JMST 2007 158-170
JMST 2007 158-170
JMST 2007 158-170
net/publication/286692882
CITATIONS READS
12 1,344
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jaw-Guei Lin on 04 October 2022.
Key words: vertical breakwater, wave force, hydraulic model test. individual failure mechanisms, the dynamic behavior of
a Composite-type breakwater under the interaction
among waves, vertical caisson, rubber mound founda-
ABSTRACT tion and sandy seabed, might also be the cause of
structure failure.
In this study, a series of hydraulic model tests with regular/ Three different types of wave force acting on the
irregular waves was carried out in a wave flume to investigate the
vertical breakwater are identified: non-breaking waves,
wave forces acting on a composite-type breakwater. Waves in front
of the breakwater, wave pressures on the vertical wall and at the breaking waves with almost vertical front, and break-
bottom of caisson were measured simultaneously. The maximum ing waves with large air pockets, and therefore hydrau-
horizontal force and uplift force were calculated and compared with lic model tests performed in the final stage of the
Goda’s wave force theories. The results had shown that Goda’s coastal structure design become a common sense and a
theories offer higher safety factor. However, the measured uplift
necessary step [3]. Several wave force theories have
force was smaller than Goda’s and nonzero at the land-side end of the
bottom which might be caused by the path of water flow in the porous been promoted for the evaluation of the wave force
media beneath the caisson. It also shows that the results from acting on vertical wall. For example, under the as-
different irregular wave train with the same spectrum are different, sumption of uniformly distributed loads with averaged
and thus the effectiveness of conventional irregular wave tests with wave pressure acting on vertical wall, Hiroi, in 1920,
several repeats of the same wave train should be reconfirmed.
proposed the first wave pressure formula. Sainflou, in
1928, theoretically derived a simple form of standing
INTRODUCTION
wave force formula. In 1950, Minikin formula was
proposed from the studies of impact force tests. Based
Composite-type breakwater is the most popular
on the Ito’s continuous loading and maximum wave
structure for the harbors around Taiwan coast. However,
height concepts, and the experimental/field data, Goda,
due to the characteristic of Taiwan coast, most of them
in 1973, obtained four equations for the design load on
are constructed on sandy seabed, especially at Taiwan
vertical walls and becomes the most popular equations
West Coast. Vertical caisson, large wave force and
in the recent coastal structure design. The equations
sandy seabed create a very sensitive circumstance that
are shown as follow, and the related sketch is shown in
several kinds of structure failure might occur. From
Figure 1.
previous relevant studies, such as Oumeraci [8] and
Coastal Engineering Manual by U. S. Army Corps of
η * = 0.75 (1 + cosβ ) H max (1)
Engineering [13], the causes of structure failure can be
classified into three types: (1) the material strength
P 1 = 0.5 (1 + cos β) ( α 1 + α 2 cos2 β) ρgH max (2)
destruction or the mechanical instability of the structure,
(2) the exceptional hydraulic conditions including ex-
1
treme wave force or excess water level, and (3) the P2 = (3)
cosh (2 π h/L)
foundation or the seabed instabilities including the scour-
ing and the settlement. However, except for all these
P 3 = α3 P1 (4)
h* 1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
α3 = 1 – 1– . (8)
h cosh (2π h / L)
The experiments were carried out in the wave
On account of the complexity of wave behavior in flume (see Figure 2), which is located in Wind Tunnel
front of a vertical breakwater, the evaluation of wave Laboratory, IHMT. A composite-type breakwater (see
forces on vertical breakwater are mostly done by hy- Figure 3) was built on a sandy seabed (see Figure 4) in
draulic experiment in a wave flume. For example, the wave flume.
Oumeraci et al. [11], Schmidit et al. [12], Oumeraci and As shown in Figure 4, the wave flume is 100 m
Kortenhaus [9], Hattori et al. [4], Klammer [5], long, 1.5 m wide and 2.0 m high with piston type wave
Kortenhaus and Oumeraci [6], Oumeraci et al. [10]. maker. The system can generate regular waves and
Regular/irregular wave trains are usually selected as irregular waves with JONSWAP and Bretschneider
incident waves. Regular wave tests employed the rep- spectra. The suggested wave frequency range is be-
resentative wave height/period of incident waves, but tween 0.2 Hz and 2 Hz, the experimental suggested
Wave absorber nd
2 Observation section
10.0
31.0
15.0 Wave paddle
25.0
35.0
2.0
62.5
Armor layer Concrete Caisson
with rock block 4.28.3 16.4 28.0 11.6 10.0
413.9
52.6
112.6
60.0
120.0 550.0 200.0 600.0
water depth is 1 m and the maximum wave height is front edge of the sand trench. According to the model
0.32 m. scale, the offshore water depth (1.126 m) is around 40 m
The model scale of the experiments is 1:36. In in practice.
order to simulate the nearshore waves in front of the Two incident wave types are carried out in the
breakwater (see Figure 4), the seabed was combined experiments. Table 1 shows ten regular wave cases
with one 1:10 sloping bottom with 6 m long to change tested in the experiments, the parentheses show their
the water depth from 1.126 m to 0.526 m, a fixed case ID numbers. The maximum wave height was
horizontal seabed with 2 m long, a sand trench with 5.5 chosen to avoid the wave breaking. The irregular wave
m long and 0.6m deep, and a 1.2 m long fixed bed behind cases introduced the representative waves shown in
the breakwater to maintain the trench. The water depth Table 1 as significant wave height (H 1/3) and related
in front of the breakwater is 0.526 m, and the caisson period (T 1/3 ) into JONSWAP spectrum [2] shown as
was set at the distance of 4.139 m measured from the follow
Y.F. Chiu et al.: An Experimental Study of Wave Forces on Vertical Breakwater 161
13
Table 2. Experimental irregular wave cases Total horizontal force F H = Σ Areai
i=1
(12)
Wave cases 1 2 3 4
23
fp (Hz) 0.928 0.698 0.556 0.464
H1/3 (cm) 8.33 13.89 19.44 25.00
Total uplift force F U = Σ Areai
i = 14
(13)
T1/3 (sec) 1.00 1.33 1.67 2.00
JH08T10-1 JH13T13-1 JH19T16-1 JH25T20-1 Acting location of total horizontal force
Wave trains
(case ID) JH08T10-2 JH13T13-2 JH19T16-2 JH25T20-2 13
JH08T10-3 JH13T13-3 JH19T16-3 JH25T20-3 Σ Areai * Xi
i=1
Remarks 1 without breakwater; 2 repeats with breakwater X = (14)
FH
: Pressure gauge
10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
5.05.0
Used for
H = 8.33/13.89 Used for
regular cases H = 19.44/25.00 regular cases
10.0
Acting location of total uplift force of breakwater. Due to the side effect of the wave flume,
the shoaling effect of the slopping bottom and the
23
damping effect of sandy seabed, the regular wave heights
Σ Areai * Yi
i = 14 arrived at the location of breakwater is different from
Y = (15)
FU the incident wave heights. Figure 7 shows the wave
profiles (3 repeats in each case) at the location of the
where breakwater and the wave’s nonlinearity can be found in
X i (i = 1 ~ 13): The horizontal distance of the large wave cases.
centroid of Areai from origin Figure 8 shows, as an example, the profiles of
Y i (i = 14 ~ 23): The vertical distance of the horizontal pressure on the wall and of uplift pressures at
centroid of Areai from origin the bottom of the caisson in Case H25T20. As referred
to Figure 5, the water elevation during the wave trough
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS action might below the locations of gauges V1, V2 and
V3 and causes these gauges obtained incomplete pres-
The discussions of the experimental results are sure profiles and zero pressures as water level below
divided into two parts: regular waves and irregular their locations. One noticeable phenomenon is that
waves, and then the comparisons are presented. even though the wave profile is highly nonlinear, the
uplift pressures still look quite linear which should be
1. Regular wave results caused by the form of wave pressure transmission in
water and wave energy dissipation on porous founda-
Table 3 shows the wave heights/periods measured tion and seabed.
at deep water zone as incident waves and at the location
: Measured PU
Area 1
Table 3. Measured Progressive waves : Extrapolated V1
Area 3 Area 2
Incident waves Waves at breakwater V2
Case ID Area 5 Area 4
PS
Ho (cm) To (s) H1/3 (cm) Hmean (cm) Area 7 Area 6
V3
H08T10 8.33 1.00 8.15 6.42 Area 9 Area 8
H08T13 8.33 1.33 8.66 8.50 V4
H08T16 13.89 1.33 6.89 6.73 Area 11 Area 10
V5
H08T20 8.33 1.67 9.58 9.21
H13T13 13.89 1.67 14.69 14.33 Area 13 Area 12
Area 22 Area 20 Area 18 Area 16
H13T16 19.44 1.67 11.26 10.97
Area 23 PD
H13T20 8.33 2.00 15.27 15.01 PL
U4
Area 14
H19T16 13.89 2.00 15.28 14.62 U3
U2 P
H19T20 19.44 2.00 21.30 20.55 U1 R
Area 21 Area 19 Area 17Area 15
H25T20 25.00 2.00 25.17 23.97
Fig. 6. Wave forces calculations.
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
-10 -10 -10 -10
Wave height (cm)
From Goda’s theories, the variations of horizon- respectively. The solid/hollow circles in the figures are
tal/uplift wave forces are directly proportioned to wave respectively the maximum and minimum wave pressures,
height and wave period, and the horizontal wave pres- linear regression curves are also included. Linear and
sure and uplift wave pressure are equal at the sea-side proportional relations can be found between wave pres-
toe of the caisson. Figures 9 and 10 present the relations sures and wave height/period.
between the maximum horizontal/uplift wave pressures By comparing the V5 pressures in Figure 9 and U4
and wave heights/periods from Case H25T20 pressures in Figure 10, one can find that the pressures at
the toe of the vertical wall appear to be larger than the
pressures at the sea-side end of the bottom, which is
U1 20 V1 20 different from Goda’s theories that assuming to be
10 10
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
0
-10
0
-10
plotted. The measured horizontal/uplift forces are all
-20 -20 smaller than Goda’s wave forces, and the larger the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 V5 20 wave height, that larger the difference.
10
Pressure
Time (s) 0
-10
From the observations on the time series of wave
-20 forces and profiles, the occurrence times of maximum/
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
minimum horizontal forces are found not consistent
Time (s)
with the arrival of wave crest/trough. Such phenom-
(a) At the bottom (b) On the vertical wall
enon causes the discussions on the definition of maxi-
Fig. 8. Time series of wave pressures on caisson (Case H25T20, mum wave force. Figure 12 shows the horizontal and
pressure unit: gf/cm2). the uplift forces calculated as wave peaks (crest/trough)
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
-5 -5 -5 -5
-10 -10 -10 -10
-15 -15 -15 -15
-20 -20 -20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Wave height (cm) Wave height (cm) Wave period (sec) Wave period (sec)
(b) Gauge V2 (e) Gauge V5 (b) Gauge V2 (e) Gauge V5
20 20 20 20
Wave pressure (gf/cm2)
15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0
-5 -5 -5 -5
-10 -10 -10 -10
-15 -15 -15 -15
-20 -20 -20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Wave height (cm) Wave height (cm) Wave period (sec) Wave period (sec)
(c) Gauge V3 (c) Gauge V3
20 20
Wave pressure (gf/cm2)
Wave pressure (gf/cm2)
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
-15 -15
-20 -20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Wave height (cm) Wave period (sec)
(a) Wave height (b) Wave period
Fig. 9. Relations between wave height and maximum horizontal wave pressures (Case H25T20).
164 Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2007)
0 0
700 -200 - 200
100 Uplift force Fig. 12. Maximum horizontal and uplift forces (calculated at wave
crest/trough).
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
1000 1000
Wave height (cm)
800 800
Fig. 11. Comparisons of wave forces on the caisson.
600 600
Wave force (gf/cm)
400 400
200 200
actions, the wave pressures at these moments might not 0 0
be the largest. Figure 13 shows the horizontal and the -200 -200
uplift forces calculated from maximum/minimum wave -400 -400
pressures of all wave gauges. Linear regression curves -600 -600
collects their regression curves and shows there are a -1000 -1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
slightly difference between them, especially on the Wave height (cm) Wave height (cm)
horizontal force. For convenient use in engineering (a) Horizontal force at Pmax/Pmin (b) Uplift force at Pmax/Pmin
design, wave forces at wave crest action with a proper Fig. 13. Maximum horizontal and uplift forces (calculated from all
safety factor are suggested. maximum pressures).
Y.F. Chiu et al.: An Experimental Study of Wave Forces on Vertical Breakwater 165
1200 1000 30 30
1000 Force from Max. pressure Force from Max. pressure 25 25
maximum 800 maximum
H1/10 (cm)
Hmax(cm)
800 minimum minimum 20 20
600 15 15
600
10 10
Wave force (gf/cm)
H1/3 (cm)
-600 20
H1/3/√m0
-800 Force at wave peak Force at wave peak
maximum -800 maximum 15 4.0
-1000
minimum minimum 10
-1200 -1000 3.5
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 3.0
Wave height (cm) Wave height (cm) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
(a) Horizontal Force (b) Uplift Force T1/3 (s) T1/3 (s)
Fig. 14. Comparisons of wave forces calculated from wave crest and (: JH25T20; : JH19T16; ♦: JH13T13; ×: JH08T10)
maximum pressures. Fig. 15. Characteristic progressive wave heights/periods at the location
of the breakwater.
JH13T13 JH08T10
investigation, and each wave train is repeated twice for 40 40
the cases with breakwater (standing wave cases), and 30 30
20 20
once for the cases without breakwater (progressive wave
10 10
cases). Figure 15 shows the relations of characteristic 0
0
wave heights and related wave periods, and the ratio of 01 234 012 34
H 1 / 3 / m 0 vs. T 1/3 of the irregular progressive waves Wave train no. Wave train no.
measured at the location of the breakwater. The figures (: Hmax : H1/10 ×: H1/3)
show that different wave train may induce different Fig. 16. Characteristic standing wave heights/periods in front of the
maximum wave height and period, thus, it causes differ- caisson.
ent wave forces acting on the breakwater; however, for
significant wave height/period and for mean wave tigations point out the uncertainty of the irregular wave
height/period, three different wave trains only cause a test results, and should not be tested with only one wave
slightly difference with the maximum of 8% in wave train with several repeats.
height and the maximum of 5% in wave period. The
ratio of H 1 / 3 / m 0 is also not a constant and lies DISCUSSIONS
between 3.7 and 4.0. From the investigation, one can
find that different wave trains with the same spectrum 1. Comparisons of regular wave forces and irregular
and different component wave phases contain different wave forces
wave characters.
Figure 16 shows the characteristic standing wave In order to compare the results of regular waves
heights/periods in front of caisson. H max , H 1/10 , and and irregular waves, Figure 17 presents the wave pres-
H 1/3 of all irregular wave cases with two repeats are sure distributions on vertical wall and at the bottom for
presented. Due to the random property of waves and of all wave cases. Each figure contains the results of three
the interactions among waves, sandy seabed, rubber irregular wave trains with two repeats (in symbols) and
mound foundation and vertical breakwater, Figure 16 the distribution of maximum regular wave pressure (in
shows that, even using the same wave train, the wave solid line). For horizontal and uplift wave pressure
height/period measured from two repeat tests are still distributions, the regular wave pressures are found close
not equal, not to mention the results from three different to the maximum irregular wave pressures in H08T10
wave trains with the same spectrum. Again, the inves- and JH08T10 cases, close to highest 1/10 irregular wave
166 Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2007)
(PU)max (gf/cm2)
(PU)max (gf/cm2)
40 40 8
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
35 2 35
30 30 6
25 25
20 20 4
15 1 15
10 10 2
5 5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(PH)max (gf/cm2) Distance (cm) (PH)max (gf/cm2) Distance (cm)
(b) 50 (e) 3 (b) 50 (e) 6
45 45
(PU)1/10 (gf/cm2)
(PU)1/10 (gf/cm2)
40 40
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
35 2 35 4
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 1 15 2
10 10
5 5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(PH)1/10 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm) (PH)1/10 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm)
(c) 50 (f) 3 (c) 50 (f) 6
45 45
(PU)1/3 (gf/cm2)
(PU)1/3 (gf/cm2)
40 40
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
35 2 35 4
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 1 15 2
10 10
5 5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(PH)1/3 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm) (PH)1/3 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm)
Cases H08T10 vs. JH08T10 Cases H13T13vs. JH13T13
(a) 50 (d) 10 (a) 50 (d) 18
45 45 16
(PU)max (gf/cm2)
(PU)max (gf/cm2)
40 8 40 14
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
35 35 12
30 6 30 10
25 25 8
20 4 20
15 15 6
10 2 10 4
5 5 2
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(PH)max (gf/cm2) Distance (cm) (PH)max (gf/cm2) Distance (cm)
(b) 50 (e) 10 (b) 50 (e) 14
(PU)1/10 (gf/cm2)
(PU)1/10 (gf/cm2)
45 45 12
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 8 40
35 35 10
30 6 30 8
25 25
20 4 20 6
15 15 4
10 2 10 2
5 5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(PH)1/10 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm) (PH)1/10 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm)
(c) 50 (f) 8 (c) 50 (f) 12
45 45
(PU)1/3 (gf/cm2)
(PU)1/3 (gf/cm2)
40 40 10
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
35 6 35 8
30 30
25 4 25 6
20 20
15 15 4
10 2 10 2
5 5
0 0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(PH)1/3 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm) (PH)1/3 (gf/cm2) Distance (cm)
Cases H19T16 vs. JH19T16 Cases H25T20 vs. JH25T20
Fig. 17. Comparisons of regular wave forces (solid line) and irregular wave forces (symbols) (a) maximum horizontal force; (b) highest 1/10 horizontal
force; (c) highest 1/3 horizontal force; (d) maximum uplift force; (e) highest 1/10 uplift force; (f) highest 1/3 uplift force.
Y.F. Chiu et al.: An Experimental Study of Wave Forces on Vertical Breakwater 167
pressures in H13T13 and JH13T13 cases and in H19T16 pared with the wave pressures obtained from Goda’s
and JH19T16 cases, but only close to highest 1/3 irregu- theories with the representative wave height of H 1/3
lar wave pressures in H25T20 and JH25T20 cases. (solid line) or 1.8H1/3 (dotted line).
With these comparisons, one can see that the regu- For the cases of JH08T10 and JH13T13, Figures
lar wave test for the wave forces acting on composite- 18 and 19 show that the theoretical horizontal/uplift
type breakwater might be under-estimated. As a conclu- pressures of 1.8H 1/3 are slightly smaller than P max, but
sion of this section, on evaluating the wave force acting larger than P1/10, P1/3 and Pmean. However, for the cases
on a coastal structure by means of hydraulic model test, of JH19T16 and JH25T20, Figures 20 and 21 show that
irregular wave tests with different wave train of the same the theoretical horizontal/uplift pressures of 1.8H1/3 are
spectrum is a much proper way. larger than all characteristics pressures. From the analy-
ses of the experiments, in irregular wave cases, Goda’s
2. Comparisons of theoretical wave forces and irregular wave force theories underestimate the wave forces act-
wave forces ing on caisson in small wave condition, and overesti-
mate in large wave condition. As mention above, such
In this section, the irregular wave pressure distri- phenomenon might be caused by the random property of
butions are compared to Goda’s wave force theories. waves and of the interactions among waves, sandy
Figures 18 to 21 present the horizontal and uplift wave seabed, rubber mound foundation and breakwater.
pressure distributions of all wave cases. Each figure
contains three wave trains with two repeats, and the CONCLUSIONS
experimental maximum(P max), highest 1/10(P1/10), high-
est 1/3(P 1/3 ), and averaged(P mean) pressures are com- 1. Due to the shoaling effect for waves traveling on
60 60 60 30 30 30
pmax pmax pmax
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm )
Pressure (g/cm )
2
2
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 pmax 10 pmax 10 pmax 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
60 60 60 30 30 30
p1/10 p1/10 p1/10
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 p1/10 10 p1/10 10 p1/10 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
60 60 60 30 30 30
p1/3 p1/3 p1/3
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 p1/3 10 p1/3 10 p1/3 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
60 60 60 30 30 30
pmean pmean pmean
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 10 pmean 5 5 5
pmean pmean
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm)2 Pressure (g/cm)2 Pressure (g/cm)2 Distance (cm) Distance (cm) Distance (cm)
(a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3 (a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3
Fig. 18. Comparisons of theoretical/irregular wave forces in Case H08T10 (solid line: theoretical H1/3; dashed line: 1.8H1/3; solid symbol: experimental
data).
168 Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2007)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 pmax 10 pmax 10 pmax 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 10 p1/10 10 5 5 5
p1/10 p1/10
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
60 60 60 30 30 30
p1/3 p1/3 p1/3
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 p1/3 10 p1/3 10 p1/3 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 pmean 10 pmean pmean 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure (g/cm2) Pressure (g/cm2) Pressure (g/cm2) Distance (cm) Distance (cm) Distance (cm)
(a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3 (a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3
Horizontal pressures Uplift pressure
Fig. 19. Comparisons of theoretical/irregular wave forces in Case H13T13 (solid line: theoretical H1/3; dashed line: 1.8H1/3; solid symbol: experimental
data).
Pressure (g/cm )
Pressure (g/cm )
2
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 pmax 10 pmax 10 pmax 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 p1/10 10 p1/10 10 p1/10 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 p1/3 10 p1/3 10 p1/3 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 pmean 10 pmean pmean 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2) Pressure (g/cm2) Pressure (g/cm2) Distance (cm) Distance (cm) Distance (cm)
(a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3 (a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3
Fig. 20. Comparisons of theoretical/irregular wave forces in Case H19T16 (solid line: theoretical H1/3; dashed line: 1.8H1/3; solid symbol: experimental
data).
Y.F. Chiu et al.: An Experimental Study of Wave Forces on Vertical Breakwater 169
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm )
Pressure (g/cm2)
2
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 10 10 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 10 10 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 10 10 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2)
Pressure (g/cm2)
50 50 25 25 25
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40 40 20 20 20
30 30 15 15 15
20 20 20 10 10 10
10 10 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 40 60
Pressure (g/cm2) Pressure (g/cm2) Pressure (g/cm2) Distance (cm) Distance (cm) Distance (cm)
(a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3 (a) Wave train 1 (b) Wave train 2 (c) Wave train 3
Fig. 21. Comparisons of theoretical/irregular wave forces in Case H25T20 (solid line: theoretical H1/3; dashed line: 1.8H1/3; solid symbol: experimental
data).
nearshore sloping bathymetry, the wave nonlinearity 5. Due to the randomness and uncertainty of the results,
will become dominant. However, as wave pressures the irregular wave tests should not be tested with only
transmit into the porous media of seabed, their one wave train and repeated several times. Optimal
nonlinearities might be decayed, and approach to number of wave trains with the same spectrum but
linear as depth increased. different component wave phases, and their statisti-
2. The occurrence times of maximum/minimum hori- cal interpretations should be investigated further.
zontal and uplift forces are not consistent with the
arrival of wave crest/trough. But the total forces have REFERENCES
only slightly difference in our cases. Wave forces at
wave crest action with a proper safety factor are 1. Chen, C.-H., “Dynamic Behavior of Vertical Breakwa-
suggested. ter Induced by Irregular Waves,” Master Theses, Depart-
3. Regular wave test underestimate the wave force act- ment of Harbor and River Engineering, National Taiwan
ing on vertical breakwater, irregular wave test was Ocean University (2004).
suggested. 2. Goda, Y., Random Seas and Design of Maritime
4. Wave forces will be increased as wave height/period Structures, World Scientific, Singapore (1985).
increased. However, Goda’s wave force theories 3. Goda, Y., Technical Standards and Commentaries for
Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan, The Overseas
underestimate the wave forces acting on caisson in
Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, Japan
small wave condition, and overestimate in large wave (2002).
condition. As mention above, such phenomenon 4. Hattori, M., Arami, A., and Yui, T., “Wave Impact
might be caused by the random property of waves and Pressure on Vertical Wall under Breaking Waves of
of the interactions among waves, sandy seabed, rub- Various Types,” Coastal Engineering, Vol. 22, pp. 79-
ber mound foundation and breakwater. 114 (1994).
170 Journal of Marine Science and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2007)
5. Klammer, P., “Oscillatory Motions and Permanent 10. Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., and Klammer, P.,
Displacements of Caisson Breakwaters Subject to Im- “Displacement of Caisson Breakwaters Induced by Break-
pulsive Breaking Wave Loads,” Proceedings of the 24th ing Wave Impacts,” Proceedings of the International
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Venice Conference of the Institute of Civil Engineers –
ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 1255-1268 (1996). Advanced in Coastal Structures and Breakwaters,
6. Kortenhaus, A. and Oumeraci, H., “Classification of London, UK, pp. 50-63 (1996).
Wave Loading on Monolithic Coastal Structure,” 11. Oumeraci, H., Partenscky, H.W., Kohlhase, S., and
Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Klammer, P., “Impact Loading and Dynamic Response
Coastal Engineering, Venice ASCE, Vol. 1, pp. 867-880 of Caisson Breakewater-Results of Large-Scale Model
(1998). Tests,” Proceedings of 23rd International Conference
7. Lin, Y.-J., “Dynamic Behavior of Vertical Breakwater on Coastal Engineering, Venice, ASCE, Vol. 2, pp.
Induced by Regular Waves,” Master Theses, Depart- 1475-1488 (1992).
ment of Harbor and River Engineering, National Taiwan 12. Schmidit, R., Oumeraci, H., and Partenscky, H.-W.,
Ocean University (2004). “Impact Loads Induced by Plunging Breakers on
8. Oumeraci, H., “Review and Analysis of Vertical Break- Vertical Structure,” Proceedings of the 23th Interna-
water Failures- Lessons Learned,” Coastal Engineering, tional Conference on Coastal Engineering, Venice,
Vol. 22, pp. 3-29 (1994). ASCE, Vol. 2, pp. 1545-1558 (1992).
9. Oumeraci, H. and Kortenhaus, A., “Analysis of the 13. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering
Dynamic Response of Caisson Breakwaters,” (Special Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, USA
Issue on Vertical Breakwaters), Coastal Engineering, (2002).
Vol. 22, pp. 159-183 (1994).