Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ref:
Topics
Composite/Vertical Wall Breakwater Design
Wave Force Calculations
Caisson Width
Sliding and Overturning Stability
Soil Bearing Capacity Calculations
Summary of Design Procedure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Composite/Vertical Wall Breakwater Design
Wave Force Calculations
A characteristic of vertical wall breakwaters is that the kinetic energy of the wave is stopped
suddenly at the wall face. The energy is then reflected or translated by vertical motion of the
water along the wall face. The upward component of this can cause the wave crests to rise to
double their deep water height (non-breaking case). The downward component causes very high
velocities at the base of the wall and horizontally away from the wall for of a wavelength, thus
causing erosion and scour.
Many analytical and laboratory studies and field observations have been undertaken to
understand the wave pressure and develop wave pressure formulas. However, most of the
formulas are based on monochromatic regular wave of constant height and period.
Wave-generated pressures on structures are complicated functions of the wave conditions and
geometry of the structure. For this reason laboratory model tests should be performed as part of
the final design of important structures. For preliminary designs the formulae presented in this
section can be used within the stated parameter limitations and with consideration of the
uncertainties.
Two-dimensional wave forces on vertical walls.
Non-breaking waves incident on smooth, impermeable vertical walls are completely
reflected by the wall giving a reflection coefficient of 1.0. Where wales, tiebacks, or other
structural elements increase the wall surface roughness and retard the vertical water
motion at the wall, the reflection coefficient will be slightly reduced. Vertical walls built
on rubble bases will also have a reduced reflection coefficient.
The total hydrodynamic pressure distribution on a vertical wall consists of two timevarying components: the hydrostatic pressure component due to the instantaneous water
depth at the wall, and the dynamic pressure component due to the accelerations of the
water particles. Over a wave cycle, the force found from integrating the pressure
distribution on the wall varies between a minimum value when a wave trough is at the
wall to a maximum values when a wave crest is at the wall as illustrated below for the
case of non-overtopped walls or caissons.
Pressure distributions for a non-breaking wave
The resulting total hydrodynamic load when the wave trough is at the vertical wall is less
than the hydrostatic loading if waves were not present and the water was at rest. For
bulkheads and seawalls this may be a critical design loading because saturated backfill
soils could cause the wall to fail in the seaward direction. Therefore, water level is a
crucial design parameter for calculating forces and moments on vertical walls.
Pressure distribution on an overtopped wall
Wave overtopping of vertical walls provides a reduction in the total force and moment
because the pressure distribution is truncated as shown schematically above. Engineers
should consider the effect overtopping might have on land-based vertical structures by
creating seaward pressure on the wall caused by saturated backfill or ponding water.
1) Non-breaking waves: Waves do not trap an air pocket against the wall. The pressure at the
wall has a gentle variation in time and is almost in phase with the wave elevation. Wave
loads of this type are called pulsating or quasi-static loads because the period is much larger
than the natural period of oscillation of the structures. (For conventional caisson breakwaters
the period is approximately one order of magnitude larger.) Consequently, the wave load can
be treated like a static load in stability calculations. Special considerations are required if the
caisson is placed on fine soils where pore pressure may build up, resulting in significant
weakening of the soil.
Non-Breaking Waves - assumes forces are essentially hydrostatic
Linear Wave Theory
standing wave (known as the "clapotis")
total reflection crest to trough excursion of the water surface = 2H
H
cosh kh
H cosh k (h + z )
, z = 0 at surface;
cosh kh
2) Breaking (plunging) waves with almost vertical fronts: Waves that break in a plunging mode
develop an almost vertical front before they curl over (see Figure VI-5-57b). If this almost
vertical front occurs just prior to the contact with the wall, then very high pressures are
generated having extremely short durations. Only a negligible amount of air is entrapped,
resulting in a very large single peaked force followed by very small force oscillations. The
duration of the pressure peak is on the order of hundredths of a second.
3) Breaking (plunging) waves with large air pockets: If a large amount of air is entrapped in a
pocket, a double peaked force is produced followed by pronounced force oscillations as
shown in Figure VI-5-57c. The first and largest peak is induced by the wave crest hitting the
structure at point A, and it is similar to a hammer shock. The second peak is induced by the
subsequent maximum compression of the air pocket at point B, and is it is referred to as
compression shock, (Lundgren 1969). In the literature this wave loading is often called the
Bagnold type. The force oscillations are due to the pulsation of the air pocket. The double
peaks have typical spacing in the range of milliseconds to hundredths of a second. The period
of the force oscillations is in the range 0.2-1.0 sec.
Formula
Sainflou formula (modified by
Miche-Rundgen, 1958)
Wave Type
Standing
Structure Type
Impermeable vertical wall
CEM Table
VI-5-52
Goda formula
Goda formula (modified by
Takahashi, Tanimoto, and
Shimosako 1994)
Goda formula forces and
moments
Goda formula (modifed by
Tanimoto and Kimura 1985)
Goda formula (modified by
Takahashi and Hosoyamada
1994)
Goda formula (modified by
Takahashi, Tanimoto, and
Shimosako 1990)
Goda formula (modifed by
Takahashi, Tanimoto, and
Shimosako 1994)
2-D oblique
Provoked
breaking
VI-5-53
VI-5-54
Provoked
breaking
2-D head-on
VI-5-55
VI-5-56
2-D head-on
VI-5-57
2-D head-on
VI-5-58
3-D head-on
VI-5-59
CEM Table VI-5-52 through VI-5-59 provide formulae for estimating pressure distributions
and corresponding forces and overturning moments on vertical walls due to non-breaking and
breaking waves.
o Wave pressure distributions for breaking waves are estimated using Table VI-5-54,
o corresponding forces and moments are calculated from Table VI-5-55.
Minikin's Method:
o Older breaking wave forces method of Minikin (Shore Protection Manual, 1984)
o can result in very high estimates of wave force, as much as 15 to 18 times those
calculated for non-breaking waves.
o These estimates are too conservative in most cases and could result in costly
structures. There may be rare circumstances where waves could break in just the right
manner to create very high impulsive loads of short duration, and these cases may not
be covered by the range of experiment parameters used to develop the guidance given
in Table VI-5-54.
o In addition, scaled laboratory models do not correctly reproduce the force loading
where pockets of air are trapped between the wave and wall (CEM Figure VI-5-57).
o For these reasons, it may be advisable to design vertical-front structures serving
critical functions according to Minikin's method.
Most of the methodology is based on the method presented by Goda (1974) and extended by
others to cover a variety of conditions. These formulae provide a unified design approach to
estimating design loads on vertical walls and caissons.
NOTE: All of the methods calculate the pressure distribution and resulting forces and
moments for only the wave portion of the hydrodynamic loading. The hydrostatic pressure
distribution from the SWL to the bottom is excluded.
o For a caisson structure (with water on both sides), the SWL hydrostatic forces would
exactly cancel (i.e. hydrostatic pressure on the seaside would be opposed by the
pressure on the lee-side);
o however, it will be necessary to include the effect of the SWL hydrodynamic pressure
for vertical walls tied into the shoreline or an embankment.
Non-Breaking Waves:
Sainflou's Formula (1928) modified by Miche-Rundgren (1944, 1958)
(CEM Table VI-5-52, p. VI-5-138)
Derived theoretically for regular, non-breaking waves and a vertical wall, but may be
applied to irregular waves
Uses 2nd order wave theory
Assumes linear depth-dependent pressure distribution below the water line (assumes
force is essentially hydrostatic)
cannot be used for breaking waves or overtopping
p1 = (p 2 + w h s )
p2 =
H + o
h s + H + o
wH
cosh kh s
p3 = w (H o )
Radiation stress considerations show the reflected wave causes a set-up (o) at the
vertical wall
H 2
2
o =
coth kh s , k =
L
L
Simplified formula assumes a linear pressure distribution below the water level
(conservative assumption, see reflected wave diagram)
2 cosh kh s
where = wave reflection coefficient (1.0 for vertical wall with total reflection)
Breaking Waves:
Goda (1974) (CEM Table VI-5-53, p. VI-5-139)
based on model tests
design against single largest wave force in design sea state, uses highest wave in
wave group
Hdesign is estimated at a distance of 5Hs seaward of breakwater (Hdesign = 1.8Hs)
hb = water depth at 5Hs seaward of breakwater
L (or k) is calculated at hb using Ts = 1.1Tm (Tm is the average period)
modified to incorporate random wave breaking model
assumes trapezoidal shape for pressure distribution along front
Caisson is imbedded into the rubble mound
Uplift pressure distribution is assumed triangular
Note: hs
includes
wave setup
h c
p for > h c
1
p 2 = 1
0
for h c
p3 = 3p1
Buoyancy and Uplift Pressure
2khs
1 = 0.6 + 0.5
sinh
2
kh
s
= 2 = minimum of
h b d H de sin
2d
or
3h b d
H design
h hc
1
1
3 = 1 w
h s cosh kh s
Decrease in Pressure from Hydrostatic under Wave Trough
: 0.5H design z < 0
z
p=
: z < 0.5H design
0.5H design
Tanimoto etal. (1976) added structure type modification factors (1, 2, 3) which are one for a
vertical wall (1 = 2 = 3 = 1)
= 0.75(1 + cos )1H design
h c
p for > h c
1
p 2 = 1
0
for h c
Takahashi and Hosoyamada (1994) Table VI-5-57 developed corrections to p1, p2, p3 to account
for a structure with a sloped portion beginning just below the waterline
Takahashi, Tanimoto and Shimosako (1990) Table VI-5-58 updated the structure type
modification factors (1, 2, 3) to account for a vertical wall structure protected by a
rubble mound
Tanimoto, Takahashi and Kitatani (1981) and Takahashi, Shimosako and Sakaki (1991) Table
VI-5-59 updated the structure type modification factors (1, 2, 3) to account for
caissons with vertical slit fronts faces and open wave chambers
p1
FH
dh
hw
hs
FB
p2
pu
FU
bu
FH = 12 w h s (H + o ) + 12 p 2 (h s + H + o )
=
1
2
(p 2 + w h s )(h s + H + o ) 12 w h s2
FU = 12 p u B
where pu = p2 for Sainflou (conservative) and c is the specific weight of the caisson
Overturning moments is then:
M H = FH d h
= 16 w h s (h s + H + o ) + 16 p 2 (h s + H + o ) 16 w h 3s and
2
1
6
(p 2 + w h s )(h s + H + o )2 16 w h 3s
M U = Fu ( 23 B) = 13 p u B2
Similar calculations can be made for the pressure distribution under the wave trough
Table VI-5-55, p VI-5-141 has the formulae for the Goda equations which include
biasing and uncertainty corrections
#$ % %"
! " ! ! "
#$ % %&"
#$ % %'"
#$ % %%"
#$ % %("
#$ % %)"
* +
,
- .." + ..'"
- ,
/ ..'"
VI-5-141
2z
, z H 2
p m = p max 1
Hb
Hydrostatic Pressure:
p d = (d + 12 H b )
pmax = max dynamic pressure at SWL
pm = dynamic pressure
z = vertical distance from SWL
h = the depth of water a distance L from the
wall, h = d + Ldm
Ld = the wavelength at depth d
Lh = the wavelength at depth h
Hb = breaker height
m
1
M total = 13 p max H b d + 16 (d + 1 2 H b )
0.5H
dH
p max = 101d1 + b
h Lh
2
2z
, z 12 H b
p m = p max 1
H
b
Static Pressure
1 2z
0 z < 12 H b
H1
p s = 2 H b
1
z<0
2 H b z
Minikin's Method for a wall with top below the design breaker crest
using reduction factors (rm and a) from plots below
Hb
b'
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
2a/Hb
rm
= 13 p max H b [rm (d + a ) a ]
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
b'/H b
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
b'/H b
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
d
h
~ 5m
key stone
(scour protection)
Fh
Slip circles
dh
bu
S .F . = (W B U ) Fh ,
where is the coefficient of friction between the upright section and the rubble
mound (or the bottom). For a new installation 0.5. After the initial
shakedown, 0.6.
(2) For overturning, moments are calculated about the lee-side toe
S .F . = (M W M u ) M p
for a symmetric section with no eccentricity:
M W = 0.5(W B )
M U = buU = 2 / 3U
M p = d h Fh
In designing breakwaters for harbor protection, safety factors are taken as 1.2 or higher.
"The overturning of a caisson implies very high pressures on the point of rotation.
The bearing capacity of the stone underlayer will be exceeded and the crushing of stones
at the caisson heel will take place. In reality the bearing capacity of the underlayer and
the sea-bed sets the limiting conditions. The soil mechanics methods of analyzing the
bearing capacity of a foundation when exposed to eccentric inclined loads should be
applied, i.e. slip failure or the use of bearing capacity diagrams." (Abbott and Price, p.
422)
sand
Sand Key
clay
clay
sand
Generally, a rubble mound will distribute the weight of the caisson according to
its friction angle. Higher base mounds will distribute the load over a wider area and
reduce the load on the soil. Weak soil may also be replaced with a sand key which will
further distribute the load.
Guideline (D = depth of top sand layer or sand key):
te
Fh
W-B-U
6e W
p1 = 1 + ,
BB
For e > 16 B :
p1 =
2W
,
3 te
6e W
p 2 = 1
BB
p 2 = 0 ; where t e =
B
e
2
Soil cannot
support tension
Load on soil
p2
B'
p1
qa = allowable load
qa
1
2
( p1 + p2 )
p1