Wave-in-Deck Forces on Jetties and Related Structures

Matteo Tirindelli
1
, Giovanni Cuomo
2
, William Allsop
3
, Alberto Lamberti
1

1
DISTART Idraulica, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

2
University of Rome3 and HR Wallingford, Wallingford, United Kingdom
3
University of Southampton and HR Wallingford, Wallingford, United Kingdom







ABSTRACT

An experimental study aiming to measure wave-induced forces on key
elements of exposed jetties has been carried out by a combined research
team. The experimental set-up was designed to measure wave loading,
both horizontal and vertical, on external (seaward) and internal (middle
of deck) elements of a model of a jetty head. Pulsating and impulsive
loads are analysed in dimensionless form, and differences between
three different structure configurations are described.

KEY WORDS: Jetty, Wave Forces, Impact, Physical Model

INTRODUCTION

Wave loading on maritime structures has been studied in the past 40
years, but nearly always involves significant simplifications of the
wave / structure interaction. The characteristics of wave forces on
coastal structures depend strongly on their location with respect to
wave shoaling and breaking. Offshore structures (like oil platforms) are
generally subject to non-breaking waves where most wave loads may
be termed pulsating. Nearshore or coastal structures like jetties may
however be placed in shallow water where waves are breaking or
already broken. Some wave loads may therefore be more violent,
especially on vertical walls, see e.g. Allsop (2000).

In the last 10-15 years, increasing demand for longer jetties to provide
large vessels mooring has required the construction of these structures
in significantly deeper water. Exposed jetties extend therefore from
shallow to deep water, and the dynamic of wave-induced loading is
influenced from the transition.

This paper is focused to interpret results of an experimental study of
wave-induced forces on a model of a jetty located in transitional water.
General characteristics of wave-induced forces on maritime structures
are described and a literature review of methods used to measure and/or
evaluate them is presented.

New experimental data collected at HR Wallingford are then analysed
in a dimensionless form, to provide some guidance on the magnitude of
pulsating and impulsive forces applied to deck and projecting elements
of jetties. Vertical and horizontal forces on deck and beam elements are
analysed and discussed in the present paper.

WAVE-IN-DECK LOADS

General
This term is used to define all wave-induced loads applied to a platform
or deck and to projecting beams when the wave hits and/or inundates
the structure. Wave-in-deck loads are listed below and shown in Fig. 1:
horizontal wave loads on beams, fenders or other projecting
elements;
wave uplift loads on decks;
wave uplift loads on beams, fenders or other projecting elements;
wave downward loads on decks (inundation and suction).

Inundation deck load
Uplift deck and beam load
Horizontal
beam load
Wave surface
Fig. 1. Wave-in-deck loads

Wave-in-deck loads may be considered as the three phases in Fig. 2. At
the instant of contact between the wave crest and the soffit of the deck,
the impulsive force is potentially large in magnitude and short in
duration. This is followed by a pulsating (slowly-varying) positive
force and then by a pulsating (slowly-varying) negative force,
especially if the deck is consistently inundated.

Severe local damage, fatigue failure and local yielding may be caused
Proceedings of The Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 2530, 2003
Copyright 2003 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1880653-605 (Set); ISSN 10986189 (Set)
562
by dynamic impulsive forces acting for a short duration. Their
magnitude can be considerably higher than maximum pulsating loads.
Because impulsive loads are of short duration, or may be confined to
smaller areas, they may be of much greater importance to the resistance
of individual members than to the overall structure. Available evidence
shows that impulsive forces vary substantially in both magnitude and
duration, differing significantly under nominally identical conditions.
Laboratory studies show that air entrapment and entrainment influence
magnitude and characteristic times of peak impulsive events.

When a wave propagates underneath the platform, outshooting jets are
evident at the wave front at all times as impact occurs continuously
along this front. The laterally outshooting jets disappear as soon as the
free surface of the water alongside the platform starts to rise up along
the soffit level. A difference in elevation between the fluid underneath
the platform and that alongside the platform starts to develop which
gives rise to the generation of the pulsating positive force (uplift).
Laboratory studies have shown that wave height (or wave crest
elevation) and clearance above the still water level (i.e. vertical
distance from the bottom of the deck and the swl) mainly govern this
kind of force.

Eventually, the free surface of the undisturbed wave falls below the
soffit level; the free surface underneath the platform moves inward,
reducing the contact area between the platform and the wave. A
pulsating (suction) force acts under the platform, mainly governed by
its width and clearance, and from wave height. When the wave
inundates the deck consistently, another contribution to the negative
load, due to the weight of the green water above the deck, is applied.
This type of force, coupled with suction force can generate a significant
downward load, sometimes of the same order as the pulsating positive
uplift force.


Literature Review
Several approaches and theories have been developed to evaluate wave-
in-deck forces, many involve simplifications and most are based on 2-
dimensional assumptions.

El Ghamry (1965) and Wang (1970) carried out experimental tests to
measure wave pressures on horizontal platforms in wave flumes. They
identified the form of the typical wave-in-deck load, composed of a
short duration / high magnitude impulsive impact, superimposed on a
longer slowly-varying (pulsating) component of less intensity.

French (1971) took photographic stills to visualise the nature of wave-
in-deck forces applied underneath an horizontal platform. He found the
impulsive pressure to be distributed over a very narrow portion of the
platform and suggested it would only be important when strength of
individual members of the platform structure is considered. The
subsequent slowly-varying component is of concern when the structural
stability of the structure as a unit is addressed. Peak pressures are
characterised by considerable variance around the mean value. Despite
controlling wave heights to a standard deviation of 1% of mean height,
French found that peak pressures varied by more than 30% (standard
deviation / mean value), probably explained considering that air
entrainment varies considerably even under same nominal conditions,
therefore affecting the process of wave-induced loading.

Broughton & Horn (1987) used wave basin tests (scale 1:50) on three
different platform configurations to measure vertical forces applied
underneath the platform. Their results are influenced by their sampling
rate (20 Hz), too low to capture impulsive short peaks.

Shih & Anastasiou (1992, 1989) and Toumazis et al. (1989) analysed
wave-induced pressures applied to an horizontal platforms in two
different sets of tests (small and very small scale). They confirm that air
entrainment affects impulsive pressures, generating scatter in data, and
note that Froude scaling does not take in account air compressibility
effects between model and prototype. They derived very simple
empirical formulae for wave uplift pressures (both impulsive and
pulsating) on horizontal platforms. Wave pressures depend on nominal
wave height and platform clearance (i.e. vertical distance between
platform and swl).

Kaplan (1992), Kaplan et al. (1995) and Murray & Kaplan (1997)
investigated wave forces on flat decks and horizontal beams on
offshore platforms. Wave-induced forces on platforms can be
considered as combined of momentum (inertia + added mass), drag
force and buoyancy. Kaplan developed a model based on Morisons
equation to predict horizontal and vertical wave-induced forces. He
found a clear dependence of impulsive forces on deck clearance and
wave crest elevation, while pulsating positive and negative forces were
found to be dependent on wave period through the wetted length of the
testing element. His model works through the following equations (Eq.
1 for vertical forces, Eq. 2 for horizontal forces):
1475 1476 1477 1478 1479
-50
0
50
100
Time (s)
For
ce
(N)
t (s)
Pulsating +ve
Impulsive
F (N)

Fig. 2. Vertical force history on deck (units at model scale)
Pulsating -ve

(bal g blC
b
l
b
l
t
l
bl
b
l
bl
F
d v

+ +
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
+
|
.
|

\
|
+

+
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
+
= & & & & &
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
8 2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
)
(1)

uL
dt
dc
c u Lu cC u c L F
d h

4
2
2
2
+ + = &
(2)

where: b is the width of the deck; is the wave surface; l (platform
length) and l/t are determined from the relative degree of wetting of
the flat deck underside on which loading occurs; a is the thickness of
the deck; C
d
is the drag coefficient, L is the horizontal length dimension
of the element, c is the vertical wetted length of the element, u is the
wave velocity in horizontal direction.

Klatter et al. (1994, 1990) measured full-scale horizontal loads on the
upper beam of the Eastern Scheldt storm surge barrier (Netherlands).
Measured impulsive pressures fall within the range defined by Shih &
Anastasiou (1992).

563
Isaacson & Bhat (1994) and Isaacson et al. (1994) attempted to find
dimensionless relations between vertical forces (uplift and downward)
on a horizontal plate and some design variables (wave height, wave
period, wave length, water depth, steepness, clearance of the platform,
plate dimensions). They calibrated a numerical model for evaluation of
forces with some small flume experimental data with regular waves.
They concluded that the parameter which is most informative for
vertical wave loading is the relative plate clearance c
l
/H: vertical forces
decrease linearly with c
l
/H.

Suchitra & 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. They derived qualitative insights on
the influence of structure geometry, pointing out that longitudinal
beams seem to slightly increase applied forces, while transversal beams
cause air pockets to be entrapped between the wave and the structural
boundaries, therefore reducing peak forces.

Cornett et al. (1999) measured model (scale 1:50) pressures on a
platform deck to quantify wave-induced loading on a cruise ship pier in
Bridgetown, Barbados. They found and increasing trend between
maximum vertical force and significant wave height. The form of this
increasing relation varies according to the different position where
measures were taken along the platform. They also conducted
experiments with a perforated deck and found that with a perforation of
5% of the deck, wave uplift forces were reduced 10 to 25%, depending
on wave height.

Bea et al. (1999) state that wave-in-deck loading is an extremely
complex problem that needs an integrated approach. Their analysis
treats the total wave-in-deck force (F
tw
) on a platform deck as an
extended version of Morisons equation, where the different
components are: slamming (F
s
), drag (F
d
); lift (F
l
), inertia (F
i
) and
buoyancy forces (F
b
). Eq.3 summarises the different contribution for
wave-in-deck forces.

b i l d s tw
F F F F F F + + + + =
(3)

Sterndorff (2002) analysed large scale tests to measure wave loading on
an offshore platform. He focused on horizontal loads on beam
elements, testing different structure configurations, with series of
regular and irregular waves. He compared experimental results with a
numerical procedure for prediction of wave forces on offshore platform
decks derived from a modification of Morisons equation, with an
approach quite similar to Kaplans model:

| |
2
2
1
V AC Pds MV
Dt
D
F
D
S
+ + =
(4)

where: M is the added mass, V is the velocity, is the density of the
water, S is the immersed surface of the element, P is the total pressure,
A is the area. He found substantial agreement between measured and
calculated forces and pointed out a strong linear dependence of
horizontal pulsating wave forces on deck inundation.

THESE EXPERIMENTS

The analysis described here aims at identifying characteristic features
of wave loading distribution to a model structure of a jetty head (Fig.
3). Tests were conducted in the absorbing flume of HR Wallingford. A
series of random waves (JONSWAP spectrum) were generated (see
Fig. 4) and wave induced forces and pressures were measured on a
model (scale 1:25 to typical prototype structure) of a jetty structure.
Three structural configurations were tested (Panels, No Panels, Flat
Deck, see Fig. 5). Force transducers and pressure gauges measured
horizontal and vertical loads on deck and beam elements of the jetty.

External Internal
1.1 m
1
.
0

m
B B B B D D D D

Fig. 3. Plan view of model structure

Three wave probes were intended to produce correlation between wave
loads and wave heights. Two measuring sections were obtained in the
main body of the jetty model, respectively named external (i.e.
seaward) and internal (i.e. middle of the deck). For each measuring
section a beam element (B) and a deck element (D) were instrumented
with force transducers (wave gauges) to measure horizontal and vertical
forces. Fuller details of the experiments are given in Tirindelli et al.
(2002).

0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
T
m
(s)
H
s

(
m
)
d = 0.75m
d = 0.60m
Fig. 4. Matrix of wave conditions for testing
s
m
= 0.06
s
m
= 0.04
s
m
= 0.01

A time-domain analysis of force signals was performed with the aim to
extract impulsive and pulsating (positive and negative) events from the
dataset. A threshold method adapted from the nominal wave height
method (Kortenhaus et al, 1999) was used to identify force events and
smoothening of the signal was performed to separate pulsating events
from typical resonant oscillations of the testing elements. Data in this
paper are presented at 1/250 level (i.e. average of 4 highest forces from
564
1000 waves). This level takes account of extreme events, and it is more
stable than particular maximum events within a test


VERTICAL FORCES


It is important to separate the analysis between impulsive and pulsating
forces as the characteristics of these two components are different in
the magnitude / duration of events and in the effects applied to
structures or elements. Impulsive forces on external deck elements
(F
imp
) are plotted in Fig. 7 against pulsating forces (F
qs+
). Forces are
non-dimensionalised by gH
s
A, where H
s
is nominal significant wave
height and A is the area subject to wave action.

paddle
1:5 shingle absorbing beach
S

No panels
Panels
Flat deck

Fig. 5. Sketch of the three tested configuration
Pulsating positive forces (uplift)
Pulsating uplift forces travel along the underside of the horizontal deck
and are associated with the mass of water confined under the deck. The
difference in elevation between water underneath and alongside creates
a positive (upward) force applied to large portions of the deck. The
distribution of this force alongside the deck is influenced by the
presence of vertical obstacles as fenders, beams or other projecting
elements. If there are no obstacles, uplift forces on external and internal
deck elements are essentially similar. If the deck features significant
down-stand beams, external deck forces may differ significantly from
those on internal deck elements, see Fig. 8.
1.5 m
model structure
swl

During those tests with no side panels (as the one shown in Fig. 6)
significant 3-dimensional effects were observed. Waves diffracted in
from the sides, collided over the centre of the deck, applying higher
loads to internal elements than to external. When this effect was
removed by the addition of side panels, forces on the external deck
were higher than on the internal, probably due to the obstruction to
flow generated by the down-stand beams disturbing the waves during
their passage along the structure.

Fig. 6. View of the model of the jetty head during a test



Isaacson & Bhat (1994) identified relative deck clearance (c
l
/H
s
) as one

Fig. 7. Impulsive vs. pulsating vertical forces on deck elements
Fig. 9. Dimensionless uplift forces on external elements for a Flat Deck
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
F
qs+
/gH
s
A (external)
F
q
s
+
/

g
H
s
A

(
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
No Panels
Panels
Flat Deck

Fig. 8. Uplift forces on deck (Internal vs. External elements)
F
imp
= 2.26F
qs+
- 0.0438
R
2
= 0.8989
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
F
qs+
/gH
s
A
F
i
m
p
/

g
H
s
A
External deck
Internal deck
F
imp
= F
qs+
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
(
max
-c
l
)/H
s
F
q
s
+
/

g
H
s
A
565
of the most informative parameters for vertical deck forces. This result
is confirmed by the new set of data, if the configuration Flat Deck is
analysed. A parameter derived from c
l
/H
s
is the dimensionless relative
crest elevation, (
max
c
l
)/H
s
, where
max
is max crest elevation. This
parameter provides a measure of the effective inundation of the deck. If
dimensionless uplift forces on external measuring elements are plotted
against (
max
c
l
)/H
s
, for the configurations without down-stand beams,
a clear increasing linear trend can be recognised, see Fig. 9.

No distinction is made between deck and beam elements in Fig. 9, as
forces have been normalised with the area of the element. The
apparently linear trend is not due to spurious correlation given by the
presence of H
s
in both dimensionless variables, as is confirmed by Fig.
10, where dimensional forces are plotted against (
max
c
l
).


Pulsating negative forces (downward)
Negative forces are applied when the wave retreats from the underside
of the deck (suction). Downward forces are usually less than up-lift
forces, but are increased if the deck has been inundated, and can reach
the same magnitude as positive pulsating forces, see Fig. 11.


It is rather difficult to find a clear influence on downward forces. If the
negative pulsating wave force, F
qs
,
-
is made dimensionless by gH
s
A,
as it was for F
qs+
, no clear dependence can be found. If we use another
set of variables to generate dimensionless values of downward forces,
somewhat clearer relations appear. In Fig. 12, F
qs-
/c
0
2
A (where c
0
is
deep water wave celerity) are plotted against wave steepness, H
s
/L
0
, for
external elements in the configuration with side panels. A decreasing
regular trend can be observed.

-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
H
s
/L
0
F
q
s
-
/

c
0
2
A
Panels external deck
Panels external beam

Fig. 12. Dimensionless pulsating forces vs. wave steepness
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
(
max
-c
l
) [m]
F
q
s
+

[
N
]
Deck element
Beam element

Fig. 10. Uplift forces on external elements for a Flat Deck

The dependence of dimensional F
qs-
on deep water steepness and
significant wave height are confirmed again in Figs. 13 and 14, without
spurious correlation. From Fig. 14 it is possible to distinguish different
slopes of the fitting lines, corresponding to different values of Nominal
mean period T
m
.
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
H
s
[m]
F
q
s
-

[
N
]

Fig. 13. F
qs-
against H
s
, for Side Panels configuration
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
F
qs+
/gH
s
A
F
q
s
-
/

g
H
s
A
No Panels
Panels
Flat Deck

Fig. 11. Uplift positive forces vs. downward forces


-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
H
s
/L
0
F
q
s
-

[
N
]
T
m
< 1.5s
T
m
= 1.5s
Tm = 2.5s
Tm = 3.0s

Fig.14. F
qs-
vs. wave steepness for Side Panels configuration
566
Impulsive forces
When the wave first hits the deck an impulsive force is applied,
characterized by a sharp peak and a short rise time.

Despite a substantial difference in the type of forces, similar features
that were observed for F
qs+
can be recognized for the impulsive force
F
imp
, particularly with respect to the relations between wave forces
applied to external and internal elements. For those tests with a flat
(downward facing) deck, the waves apply very similar forces to both
external and internal deck elements.

For those test cases with down-stand beams, the projections into the
wave field affect the distribution of impulsive forces to the structure.
As for pulsating forces, when constrained to a strictly 2-dimensional
condition, F
imp
is higher on the external deck rather than on the internal
deck.

When 3-dimensional effects were present (No Panels), impulsive
loads on the internal elements increased relative to the external
elements. Impulsive forces on internal and external elements are plotted
in Fig. 15 for the three configurations. The graph plot is fairly similar to
Fig. 8, even though the relations between F
imp
on internal and external
elements are different from pulsating forces, due to the different nature
of the different types of loading.


Impulsive vertical forces on deck elements result more than 2 times
higher than pulsating forces. Their characteristic rise time has been
found to decrease as the magnitude of the maximum value increases,
largest impacts having been observed of the duration of less than
T
m
/10.

HORIZONTAL FORCES

Horizontal wave loading on beams has different characteristics from
typical wave-in-deck vertical forces. In particular, the mechanism of
impulsive + pulsating wave forces applied to the element is no longer
the main feature of the loading process. More often, only a pulsating
force is applied to the beam, without the occurrence of the initial
slamming.

The wave approaches the element with a given steepness of the front
(waves are non-breaking), while for vertical loading on decks, an
upward movement of the wave crest causes sharp impulsive forces to
be released to the structure. A typical horizontal force history on
external beam is shown in Fig. 16 where the signal has been smoothed
in order to reduce the influence of resonant period of the testing
element. Some oscillations are still present, but do not affect the order
of magnitude of the maximum force for each event.

-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
29 29,5 30 30,5
t(s)
F

(
N
)

Fig. 16. Horizontal force history on external beam, model scale

Simple dependences of the horizontal forces applied to external beam
relative to deep water steepness and significant wave height can be
observed in Figs. 17 and 18. F
hor+
clearly increases with increasing
wave steepness and wave height for the configuration No Panels.

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2
F
imp
/gH
s
A (external)
F
i
m
p
.5
/

g
H
s
A

(
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
)
No Panels
Panels
Flat Deck

Fig. 15. Impulsive forces on deck (internal vs. external elements)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
H
s
/L
0
F
h
o
r
+

[
N
]

Fig. 17. Horizontal forces on external beam vs. H
s
/L
0



0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
H
s
[m]
F
h
o
r
+

[
N
]

Fig. 18. Horizontal forces on external beam vs. H
s

567
These plots suggested to explore the dimensionless dependence shown
in Fig. 19.


The same dimensionless variable used to analyse downward forces on
deck has been tested for horizontal forces. Still, a very clear trend
against wave steepness can be recognised, see Fig. 20. It is important to
point out again that Figs. 17 and 18 show the real (not variable-
induced) dependence of F
hor+
on wave height and wave steepness.


CONCLUSION

Potentially useful methods to predict wave forces on deck and beams
on exposed jetties, offshore platforms, dolphins and related structures
have been offered among the others by Kaplan, Bea and Shih, but
significant inconsistencies and gaps in knowledge require considerably
more information on the occurrence and characteristics of wave loads,
see Tirindelli et al., 2002.

New information has been generated in this study for the design of
exposed jetties. This new study is based on random wave flume tests on
model structures developed from the experience of jetties and dolphins
of the steering group of the project DTI PII Project 39/5/130 cc2035
Guidelines for the Hydraulic Design of Exposed Jetties. Wave forces
measured on decks and beams (both external and internal) of a model
of an exposed jetty are presented in this paper, and have been related to
a number of dimensionless parameters.

One source of difference between these and many previous studies is
the presence, or otherwise, of 3-dimensional effects. In this work, tests
with and without side panels were carried out to investigate the
occurrence of 3-dimensional effects and the eventual differences in
wave forces applied to the structure. Tests with side panels excluded
lateral wave effects, while tests without those side panels showed
significant differences in the occurrence and magnitude of loading. For
cases where waves diffract across the jetty / dolphin deck, enhanced
inundation forces were noticed due to mentioned 3-dimensional effects.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
H
s
/L
0
F
h
o
r
+

/

g
H
s
A

Fig. 19. Dimensionless horizontal forces on external beam vs. H
s
/L
0


A second, important source of difference between these results and
previous studies arises from the inclusion of down-stand beams in these
tests. As most practical jetty structures are constructed from an array of
orthogonal beams supported on piles, with any deck elements
constructed onto those beams, it was felt essential to include those
features here. It is clear that down-stand beams may attract significant
local impact forces on both the beams and the adjoining up-wave deck.
It is possible that intense local pressures may lead to local damage, and
accelerate deterioration.

Variables which are mainly responsible for wave loading have been
examined and clear relations between pulsating / impulsive forces and
hydraulic / geometric parameters have been found. Wave-induced
forces have been found to be mainly dependent on wave height, wave
period, wave length, wave steepness, max crest elevation, wave
celerity, deck (beam) clearance. It is possible to notice that wave forces
increase with increasing H
s
, H
s
/L
0
, (
max
c
l
), and some linear trends
can be recognised.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
H
s
/L
0
F
h
o
r
+

/

c
0
2
A

Fig. 20. F
hor+
/c
0
2
A on external beam vs. H
s
/L
0


Further analysis is still needed with the aim to perform a parametric
study of wave-induced forces on exposed jetties structures. Various
dimensionless parameters were identified in this study, such as H
s
/L
0
,
c
l
/H
s
, (
max
c
l
)/H
s
and will be taken in account, in order to obtain
stable and consistent relations with dimensionless forces. New
prediction formulae will be investigated to fit this set of new
experimental data, with the aim to fill the described gaps and
inconsistencies in some of the reviewed methods.

Finally, a complete description of the whole process of wave-in-deck
loading should also be taken in account. The relative importance of
impacts (impulsive loads) versus pulsating loads remains to be
investigated in detail; some suggestions can already be drawn from this
paper. Impulsive forces will be investigated in terms of impulse, i.e.
force integrated over the rise + fall time of the impact. Characteristics
and distribution of impulses will be studied, following methods already
developed for impacts on vertical walls during PROVERBS project.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported under DTI PII Project 39/5/130 cc2035.
Support is also acknowledged from the project Steering Committee and
other partners. The authors thank Terry Hedges, University of
Liverpool, for useful guidance on dimensionless analysis. Support of
University of Bologna and University of Rome3 are gratefully
acknowledged, as is support for Marie Curie fellowships by the
European Commission (under the contract No. HPMI-CT-1999-00063).

REFERENCES

Allsop N.W.H. (2000) Wave forces on vertical and composite walls
568
Chapter 4 in Handbook of Coastal Engineering, pages 4.1-4.47, Editor
J. Herbich, ISBN 0-07-134402-0, publn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bea R.G., Xu T., Stear J. & Ramos R. (1999) Wave Forces on Decks of
Offshore Platforms Jo. Waterway, Port, Coastal & Ocean Eng., Vol.
125, No 3, Proc. ASCE, New York.
Broughton P. & Horn E. (1987) Ekofish Platform 2/4C: Re-analysis Due
to Subsidence Proc. Inst. Civ. Engrs., Pt 1,82, Oct., pp. 949-979
Cornett A., Tarbotton M., Mattila M. & Gittens G. (1999) Model study
of wave loads on a new cruise ship pier for Bridgetown, Barbados
Proc. of the Canadian Coastal Conference 1999.
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.
French J.A. (1971) Wave Uplift Pressures on Horizontal Platforms
Proc. of the speciality conf.: Civil Engineering in the Oceans IV, Vol.
I, pp 187-202.
Isaacson M. & Bhat S. (1994) Wave Forces on a Horizontal Plate
International Symposium: Waves - physical and numerical modelling,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Isaacson M., Allyn N. & Ackerman C. (1994) Design wave loads for a
Jetty at Plymouth, Montserrat International Symposium: Waves-
physical and numerical modelling, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada, August 21, pp. 1153-1162.
Kaplan P. (1992) Wave Impact Forces on Offshore Structures: Re-
examination and New Interpretations Paper OTC 6814, 24th OTC,
Houston, Offshore Technology Conference.
Kaplan P., Murray J.J. & Yu W.C. (1995) Theoretical Analysis of Wave
Impact Forces on Platform Deck Structures Volume 1-A Offshore
Technology, OMAE Copenhagen, June 1995, Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering Conference.
Klatter L., Janssen H. & Dijkman M. (1994) Wave impacts on the
Eastern Scheldt Barrier, Evaluation of 5 years field measurements
Proc. of the 24th int. conf. on Coastal Engineering, Kobe, Japan.
Klatter L., Konter J. & Jongeling T. (1990) Monitoring hydraulic loads
on the Eastern Scheldt Storm Surge barrier Proc. of the 22th Int. conf.
on coastal engineering. Vol 2. pp 1564-1577.
Kortenhaus, A., Oumeraci, H., Allsop, N.W.H., McConnell, K.J., Van
Gelder, P.H.A.J.M. & Hewson, P.J. (1999) Wave impact loads
pressures and forces. Final Proceedings, MAST III, PROVERBS-
Project: Vol. IIa: Hydrodynamic Aspects, Chapter 5.1, publn.
University of Braunschweig, Germany, 39 pp.
Murray J.J, Winsor F.N & Kaplan P. (1997) Impact Forces on a Jacket
Deck in Regular Waves and Irregular Wave Groups Paper OTC 8360,
OTC, Houston, Offshore Technology Conference.
Shih R.W.K. & Anastasiou K. (1992) A Laboratory Study of the Wave-
induced Vertical Loading on Platform Decks Proc. ICE, Water
Maritime and Energy, Vol. 96, No 1, pp 19-33, publn Thomas Telford,
London.
Shih R.W.K. & Anastasiou K (1989) Wave Induced Uplift Pressures
acting on a Horizontal Platform Paper submitted for OMAE.
Sterndorff M.J. (2002) Large Scale Model Tests with Wave Loading on
Offshore Platform Deck Elements Proceedings OMAE 02, Oslo,
Norway.
Suchithra, N., Koola, P.M. (1995) A study of wave impact on horizontal
slabs Ocean Engineering, Vol 22, No. 7, pp 687-697.
Tirindelli, M., Cuomo, G., Allsop, N.W.H. & McConnell, K.J. (2002)
Exposed Jetties: Inconsistencies and Gaps in Design Methods for
Wave-induced Forces Paper 234 to Int. Conf. on Coastal Eng. 2002,
Cardiff.
Toumazis A.D., Shih W.K. & Anastasiou K. (1989) Wave Impact
Loading on Horizontal and Vertical Plates Proc. IAHR 89 Conf.,
Ottawa, Canada, 21-25 August, c209-c216.
Wang H. (1970) Water Wave Pressure on Horizontal Plate Journal of
the Hydraulic Division, Oct.1970.
569