COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

NEWGUIDANCEFORWAVEFORCESONJETTIESINEXPOSED LOCATIONS
by byK.J.McConnell ,N.W.H.Allsop ,G.Cuomo andI.C.Cruickshank 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION Background
1 2 3 4

Tradeactivitiesofcoastalnationsrelyonjettiesforberthingofvesselsfortheloadinganddischarge of cargo. Traditionally, these facilities were constructed in sheltered locations or sheltered by breakwatershencehydraulicloadingswererelativelysmall. In recent years there has been increased demand for development of large single use industrial terminals (especially those for Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), and Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG)) which requiredeepwaterandshelteredberthsforlargervessels,butdonotnecessarilyneedsheltertothe approach trestles carrying the delivery lines. These terminals are often required in remote locations where there is no wave shelter, no existing infrastructure and the construction of new protective breakwatersforthe wholefacilitymaynotbecosteffective.Therefore, in many instances the jetties and/or their approach trestles are being constructed in exposed locations without breakwater protection.ViewsofatypicaljettyapproachtrestleareshowninFigures1and2.

Figure1:Typicalexposedjetty

1 Senior Engineer, HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, OX10 8BA, Tel: +44(0)1491822304,Fax:+44(0)1491832233,Email:[email protected] 2 Technical Director, Coastal Structures, HR Wallingford, UK & Visiting Professor, University of Southampton 3 MarieCurieVisitingResearchFellow,UniversityofRome3,c/oHRWallingford,UK 4 PrincipalEngineer&ProjectManager,HRWallingford,UK 1

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Figure2:Typicalapproachtrestle Other examples of exposed jetties include small jetties on open coasts in tropical regions serving smallfishingcommunities,ferryservicesandemergencyaccesstoremotelocations.Formostoftheir design life, the environmental conditions may be benign but occasionally cyclone and hurricane conditionshit,puttingtheexposedjettyundersignificanthydraulicloading. 1.2 Waveloadings

Of particular concern in these locations is the risk of occurrence of wave forces on the jetty superstructureandthelikelymagnitudeofsuchforcesshouldtheyoccur.Aswellasbeingimportant forthedesignofstructureelements,theseloadsneedtobeconsideredwhenassessingthepotential for damage to equipment located on approach trestles and jetty heads. There are also potential environmental risks arising from damage to exposed jetty facilities, particularly those carrying oil or otherhazardousmaterials. Existing guidance on such loadings mainly derives from the offshore industry. In this field an approach termed the 'air gap' approach is generally adopted for platform design. Following this approach, the maximum wave crest elevation is predicted for the design condition and the deck (or soffit)level islocatedat anallowanceor'airgap'above this elevation to ensure a low probability of occurrenceofwaveforcesonthesuperstructure. The'airgap'approachisoftenadoptedinthedesignofshoreconnectedtrestlesandjetties,however the design of structures in this environment may be dictated by other constraints which prevent the adoption of this method. Constraints may include vessel freeboard at berth, the need for loading / offloadingandtidalrange,allofwhichdictatepracticaldecklevelstoensureefficient operations.In addition there may be considerations such as material costs, member sizes and construction methodology. Insuchcasestheremaybeariskofwaveloadsonthestructure.Methodsavailabletothedesigner for prediction of the forces are limited, complex to apply and practical guidance for their use is not readilyavailable.

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

1.3

The"exposedjetties"researchproject

In response to the demand for design guidance for predicting wave forces on jetties, a research projectentitled'hydraulicdesignofexposedjetties'wasundertakenatHRWallingfordfundedbythe UK government. The project was guided by a Project Steering Group from industry, including designers, contractors and owners. These research studies reviewed existing knowledge and undertookanewseriesofmodelteststoevaluateloadsondeckelementsandprovidenewguidance thatcouldbereadilyappliedbythedesignengineer. Forthepurposesoftheproject,anexposedjettywasdefinedas: "A solid vertical or open piled structure, possibly with cross-bracing, providing a berth or berths constructedinalocationwherewaveforceshaveasignificantinfluenceonthedesign" "Thesestructurescanberemotefromthelandindeepwater(wheretheinfluenceofshallowwateris small)orinexposedlocationssuchasmarginalquays(wheretheinfluenceofshallowwaterimpacts aremoresignificant)" 2 2.1 MODELTESTS Modelset-upandtestconditions

Followingareviewofavailableliteratureandmethodsforpredictionofwaveforces,aseriesofmodel testsweredesigned.ThetestsaredescribedinmoredetailinTirindellietal(2002). The model test section comprised a typical jetty head on cylindrical piles constructed from downstanding cross-beams and a solid deck, contructed at a scale equivalent to 1:25. The model design was developed in consultation with the Project Steering Group to ensure that it was representativeoftypicalrealstructures,suchasthejettyheadshowninFigure3.

Figure3:Typicaljettyhead(courtesyKier)

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Figure4:Physicalmodelinwaveflume Themodelwaslocatedina2-dimensionalwaveflumecapableofgeneratingrandomwaves,Figure4. Within the superstucture of the model, two beam and two deck elements were fitted with force transducers,seeFigure5,whichrecordedforcemeasurementsatasamplingfrequencyof200Hz. Duringtestingitwasclearthattherecouldbestrong3-dimensionalfloweffectsaroundthestructure, particularly as the structure deck was inundated. As a result, an additional series of tests was completed with panels fixed to each side of the deck to prevent 3-dimensional inundation of the structure.Thisprovideddataforthe2-dscenariowhichallowed3-deffectstobequantifiedandalso providedascenariothatwasmorecomparablewithsomeofthepredictionmethodsavailable which concentrated on 2-d scenarios. In addition, a third test series was undertaken with the deck superstructure inverted such that the underside was a flat deck. This configuration did not include sidepanels.Thusthreeconfigurationsweretestedasfollows: Configuration1-deckwithdownstandbeams Configuration2-flatdeck Configuration3-deckwithdownstandbeams(asforconfiguration1)withsidepanelstolimit3-d floweffects.

The test programme covered a range of wave conditions and relative water and deck levels, summarisedinTable1. Parameter Hs(m) Tm(s) Waterdepth,h(m) Clearance,cl(m) Waveheighttoclearanceratio,Hs/cl Waveheighttowaterdepthratio,Hs/h Relativewaterdepth,h/Lm Samplingfrequency(Hz)
Notes:

Model 0.1-0.22 1-3 0.75,0.6*** 0.06-0.16* 0.01-0.11**

Prototype(at1:25) 2.5-5.5 5-15 18.75,15*** 1.5-4* 0.25-2.75* 1.118 0.130.33

0.1 200

0.48 40

*Configurations1&3,**Configuration2,***Configuration3only

Table1:Rangeoftestconditions 4

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

LB1 CB1 CB2 CB3 CB4 CB5

LEGEND CB=Cross Beams LB= Longitudinal Beams B=Beam Elements D=DeckSlabs

Waves B1 A D1

LB2 B2 C D2 D

LB3

ABCD=Force Transducers

LB4
27.50/1100 6.50/260 6.50/260 6.50/260 6.50/260 Down-standingcross beams (1.50x1.50x25.00) (60x60x1000) 7.50/300 Down-standing longitudinalbeams (2.50x2.50x27.50) (100x100x1100) 7.50/300

25.00 1000

Deckslab 7.50/300

Slenderelement (1.50x1.50x5.00) (60x60x200)

Deckelement (0.5x5.00x5.00) (20x200x200)

dia=2.50/50

Figure5:Undersideofmodeldeckshowingmeasurementelements
Note:dimensionsgivenasprototype(model)

2.2

Preliminaryanalysis

The time series from the various force measurements were processed to extract a number of key force parameters. These were identified for each force 'event' which occurred as a wave hit the structure.OnesucheventisshowninFigure6,whichdefinesthevariousforceparameters,defined as: Fmax Fqs+,vorh Fqs-,vorh Impactforce(shortduration,highmagnitude) Maximumpositive(upwardorlandward)quasi-static(pulsating)force Maximumnegative(downwardorseaward)quasi-static(pulsating)force

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

8 6 Force(N) 4 2 0 -2 -4 76.5

Fmax

Fqs+

Fqs-

77

77.5

78 Time(s)

78.5

79

79.5

Figure6: Definitionofforceparameters(modelunits) Theextractedforceparameterswerethenprocessedtoderivetheforceat1/250levelforeachtest, thatistheaverageofthehighest4loadsin1000waves.Formosttestconditions,manywaveswill have generated loads, so F1/250 is relatively well supported. For a few tests however, there may be relativelyfewerloadscontributing toF1/250 defined inthis way,andthemeasuremaybelessstable. AlltheresultspresentedinthispaperarebasedonF1/250. PreliminaryanalysisoftheresultsandcomparisonwithpredictivemodelsisdiscussedinTirindelliet al(2002).Theresultsoftheanalysisdemonstratedthatmethodsavailable(eg.Kaplan(1992,1995), Shih & Anastasiou (1992)) may underpredict wave forces on jetty components. An example comparisonisshowninFigure7forseawarddeckelements.

80 70 60

Measured Kaplan

F1/250(N)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Hs(m)
Figure7: Comparisonofmeasuredandpredictedupliftforcesonjettydeckelements, afterTirindellietal(2002)(modelunits) 3 3.1 RESULTS Discussiononpresentationofresults

Following on from the analysis described in Tirindelli et al (2002), the data were processed and presented in dimensionless format. A range of dimensionless parameters were considered for 6

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

presentation of the results, in order to provide some useful means of using the data for force prediction. Firstly a means of non-dimensionalising the forces was considered. From the perspective of the designer, it was considered that the force measurements might be most usefully be presented as a function of a force value that can be easily calculated from design information. A notional or 'basic wave force' F* is therefore defined. F* is calculated based on the predicted maximum wave crest elevation, max, whilst assuming no (water) pressure on the reverse side of the element. F* is calculated separately for vertical and horizontal forces. F*v is defined by a simplified pressure distribution using hydrostatic pressures, p1 and p2, at the top and bottom of the particular element beingconsidered.F*hiscalculatedassumingauniformpressurep2overthebaseoftheelement.F*v andF*haredefinedinFigure8,andcanbecalculatedasfollows:

F *v =

max
cl

bw bl

p 2 dA bw bl p 2

(1)

F *h =

p
bw

hyd

dA = bw ( max c l )

p2 for max c l + bh 2

(2)

F
where

p
bw cl

c l + bh

hyd

dA = bw b h

(p1 + p 2 )
2

for max > c l + b h

(3)

p1=[max(bh+cl)]g p2=(maxcl)g
and p1,p2 bw bh bl cl max pressuresattopandbottomoftheelement elementwidth(perpendiculartodirectionofwaveattack) elementdepth elementlength(indirectionofwaveattack) clearance(distancebetweensoffitlevelandstillwaterlevel,SWL) maximumwavecrestelevation(relativetoSWL).

(4) (5)

Figure8:Definitionof'basicwaveforces'F*vandF*h

Inordertoderivethemaximumwavecrestelevation, max,themaximumwaveheight,Hmax,mustbe calculated.AmethodisgivenbyGoda(1985)forarangeofconditionsandbyBattjes&Groenendijk (2000)forshallowforeshores.Themaximumwavecrestelevation, max,canthenbecalculatedfrom Hmaxusingvariousnon-linearwavetheories.Indeepwater,asimpleapproximationfor maxisgiven

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

byStansberg(1991).ThisgavegoodagreementwithStreamFunctionTheoryandFenton'sFourier theoryfortherangeofconditionstested,howeverforshallowerwaterdepthsthemoresophisticated approachesshouldbeused. The dimensionless forces, Fqs/F*, are presented against the dimensionless parameter (maxcl)/Hs, which describes the incident wave conditions and geometry. When written as (max/Hs)(cl/Hs) this parameterdescribestherelativeelevationofthewavecrest(max/Hs),oftenbetween1.0and1.3,then therelativeexcessofthewaveovertheclearance(cl/Hs).Overthetestrange,relativelylittleeffectof eitherwavesteepnessorrelativedepthwasdetectedinthesedata,althoughthatconclusionmaybe specifictotherelativesizeofthetestelementsconsidered. Thefollowingforceswereanalysedandarediscussedinthispaper:

verticalupwardactingforce,Fvqs+ causedbyslamontheundersideofthedeckorbeam verticaldownwardactingforce,Fvqs- caused by inundation of the deck or beam, which can persistafterthewavehaspassedbeneaththestructure horizontallandwardforce,Fhqs+ causedbythewavefronthittingthebeam horizontallandwardforce,Fhqscaused by the wave hitting the back of the beam, most likely due to the wave being trapped by the deck substructure

It should be noted that the discussion in this paper concentrates on slowly-varying or quasi-static forces(Fqs).Shorterdurationimpactforces,Fmax,asdefinedinFigure6,werealsoprocessedandare discussedbrieflyinthispaper.FurtherdiscussionoftheseresultswillbegiveninCuomoetal(2003). In some cases forces experienced by the outer, seaward measurement elements differed to those experiencedbytheinternalelements,whichwereinfluencedbythedeckconfiguration.Insomecases beamsanddeckelementsshowedsignificantlydifferentbehaviourandforsomeelementstherewasa clearinfluenceof3-dimensionaleffects.Theinfluenceofeachofthesefactorswasassessedandthe datasortedsuchthetheinfluenceoftheseparameterscouldbeidentified.

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

3.2

Verticalquasi-staticforces

Verticalloadsontheseawardbeamanddeckelementswerefoundtoberelativelyunaffectedbythe configurationoftheteststructure,andweresimilarinmagnitudeforbothelementtypes.Thesecan therefore be considered together, see Figures 9 and 10 for upward and downward acting forces respectively.Itisworthnotingthatthesmoothdecktendedtogivelowerelementloadsthatthedeck withdownstandingbeams.
3.5 3 2.5
v

Seawardelements-downstand beamconfiguration Seawardelements-flatdeck configuration

Fvqs+/F

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (max-cl)/Hs

Figure9:Vertical(upward)forcesonseawardelements

0 -0.5 -1
* v

-1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 -4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 (max-cl)/Hs 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Seawardelements-downstand beamconfiguration Seawardelements-flatdeck configuration

Fvqs-/F

Figure10:Vertical(downward)forcesonseawardelements

Conditions for the internal elements are more complex, with the deck and beam elements showing differenttrends.Theresultsforupwardanddownwardloadsontheinternaldeckelementareshown in Figures 11 and 12 respectively. Upward loads were not obviously influenced by 3-d effects, however local 3-dimensional effects did significantly influence downward loads, resulting in larger loadsthanthesimplified2-dscenario.

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Itisworthnotingthattheflatdeckconfigurationalsoexperiencedlowerdownwardforces,mostlikely due to the fact that this configuration was represented simply by turning the deck over and the resulting upstanding beams will have blocked 3-dimensional flow effects over the measurement elementtosomedegree.
9 8 7 6
* v

Internaldeck

Fvqs+/F

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (max-cl)/Hs 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure11: Vertical(upward)forcesoninternaldeck

0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 Fvqs-/F

-0.8 -1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.6 -1.8 -2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (max-cl)/Hs 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Internaldeck-3-deffects Internaldeck-2-deffects

Figure12:Vertical(downward)forcesoninternaldeck

10

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Verticalwaveforcesontheinternalbeamarealsocomplex,butthelossofsometestdataresultedin alesscleartrendthanthatidentifiedforthedeckelement.Upwardanddownwardforcesareshown inFigures13and14,respectively.

1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (max-cl)/Hs 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure13:Vertical(upward)forcesoninternalbeam

-0.5

Fvqs-/F

-1

-1.5

-2 Internalbeam -2.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (max-cl)/Hs 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure14:Vertical(downward)forcesoninternalbeam

Somegeneralobservationscanbemadeforverticalforcesforallofthetestelements:

For(maxcl)/Hs>0.8,F*vseemstogiveasafeestimationofFvqs+ For(maxcl)/Hs<0.8,downwardforcesareusuallylessthanrespectiveupwardloads For (maxcl)/Hs < 1, upward and downward forces increase relative to F*v as (maxcl)/Hs decreases For(maxcl)/Hs<1,relativeforcesshowsignificantscatter.

11

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

3.3

Horizontalquasi-staticforces

For horizontal forces on beams, seaward and internal beam elements are considered separately as the loadson internalbeamsareinfluencedbythedeckstructure,whileloadsontheseawardbeam areunaffectedbythestructureconfiguration.Positiveforces,actinginthedirectionofwaveattacki.e. landward, Fhqs+ are presented in Figures 15 and 16 for seaward and internal beams respectively, plottedagainst(maxcl)/Hs.Thescatterforthesedataismuchlessthanforverticalloadsforalmost allofthedata,withscatterincreasingforsmallervaluesof(maxcl)/Hs.
12 Seawardbeam 10 8 Fhqs+/F*h 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (max-cl)/Hs

Figure15: Horizontal(shoreward)forcesonseawardbeams

10 9 8 7 Fhqs+/F*h 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (max-cl)/Hs Internalbeam

Figure16:Horizontal(shoreward)forcesoninternalbeams

12

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Seaward-acting(ornegative)horizontalforces,Fhqs-,areshowninFigures17and18forseawardand internalbeamsrespectively.Thefollowingcanbenoted:

Forseaward elements,landwardforcesaregenerally greaterthan negative(seaward)ones,the differenceincreasingwithdecreasing(maxcl)/Hs. Forinternalelements,landwardandseawardforcesareofsimilarmagnitude.

-1 Fhqs-/F*h -2

Seawardbeam -3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (max-cl)/Hs

Figure17: Horizontal(seaward)forcesonseawardbeams

0 -0.5 -1 Fhqs-/F*h -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 -3.5 -4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (max-cl)/Hs Internalbeam

Figure18:Horizontal(seaward)forcesoninternalbeam 3.4 Waveimpactforces

Shortdurationimpactforcesonbeamanddeckelementswerealsomeasuredinthetests.Inorderto assess the importance of impact forces, information is necessary on their duration and also the dynamicresponsecharacteristicsforthestructureinquestion.Waveimpactforcesarenotdiscussed in detail here, but a comparison is given of vertical impact forces and quais-static impact forces for 13

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

eachtest,whereFmaxisthelargestimpactforcerecordedinatestandFvqs+isthequasi-staticforceat 1/250 level. The results are presented in Figure 19 where it can be seen that none of the impact forces measured exceed their quasi-static components by more than 4 times. The magnitude of impactsthatcanbemeasuredwillbelimitedbythesamplingfrequencyoftheinstrumentationused,in thiscase200Hz(atmodelscale),asthesamplingratemaymisstheactualpeakoftheimpact.Faster samplingfrequenciesmaywellresultinhighermagnitude,shorterdurationeventsbeingregistered.It shouldalsobenotedthatimpactloadsareverylocalisedinnatureandlocalpressuresmaybehigher thantheaverageforceactingontheelementinquestion.Itshouldalsobenotedthattherewassome signal corruption induced by dynamic response of measurement instruments. Dynamic loads and responseswillbediscussedfurtherinCuomoetal(2003).
4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Fmax/Fvqs+ 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 (max-cl)/Hs SeawardDeck InternalDeck SeawardBeam InternalBeam

Figure19: Ratioofverticalimpactforcestoquasi-staticforces 4 FORCEPREDICTION

The various data sets from the model tests are presented in Figures 9 to 18 for both vertical and horizontalquasi-staticforces.Bestfitregressionlinesfittedtoeachdatasetareshownbyasolidline onthegraphs.Thegeneralformoftheregressionlineis:
Fqs F
*

a (max cl ) Hs
b

(6)

where Fqs F* cl max a,b quasi-staticforceofinterest(Fvqs+,Fvqs-,Fhqs+orFhqs-) 'basicwaveforce',eitherF*vorF*h,delinedinEquations(1)to(3) clearance(distancebetweensoffitlevelandstillwaterlevel,SWL) maximumwavecrestelevation(relativetoSWL) coefficients

CoefficientsaandbforthevariousconfigurationsaregivenbelowinTable2forverticalforcesandin Table3forhorizontalforces.

14

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Waveloadandconfiguration

Upwardverticalforces(seawardbeam&deck) Upwardverticalforces(internalbeamonly) Upwardverticalforces(internaldeck,2and3-deffects) Downwardverticalforces(seawardbeam&deck) Downwardverticalforces(internalbeamonly) Downwardverticalforces(internaldeck,2-deffects) Downwardverticalforces(internaldeck,3-deffects)

0.82 0.84 0.71 -0.54 -0.35 -0.12 -0.80

0.61 0.66 0.71 0.91 1.12 0.85 0.34

Table2:CoefficientsforcalculationofverticalwaveforcesusingEquation6 Waveloadandconfiguration a b

Shorewardhorizontalforces,Fhqs+(seawardbeam) Shorewardhorizontalforces,Fhqs+(internalbeam) Seawardhorizontalforces,Fhqs-(seawardbeam) Seawardhorizontalforces,Fhqs-(internalbeam)

0.45 0.72 -0.20 -0.14

1.56 2.30 1.09 2.82

Table3:CoefficientsforcalculationofhorizontalwaveforcesusingEquation6

ThereisasignificantdegreeofscatterinthedatainFigures9to18andupperandlowerenvelopes have also been fitted to the data. The upper bounds can be calculated by applying a coefficient, Cupper,toEquation6.Similarlylowerboundscanbecalculatedbyapplyingacoefficient,Clower. ItisgenerallyconsideredthatthebestestimateobtainedfromEquation6willbesufficientfordesign, althoughforcriticalelementstheupperboundestimatemaybeused.Uncertaintyinwaveloadingwill normallybeaccountedforbyapplyingsafetyfactorsduringdesign.Thelowerboundisnotlikelytobe usedindeterministicdesign,althoughitmaybeusefulforprobabilisticcalculations. Coefficients for the upper and lower bounds are given in Tables 4 and 5 for vertical and horizontal forcesrespectively.
Waveloadandconfiguration Cupper Clower

Upwardverticalforces(seawardbeam&deck) Upwardverticalforces(internalbeamonly) Upwardverticalforces(internaldeck,2and3-deffects) Downwardverticalforces(seawardbeam&deck) Downwardverticalforces(internalbeamonly) Downwardverticalforces(internaldeck,2-deffects) Downwardverticalforces(internaldeck,3-deffects)

1.5 1.4 2.2 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.4

0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.65

Table4:Coefficientsforupperandlowerlimitsofverticalforcedata

15

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Waveloadandconfiguration

Cupper

Clower

Shorewardhorizontalforces,Fhqs+(seawardbeam) Shorewardhorizontalforces,Fhqs+(internalbeam) Seawardhorizontalforces,Fhqs-(seawardbeam) Seawardhorizontalforces,Fhqs-(internalbeam)

2 1.8 2 3

0.25 0.15 -

Table5:Coefficientsforupperandlowerlimitsofhorizontalforcedata 5 APPLICATIONTOCASESTUDIES

Themethodsdescribedabovehavebeenappliedtoanumberofcasestudies.Thesehaveincluded jetty structures in relatively open water where exposure is high, and also structures within harbours whichareexposedtowaveinducedforcesasstructureelevationsareclosetothestillwaterlevel,due tooperationalrequirements.
5.1 Casestudy1:Damagetounder-slungservices

Description

The method given in Section 4 was used to back-calculate wave forces on a jetty that had experienceddamageduringastormevent. Thejettyislocatedwithinaharbour.Despitebeingprotectedbybreakwaters,itwasexposedtofairly severewavesduringastorm.Fromdescriptionsofthestormandthereportedovertoppingofthejetty, itisestimatedthattheincidentwaveconditionswereapproximatelyHs=2.5m,estimatedashavinga return period in excess of 1:10 years. This was assumed to have a wave steepness of sm = 0.04, typical for storm waves. During the storm, services slung beneath the jetty were damaged and the powersupplytotheendofthejettyfailed. This example addresses the partial failure of pipe fittings beneath the jetty deck. The pipes were suspendedbypipehangersfittedtoHalfenChannelscastintothesoffitofthedeck.Duringthestorm, thehangerswerepushedsidewaysinthechannels. The jetty is constructed from a concrete slab with longitudinal beams on tubular steel piles. Key parametersareasfollows: Hs Hmax T m MWL Decklevel Soffitlevel Topofpipe Bottomofpipe =2.5m =4.3m,usingGoda(1985) =7s =+1.6mOD(MHWS) =+4.0mOD =+3.6mOD =+3.2mOD =+3.0mOD

Assuming that the pipe can be considered as a beam, the following parameters are defined (see Figure8): bl bh bw clearance,cl max
Forcecalculations

=0.2m(pipediameter) =0.2m(pipediameter) assume1mlength(perpendiculartodirectionofwaveattack) =1.4m(bottomofpipeMWL) =3.2m(=+4.8mOD),usingFenton(1988)

In order to assess the wave forces that occurred during the storm when the damaged occurred, horizontalforcesonthe pipe arecalculated, treatingit asadownstand beam. The 'basic horizontal wave force', F*h, is calculated using Equations (1) and (2) with the input pressures, p1 and p2 calculatedusingequations(4)and(5): 16

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka
2

p1 p2 F*h

=16.2kN/m 2 =18.2kN/m =3.4kN/m

ThehorizontalforcesonthepipecanthenbecalculatedusingEquation6andcoefficientsfromTable 3,assumingthepipecanbeconsideredasaninternalbeam(a=0.72,b=1.56,basedonthedatain Figure16). Thefollowingparameterisrequired: (maxcl)/Hs=0.72 The horizontal quasi-static force on the pipe, acting in the direction of wave travel is therefore calculatedas: Fhqs+=5.3kN/m The pipe supports had a capacity of 40 kN/fixing for horizontal sliding. Each cast in channel was 2.25mlongandcarriedthreepipes.Eachsupporthadtwoboltsgivingaslidingcapacityof80kN(2x 40kN).Thesupportsareat4mcentresalongthepipes.Theweightofthepipeistakenas0.3kN/m. Maximumhorizontalforcepersupportistherefore: Fhqs+= 4mx5.3kN/m=21.2kN ThedataforimpactforcesshowninFigure19demonstratesthatshortdurationimpactforcescanbe severaltimesgreaterthanquasi-staticforces.Figure19isforverticalforceshoweveranalysisofthe model test data indicated that horizontal impact measurements showed similar relative orders of magnitude. Thus impact forces may be up to 4 times the quasi-static force. It is likely that light componentssuchaspipeworkandfixingswillrespondtotheseshortduration loadingsand hence it can be assumed that the pipe supports could experience forces in excess of 80kN. These calculations demonstrate that the capacity of the fixings could have been exceeded by wave loads duringthestorm,causingdamage. Theassumptionthatthepipeactslikeabeamonthestructureisasimplificationasthegapbetween pipe and soffit will mean that there is also some flow over the pipe, constrained by the deck, which mayincreasethewaveloadingonthepipeandwhichwillalsoprovideadditionalforcesonthefixings.
5.2 Casestudy2:wave-inducedforcesonapier

Description

A new ferry terminal comprises a 200m long central pier, with pairs of dolphins on either side supportingvehicleaccessbridgesandpassengeraccesswalkways.Thecentralpierisdesignedto function as a wave absorbing structure to reduce wave reflections and transmission. The pier is essentially constructed as a concrete box divided into a series of chambers with large voids in the sides,locatedaroundthewaterlinetoprovideenergydissipation.Theboxissupportedonpileswith asoffitlevelat+1.5mCDandadecklevelof+12mCD.Thetidalrangeattheterminalis7mandsea bedlevelsatthebertharearound9mCD. Thegeometryofthestructureanditssecondaryfunctiontoabsorbwaveenergypreventedadoption ofanair-gapapproach,byraisingthestructureabovethemaximumwaterlevel.Waveforcesonthe structurethereforehadtobeconsidered.Loadsonthestructureduringconstructionwereofparticular concern,astheindividualprecastelementsformingthepierboxconstructionwereloweredintoplace. Excessloadingpriortofixingoftheseelementscouldleadtodisplacementoftheunits. Wave-inducedforceswereassessedforthefollowingcomponents:

Precastconcreteunitsformingthesoffitofthecentralpier Vehicleaccessbridges

Waveconditions

Thenewferryterminalislocatedwithinaharbourandisrelativelyshelteredfromstormwaves.The siteishoweverexposedtolongperiodswellwavesthatpropagateintotheharbour.

17

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

Wavemeasurementsfromaphysicalmodelstudywereavailableforpointsalongthestructurefora range of return periods up to 1:50 years. These were extrapolated to estimate conditions for more extremereturnperiods. Inordertoderivemaximumwavecrestelevationsforuseinwaveforcecalculations,Hmaxhadtobe determined. Themaximumwave height,Hmax, wascalculated as1.8Hs,usingthemethod of Goda (1985). The maximum wave crest elevation was then calculated for a range of conditions, using Fenton(1988).
Quasi-staticforcecalculations

Verticalupliftforcesontheundersideoftheelements(at+1.5mCD)wereofparticularinterestinthe designofthepier.Theundersideoftheprecastelementswasflatwithnodownstandbeams.Clearly with such a large tidal range there will be scenarios where the units are partially submerged. The mostcriticalcaseforverticalwaveforcesonthesoffitelementswasconsideredtobewhenthewater levelwasclosetothelevelofthebaseoftheunits.Asaresultwaveforceswerecalculatedforwater levelsclosetothesoffitlevel,givingsmallclearance,cl,values. Equation(1) wasused tocalculatethe basic waveforceF*v, per metre area of the soffit elements. This was then used to calculate the quasi-static vertical wave forces using Equation (6), using the coefficientsforseawardbeamanddeckelements,basedonthedatashowninFigure9.Theresults aresummarisedinTable6.The1:1yearconditionsareofinterestfortheconstructionscenario.The 1:50 and 1:500 year conditions are of interest for the permanent scenario and show the variation in waveforceswithincreasingwaveheight. ItshouldbenotedthattheTableincludesresultsat+1.5mCD,thescenariowherethewaterlevelisin contact with the underside of the deck, i.e. zero clearance. This is outside the range of conditions tested and therefore represents extrapolation beyond the region of validity. From the results presentedthissuggestsincreasedforceswherethewaterlevelisatorveryclosetotheundersideof thestructure,asmightbeexpected.
Wave condition returnperiod years SWL Hs Tm Hmax

max

(max-cl)/Hs

F*v

Fvqs+

mCD

kN/m

kN/m

1:1 1:50 1:100

+1mCD +1.5mCD +1mCD +1.5mCD +1mCD +1.5mCD

1 1 1.36 1.36 1.57 1.57

9 9 10 10 11 11

1.8 1.8 2.45 2.45 2.82 2.82

1.05 1.03 1.53 1.51 1.86 1.83

0.53 1.05 0.76 1.13 0.87 1.18

5.6 10.4 10.2 15.5 13.7 18.5

6.6 8.4 10 11.8 12.3 13.8

Table6:Casestudy2-summaryofresults

Comparison of the conditions shown in Table 6 with the model test results presented in Figure 9 allowssomeassessmentofthepotentialvariabilityinwaveforces.Thedatafortheflatdeckisalso presentedinFigure9,generallygivinglowerforcesthattheequivalenttestsforthedownstandbeam configuration.Asthesoffitelementsdonothavedownstandelementsitislikelythattheywillbehave moreliketheflatdeckconfigurationandsotheforcesinTable6mightbeconsideredtobeanupper limitforverticalquasi-staticforcesonthestructure.
Impactforces

Impactforceshadtobeassessedtochecktheriskofoverallupliftoftherelativelylightweightbridge unitsandsoffitunitsduringtheconstructionscenario,beforetheywerefixedinplace.Determinationof anappropriateratioofFmaxtoFqs+wasbasedonjudgementoftheimportanceofastructuralmember 18

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

anditsabilitytorespondgloballytoshort-durationforces.Ratiosintherangeof3to4areplausibleby inspection ofFigure 19, suggesting short duration vertical impact forces on the lightweight elements maybeupto4timesgreaterthanquasi-staticverticalforces.
5.3 Casestudy:waveforcesonaquayinthevicinityofreflectivewalls

Description

Aferryquayislocatedwithinaharbour,shelteredbyamainbreakwater.Thequaydecklevelisat +3.5mCDandthesoffitlevel is +2.5mCD. The local bed level is around 10mCD. It is considered thatthereissomeriskofthedeckofthequayexperiencingwaveforcesundercertainconditions. Wave conditions at the quay are complicated by waves reflected from parts of the quay itself, so at some points it is possible that incident and reflected waves may combine. For these calculations, some simplifying assumptions on the possible addition of wave energy were made, using assumed reflectioncoefficients,intheabsenceofmoredetailedsitespecificdata. Thefollowingextremeincidentwaveconditionswereavailablefrommodelstudies: Hs=2.5m Tp=12s(assumeTm=0.87Tp=10.4s) Hmax=4.0m In the vicinity of the quay, there are a combination of solid vertical wall and perforated chamber sections which will have different reflection characteristics. The reflection performance of the perforated chamber sections will be very dependent on the wave period of the incident wave conditions, as these structures are generally tuned to give the reflection coefficients quoted above over only a narrow range of wave periods. They are normally tuned for short period, frequently occurringwaveconditionsasthesewillbetheconditionsthataffectdaytodayoperationswithinthe harbour.Thusreflectionperformanceforlongerwaveperiodswillbepoorer,tendingtowardsthatofa simpleverticalwall.Assumingthereforethatwavereflectionsinthevicinityofthequayarecloseto 100%, an estimate of maximum wave height at the quay due to incident and reflected wave energy can be made by summing the energies of the two wave components. This calculation is made for bothHsandHmax,asfollows: Hs(i+r)=(Hs(i) +Hs(r) ) =(2.5 +2.5 ) =3.5m Hmax(i+r)=(Hmax(i) +Hmax(r) ) =(4 +4 ) =5.7m where i r i+r denotesincidentwave denotesreflectedwave denotesincidentandreflectedwave.
2 2 0.5 2 2 0.5 2 2 0.5 2 2 0.5

The first stage in estimating the occurrence of wave forces is to determine maximum wave crest elevation for the design wave condition, max. Calculations are done for two water levels, LLW=0.0mCDandHHW=+2.0mCD,usingFenton(1988)asforCasestudy2. LLW=0.0mCD HHW=+2.0mCD

max=4.48m max=4.2m

Verticalupliftwaveforcesonthequaydeckcanthenbecalculatedfollowingthesamemethodologyof Case study 2, using coefficients for exterior beam and deck from Table 2. The results are summarisedinTable7.
SWL mCD Hs(i+r) m Tm s Hmax(i+r) m

max
m

(max-cl)/Hs
-

F*v kN/m
2

Fvqs+ kN/m
2

+0mCD +2mCD

3.5 3.5

10.4 10.4

5.7 5.7

4.5 4.2

0.56 1.05

20.2 37.4

23.3 29.8

Table7:Casestudy3-summaryofresults

19

COPEDECVI,2003,Colombo,SriLanka

It is worth noting that there is significant inundation of the deck of the quay under these conditions (decklevelat+3.5mCD).InspectionofFigures9and10showthatdownwardinudationforcesonthe deckcanbeclosetotheupwardactingforceswhichactontheundersideofdeckandbeamelements.
6 CONCLUSIONS

ThepaperhassummarisedmodeltestsundertakenaspartofaUKgovernmentresearchprojectto quantifywaveforcesonjettiesinexposedlocations.Amethodforpredictionofwaveforcesondeck and beam elements is presented. A series of case study examples demonstrate application of the methodtorealscenarios.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Modeltests and analysis described in this paper were undertaken by Matteo Tirindelli and Giovanni Cuomo. The authors wish to acknowledge the following contributors to the research project: the IndustrialSteeringCommitteeofDTIPIIProject39/5/130cc2035whoprovidedpracticalguidanceand casestudyinformationaswellasphotographsacknowledgedinthepaper;MatteoTirindelliandProf. Alberto Lamberti University of Bologna; Prof. Leopoldo Franco, University of Rome 3; visiting researchersAmjad-MohammedSaleemandOliverdeRooij. Giovanni Cuomo's studentship was supported by EU Marie Curie Fellowship, HR Wallingford and UniversityofRome3.
8 REFERENCES

Battjes J.A. & Groenendijk H.W. (2000) "Wave height distributions on shallow foreshores" Coastal EngineeringVol40pp161-182,ElsevierScience. CuomoG.,AllsopN.W.H.,McConnellK.J.(2003)"Dynamicwaveloadsoncoastalstructures:analysis ofimpulsiveandpulsatingwaveloads"Proc.Conf.CoastalStructures2003,ASCE/CPRI,Portland Fenton J.D. (1988) "The numerical solution of steady water wave problems" Computers and Geosciences14(3)357-368,1988. GodaY.(1985)"Randomseasandmaritimestructures"UniversityofTokyoPress,Tokyo. HRWallingford(2003)"Waveloadsonexposedjetties"ReportSR583,August2003. Kaplan P. (1992) "Wave Impact Forces on Offshore Structures: Re-examination and New th Interpretations"PaperOTC6814,24 OTC,Houston,OffshoreTechnologyConference Kaplan P., Murray J.J. & YuW.C. (1995) Theoretical Analysis of Wave Impact Forces on Platform Deck Structures Volume 1-A Offshore Technology, OMAE Copenhagen, June 1995, Offshore MechanicsandArcticEngineeringConference McConnell K.J., Allsop N.W.H. and Cruickshank I.C (2003) "Guidelines for the design of exposed jetties"TOBEPUBLISHED. Shih R.W.K. & Anastasiou K. (1992) "A Laboratory Study of the Wave-induced Vertical Loading on Platform Decks" Proc. ICE, Water Maritime and Energy, Vol. 96, No 1, pp 19-33, publn Thomas Telford,London. TirindelliM.,CuomoG.,AllsopN.W.H.&McConnellK.J.(2002)"Exposedjetties:inconsistenciesand gapsindesignmethodsforwave-inducedforces"CoastalConundrums,28thInternationalCoastalon CoastalEngineering,ICCE2002,CardiffUK,ASCE,USA. Tirindelli M., Cuomo G., Allsop N.W.H. & McConnell K.J. (2003) Physical model studies of waveinduced forces on exposed jetties: towards new prediction formulae Proc. Conf. Coastal Structures 2003,ASCE/CPRI,Portland.

20