Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657 679

www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Wave-in-deck loads on exposed jetties

Giovanni Cuomo a,, Matteo Tirindelli b , William Allsop c
a

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Roma TRE, Via Vito Volterra 62, Roma, 00146, Italy
Coast & Harbor Engineering, 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 608, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA
Maritime Structures, HR Wallingford, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OX10 8BA, UK and Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Southampton, UK
b

Received 8 February 2006; received in revised form 4 January 2007; accepted 12 January 2007
Available online 12 April 2007

Abstract
This paper presents results from research on the hydraulic loadings of exposed (unsheltered) jetties (open pile piers with decks and beams). The
work presented here focuses on results from physical model tests on wave-induced loads on deck and beam elements of exposed jetties and similar
structures. These tests investigated the physics of the loading process, and provided new guidance on wave-in-deck loads to be used in design.
Wave forces and pressures were measured on a 1:25 scale model of a jetty head with projecting elements. Structure geometry and wave conditions
tested were selected after an extensive literature review (summarised in the paper) and consultation with the project steering group. Different
configurations were tested to separate 2-d and 3-d effects, and to identify the effects of inundation and of down-standing beams.
Results presented in this paper have been obtained by re-analysing wave loads using wavelet analysis to remove corruption from the dynamic
responses of the instrumentation. Both quasi-static and impulsive components of the loading were identified. Previous methods to predict wave
loading on jetty elements (decks and beams) were tested against these new data and clear inconsistencies and gaps were recognised. New
dimensionless equations have been produced to evaluate wave forces on deck and beam elements of suspended deck structures. The results are
consistent with the physics of the loading process and reduce uncertainties in previous predictions.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Wave-in-deck loads; Jetty; Pier; Wave impacts; Wavelet

1. Introduction
1.1. Definitions of a jetty
In this paper a jetty has been taken to be an open structure
with deck and perhaps beams, supported on piles. The deck (and
beams) are suspended well clear of normal water levels, so are
only at risk of direct wave effects under infrequent combinations
of surge and wave condition. Such jetties may be quite long
(perhaps 0.55 km), orientated approximately normal to the
shoreline/bed contours, and carry pipes or conveyors to load/
unload gas, liquid/bulk granular cargoes from vessels moored at
the jetty head. Similar structures include leisure and passenger
piers, mooring dolphins and some highway bridges. Selected
results of this work may possibly be applied to large culverts,
Corresponding author. Fax: +39 06 55173469.
E-mail addresses: cuomo@uniroma3.it (G. Cuomo),
matteo@coastharboreng.com (M. Tirindelli).
0378-3839/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2007.01.010

temporary decks (including falsework) over water, and other

decks on beams that may be hit by waves. These studies were not
however intended to address wave loads on deep water (offshore)
structures termed rigs, jackets or platforms, nor do the
waves covered include tsunamis or other waves of period N 25 s.
1.2. Background
Marine trade between many coastal nations has often relied
on jetties or piers to berth vessels for loading or discharge of
cargo/passengers. These facilities were traditionally constructed
in areas where wave-induced loads are relatively small,
naturally sheltered locations and/or locations protected by
breakwaters. In the last 1520 years there has been an increased
demand for liquid natural and petroleum gas terminals (LNG
and LPG), which require sheltered berths in deep water for large
vessels, but may not need shelter to the approach trestles
carrying the delivery lines, see McConnell et al. (2003, 2004).
This has led to some jetties being constructed with limited or no

658

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Notation
A
area of the element exposed to wave action
a, b
experimental coefficient
bl
length of structural element
bw
width of structural element
bt
thickness of structural element
c
wave celerity
C
damping
cl
clearance (i.e. vertical distance between an element and swl)
Cd
drag coefficient
d
water depth
E
error
F
force (generic)
Fc
force (corrupted component)
Ff
force (filtered)
Fs
force (smoothed)
F tot
force (response)
Fmax
maximum value reached by the signal within each event
Fqs 1/250 quasi-static component of the force (at 1/250 level)
Fqs+1/250 maximum value of the quasi-static component of the signal (at 1/250 level)
Fqs 1/250 minimum value of the quasi-static component of the signal (at 1/250 level)
F
dimensionless force (generic)
F1/250 force at 1/250 exceedance level
FD
configuration flat deck
g
gravitational acceleration (= 9.81 m/s2)
G
Fourier transform of w
h
vertical wetted length
d
h
time derivative of h
Hmax
max wave height during a storm
Hs
significant wave height
K
stiffness
L
wave length
L0
deepwater wave length
l
horizontal wetted length
d
l
time derivative of l
M
mass
Nz
number of wave within a storm event
NP
configuration without side panels
Nt
number of tests
P
configuration with side panels
Pqs1/250 quasi-static component of the pressure (at 1/250 level)
s
scale dilatation parameter
se
standard error of the estimate
sm
wave steepness (= Hs / L0) for T = Tm
t
time
T
wave period (generic)
Tn
n-th resolved equivalent period
Tn, min minimum period corrupted by the dynamics of measurement instrument
Tn, max maximum period corrupted by the dynamics of measurement instrument
Tsmooth cut-off period of low-pass filter
T0
natural period of resonance of the structure
Tm
mean wave period
tr
rise time of the force signal
u
velocity vector
u
acceleration vector

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

ux
uy
x
x
x
yi
i
WT

max

659

horizontal velocity
vertical velocity
displacement
velocity
acceleration
measured load (generic)
predicted load (generic)
wavelet transform coefficient
mother wavelet
water density
wave surface elevation
time derivative of
time derivative of
max wave surface elevation
translation parameter

breakwater protection, increasing wave exposure and potential

risks of high wave loads on the structure. The higher probability
of wave loading on jetties may be increased by processes such
as subsidence, decreasing the clearance (i.e. vertical distance
between still water level (swl) and underside of the jetty deck
structural elements), as seen for the Ekofisk platform complex
(Broughton and Horn, 1987).
Similar loadings can arise where other suspended structures are
too close to the water surface. Key examples are temporary works
used in construction or refurbishment around harbour structures,
or some low-lying transport bridges over coastal waterways.
Whilst a number of prediction methods have been developed
for wave-in-deck loads, gaps and weaknesses in available
models stimulated the Exposed Jetties research supported in
the UK by Department of Trade and Industry under PII Project
39/5/130 cc2035 (see Tirindelli et al., 2002). Within this project,
a series of 2-dimensional physical model tests measured wave
loads on deck and beam elements, see Tirindelli et al. (2002)
and McConnell et al. (2003, 2004). These measurements were
analysed to explore the process of wave loading, with the
objective of developing improved predictions. Results from the
main project were summarised by McConnell et al. (2003,
2004) and Cuomo et al. (2004). Extending, but after the formal
end of the Exposed Jetties project, a new method for the
analysis of non-stationary time-history loads was developed by
Cuomo et al. (2003) and Cuomo (2005), based on wavelet
transform. Further analysis of the original data allowed a deeper
understanding of the loading process and a new interpretation of
the measured data.

horizontal loads (both seaward and shoreward) on beams or

other projecting elements.
A sketch of wave-in-deck loads acting on a jetty is shown in
Fig. 1. The nature, occurrence and magnitude of these wave
loadings vary significantly for different structures and wave
conditions. Horizontal elements such as deck slabs may be
subject to large vertical forces upward or downward (especially
under conditions that inundate the deck). Vertically faced elements like beams and fenders can experience significant forces
both horizontally and vertically (if of significant thickness).
2. Previous work
In the last fifty years, many prediction methods have been
developed to evaluate wave-in-deck loads on jetty structures. A
literature review of the most important among these works is
described in the following.
El-Ghamry (1965) and Wang (1970) first performed physical
model tests to investigate wave loads on horizontal decks subject
to breaking and non-breaking wave attacks. The authors found
substantial similarity between the mechanisms of wave impact on
horizontal platforms and vertical barriers. Uplift pressures are

1.3. Wave load definitions

Hydraulic loads applied by waves to the deck or other
projecting elements (beams, fenders) can be defined as wave-indeck loads. Those covered in this paper can be summarised as:
uplift loads on decks;
uplift loads on beams or other projecting elements;
downward loads on decks (inundation and suction);

Fig. 1. Wave-in-deck loads on an idealised section of a jetty platform supported

by piles.

660

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Fig. 2. Experimental setup: overall view.

characterised by an initial peak pressure of considerable

magnitude but of short duration, followed by a slowly-varying
uplift pressure of less magnitude but of considerable duration,
typically first positive, then negative. For regular progressive
waves, Wang's method for prediction of uplift pressure P reads:


 r2
4c
k  H  qw  g
2kd
P
 tanh
1
 1 2 l
2
L
H
where w is the water density, g the acceleration due to gravity,
H is the wave height at the structure, cl the deck clearance above
the swl, d the water depth and L the incoming wave length.
Broughton and Horn (1987) proposed a simple approach for
the prediction of wave loads based on the assumption that the
force impulse is equal to the change in momentum when the
wave crest hits the leading edge of the deck. This leads to the
following expressions for the vertical (FV) and horizontal (FH)
force per unit length:
FV

k
 q  c  u y  bw  l
2 w

FH qw  c  ux  bw  h

2
3

where h and l are respectively the height and length of wave

crest in contact with the deck, bw the cellar deck breadth, c the
wave celerity (according to Stoke's 5th order theory), and uy
and ux respectively, the vertical and horizontal velocity of the
water particles.
Broughton and Horn performed physical model tests in a
wave basin (scale 1:50) on three different platform configurations. Observed force time histories were characterised by
positive (uplift) forces, followed by downward forces of the
same magnitude order of the uplift. Due to the low sampling rate
(20 Hz) used during the experiments, no information was
retained on impulsive short-duration peaks.
Shih and Anastasiou (1992) and Toumazis et al. (1989)
analysed wave-induced forces and pressures on horizontal
platform decks at small and very small scales. Forces were
measured by means of strain gauges. Pressures were logged at a
sample rate of 500 Hz. A high speed video camera (up to 1000
frames/s) was used to capture snapshots of the interaction
between waves and the suspended structure.
Impact pressure peaks on horizontal plates were found to
increase with decreasing clearance and increasing wave height.

The following empirical relations for peak pressures PV were

suggested:
PV 1:8  7:6  qw  g  H

PV 4:0  8:0  qw  g  Hs

respectively for regular and random waves (Hs = significant

wave height).
The authors confirmed that air entrainment at impact affects
impulsive pressures, generating scatter in data. Froude scaling
does not account for difference in air compressibility at model
and prototype scales, potentially leading to distortion of measurement of impact maxima and rise times. Recorded slowlyvarying positive pressures (Pqs+) were found to be always lower
than the hydrostatic head. The following expression was suggested for both regular and random waves:
Pqs 0:65  qw  g  gcl

with = wave crest elevation.

Ventilated shocks (Lundgren, 1969) were observed on the
vertical plate, and the following relation was suggested for the
evaluation of horizontal impact pressures PH,max:
PH; max a  qw  c2

where is an empirical coefficient. For waves impacting before

the breaking condition was reached, the authors indicate that
is always less than 1.3, for more violent impacts a value of 4.1
has to be used. For deep water spilling breakers impinging on a
vertical suspended plate, Kjeldsen and Myrhaug (1979)
suggested values of between 1 and 2. In other test conditions,
Chan and Melville (1988) measured values of between 3 and
10, whilst field measurements on seawalls by Blackmore and
Hewson (1984) suggest to vary between 0.5 and 4.
Suchithra and Koola (1995) performed model tests to measure vertical forces on a horizontal slab. They tested different
configurations (with and without stiffeners) to investigate the
influence of down-stand beams on wave-induced loading. The
impact vertical force on the slam was expressed in terms of the
slamming coefficient Cs, as follows:
1
FS  Cs  qw  A  u2y
2

where A is the area of contact. Cs was found to vary between 2.5

and 10.2 and to mainly depend on the frequency of the

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

661

Fig. 3. Model test device. a) Down-standing frame of cross and longitudinal beams with testing elements connected to force transducers housed into a longitudinal
beam ( plan view); b) supporting structure with piles and tubular frame.

incoming wave and on the clearance of the element. The

parameter Cns = Cs d / L (average value = 1.7) was found to be
independent from the wave frequency, and to increase with
decreasing values of clearance. The presence of longitudinal
beams was found to slightly increase applied forces, whilst
transversal beams, causing air pockets to be entrapped between
the wave and the structural boundaries, reduce slam forces.
Kaplan and Silbert (1976), Kaplan (1979, 1992), Kaplan et al.
(1995) investigated wave forces on flat decks and horizontal
beams on offshore platforms. Moving from the original work by
Morison et al. (1950), they developed a semi-analytical model for
the evaluation of wave-in-deck time-history loads on both vertical
and horizontal members. According to Kaplan, as the wave
travels along the platform, it transfers its energy to the superstructure and the variation in time of wave-in-deck loads results
from the combination of an inertia force (resulting from the
variation of the momentum in terms of structural acceleration and
added mass), and a drag force. Bolt (1999) reviewed the state-ofthe-art for wave-in-deck time-history load calculations and found
the model by Kaplan to provide the most sophisticated representation of wave-in-deck loads. The model also accounts for
relative location of element along the structure, providing the
most appropriate tool for detailed comparisons with the new data.
Kaplan's model works through the following equations
(Eq. (9) for vertical forces FV, Eq. (10) for horizontal forces FH):

where l (horizontal wetted length) and l are determined from the

relative degree of wetting of the flat deck underside on which
loading occurs, bl is deck length, Cd is the drag coefficient, h
(vertical wetted length) and h are determined from the relative
degree of wetting of the vertical face of the beam where loading
occurs, bt is the thickness of the deck.
Further developments of Kaplan's model have been
discussed, among the others, by Isaacson and Bhat (1994),
Isaacson et al. (1994) and Cuomo (2005). An alternative semiempirical method, also accounting for the dynamic amplification of slamming due to dynamic response of structural elements has been proposed by Bea et al. (2001).

3. Experimental setup
3.1. Model design
Wave flume tests were carried out in a wave absorbing flume
at HR Wallingford, UK. The flume was 40 m long, 1.5 m wide,
with a maximum water depth of 1.2 m at the paddle. Waves
were generated by a piston-type paddle at one end of the flume

:
k
bw  l 2
k

 2 1=2  g qw  4  bw  l  l
8
1 blw
 2
1 12  blw
 qw
 

 2 3=2  g 2  bw  l  Cd  g  jgj qw
1 blw

FV qw 

 g  gcl  bw  bl


FH


:
2
qw
4
2 :
 bt  Cd  ux  jux j  qw  h  h  ux  bw
 q  h ux
2
k w
k

10

Fig. 4. Model structure in the absorbing flume during a test. The testing
elements, formed of metallic elements are visible as well as two of the wave
probes (one before and one after the model) used to monitor the wave field.

662

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Fig. 5. Structural configurations tested: from left to right, no panels (NP), panels (P) and flat deck (FD).

and dissipated at the other end by a 1:5 slope beach covered

with absorbing matting and rocks to minimize wave reflection.
Behind the test structure, the absorbing beach extended in
height 0.15 m around swl, lying on a steeper 1:1.5 beach, see
Fig. 2. A 1:25 Froude scale model of a jetty structure was bolted
to the floor of the wave flume and instrumented to provide
direct measurements of wave loading. The configurations of the
test structure and measurement elements were determined by an
analysis of existing jetties in UK, Oman, Kuwait, India and
Caribbean. At 1:25 scale, model wave heights were above those
used in studies by Allsop et al. (1995) and Howarth et al. (1996)
to identify scale effects on wave pressures, where measurements
of impulsive loads were found to be slightly conservative.
During the study design, it was also noted that the chosen scale
also simulates conditions at scales around 1:501:75 for
offshore platforms, although the study had not been intended
to address such structures per se.

Fig. 6. Matrix of test conditions. Circles represent wave conditions (two

different water depths d ); solid lines are breaking limit and stroke limit; dashed
and dotted lines represent three values of wave steepness sm, respectively two
storm and one swell conditions.

3.2. Model structure

The test structure consisted of a jetty deck (110 cm long,
100 cm wide, 2 cm thick), on a down-standing frame of cross
(100 6 6 cm3) and transverse (110 10 10 cm3) beams. The
suspended structure was made of wood and was supported by
six steel piles (5 cm diameter) mounted on a tubular base frame
bolted to the floor, see Figs. 3 and 4.
Two beams (6.0 19.5 7.5 cm3) and two decks (19.5
19.5 2.0 cm3) of the jetty superstructure were replaced by
metal elements (aluminium and steel) in two different positions
along the jetty (first and third spans, hereinafter respectively
named external and internal). Each of these elements were
connected to a force transducer, housed in the wooden frame of
down-standing beams, see Fig. 3. Each force transducer was
able to record forces in two normal directions (vertical and
horizontal). Two pressure transducers in the seaward beam of
the platform at two opposite sides of the longitudinal axis of
the jetty measured horizontal pressures. Force and pressure

Fig. 7. Idealised force time history superimposed on a typical force signal

recorded by a horizontal element.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

663

ditions for exposed jetty locations using JONSWAP spectra

( = 3.3). Chosen wave conditions were based on three wave
steepnesses (sm = 0.065, 0.040, 0.010), which represented two
storm and one swell condition. The latter also represented
waves for a jetty sheltered by a breakwater. Wave conditions
(model units) were in the range: Hs = 0.10 m to 0.22 m; Tm = 1 s
to 3 s. The matrix of test conditions is represented in Fig. 6.
4. The loading process
4.1. General
Wave-induced vertical forces on horizontal decks or platforms may be considered in three phases in Fig. 7. At the
instance of contact between the wave crest and the element, the
slam or impulsive force may be large in magnitude and short in
duration. This is followed by a longer duration (pulsating)
positive force and then by a long-duration negative force
(especially if the deck is frequently inundated).

Fig. 8. Horizontal time-history loads on vertical elements. From top to bottom:

force on external beam, pressure on transducers A (solid line) and B (circles),
force on internal beam.

transducers were logged at 200 Hz. The incoming wave field

was monitored by three wave gauges along the wave flume.
One gauge was located well away from the structure in order to
represent the generated wave field. The remaining two gauges
measured waves before and after the model structure, to describe the wave field at the structure and to provide a description
of the wave energy dissipation through the interaction with the
jetty.
Three different configurations are shown in Fig. 5. The
original configuration (no panels, NP) had the supporting beams
facing downward, and no side plates to limit 3-dimensional
effects. A second configuration (panels, P) used large side
panels to limit 3-dimensional effects due to lateral inundation of
the deck. The last configuration (flat deck, FD) inverted the
deck and beams to investigate wave loads on the (now) flat
underside.
Water depths at the jetty were either d = 0.60 m or d = 0.75 m.
Four different values of static water clearance cl were tested:
cl = 0.01 m, 0.06 m, 0.11 m, 0.16 m, achieved by raising or
lowering the deck assembly over the piles by means of spacers.
Random sea states were defined by scaling typical wave con-

Fig. 9. Force time history on the whole set of monitored elements during same
loading event. From top to bottom: horizontal force on external beam, vertical
force on external beam, vertical force on external deck, horizontal force on
internal beam, vertical force on internal beam, vertical force on internal deck.

664

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

The first contact between the water and the element causes
an abrupt transfer of wave momentum from the water to the
structure, generating the impact force. Such high intensity
forces acting on limited areas, even over a short time, may cause
severe local damage, local yielding and fatigue failure.
Impulsive loads vary substantially in both magnitude and
duration even under nominally identical conditions, confirming
previous observations from research on wave impacts. A
comprehensive review is given in Cuomo (2005).
As the wave propagates along the underside of a deck, jets of
water may shoot out sideways as the contact area moves along
the deck (unless otherwise restrained). These lateral jets
generally disappear as the free surface rises above soffit level.
A difference between water levels under the deck and that
alongside the structure gives rise to the pulsating or quasi-static
positive force. The magnitude of this force is consistently lower
than any initial impact, but its duration is of order 0.25Tm.
Finally, the wave surface falls below soffit level and moves
inward below the deck, reducing the contact area with the wave
(referred to as wetted length). A quasi-static negative force
(suction) may then act on the deck. This may be substantially
increased when the wave inundates the deck, adding the weight
of green water above the deck, sometimes leading to the
downward (negative) force reaching the same order of intensity
as the quasi-static uplift (positive) force.
Horizontal loads on beam elements often exhibit different
characteristics from vertical loads. The magnitude of the first

impact load on an external beam (i.e. vertical element at the edge

of the jetty) is generally lower than the corresponding vertical
impact. Example time histories are mainly characterised by
quasi-static (pulsating) components. For waves underneath any
platform formed by beams and deck elements, interactions with
the protruding elements are complex, and wave crests and air
may be trapped between beam and deck. This may result in high
horizontal impulsive loads on the seaward face of internal
elements and noticeable horizontal forces acting seaward on the
shoreward face of the vertical elements. Example histories of
horizontal forces and pressures on vertical elements are shown in
Fig. 8. Momentum transfer to the face of the external beam is
more gradual, giving quasi-static or pulsating forces (Fig. 8a)
confirmed by time histories recorded by pressure transducers A
and B (Fig. 8b). High frequency oscillations in Fig. 8a are due to
the dynamic response of the instrument in the front beam. Wave
interaction with internal elements is more complicated, in some
circumstances resulting in high intensity impact loads (see
Fig. 8c recorded as the wave slams against the seaward face of
the internal beam).
4.2. Observation and parameterisation of time history of
wave-in-deck loads
Force histories recorded as the wave travels along the test
structure are plotted in Fig. 9. From top to bottom, the wave
initially hits the seaward beam (horizontal, 9a and vertical, 9b)

Fig. 10. Vertical time-history load on deck element: recorded time history (left model units) and wavelet transform in the time-period domain (right).

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

665

trapping wave crests underneath a soffit between downstanding beams may result in local amplification of applied
loads;
phase differences between positive and negative loads may
increase as the wave travels along the structure;
rise time of wave loads (tr, see Fig. 7) may be comparable to
the characteristic periods of oscillation of structural elements, therefore the resulting loading process depends
strongly on the dynamic response of the structure.
Observing force histories during the experiments, large
variations in both magnitude and shape of the signal were
noticed, even for similar test conditions. Despite this variability,
an idealised time history has been developed to represent the
general shape drawn by the force signal during the loading. The
suggested idealised time history, superimposed on a measured
one for the external deck element in Fig. 7, consists of a shortduration triangular pulse (linear increase from zero to its peak
value), followed by the quasi-static component. The proposed
model is characterised by:

Fig. 11. Filtering out corruption of signal due to dynamic response of measuring
instruments. From top to bottom: time-history load on deck element (solid line)
and reconstructed signal by mean of inverse wavelet transform (circles), inverse
wavelet transform using only energy components corresponding to resonance
period of measuring instrument, cleaned signal after filtering.

and external deck (vertical, 9c), then moves shoreward to the

internal beam (horizontal, 9d and vertical, 9e) and deck
(vertical, 9f).
From the signals in Fig. 9, it is possible to derive the following general observations:
intensities of loads do not necessarily reduce as the wave
travels under the structure;
internal elements are subjected to wave impacts as are the
external elements;

Fmax = maximum value reached by the signal within each

event considered as representative of a typical impact
force, see Section 4.4;
tr = rise time of the force signal;
Fqs+ = maximum value of the quasi-static component of the
signal within each event;
Fqs = minimum value of the quasi-static component of the
signal within each event.
Within this project, wave loads (pulsating and impulsive)
have been parameterised at 1/250 level (average of the top 1/250
values). This choice was made to reduce dependence on highly
variable extreme loads; and to maintain consistency with the
general use of 1/250 values for wave loads on walls, see Goda
(2000), Allsop (2000) and Oumeraci et al. (2001). In assessing
the exceedance level, the number of measured loads was taken
as a proportion of the number of incoming zero-crossing waves,
themselves calculated from the test duration and mean wave

Fig. 12. Finite element model of the test structure (right) and deck element (left), shape deformed according to the first mode of oscillation (vertical direction).

666

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

undertaken on short-duration wave loads on some classes of

maritime structures, clear definitions of short-duration loads as
well as of quasi-static loads are still missing. As the loading
process depends on both incoming wave field and the dynamic
response of the structure, the dynamic characteristics of the
structure should be taken into account when distinguishing load
types. In this paper, impacts or short-duration loads are
defined as those that act on the structure for durations shorter or
comparable with the resonance period of the structure.
Conversely, quasi-static (also called slowly-varying or pulsating) loads are those that act on the structure for longer. In
figures:

tr
Fig. 13. Filtering out long-duration components from signal recorded by
measurement devices.

period, Tm. For tests of 1000 waves, the 1/250 value was
therefore evaluated by simply averaging the top 4 loads.
4.3. Impacts and quasi-static loads
Distinguishing between impulsive and quasi-static wave
loads is not straightforward. Although much research has been

V2  T0 impacts
N2  T0 quasistatic loads

where tr is the load rise time and T0 is the resonant period for the
mode corresponding to the applied load.
In analysing measurements in the model, dynamic characteristics of the instrument and of the jetty model must be taken
into account. In particular, defining any value of an impulsive
wave load to be used later in design (either as a statically
equivalent load for feasibility studies; or as time-history loads
for dynamic analysis of more complex structures) requires
filtering out corruptions from the dynamic response of the
model setup (see Cuomo et al., 2003 and Cuomo, 2005).

Fig. 14. Comparison of vertical quasi-static forces on deck elements with existing prediction methods.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

4.4. Wavelet analysis of time-history loads

Non-stationary signals are frequently encountered in wind,
ocean and earthquake engineering. Force signals from these
experiments show occasional high peaks marking an otherwise
relatively undisturbed signal. A standard Fourier analysis will
not represent correctly this signal because sine or cosine
functions in the Fourier series are periodic. Spectral analysis
methods are not therefore able to describe transient features of
these short-duration phenomena.
The need to preserve time dependence and to describe
evolving spectral characteristics of non-stationary processes
requires tools which allow localization of energy content in both
time and frequency domains. Wavelet transformations retain
transient signal characteristics beyond the capabilities of Fourier
methods. Time and frequency analysis by wavelet transforms
provides insight into transient signals through timefrequency
maps of the time variant spectra missed by traditional approaches. Analysis in this paper has used the Morlet wavelet,
widely used to describe processes related to ocean waves
(Massel, 2001).
An extract from the force time history for a jetty deck
element is shown in Fig. 10 together with its wavelet transform
in the time/period domain. A peak can be recognised about
0.25 s after the beginning of the event, with energy in almost all
the resolved scales/periods. Some energy can be recognised in

667

periods between 0.03 s and 0.07 s on the left hand side of the
amplitude contour graph.
The oscillating signal after the impact in Fig. 11 (top panel)
suggests that the measurement element was responding dynamically to the wave loading. De-noising of the recorded signal is
easily accomplished with the inverse wavelet transform by eliminating or reducing coefficients for components that are related to
low energy processes or noise. Editing components affected by
the dynamic response of instrumentation is possible, but more
difficult, as it requires identifying dynamic characteristics of the
test elements. This was assessed here by modelling the dynamic
response of the instrument using finite element models (Fig. 12).
The period of oscillation of the model structure (left hand side of
Fig. 12) was found to be far enough from the characteristic periods
of the loading (the slowest mode in the vertical direction has
period equal to 0.005 s) and therefore not to significantly affect the
measurements. The model of the deck element is shown on the
right hand side of Fig. 12, superimposed on the deformed shape
corresponding to its first mode of vertical oscillation,
corresponding to a period of resonance of approximately 0.05 s.
The equation of motion for a dynamic system can be generalised as:
M t  x t C t  x t K t  xt F t

11

where M, C and K represent respectively the mass, the

damping and the stiffness of the system (in our case the

Fig. 15. Comparison of quasi-static forces with prediction by Kaplan's model.

668

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

experimental setup), including added mass and hydrodynamic

damping.
Reading the displacement from the transducer (x) will lead to
the measurement of:

signal, is the translation parameter (localizing the position

of the wavelet in time), s is the scale dilation parameter
(determining the width of the wavelet) and (t) is the mother
wavelet defined as:

xt fF t M t  x t C t  x t g=K t :

ts
1
ws;b t;s;s p  w
:
s
s

12

Hanssen and Trum (1999) filtered out corruptions due to

dynamic response of measurement instruments by numerically
evaluating the terms in squared brackets in Eq. (12), that is,
solving Duhamel's integral in time for a single degree of
freedom system. For our type of structure, this procedure is not
straightforward, since the level of inundation of the structural
elements changes with time, together with the added mass and
the hydrodynamic damping terms in Eqs. (11) and (12).
For this reason, an alternative procedure for filtering out
corruption from dynamic response of measurement instruments
has been developed based on the wavelet transform of recorded
signals. The procedure is described in the following.
Let the wavelet transform of the signal F(t) be given by
Emery and Thomson (2001):
Z l
WTs;s
F t  ws;b t;s;s  ds:
13
l

In Eq. (13), the wavelet coefficient: WT(, s) represents the

correlation between the wavelet and a localized section of the

14

In the analysis, we adopt the Morlet wavelet, defined as:



  2 
1
1 ts
2k
ws;b t;s;s p  exp
 exp i  ts :
s
2 s
s

15

From Eq. (15), it is possible to appreciate the similarity

between the scale (s) and the more familiar Fourier period (T ).
For this reason, we will use the expression equivalent periods
meaning the scales resolved by the analysis.
We can also define the following:
a range of (equivalent) periods [Tn,min b Tn b Tn,max] affected
by the n-th mode of vibration having period Tn;
the cut-off (equivalent) period Tsmooth for low-pass filter.
Assuming linear behaviour for the measurement instrument
being analysed (generally valid for instruments within their
principal range), it is possible to obtain a filtered signal by
summing contributions from every resolved frequency, but

Fig. 16. Comparison of vertical impact forces on deck elements with existing prediction methods.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

removing those affected by the resonance. The following

signals can thus be obtained from the original records:
the reconstructed signal F tot(t) or response, that is the
inverse transform using all resolved (equivalent) periods Ti;
F t

1
C

WTt;s;b
 ws;b t;s;s  ds  ds
s2
l

16

Rl
where C 1 l Gx=x  dx and G() is the Fourier
transform of .
the filtered signal F f(t), that is the sum of components from
all resolved (equivalent) periods Ti but those affected by the
dynamics of measurement instrument;
the smoothed signal F s(t), that is the sum of components having
(equivalent) periods larger than Tsmooth (this can be easily seen
as a low-pass filter). The choice of Tsmooth depends on both the
dynamic characteristics of the measurement instrument and the
time-history loads; an initial estimate for Tsmooth is 2T0.
The suitability of Morlet wavelet as a base for the transformation of signals recorded during physical model tests is shown
in Fig. 11, with the original time-series (top) superimposed to its
inverse transform derived using Eq. (16) and extending the
integral operator to cover respectively the whole range of
resolved (equivalent) periods. The filtered signal Ff(t), obtained
by integrating Eq. (16) over all resolved periods but those in the
range [Tn,min b Tn b Tn,max] is also shown in the bottom panel of
Fig. 11. In this case, filtering out the corrupted component does
not affect significantly the impact load magnitude or duration.
For the sake of completeness, Fig. 11 also shows the part of
the signal affected by the dynamics of the measurement
instrument F c (t) = F tot (t) F f (t) (central panel), confirming
that the dynamic response of the measurement element has
corrupted the recorded signal.
It is worth noticing that since the maximum duration of
wave-in-deck loads is comparable with the incident wave
period, the whole loading process develop within a relatively
limited range of (short) periods, and thus the cone of influence
of the wavelet transform (Torrence and Compo, 1998) is
extremely narrow and almost no information is lost.
To minimize corruption due to dynamic response of measurement instruments on the extraction of meaningful parameters defined in Section 4.2 from recorded signals, the
following procedure has been adopted:

669

measurement instruments as Fmax might be larger then the real

maximum force (max[F(t)]) acting on the measurement instrument during the loading. Indeed, F tot(tmax) in general differs
from Ff(tmax), the difference between the two being given
by the dynamic response of the measurement instrument and
the following relation is valid: min{Ftot (tmax); Ff (tmax)}
max[F(t)] max {Ftot (tmax); Ff (tmax)}.
Nevertheless, the choice of the aforementioned method for
the extraction of Fmax has been made based on the following
facts:
1. Ff might underestimate the maximum impact force, as the
energetic contribution to the real force acting on the frequencies affected by dynamic of the resonance instruments is
indeed neglected in the filtering process;
2. for pulse-shapes similar to those observed in time-history
loads recorded during physical model tests, the maximum
amplification due to dynamic response of measurement
instruments is less than 1.5 (Cuomo, 2005). In such cases,
the maximum displacement occurs at time t N tmax (Fig. 11)
and thus extracting Fmax at time t = tmax significantly
compensates for such potential over-estimation.
In our experience, the use of the aforementioned technique
reduces corruption due to dynamics of measurement instruments more effectively than using Eq. (12) with potentially
erroneous estimation of mass and damping coefficients. Furthermore, when a difference exists between the real load and the

Fqs+ has been taken as the maximum value reached by the

smoothed signal within each loading event;
Fqs has been taken as the minimum value reached by the
smoothed signal within each loading event;
Fmax has been taken as: max {F tot(tmax); F f(tmax)}, the
maximum between the reconstructed (F tot) and the filtered
(Ff) signals at time t = tmax (time at which the filtered signal
reaches the maximum value within each loading event).
Values of Fmax extracted by means of the aforementioned
technique might still be affected by the dynamics of the

Fig. 17. Comparison of impact forces with prediction by Kaplan's model.

670

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

value extracted by the analysis program, the latter is always

(slightly) larger than the former.
Applying a high-pass filter to the inverse wavelet transform
also eliminates long-duration distortions like drift or non-linear
displacement of the instruments, without affecting the description of the main processes (Fig. 13). Further details on this
analysis, as well as on the dynamics of the experimental setup
used in the physical model tests, can be found in Cuomo (2005).
5. Comparison with existing prediction methods
Tirindelli (2004) and Cuomo (2005) reviewed prediction
methods for wave-induced forces on beam and deck elements of
exposed jetties and offshore platforms, including most recent
works. In this section predictions by selected methods are

compared with wave-in-deck loads measured during physical

model tests.
Quasi-static vertical (upwards) loads (at exceedance level
F1/250) measured during these new tests are compared with
predictions by some of the reviewed methods of Section 2 in
Fig. 14 for both external () and internal () deck elements.
The scatter is large over the range of measurements for most
methods used in the comparison.
Quasi-static vertical loads on external and internal elements
are compared with predictions by Kaplan in Fig. 15. According
to what was suggested by Kaplan et al. (1995) wave kinematics
in Eqs. (9) and (10) has been evaluated using linear theory but
assuming the wave amplitude to be equal to max; drag coefficient Cd in Eqs. (9) and (10) has been taken respectively equal
to 2 and 1. The scatter is relatively large, with most predicted

Fig. 18. Relative importance of Hs on wave-in-deck loads. From left to right: horizontal (seaward) forces on beams, vertical (uplift) forces on beams and vertical
(uplift) forces on decks. From top to bottom: quasi-static forces (NP), quasi-static forces (P), impacts (NP) and impacts (P). All data refer to experiments carried out
with d = 0.75 m.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

values falling within the unsafe regions (upper left corner for
positive loads on the left hand side and lower right corner for
negative loads on the right hand side). This is particularly true
for horizontal loads on internal elements, where Kaplan suggests
assuming only the drag component of the hydrodynamic force to
act, resulting in a general under-estimation of total loads.
Vertical (upwards) impulsive loads measured during these
tests are compared with predictions by the existing methods
in Fig. 16 for both external and internal deck elements. Scatter
around predictions is large over the range of measurements
for almost all methods in the comparison. Predictions of impact loads have improved significantly in recent times, at least
partially due to improvements in measurement and data acquisition methods.
Impacts on external and internal elements are compared with
predictions by Kaplan in Fig. 17 for both vertical and horizontal
loads. In general, slam forces on suspended elements are underestimated by Kaplan's model, but predictions of slam (both
vertical and horizontal) were compared satisfactorily with
measurements (at 1/250 level) on the seaward face of the
external beam, where severe impacts were rarely recorded during
the experiments. Differences between predictions and measurements are greater for internal elements, probably because the
model assumes wave flows not to be affected by the presence of
the structure. Kaplan's simple method cannot therefore include
local amplification of pressures by trapping wave crests
underneath the structure, or by 3-dimensional flows above.

671

Fig. 20. Comparison between non-dimensional quasi-static horizontal (shoreward)

forces and pressures on external beam, solid line has an equation: P =F /A.

corruption of the wave load measurements (described above),

and from having to represent too many variations in the loading
process. This paper therefore describes methods to refine and
extend such predictions. Further non-dimensional analysis was
carried out to reduce scatter around predictions, providing
physically-based prediction equations less influenced by
spurious correlations. Wave force results used in the following
sections were extracted from signals filtered using wavelet
transforms as in Section 4.

6. New prediction method

6.2. Parametric analysis
6.1. General
Guidance for evaluating wave loads for decks and beams
was derived within the Exposed Jetties research project, see
McConnell et al. (2003, 2004) and Tirindelli et al. (2003a). New
equations/coefficients were developed to provide designers
with safe and user-friendly prediction methods. The Exposed
Jetties data on wave loads did however suffer from some

Fig. 19. Quasi-static horizontal (seaward) pressures on external beam, solid line
obeys Eq. (19) with a = 1.186 and b = 0.429.

Through the review of previous prediction methods for wave

loading on platforms/decks, a series of geometric and
hydrodynamic variables influencing forces F applied to a
plate are identified in Eq. (17).

: :
17
F f Hmax;Hs ;d;g max ;Tm ;L;sm ;c;u;u;bl ;bw ;bt ;cl ;h; h;l;l

where terms not previously defined are Hmax = maximum wave

height, max = maximum crest elevation, u = local water velocity vector, u = local water acceleration vector.
Among the variables in Eq. (17), the most informative appear
to be Hs, max, c, cl, Tm, and sm. Analysis of the new data
confirmed the importance of these variables. Clear trends were
found between vertical and horizontal loads (at 1/250
exceedance level) and Hs, max, and cl (see Tirindelli et al.,
2003b, Tirindelli, 2004 and Cuomo, 2005). Regardless of other
wave and geometry parameters, the magnitude of forces
depends strongly on wave height. The new data show clear
increases of wave loads with Hs, see Fig. 18 (top panel: quasi
static load, bottom panel: impacts).
The variable most closely linked to Hs is max. Although
both wave height and maximum crest elevation represent the
energy of the wave field approaching the jetty, max is more
strongly linked to the loading process as it takes into account the
non-linear dependence of the wave profile from both wave
period and water depth. This is particularly true for structures in

672

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Fig. 21. Horizontal (seaward) forces on external beam, solid lines obey Eq. (18) with coefficients a and b given in Table 2.

shallow and intermediate water depths. For these structures, the

probability of occurrence of wave loading itself varies
according to the probability distribution of max (see Cuomo,
2005 and Bentiba et al., 2004).

Unfortunately, although being more informative than Hs,

values of max are not always easily available. With this in
mind, a simple method is used to evaluate max as follows. First,
for a given Hs, Tm, d and Nz (number of waves within a test),

Fig. 22. Quasi-static vertical (upward) forces on deck elements solid lines obey Eq. (18) with coefficients a and b given in Table 1.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

the maximum wave height Hmax is calculated assuming the

most appropriate local wave height distribution. The value of
max is then taken as the maximum crest elevation for a wave
having H = Hmax, T = Tm and propagating in water of constant
depth d. Results presented here have been obtained by
describing the incoming wave profile according to Fenton's
Fourier Transform, which is valid for regular waves in the range
of parameter tested. Forces and pressures measured during these
experiments show strong dependence on max, evaluated as
above, with wave loads increasing with increasing max.
The parameter that best synthesizes the geometrical
information that must be taken into account for wave loading
on exposed jetties is the clearance cl. The composite variable
(max cl) provides an effective measure of water that inundates
the deck or beam. The variable (max cl) can therefore be
considered as the most useful variable for calculations of wave
loadings on exposed jetties.
6.3. Dimensionless analysis
Bearing in mind that the most important variables for
providing prediction of wave loading on structures as jetties are
Hs, max and cl, and considering that a dimensionless approach
is required for generalisation of results, Eq. (18) (forces) and
Eq. (19) (pressures) have been fitted to the new dataset.

F1=250

P1=250

g c 
Fqs 1=250
l
a  max
b
qw  g  Hs  A
d

g c 
Pqs 1=250
l

a  max
b
qw  g  Hs
d

18

19

where Fqs 1/250 is quasi-static force (at 1/250 significance level),

Pqs 1/250 is quasi-static pressure (at 1/250 significance level), A
is the area of the element (orthogonal to the direction of
application of the load), and a and b are empirical fitting
coefficients.

673

Fig. 24. Vertical force time-history loads on external (dashed line) and internal
(solid line) deck element (no-panel configuration).

These equations make forces or pressures dimensionless

through the use of Hs, and identify linear trends between
dimensionless forces and (max cl) / d including the main
dependences in Section 4.1. Results of the experimental fitting
to Eqs. (18) and (19) are reported in Section 7.
7. Results
7.1. Horizontal quasi-static loads on beams
7.1.1. Positive (shoreward) loads
The main components of horizontal loads on external beams are
quasi-static, and for this case coefficients a and b in Eq. (19) are
derived for pressure data (for which the sampling rate at 200 Hz is
high enough to cover the quasi-static component of the signal).
Responses of the pressure transducers will not have been corrupted
by their dynamic response as were the force measuring devices.
Dimensionless pressures Pqs 1/250 =Pqs 1/250 /(wgHs) on external
beam are plotted against (max cl) /d in Fig. 19. The line given by

Fig. 23. Quasi-static vertical (downward) forces on deck elements, solid lines obey Eq. (18) with coefficients a and b given in Table 2.

674

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Fig. 25. Comparison of measured quasi-static forces and pressures with proposed new prediction method.

Eq. (19) provides good estimates of the pressures for the three
configurations. The relatively high scatter is due to inherent spatial
variability; the pressure transducers only give a local view rather
than spatially averaged. For configurations without side panels,
strong 3-dimensional effects increased spatial effects. Where wave

effects are constrained to be primarily 2-dimensional, the side

panels channel waves towards the structure, limiting dispersion and
generating the highest pressures of all configurations studied.
The assumption that horizontal loading is constant across the
width of the flume is well-supported. For all three configurations,

Table 1
Coefficients a and b for fit lines and values of R2 for Eqs. (18) and (19), positive loads; s in model units: pressure [kPa] and force [N]
Parameter

Direction

Element

Position

Configuration

R2

se

Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force

Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical

Beam Pa and Pb
Beam Pa and Pb
Beam Pa and Pb
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck

Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Int
Int

FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
FD
P
NP

1.19
1.19
1.19
0.56
1.74
0.71
1.10
1.36
2.31
1.23
1.57
0.83
0.58
1.57

0.43
0.43
0.43
0.75
0.14
0.57
0.46
0.46
0.05
0.51
0.52
0.13
0.19
0.73

0.90
0.87
0.96
0.90
0.96
0.97
0.96
0.89
0.95
0.96
0.84
0.69
0.67
0.95

0.34
0.22
0.17
6.84
1.68
1.24
1.61
2.27
6.78
7.28
7.64
9.80
6.57
11.21

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

675

Table 2
Coefficients a and b for fit lines and values of R2 for Eq. (18), negative loads; se in model units: pressure [kPa] and force [N]
Parameter

Direction

Element

Position

Configuration

R2

se

Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force

Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical

Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck
Deck

Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Int
Int

FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP
FD
P
NP

0.77
0.56
0.84
0.00
1.89
0.00
0.04
0.23
1.95
0.00
0.66
0.52
0.08
1.35

0.00
0.04
0.04
0.22
0.12
0.49
0.48
0.29
0.03
0.51
0.36
0.05
0.06
0.29

0.87
0.91
0.75
0.47
0.86
0.69
0.69
0.87
0.94
0.72
0.61
0.89
0.94
0.89

2.15
0.86
1.08
1.35
1.90
1.74
2.25
0.76
7.80
7.57
8.74
2.24
0.81
4.90

the magnitude of horizontal dimensionless pressures on external

beam is slightly higher (20%) than that of horizontal forces, see
Fig. 20, suggesting that predicted pressures will generally give
conservative results for design purposes.
7.1.2. Negative (seaward) loads
As the wave travels through the structure, it may apply a
reverse or seaward force on the shoreward face of the vertical
elements, giving a net negative (seaward) force, whose magnitude may be comparable to the positive (shoreward) quasi-

static component if the element is still immersed. Pressure

signals measured only on the external face of the element do not
therefore give a reliable picture of the overall process, so values
for negative loads are extracted only from force time histories.

Dimensionless negative horizontal forces Fqs1/250

=Fqs 1/250 /
(wgHsA) on the external beam are plotted against (max cl) / d
in Fig. 21. The linear fits provide good estimates of the forces
for the three different configurations, confirming that horizontal
loads on external elements are not significantly affected by the
structural configuration.

Fig. 26. Peak forces versus quasi-static vertical (upward) forces on deck elements, solid lines obey Eq. (22) with coefficient a given in Table 3.

676

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Table 3
Coefficient a for fit lines and values of R2 for Eq. (22); se in model units:
pressure [kPa] and force [N]
Parameter Direction

Element Position Configuration a

R2

se

Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force
Force

Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck
Beam
Deck
Deck
Deck

0.90
0.89
0.94
0.48
0.32
0.93
0.64
0.85
0.69
0.98
0.88
0.96

1.10
25.62
5.38
1.24
3.41
15.81
7.28
20.41
8.36
21.32
6.57
26.60

Horizontal
Horizontal
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical
Vertical

Ext
Int
Ext
Ext
Ext
Ext
Ext
Ext
Int
Int
Int
Int

All
NP
FD
P
NP
FD
P
NP
NP
FD
P
NP

2.45
3.35
2.87
1.74
2.28
2.35
1.99
2.22
2.59
2.35
1.84
2.29

7.2. Vertical quasi-static loads on beams and decks

7.2.1. Positive (upward) loads
The most complete data from the experiments are for
vertical uplift forces on horizontal elements. Deck elements
(and to a lesser degree beam elements) expose significant
horizontal areas to wave action and may therefore be subject
to important quasi-static uplift loads. Dimensionless uplift
forces Fqs+1/250 = Fqs+1/250 / (wgHsA) on external beams and
external and internal decks are plotted in Fig. 22 against
(max cl) / d for each of the configurations tested. Data for
the internal beam element are not presented here because some
force transducer results may have been corrupted during the
experiments.
The linear response of forces with (max cl) /d is clear from
all the plots, particularly for external elements (first two rows in
Fig. 22), which are less influenced by the different configura-

tions, particularly for the most seaward facing element (external

beam, first row of Fig. 22), where lines for the three different
configurations are very similar. The configurations with side
panels (P) seem to provide the highest loads for external
elements. Without the side panels (NP), 3-dimensional wave
interactions with the complex structure make forces on the
internal deck less predictable (see third row of Fig. 22). Forces on
internal elements are more sensitive to any 3-dimensional effects,
see Section 7.2.2. Even for these elements, however, simple
linear equations still give reasonable predictions for uplift loads.
7.2.2. Negative (downward) loads
Downward forces may be by suction where sideways flows
are restrained by continuous beams, but will be substantially
increased when the deck is inundated by waves. Even for this
1/250 are still cortype of loading, dimensionless forces Fqs
related with (max cl) / d, see Fig. 23. Downward forces on
both external and internal deck elements are shown in Fig. 23a
for the flat deck (FD). Inundation of the deck is limited
and downward forces are mainly due to suction, reducing as the
wave travels along the jetty from external to internal elements.
The relative importance of inundation on internal deck elements is shown in Fig. 23b. Negative vertical loads are substantially higher, and longer-lasting, when 3-dimensional
effects can act.
Effects of inundation on downward forces are further
illustrated in Fig. 24, showing example vertical force time
histories recorded by external and internal deck elements under
3-dimensional attack (NP). Green water overtopping significantly increases downward loads; when lateral inundation
of the deck is not prevented, downward loads on internal
elements might be larger and longer-lasting than on external
elements.

Fig. 27. Peak forces versus quasi-static forces on beams: horizontal (left) and vertical (right), solid lines obey Eq. (22) with coefficient a given in Table 3.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

677

Table 4
Comparison of error E between predictions and data for existing methods and new formulae for quasi-static uplift forces on the external deck element

N
P
FD
All

El-Ghamry (1965)

Wang (1970)

Broughton and
Horn (1987)

Shih and
Anastasiou (1992)

Suchithra and
Koola (1995)
(min)

(max)

0.120
0.144
0.192
0.084

0.130
0.149
0.153
0.082

0.080
0.095
0.584
0.155

0.104
0.087
0.252
0.083

0.135
0.157
0.592
0.169

0.344
0.364
1.362
0.393

7.3. Prediction method for quasi-static loads on beams and decks

Once Fqs 1/250 has been evaluated according to Eqs. (18) and
(19), design forces (quasi-static) can be evaluated from:
Fqs

1=250

Fqs

1=250

 qw  g  Hs  A:

20

Quasi-static loads on structural elements of exposed jetties as

measured during the physical model tests are compared with
predictions by Eq. (20) in Fig. 25. The comparison shows
reasonable agreement, with values of a and b listed in Tables 1
and 2, together with the corresponding estimates of goodness
of fit in terms of R2 (taken as the ratio of the sum of the squares
of the regressions and the total sum of the squares, and
evaluated using robust fitting) and the standard error of the
estimate, that is:
v
uP
u Nt
u yi yi 2
t
se i1
Nt 2

21

where yi and i are respectively measured and predicted loads

and Nt is the number of tests used in each fit. It should be noted
that values of s are given in model units, that is pressure in
kiloPascal [kPa] and force in Newton [N].
Compared with predictions by other methods in Figs. 14
and 15, the equations and coefficients derived here show
significant improvement, considering that a single unique
relationship has been used to predict somewhat variable loads
on different elements in different locations along the deck.
7.4. Impulsive loads on beams and decks
The main results of this paper have been related to quasi-static
loads. Nevertheless, some important information about impulsive
loads has also been derived from the revised data. Using definitions
discussed earlier, impulsive loads on beams and decks can reach 3
times the value of corresponding quasi-static loads. Ratios between
1/250 =Fmax 1/250 / ( wgHsA) (at 1/250
dimensionless impact Fmax
(at 1/250 level) are
level) and quasi-static positive forces Fqs+
shown in Fig. 26 for both external and internal deck elements.
Fitting lines in Fig. 26 have the following expression:

Fmax
1=250 a  Fqs1=250

where a is an empirical coefficient, given in Table 3.

22

Kaplan et al.
(1995)

Present formulae

0.131
0.137
0.116
0.094

0.050
0.058
0.074
0.034

Similar trends are observed in Fig. 27 for horizontal (a) and

vertical (b) loads on the external beams (FD). Horizontal
impacts are on average 2.5 times the corresponding quasi-static
loads, whereas for vertical impacts the ratio is higher (2.9). The
highest impact ratio (a = 3.4 times quasi-static) are recorded on
the internal elements, where the complex geometry of the
structure may trap and amplify wave effects.
It must be stressed that impulsive loads measured during
physical model tests have relatively short rise times (tr b 0.1Tm)
that might fall within the range of the natural periods of
vibration of prototype structures. This might result in
amplification and/or reduction of actual loading (Oumeraci
and Kortenhaus, 1994).
Indeed, when significant impulsive loads are expected to act
on the suspended deck structure, the evaluation of the impact
load to be used in design analysis must account for the
dynamics of the prototype structure. Guidance for the
evaluation of the effective load to be adopted in early feasibility
studies can be found in Cuomo (2005).
7.5. Comparison with existing methods
Comparison of the new method with models reviewed
previously confirms the improvement in prediction. Values of
relative error E defined in Eq. (23) for a series of existing
methods and for the new method are shown in Table 4.
1
E
Nt

s

Nt

X
yi yi 2
:
yi
1

23

As most present methods were developed to predict only

vertical wave loads on horizontal slabs, values in Table 4 only
refer to quasi-static uplift forces on external deck.
8. Summary and conclusions
An extensive review of previous work has identified gaps
and inconsistencies in prediction methods for wave-in-deck
loads. The need for guidance for wave loads on suspended deck
structures in exposed locations originally motivated research
within the Exposed Jetties project, including a series of flume
tests to measure wave-induced loads on deck and beam
elements, and that work has been extended here.
Time histories of vertical and horizontal forces have been reanalysed using wavelet transform, providing important insight
into physical mechanisms of the loading process. An improved

678

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

prediction method has been derived to include the key variables

that influence the loading process, but retaining simplicity in the
prediction formulae.
Results from the experimental fitting of the new data have
been fully described above. Each prediction line is parameterised by Eqs. (18) and (19) and slope and intercept coefficients
a and b in Tables 1 and 2 with corresponding regression fit R2
and standard error se. Similarly, the values of coefficient a in
Eq. (22) are listed in Table 3, together with their regression fit
R2 and standard error se.
By selecting appropriate values of the empirical coefficients
a and b in Tables 13, the new methodology succeeds in
accounting for different structural configurations of the jetty and
for relative location of structural element along the jetty deck,
fitting coefficients to each sub-set.
Comparison with experimental data shows good agreement
between measured and predicted forces. When compared to
previous models, variability around predicted values is significantly reduced, see Table 4.
Acknowledgements
This analysis has been supported by Universities of Roma
TRE and Bologna, and HR Wallingford. The authors gratefully
acknowledge contributions from the DTI PII Project on Exposed
Jetties (39/5/130 cc2035), Prof. Leopoldo Franco, University of
Roma TRE, Prof. Alberto Lamberti, University of Bologna; Terry
Hedges, University of Liverpool, Kirsty McConnell and Ian
Cruickshank, HR Wallingford; and visiting researchers at HRW
Amjad-Mohammed Saleem and Oliver de Rooij. The authors
wish to thank the very valuable comments to an early version
of this manuscript provided by Andreas Kortenhaus and Alf
Trum.
References
Allsop, N.W.H., 2000. Wave forces on vertical and composite walls. Chapter 4
In: Herbich, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Coastal Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New
York, pp. 4.14.47.
Allsop, N.W.H., Vann, A.M., Howarth, M., Jones, R.J., Davis, J.P., 1995.
Measurements of wave impacts at full scale: results of fieldwork on concrete
armour units. Conf. on Coastal Structures and Breakwaters 95, ICE.
Thomas Telford, London. ISBN: 0 7277 2509 2, pp. 287302.
Bea, R.G., Iversen, R., Xu, T., 2001. Wave-in-deck forces on offshore platforms.
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 123, 1021.
Bentiba, R., Cuomo, G., Allsop, N.W.H., Bunn, N., 2004. Probability of
occurrence of wave loading on jetty deck elements. Proc. 29th ICCE. World
Scientific, Lisbon. ISBN: 981-256-298-2, pp. 41134125.
Blackmore, P.A., Hewson, P.J., 1984. Experiments on full-scale wave impact
pressures. Coast. Eng. 8, 331346.
Bolt, H.M., 1999. Wave-in-deck load calculation methods. BOMEL, Airgap
Workshop, Imperial College. Health and Safety Executive, London.
16 pp.
Broughton, P., Horn, E., 1987. Ekofisk Platform 2/4C: re-analysis due to
subsidence. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1 (82), 949979 (Oct.).
Chan, E.S., Melville, W.K., 1988. Deep-water plunging wave pressures on a
vertical plane wall. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A 417, 95131.
Cuomo, G., 2005. Dynamics of wave-induced loads and their effects on coastal
structures. Final Dissertation PhD in Science of Civil Engineering,
University of Roma TRE, Italy.

Cuomo, G., Tirindelli, M., Allsop, N.W.H., 2004. Experimental study of wavein-deck loads on exposed jetties. Proc. XXIX IDRA, Trento, Italy, vol. 3,
pp. 541547.
Cuomo, G., Allsop, N.W.H., McConnell, K.J., 2003. Dynamic wave loads on
coastal structures: analysis of impulsive and pulsating wave loads. Proc.
Conf. Coastal Structures 2003. ASCE/COPRI, Portland, pp. 356368.
El-Ghamry, O.A., 1965. Wave forces on a dock. Technical Report HEL-9-1,
Hydraulic Engineering Laboratory, Institute of Engineering Research.
University of California.
Emery, W.J., Thomson, R.E., 2001. Data Analysis Methods in Physical
Oceanography, 2nd Rev edition. Elsevier Science. 658 pp.
Goda, Y., 2000. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. World
Scientific, Singapore.
Hanssen, A.G., Trum, A., 1999. Breaking wave forces on tripod concrete
structure on shoal. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 125 (6), 304310
(Nov/Dec).
Howarth, M.W., Allsop, N.W.H., Vann, A.M., Davis, J.P., Jones, R.J., 1996.
Scale effects of wave impact pressures on cob armour units. In: Billy L.,
Edge (Ed.), Proc. 25th ICCE, Orlando, Florida, USA, September 26.
ASCE, New York, pp. 25222531.
Isaacson, M., Allyn, N., Ackermann, C., 1994. Design wave loads for a jetty
at Plymouth, Montserrat. International Symposium: Waves Physical
and Numerical Modelling. University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
pp. 11531162.
Isaacson, M., Bhat, S., 1994. Wave forces on a horizontal plate. International
Symposium: Waves Physical and Numerical Modelling. University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, pp. 11841193.
Kaplan, P., 1992. Wave impact forces on offshore structures: re-examination and
new interpretations. Paper OTC 6814, 24th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, pp. 7998.
Kaplan, P., 1979. Impact forces on horizontal members of an offshore test
structure. Proc. of Civ. Eng. in the Oceans IV, San Francisco, CA, USA.
ASCE, New York, pp. 716731.
Kaplan, P., Silbert, M.N., 1976. Impact forces on platform horizontal members
in the splash zone. TX OTC, Huston, Proc. of the Offshore Technology
Conference, pp. 749758.
Kaplan, P., Murray, J.J., Yu, W.C., 1995. Theoretical Analysis of Wave Impact
Forces on Platform Deck Structures. Offshore Technology OMAE, vol. I A.
ASME, pp. 189198.
Kjeldsen, S.P., Myrhaug, D., 1979. Breaking waves in deep water and resulting
wave forces. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers (Ed.), Proc. of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Ritchardson, TX, pp. 25252532.
Lundgren, H., 1969. Wave shock forces: an analysis of deformations and forces
in the wave and in the foundation. Proc. Symp. On Research in Wave
Action. Delft Hydraulics Lab. Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 120.
Massel, S.R., 2001. Wavelet analysis for processing of ocean surface wave
records. Ocean Eng. 28 (8), 957987.
McConnell, K.J., Allsop, N.W.H., Cuomo, G., Cruickshank, I.C., 2003. New
guidance for wave forces on jetties in exposed locations. Paper to Conf.
COPEDEC VI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 20 pp.
McConnell, K.J., Allsop, N.W.H., Cruickshank, I.C., 2004. Piers, Jetties and
Related Structures Exposed to Waves Guidelines for Hydraulic Loadings.
Thomas Telford Publishing, London. ISBN: 0 7277 3265 X.
Morison, J.R., O'Brien, M.P.O., Johnsen, J.W., Schaff, S.A., 1950. The Forces
Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles. Petrol Trans., vol. 189. AIME, pp. 149157.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., 1994. Analysis of dynamic response of caisson
breakwaters. Special issue on vertical breakwaters. Coast. Eng. 22, 159183.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., Allsop, N.W.H., De Groot, M.B., Crouch, R.S.,
Vrijling, J.K., Voortman, H.G., 2001. Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical
Breakwaters. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN: 90 580 248 8, 392 pp.
Shih, R.W.K., Anastasiou, K., 1992. A laboratory study of the wave induced
vertical loading on platform decks. Proc. Conf. ICE. Water Maritime and
Energy, vol. 96, 1. Thomas Telford, London, pp. 1933.
Suchithra, N., Koola, P.M., 1995. A study of wave impact on horizontal slabs.
Ocean Eng. 22 (7), 687697.
Tirindelli, M., McConnell, K., Allsop, N.W.H., Cuomo, G., 2002. Exposed
jetties: inconsistencies and gaps in design methods for wave-induced forces.
Proc. 28th ICCE, Cardiff, UK. ASCE, pp. 16841696.

G. Cuomo et al. / Coastal Engineering 54 (2007) 657679

Tirindelli, M., Cuomo, G., Allsop, N.W.H., McConnell, K.J., 2003a. Physical
model studies of wave-induced forces on exposed jetties: towards new
prediction formulae. Proc. Conf. Coastal Structures 2003. ASCE/COPRI,
Portland, pp. 382393.
Tirindelli, M., Cuomo, G., Allsop, N.W.H., Lamberti, A., 2003b. Wave-in-deck
forces on jetties and related structures. Proc. conf. ISOPE 2003, Honolulu,
Hawaii, pp. 823830.
Tirindelli, M., 2004. Wave-induced forces on maritime structures. Final
dissertation PhD in Hydraulic Engineering, Polytechnic of Milan, Italy.

679

Torrence, C., Compo, G.P., 1998. A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79 (1), 6178.
Toumazis, A.D., Shih, W.K., Anastasiou, K., 1989. Wave impact loading on
horizontal and vertical plates. Proc. of IAHR 89 Conf., Ottawa, Canada,
pp. c209c216.
Wang, H., 1970. Water wave pressure on horizontal plate. Journal of the
Hydraulic Division. ASCE, pp. 19972016. No.HY10 Oct.1970.