Wave loads on vulnerable deck structures- model testing, analysis and

mitigation solutions
1

Scott Collins1, Gildas Colleter1, Arne Nilsen1

Aurecon, Brisbane, Australia. Email: scott.collins@aurecongroup.com

Abstract
Submergence and damage of existing low level deck structures poses unique challenges to mitigate, and is
becoming a more frequent problem. Typically existing deck structures were designed to be above the wave
zone for a design event of only 50-100yr ARI, which is not sufficient immunity for key infrastructure by
todays standards. The risks of wave damage to deck structures is also increasing as existing structures
undergo design life extensions, and with projected climate change impacts. These structures have little
capacity for loading and require innovative mitigation works to provide increased immunity.
A number of recent Aurecon projects have investigated wave loads on deck structures, including extensive
physical model testing. Deck structures can have several failure mechanisms which were investigated
during the model testing, including structure damage from global wave uplift and from local wave slam.
Random wave impacts also exhibit significant load variance for comparable waves, and development of a
design load requires extensive testing and analysis. A preferred solution is to establish statistical
distributions of measured wave loads and undertake a Monte Carlo analysis of loads during a design storm
event. Important results of the deck model testing have been compiled, and wave uplift and wave slam
loads are compared to previously published load coefficients.
This paper describes the increasing risks of failure for vulnerable deck structures, and details the model
testing required to define loads. Important results from Aurecons recent physical model testing undertaken
is presented, including best practice for wave load analysis, key load results and comparison to previously
published wave uplift and wave slam coefficients. Finally the feasible and innovative mitigation o ptions
which should be assessed are outlined, including deck raising, deck venting, deck grating, sacrificial
connections or deck panels and structure strengthening.
Keywords: marine structures, wave uplift, deck loads, wave forces, physical modelling.
1.
Introduction
The issue of wave loading causing damage to low
level deck structures is becoming a more frequent
problem. With the demand for natural resources
growing significantly over the last few decades, a
large number of major marine structures have
been built and many existing structures have
undergone design life extensions.

2.
Deck structure immunity and risks
Some existing marine structures were originally
designed to be above the wave zone for a design
event of only 50-100yr ARI. The standards of
today require marine structures to be designed for
significantly higher events, up to 1,000yr ARI for
high value structures such as LNG and bulk solid
terminals over a typical 50yr design life.

Some older deck structures around the world were

typically designed to be above the wave zone for
only a 50-100yr ARI event, which is insufficient
immunity by todays standards. This combined
with increasing risks owing to projected climate
change and design life extensions, increases the
risks and focus on the vulnerability of marine
structures and decks to wave loads.

Therefore a high proportion of existing structures

do not have sufficient immunity by todays
standards. In addition to this, the risks of wave
damage are also increasing as many existing
structures undergo design life extensions. Add
these increasing risks to the risks associated with
projected climate change impacts and some older
marine structures appear vulnerable.

A number of studies have been recently

undertaken by Aurecon focussing on wave loads
on vulnerable deck structures, and designing
upgrade works.
This paper will discuss the
increasing risks to deck structures. Key results
from recent physical model testing is presented
and compared to previously published wave
coefficients, with advice on best practice for wave
load analysis. An overview of deck upgrade
options which should be considered to mitigate the
issue is also presented.

The increasing risk profile of structures over time is

shown below in Figure 1.
This figure also
illustrates the large disparity in risk profile for
structures designed for 100yr ARI events verse
structures designed for 500yr ARI events.

Figure 1 Risk of wave event exceedance over time

equations exist for estimating wave uplift, wave

slam and wave downward loads on submerged
decks. A number of these researchers have
suggested estimating wave uplift loads based on
factoring the head height of water above the deck
level by empirical coefficients [5]. Alternative
Morrison type equations for wave uplift based on
particle velocity have also been proposed.
Typically these Morrison type equations are more
suited to estimating horizontal loads, and for small
structures which do not influence the wave shape.
In addition uncertainty around particle velocities
adds a layer of uncertainty. Wave uplift based on
the head height of water arguably better estimates
deck loads, from the Aurecon model testing
results.

Typically deck structures have little capacity for

loading and have not been designed for wave
loading. Deck structures experience a step-wise
loading pattern as they are exposed to larger
events, going from no load in small events to large
load in larger events. Large damage occurs when
they are impacted, owing to the step-wise loading
and the fact that there is little latent capacity in
their design. To mitigate these high loads, a
thorough understanding of the loading is required.

The wave uplift equations based on the head

height of water use the principle that there is only a
finite amount of wave energy which can be turned
into uplift force on a deck, which is equivalent to
the potential energy of the wave above the deck
for. This type of equation for wave uplift is shown
in Equation 1 and Equation 2.

3.
Wave load evaluation
3.1 Background
Vertical wave loads on decks typically occur in
three distinct phases. When the wave initially hits
the underside of the deck, a large impact or
slamming load is imparted on the structure, which
is of short duration. Following this initial impact
load, a pulsating quasi-static uplift load occurs as
the wave crests through the structure. As the
wave passes the structure, a downward suction
force occurs as the water parts from the deck
underside.

where Fu = quasi-static uplift load; Fi-u = impact

uplift load; A = loaded deck area; = specific
weight of water; g = gravity; Z = the height of wave
crest above the underside of deck; and C =
empirical load coefficients.

The three distinct load phases are shown in

Figure 2, from a time series of measured wave
loads on a deck.

Measured uplift load

Impact
uplift

Quasi-static
uplift

Downward
load

Time

Fu = Cu A g Z
Fi-u = Ci-u Fu

(1)
(2)

Researchers including Wang (1970), French

(1970), Overbeek et al (2001) and more recently
Allsop et al (2004) and Cuomo (2007) supported
this form of load equation and suggested empirical
coefficients based on their physical model testing.
Most researchers have found that Cu, the quasistatic uplift coefficient, centres around 1, varying
between 0.5 and 2. Some researchers have
suggested that Ci-u, the impact uplift coefficient,
centres around 2-3 [3, 5, 6, 7].
It should be noted that most impact uplift loads
have been measured using load cells, which
spatially distribute the peak impact over a larger
area. The use of pressure sensors regularly
identify localised pressures in excess of the impact
uplift loads suggested by the researchers. These
larger highly localised slam pressures need to be
considered where applicable, over small areas.
Design guidance on the best practice for
estimating wave uplift loads and peak wave slam
pressures is provided in this paper in Section 4.3,
based on the authors extensive set of physical
testing.

Figure 2 Measured time series of deck uplift loads

Many researchers have analysed wave loads on

decks over the years, and a number of empirical

While these empirical equations provide invaluable

guidance for desktop studies, the range of load
coefficients means estimated loads may only be

accurate to within half an order of magnitude and

only suitable for a concept study. Robust physical
model testing of each specific structure with local
bathymetry under a range of local wave conditions
is required to provide detailed and optimised wave
load information. When designing mitigation works
for vulnerable structures, such optimisation and
confidence in load definition is vital.
3.2 Physical model testing
Ultimately physical model testing is required to
develop detailed and optimised design loads for
any specific structure. Wave loads can vary
significantly depending on the form of the
structure, the wave conditions and the local
bathymetry.
The form of the structure has a major impact on
wave loads. Any supporting members on the
underside of the deck entrain air as the wave
meets the deck. Wave action against the highly
incompressible entrained air imparts significant
uplift loads on the deck. Two different common
deck structures are seen in Figure 3.

act on a small area, and may be dampe d by the

natural response of the structure. These localised
peak pressures may be a critical load case for
small deck panels, but do not occur over large
deck areas simultaneously.
As such load
measurements are critical to properly define wave
loads and spatial distribution of load.
Random waves should be used during testing,
rather than monochromatic waves, as random
wave-wave and wave-structure interaction can be
critical, and result in significant load variance. The
use of random waves will provide a robust data-set
of loads, ensuring the peak loads and distribution
of loads for waves of similar height are captured.
4.
Design wave loads
4.1 Results analysis
Extensive physical model testing has been
undertaken by Aurecon in recent years, to
determine wave loads for greenfield port design
and for the upgrade design of existing vulnerable
deck structures. The model testing has involved a
range of wave climates and heights, a range of
model scales from 1:15 to 1:55 to 1:75, and both
random waves and monochromatic waves. This
extensive and robust set of wave load data has
been studied to provide results and design
guidance for wave loads on decks. The results of
this model testing, including comparison to
published data, is shown in Section 4.3.
Results have shown that random wave impacts
exhibit significant load variance for comparable
waves. The development of a design load based
on model testing should involve establishing
statistical distributions of loads, with a subsequent
Monte Carlo analysis of loads during a generated
design storm event. An example of the load
variance on structures with an adopted distribution
and a 95% confidence limit is shown below.

To properly quantify the wave loads and assess

the vulnerability of deck structures, model testing is
required. The model testing should
Measure vertical loads;
Measure horizontal loads;
Measure pressures; and
Use random waves.

Measured load

Figure 3 Variation in deck structures- deck with beams

(top) and flat roadway deck (bottom)

Wave height

The use of a small number of pressure sensors

alone will significantly over-estimate global wave
loads on the structure, as peak pressures do not
occur simultaneously over the deck, and spatial
distribution of the peak load is important.

Figure 4 Wave load variation and example distribution

The peak global load drives the response of the

overall structure, and is a critical load case for any
deck supporting steelwork and the deck
substructure. The highly localised peak pressures

4.2 Observed wave damage- Lucinda

During Tropical Cyclone Yasi in 2011, the Lucinda
Bulk Sugar Terminal experienced some damage to
the offshore marine structures. The critical jetty

It is recommended to analyse model testing data

with this method, to ensure an appropriate
confidence limit is adopted for the design load.

and wharf substructure and the shiploader

survived undamaged, while wave damage
occurred to the wharf and jetty deck units. TC Yasi
wave crests were estimated to be a 200yr ARI
event, and the deck units were submerged by
approximately 2-2.5m during maximum wave
heights. Aurecon undertook the original design of
the terminal in the 1970s to working stress
principles, and following the limited damage have
undertaken the damage assessment and repair
design works to limit state design in 2011-2012.
While the scope of the repair project was to only
reinstate the wharf to original condition, 500yr ARI
immunity has been achieved on much of the wharf.
The damage observations of the roadway decking
provide valuable information on the likely wave
loads experienced during TC Yasi, at full scale.
The observed deck damage at the wharf is seen in
Figure 5.

An estimate of wave uplift coefficients has been

made based on the observed damage and wave
loads. It should be noted that this estimate relies
on the wave crest levels calculated in a detailed
met-ocean study, which adds some uncertainty to
the coefficient.
On the jetty, slight damage to only one of several
deck slide bearings was observed. It is considered
that the wave uplift load at the jetty was similar to
the weight of the jetty decking, being
approximately 800kN. A wave uplift load in the
order of 1500kN would have damaged the hold
down bolts on the decking and fully dislodged the
unit. The hold down bolts were not damaged in
any way. At the jetty, the 800kN wave uplift load
correlates to an overall load coefficient of 1.5. The
1500kN connection capacity was not met,
confirming a load coefficient well below 3.
At the wharf, the wave uplift significantly exceeded
the wharf deck weight of 300kN, and all deck units
saw significant damage and displacement. This
confirms a wave coefficient well in excess of 0.6,
perhaps in the order of 1.5 again.
The wharf deck at the southern strongpoint
experienced wave loads greater than 800kN, but
likely not greater than the deck weight of 1600kN.
This location is complicated by the size of the deck
being much larger than the impact area of the
waves, but a wave coefficient of approximately 1 to
1.5 appears appropriate.

Figure 5 Lucinda damage from TC Yasi- wharf deck in

foreground and southern strongpoint in background

The jetty roadway was undamaged except for the

dislodgement of sliding bearings on one of the
deck units near the end of the jetty. The maximum
wave uplift pressure appears to have been similar
to the weight of the roadway deck unit, given the
start of damage to the slide bearing, but lack of
movement of the deck unit.
The wharf decking experienced significant
damage, with most units displaced and moved
from their original positions. The wharf decking did
not have any hold down connections, and the
maximum wave uplift pressure significantly
exceeded the weight of the decking. The wharf
decking is lighter than the jetty decking, resulting in
uplift and displacement of the wharf decking.
The wharf deck units at the southern strongpoint
are however wider and heavier. Observations
suggested the rear half of the southern strongpoint
deck was raised by wave action, but the front half
of the deck was unmoved. This suggests that
wave impacts were variable across the deck, and
that loads were at least half the weight of the deck
but not greater than the total weight of the deck.

Therefore an overall deck uplift load coefficient in

the order of 1.5 to 2 appears appropriate based on
observed damages. This could correspond to a
quasi-static uplift factor of 1 and an impact uplift
factor of 1.5 to 2.
4.3 Load definition best practice
Quasi-static uplift loads are typically best
estimated by multiplying the head of water above
the structure by an empirical factor, accounting for
structure configuration and incident wave climate.
The empirical load factors suggested by Allsop et
al [3] is shown in Figure 6, with results from
Aurecons model testing on exposed decks with
beams, and on shore backed decks with underside
beams above constraining revetment.
The
submergence factor is the ratio of head height of
water above the deck to significant wave height.
The quasi-static uplift loads measured in the
Aurecon model testing shows reasonable
agreement to testing by Allsop et al [3]. Typical
quasi-static loads measured centred around a load
factor of 1.

Pressure

during initial wave contact and air entrainment

against the deck.
An example of spatial
distribution of wave slam load is shown in Figure 8,
as measured during testing on ship hulls.

Figure 6 Quasi-static uplift coefficient- comparing

Allsop et al (blue) to recent Aurecon model results (red)

Short duration impact uplift loads are typically best

calculated by factoring the head height of water, or
by factoring the slowly varying load as suggested
by Allsop et al [3]. The peak impact factor
measured by Allsop et al is shown in Figure 7.
These results are compared against Aurecons
model testing, and observations from wave
damage at Lucinda.
The peak impact uplift loads measured in the
Aurecon model testing shows good agreement to
the spread of data from Allsop et al. Peak-impact
loads measured showed significant variance, but
centred on a load factor of 2-3 for open decks with
beams. The constrained deck above a sloping
revetment showed a higher coefficient closer to 34, owing to the enclosed nature of the shorebacked deck. The peak impact factor estimated at
Lucinda for its flat deck configuration was in the
order of 1.5-2, assuming a quasi-static factor of 1.
This is in the lower range of Allsops data for decks
with beams, which appears reasonable given the
flat deck configuration is less vulnerable to air
entrainment and impact loads.

Figure 8 Example of spatial distribution of wave slam

(safeFLOW- [2])

The peak, local, short duration uplift pressures can

be estimated with the simple desktop pressure
formula of Goda (2000) and Hiroi (1919), based on
the maximum wave height [4]. This equation was
derived for horizontal loads on vertical sections but
correlates well to peak local uplift pressures.

P = Cslam g Hmax

(3)

The peak local uplift pressures measured during

various Aurecon model testing shows reasonable
agreement with this equation. It should be noted
that the uplift pressures measured were highly
variable and irregular.
Hiroi suggested a coefficient (Cslam) of 1.5 [4]. The
results from Aurecons model testing across
several different projects gives a wave slam
coefficient of approximately 2, for decks with
beams. This load coefficient corresponds to a
~90% confidence limit. Several waves did exceed
this limit, up to a coefficient of 3. A local wave
slam coefficient of 2 is suggested for design
consideration for decks with beams. This local
pressure is likely to be critical for small span deck
units.
5.
Structure mitigation measures
Wave damage to deck structures can be
catastrophic for asset owners, with closure of the
asset typically required until repairs are completed.
Damage to the deck units may take 6 months to
recover from, while damage to the deck, deck
supporting steelwork and main substructure may
take between 6 months and 2 years to repair.

Figure 7 Impact uplift coefficient- comparing Allsop et al

(blue) for decks with beams to Aurecon results

Highly localised impact or slam pressures in

excess of the impact uplift loads were measured
when using pressure sensors. The impact loads
measured by a load cell are spatially distributed,
whereas wave slam pressures capture local
maximums. These wave slam pressures occur

Repair work may cost tens or hundreds of millions

of dollar, while the loss of asset operations can
result in catastrophic financial losses to the asset
owner, port user or community.
Owners of
valuable marine assets should be aware of the risk
profile of the structures, and where economically
beneficial, investigate the upgrade of structures to
mitigate risks.
There are a number of feasible solutions to
mitigate vulnerable deck structures, despite the

upgrading of brownfield structures being inherently

difficult. Several issues and constraints impact
upon the feasibility and effectiveness of solutions:
Safety- can it be built or installed safely;
Constructability- can it be constructed;
Operations- is a shutdown of the port required;
Time- can it be built fast to reduce shutdowns;
Physical- does it clash with other structures;
Immunity- can it deliver desired immunity; and
Cost- is it affordable and adds value.
Aurecon has investigated a number of solutions
during several upgrade design projects. Most deck
mitigation works can be categorised under options
which:
Remove the wave load;
Reduce the wave load;
Withstand the wave load; and/or
Control the damage.
Removing the wave load by raising the deck above
the wave zone is the most effective solution. This
can be implemented with new pre-fabricated
decks, by jacking of the existing decks or by other
means. This solution prevents wave loading on
the deck, and in doing so also removes these
loads from the sub-structure, which they are often
not designed for. The main engineering challenge
with this option is operational and physical
constraints, including any clashes with overhead
structures such as travelling shiploaders, product
pipe racks or conveyors.
Other options to investigate include the reduction
of load in critical areas through the use of deck
grating. Deck grating may be implemented in
areas not requiring heavy vehicle access or
laydown storage.
Innovative deck venting in
critical areas, such as in front of major underside
beams, can also reduce the wave impact loads
and make the load more manageable.
Deck structures can be upgraded to withstand the
wave load, but can be challenging and costly for
very large wave loads. Smaller deck spans,
stronger and thicker deck units, strengthened deck
connections and strengthening of deck supporting
steelwork and the substructure may all be required
to withstand the design loads. Most of these
measures will typically add weight to the structure,
which the substructure may or may not have
capacity for. In addition the sub-structure may not
have capacity to withstand the large uplift loads
and may require strengthening.
While deck
strengthening is certainly feasible, significant
investigation of the knock on effects of the wave
load is required to ensure the overall structure is
robust enough.
Another measure is to reduce the repair time of the
structure by strengthening key areas, and
accepting damage in areas which are quicker to

recover from.
Specifically this may involve
installing sacrificial deck connections, which are
designed to break away in design events, to
prevent overloading of the main substructure. The
damaged deck panels may be replaced in less
than 6 months, if there is no nearby debris
damage, with a 1-2 year repair of the main
substructure being avoided.
6.
Summary
Some older deck structures were designed for only
50-100yr ARI events, and may be vulnerable to
wave damage. A number of recent Aurecon
projects have investigated wave loads on decks,
and have undertaken extensive physical model
testing to define wave loads on deck structures.
Results from recent model testing have shown the
most appropriate way of estimating wave uplift is to
factor the head height of water above the deck by
empirical coefficients. Results from the model
testing and observations from wave damage at
Lucinda have been presented, giving guidance and
comparison to published wave load coefficients.
While this guidance gives valuable advice for
desktop studies, physical model testing is often
required to confirm and optimise design wave
loads with confidence.
Many feasible and innovative mitigation options
exist which should be assessed during mitigation
studies. These include deck raising, deck venting,
deck grating, sacrificial deck panels or connections
and structure strengthening.
7.

References

[1] Sheppard, M and Martin, J. (2009). Wave Loading

on Bridge Decks, University of Florida, pp. 78.
[2] safeFLOW. (2004). Summary Report on Design
Guidance and Assessment Methodologies for Wave
Slam and Green Water Impact Loading, safeFLOW.
[3] Allsop, M. McConnell, K and Cruickshank, I. (2004).
Piers, Jetties and Related Structures Exposed to WavesGuidelines for Hydraulic Loading, HR Wallingford.
[4] Goda, Y. (2000). Random Seas and Design of
Maritime Structures, Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering- Volume 15.
[5] Douglass, S. Chen, Q. Olsen, J. (2006). Wave
Forces on Bridge Deck, US Department Of
Transportation.
[6] Cuomo, G. Tirindelli, M. Allsop, W. (2007). Wave-indeck loads on exposed jetties, Journal of Coastal
Engineering.
[7] Tirindelli, Cuomo, G. Allsop, W. Lamberti, A. (2003).
Wave-In-Deck Forces on Jetties and Related Structures,
Journal of Coastal Engineering.