10): 105801. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/ab1bb6. wide application. Ghent, Belgium: Ghent Univ.
Oumeraci, H., A. Kortenhaus, W. Allsop, M. de Groot, R. Crouch, H. Van Doorslaer, K., A. Romano, J. De Rouck, and A. Kortenhaus. 2017.
Vrijling, and H. Voortman. 2001. Probabilistic design tools for vertical “Impacts on a storm wall caused by non-breaking waves overtopping
breakwaters. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. a smooth dike slope.” Coastal Eng. 120: 93–111. https://doi.org/10
Oumeraci, H., P. Klammer, and H. W. Partenscky. 1993. “Classification of .1016/j.coastaleng.2016.11.010.
breaking wave loads on vertical structures.” J. Waterw. Port Coastal Witte, H. H. 1990. Wave impact loading on a vertical wall with respect to
Ocean Eng. 119 (4): 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733 structure response. Washington, DC: Federal Waterways and Research
-950X(1993)119:4(381). Institute.

© ASCE 04021007-15 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2021, 147(3): 04021007