See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245409615

Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions

Article  in  Maritime Engineering · January 2004

DOI: 10.1680/maen.157.3.113.56901

CITATIONS READS

24 179

2 authors:

Terry Hedges Maria Teresa Reis

University of Liverpool National Laboratory for Civil Engineering
100 PUBLICATIONS   790 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   420 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wave Overtopping View project

Horizontal Axis Tidal Stream Turbines Subject to Wave-Current Interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Teresa Reis on 02 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Maritime Engineering 157
September 2004 Issue MA3
Pages 113^122

Paper 13809
Received 13/04/2004
Accepted 30/07/2004

Keywords:
Terence S. Hedges Maria T. Reis
coastal engineering/sea defences/
Senior Lecturer in Civil Research Grant Holder, National Civil
design methods and aids
Engineering, University of Engineering Laboratory, Hydraulics and
Liverpool, UK Environment Department, Harbours and
Maritime Structures Division, Lisbon, Portugal

Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping

predictions
T. S. Hedges MEng, CEng, MICE, M. T. Reis Engenheira Civil, MSc(Eng), PhD
The paper describes a method for predicting the rates of Rc/gr freeboard of a smooth, impermeable slope which
overtopping of seawalls by random waves. The procedure is equivalent to Rc for a rough slope
links the overtopping rate to information on wave run-up. Rmax actual maximum run-up produced by the random
Output from the procedure is compared with physical waves
model data not used in its original calibration, and with (Rmax)37%,100 estimate of Rmax; the most probable maximum
the results from two other methods commonly employed run-up during a run of 100 waves; the value not
for predicting overtopping discharges. The output is exceeded in 37% of the cases during runs of 100
shown to be in good agreement with the new data, waves, assuming a Rayleigh distribution of run-
despite the fact that these measurements cover a much ups
wider range of incident wave steepnesses and storm (Rmax)99%,100 estimate of Rmax; the value not exceeded in 99%
durations than those used in the original calibration. The of the cases during runs of 100 waves, assuming
method is also shown to predict lower overtopping rates a Rayleigh distribution of run-ups
than the two alternative procedures for both low and high (Rmax)p%,N estimate of Rmax; the value not exceeded in p%
relative seawall freeboards, together with similar or of the cases during runs of N waves, assuming a
higher overtopping rates in the middle range of free- Rayleigh distribution of run-ups
boards for which most physical model data are available. Rn% value exceeded by n% of the individual run-ups
Rs significant wave run-up (the average value of the
highest one-third of the run-ups)
NOTATION Tm mean zero-crossing wave period
A empirical coefficient in the Hedges and Reis Tp wave period corresponding to the peak of the
model incident wave spectrum
Ao empirical coefficient in Owen’s model a angle of the front slope measured from horizon-
B empirical coefficient in the Hedges and Reis tal
model gr run-up coefficient; 1/gr is a measure of slope
Bo empirical coefficient in Owen’s model roughness
ds water depth at the toe of the seawall xp surf similarity parameter or Iribarren number for
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
g gravitational acceleration random waves (xp ¼ tan a/ Hs =Lop )
Hs significant height of the incident waves (the
average height of the highest one-third of the 1. INTRODUCTION
waves); Hs may be specified at various locations An important criterion in the design of a seawall is the
Lop deep-water wavelength according to linear wave allowable degree of wave overtopping. This permissible over-
theory corresponding to the peak of the incident topping rate depends on the need to ensure public safety, on
wave spectrum (Lop ¼ gT2p/2p) the economic consequences of flooding, on the nature of
m cota (the front slope is denoted 1:m) activities performed in the lee of the structure, on the form of
N number of run-up values, here taken conserva- the seawall and on any requirement to limit impact damage to
tively to be equal to the number of incident infrastructure immediately behind it.
waves
n percentage used in defining the value exceeded In the past, many seawalls were built with relatively steep front
by a proportion of the individual run-ups slopes. While such walls occupied smaller plan areas than more
p percentage used in defining the value below gently sloping structures, they also produced greater reflection
which a proportion of the maximum run-ups of the incident wave energy, sometimes inducing scour at the
remain toes of the structures, and they required a heavier revetment.
Q mean overtopping discharge per unit length of Today, there is much greater emphasis on the dissipation of
structure incident wave energy, employing gentler slopes, rough front
Rc freeboard of the structure surfaces and various other measures such as the construction of

Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis 113
 artificial reefs and the nourishment of beaches. Furthermore, as
the general public has become increasingly conscious of the
potential impact of rising sea levels, there has been a shift from
the need to simply predict when overtopping will result in
flooding and threaten the structural safety of the wall itself, to
the need to predict with greater certainty when public safety
thresholds are breached.
Random waves with a significant height Hs produce a maxi-
mum run-up of Rmax on the face of a seawall (the problem of
estimating Rmax is discussed later). Unless this run-up is greater
than the freeboard of the structure, Rc, there is no overtopping
(apart from wind-blown spray). In other words, for overtopping
to occur
1a Rmax
Rc > 0
or
1b 1
Rc =Rmax > 0
Furthermore, overtopping must increase as 1
Rc/Rmax
increases as a result of a reducing freeboard or increasing run-
up.
The authors demonstrated how the dimensionless term
1
Rc/Rmax could be incorporated in a simple model for
predicting the rate of overtopping of seawalls by random
waves.1 The model employed empirical (though physically
meaningful) coefficients for structures with smooth, imperme-
able front slopes of between 1:1 and 1: 4. Unlike other
overtopping models, which result from simple curve fitting to
data, this model is founded on a theoretical description of the
process which accounts for the relevant physical boundary
conditions. Here, the model is extended to cope with rough
front slopes, and comparisons are made with two alternative
overtopping models.
2. THE HEDGES AND REIS OVERTOPPING MODEL
The Hedges and Reis overtopping model is based on an
overtopping theory for regular waves developed by Kikkawa
et al.2 This theory assumes that the seawall acts as a weir
whenever the incident water level exceeds the seawall crest
level, and that the instantaneous discharge may be described by
the weir formula.3 The Hedges and Reis model extends the
concept to random waves and may be written as follows:
 
Q Rc B Rc
2a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ A 1
for 0  <1
gR3max Rmax Rmax
Q R
2b pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 0 for c  1
gR3max Rmax
Here, Q is the mean overtopping discharge per unit length of
structure, Rmax is the maximum run-up induced by the random
waves, and A and B are empirical coefficients. The model
accounts for run-up in predicting wave overtopping. However,
while the condition Rc > Rmax ensures zero overtopping (apart
from wind-blown spray), the precise value of Rmax during any
particular storm cannot be known a priori, and an estimate of
its value must be made.
114 Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions
A number of equations describing random wave run-up are
available. For example, the Coastal Engineering Manual gives
two equations for evaluating the significant wave run-up, Rs,
on smooth, impermeable slopes without overtopping:4
Rs
3a ¼ 135xp for 0 < xp < 2
Hs
Rs
3b ¼ 300
015 xp for 2 < xp < 9
Hs
Here, xp is the surf similarity parameter calculated using the
wave period, Tp, corresponding to the peak of the incident wave
spectrum:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 xp ¼ tan a= Hs =Lop
in which a is the angle of the seawall front slope measured
from the horizontal; and
5 Lop ¼ g Tp2 =2p
in which g is the acceleration due to gravity. The question of
where the incident waves should be specified is dealt with later.
If a Rayleigh distribution applies to individual run-ups (an
assumption which is reasonable provided that the water at the
toe of the slope is deep; see Reference 4), then p% of the
maximum values in runs of N individual run-ups will fall
below (Rmax)p%,N given by Hogben:5
 n 
1  p o 1=2
6 ðRmax Þp%; N ¼ ln N
ln
ln Rs
2 100
Here, the number of individual run-up values is taken
conservatively to be equal to the number of incident waves. In
reality, only for xp > 4 (approximately) does the number of run-
ups equal the number of incident waves. There are considerably
fewer run-ups than incident waves on very gentle slopes as a
consequence of destructive interactions between backrush and
uprush and of long-wave motions induced by variations in
wave set-up.6 Note that a degree of conservatism is also
implicit in the use of the Rayleigh distribution since, in
practice, the water depths immediately seaward of a seawall
restrict the magnitude of the extreme wave heights and the
associated run-ups. Hughes and Borgman recommend the beta-
Rayleigh distribution for describing random waves in shallow
water.7 This distribution incorporates an upper limit to account
for wave breaking.
To evaluate coefficients A and B in equation (2a), the present
authors1 used data reported by Owen8 for model seawalls with
uniform seaward slopes of 1:1, 1: 2 and 1: 4. Overtopping
discharges were evaluated for runs of 100 waves. Therefore, in
this case, the most probable maximum run-up during each
run—that is, the modal value of the probability density
function of maximum run-up (which is the value not exceeded
in 37% of the cases for a Rayleigh distribution of run-ups; see
Reference 5), was
7 ðRmax Þ37%;100 ¼ 1:52Rs
Hedges
Reis
The value of maximum run-up not exceeded in 99% of cases
was expected to be
8 ðRmax Þ99%;100 ¼ 215Rs
Combining equations (3a), (3b) and (7) then gives
ðRmax Þ 37%;100
9a ¼ 152ð135xp Þ ¼ 205xp for 0 < xp < 2
Hs
ðRmax Þ37%;100
¼ 152ð300
015xp Þ
9b Hs
¼ 456
023xp for 2 < xp < 9
Equations (3a) and (3b) and (8) give
ðRmax Þ99%;100
10a ¼ 215ð135xp Þ ¼ 290xp for 0 < xp < 2
Hs
ðRmax Þ99%;100
¼ 215ð300
015xp Þ
10b Hs
¼ 645
0325xp for 2 < xp < 9
Furthermore, if the Rayleigh distribution applies to run-ups
then:
11 ðRmax Þ37%;100 ¼ R1%
in which Rn% denotes the value exceeded by n% of all the
individual run-ups.
A value such as (Rmax)37%,100 simply provides an estimate of the
freeboard needed for zero overtopping. However, this estimate
should ensure, at the very least, that any overtopping that does
occur remains negligible. In this connection, it is worth noting
that sea defences in continental Europe are often planned with
a freeboard equal to R2% under design wave conditions.
(Rmax)37%,100 is about 8·5% greater than R2%, according to the
Rayleigh distribution. It is also interesting to note that if
(Rmax)37%,100 is a satisfactory estimate of Rmax, then there
should be no evidence of overtopping of seawalls having
Rc > 4·1Hs, regardless of the front slope or of the incident wave
steepness, since equations (9a) and (9b) give
(Rmax)37%,100 ¼ 4·1Hs as the maximum value. In this regard,
van der Meer and Janssen record no overtopping discharges for
cases in which Rc/Hs > 4·1.9 Nevertheless, for a more conserva-
tive approach, designers may wish to estimate Rmax using
(Rmax)99%,100 (=(Rmax)37%,10000 ¼ R0·01%). This choice would
accept the possibility of overtopping, for certain combinations
of slope and wave steepness, whenever Rc < 5·8Hs. Both
Owen’s8 and van der Meer and Janssen’s9 models, being of
exponential form, predict some degree of overtopping, regard-
less of how small the waves might be, for all finite values of Rc.
In planning seawalls, offshore structures and other marine
systems, it is always necessary to consider what extreme events
should be adopted for the purposes of design. For example, a
wave crest elevation with a very small probability of exceed-
ance must be established in order to safely locate the lowest
deck of an offshore structure.10 In the case of the present
overtopping model, a sufficiently large maximum run-up must
be chosen so that there is only a very small (or zero) probability
Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions
of it being exceeded and, if it is exceeded, that the mean
overtopping discharge remains negligible. However, as with an
offshore structure, the choice of this extreme event is a matter
for the designer and depends upon the consequences if the
event is exceeded. Fortunately, it turns out that the goodness of
fit of the model to the available data is not sensitive to the
precise value chosen for Rmax within the range (Rmax)37%,100 to
(Rmax)99%,100, as shown later in Fig. 1. Indeed, even the implicit
assumption in exponential wave overtopping models that run-
up can take values up to infinity still allows a reasonable fit of
these models to the data. However, such an assumption does
not ensure the best fit.1 The implications are considered later of
employing very conservative estimates of the minimum value
of Rc/Hs necessary to ensure zero (or negligible) overtopping.
The values of the empirical coefficients A and B previously
determined by the present authors for (Rmax)37%,100 and
(Rmax)99%,100 are given in Table 1.1 These values were obtained
by fitting to Owen’s data8 using the regression method of least
absolute deviations (LAD).1 Note that, as the estimate of Rmax is
changed, coefficients A and B must also change, so that
equation (2a) continues to provide the best fit to the meas-
urements. The values for the 1: 2 slope are highlighted as they
are used in later examples.
Figure 1 shows the level of agreement between the Hedges and
Reis model for a smooth, impermeable 1: 2 slope and Owen’s
data used in its calibration, employing both (Rmax)37%,100 and
(Rmax)99%,100 as estimates of Rmax. However, as a check on the
validity of the model, Fig. 1 also shows measured data reported
by Hawkes et al.11 Their results are for runs of up to 1000
incident waves. Whilst these data have not been used to
calibrate the Hedges and Reis model, there is clearly good
agreement between these measurements and both realisations
of the model, despite the fact that Hawkes et al.’s data cover a
much wider range of incident wave steepnesses than that
employed in Owen’s study.8 Note that the two groups of data
and the related curves in both parts of Fig. 1 arise because of
the two separate values of Rmax used to calculate the
dimensionless freeboards and the associated dimensionless
discharges. As noted earlier, it turns out that the goodness of fit
of the Hedges and Reis model to the data is not sensitive to the
precise value chosen for Rmax within the range (Rmax)37%,100 to
(Rmax)99%,100—that is, the goodness of fit of the two curves to
the corresponding data remains essentially unchanged.
Figures 2 and 3 show the variation of coefficients A and B with
the front slope, here denoted 1: m (m ¼ cot a). The ease with
which the coefficients may be interpolated is clear. The linear
trend lines shown in the figures are based upon the coefficient
values obtained using the LAD regression method. However, the
values of A and B obtained using the least squares (LS)
regression method are also shown.12
3. ACCOUNTING FOR SLOPE ROUGHNESS
The coefficients reported in the preceding section are for
smooth, impermeable front slopes and the values of A and B
established for these slopes depend upon the estimate of Rmax.
If this estimate is changed then, as noted earlier, A and B must
also change.
When dealing with rough slopes, it is convenient to denote the
Hedges
Reis 115
 Fig. 1. Calibration and validation of the Hedges and Reis overtopping model with Rmax
estimated as both (Rmax)37%,100 and (Rmax)99%,100

maximum run-up as gr · Rmax, in which Rmax remains the the equivalent value for a smooth, impermeable slope, Rc/gr (see
maximum run-up on a smooth, impermeable slope (gr  1·0). Fig. 4), allows Rmax to continue to be estimated using equations
The ratio of the freeboard to the maximum run-up is then (9a) and (9b) or (10a) and (10b), and for the associated values of
A and B also to be used. Note that this procedure is in line with
Rc Rc =gr existing methods13 and assumes that
12 ¼
gr  Rmax Rmax
. the roughness of the front slope has negligible influence on
Thus, replacing the actual freeboard of the rough slope, Rc, by the overtopping discharge when the freeboard is zero and,
thus, coefficient A remains unchanged
. the value of coefficient B also remains unchanged. The
Rmax estimated as: (Rmax)37%,100 (Rmax)99%,100
present authors point out that the value of B depends upon
Slope 1 :1 A 0˝00703 0˝00515 the detailed behaviour of the water surface on the seaward
B 3˝42 6˝06 face of the structure.1 If the behaviour is governed princi-
Slope 1 :2 A 0˝00753 0˝00542 pally by the slope angle rather than the roughness, then this
B 4˝17 7˝16 assumption may be acceptable. The assumption is more likely
to be true if the slope remains impermeable than if it is both
Slope 1 :4 A 0˝0104 0˝00922
B 6˝27 10˝96 rough and permeable. Slope permeability may have a very
significant influence on the wave uprush/backrush behav-
Table 1. Values of coefficients A and B obtained using the iour. The issue of variations in the value of B as a
LAD regression method1 consequence of roughness and permeability is the subject of
continuing research.

116 Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis
 Fig. 2. Variation of coefficients A and B with front slope for Fig. 3. Variation of coefficients A and B with front slope for
Rmax estimated as (Rmax)37%,100 Rmax estimated as (Rmax)99%,100

Table 2 provides guidance on typical values of the run-up

coefficient, gr, for different slope surfaces. These values are
based on a variety of sources, not always in good agree-
ment.9,14 Note that the values are reported for surf similarity
parameters in the approximate range 1 < xp < 4. For larger
values of the surf similarity parameter, waves tend increasingly
to surge up the slope rather than break on it and the influence
of roughness is much reduced. Similarly, for smaller values of
xp, wave set-up becomes a progressively important component
of the level reached by wave uprush, and set-up is insensitive
to roughness.

4. A MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE
Fig. 4. The equivalent freeboard
Figure 5 is a diagrammatic representation of equations (2a) and
(2b), modified to account for slope roughness. Rearranging the
expressions to obtain a more common dimensionless represen-
tation of Q (see Reference 1) gives: of A and B), gr and Rmax/Hs. As expected, the dimensionless
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
discharge, Q= g Hs3 , increases for a given value of the relative
 3=2  
Q R 1 Rc =Hs B Rc =gr freeboard, Rc/Hs, as the dimensionless maximum run-up,
13a pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ A max 1
 for 0  <1
g Hs3 Hs gr Rmax =Hs Rmax Rmax/Hs, increases as a result of a change in the incident wave
steepness. The dimensionless discharge is reduced as the run-up
Q Rc =gr coefficient, gr, is reduced.
13b pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 0 for 1
g Hs3 Rmax
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Figure 6 shows the relationship between Q= g Hs3 and Rc/Hs,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Equations (13a) and (13b) suggest that Q= g Hs3 is a function of for a smooth slope and for various values of Rmax/Hs, according
Rc/Hs, Rmax/Hs and gr, as well as depending on coefficients A to the Hedges and Reis model. Here, coefficients A and B are
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and B. Thus, they allow Q= g Hs3 to be plotted against Rc/Hs, for a 1: 2 slope with Rmax estimated as (Rmax)37%,100 using
the most common dimensionless representation of freeboard, equations (9a) and (9b). The figure shows that the dimensionless
for specified values of the slope (and, thus, for particular values discharge is always sensitive to a change in Rmax/Hs. Never-

Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis 117
 maximum run-up in the
Type of roughness gr
range 3·46 < Rmax/Hs <4·04
Smooth concrete or asphalt revetment; close-jointed, smooth blocks 1˝00 according to equations (9a)
Blocks of stone or concrete with open joints; grass (length/Hs  0˝05) 0˝95 and (9b).
Stepped slope with vertical risers (riser/Hs  0˝1) 0˝85
Single layer of stones on an impermeable base (stone diameter/Hs  0˝2^0˝6) 0˝70
An interesting feature of Fig.
Two layers of stones on an impermeable base (stone diameter/Hs  0˝2^0˝6) 0˝55
6 is the fact that the magni-
tude of Rmax/Hs has an influ-
Table 2. Typical values of the run-up coefficient, gr, for 1 < xp < 4
ence on the dimensionless
overtopping discharge,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Q= g Hs3 , even when Rc/Hs is
zero. Imagine a flume split
along its centreline to form
two channels served by the
same wave paddle. In one
channel, there is a model
seawall with its crest at still-
water level; in the other, there
is a slope at the same angle as
the front face of the structure,
but extending to beyond the
maximum level of wave
uprush. Intuition suggests
that overtopping of the model
seawall will be greatest for
the wave condition giving the
greatest run-up on the con-
tinuous slope, even though all
waves may overtop the model
structure. In other words,
Fig. 5. A diagrammatic representation of the Hedges and Reis model Rmax might best be viewed
simply as a characteristic
measure of the incident wave
theless, it is plainly less sensitive when the relative freeboard is intensity, a value potentially achievable on a continuous slope,
small and most waves are contributing to overtopping than not a value that is actually achieved on an overtopped seawall.
when the freeboard is sufficient to prevent all but the largest
run-ups from overtopping the structure. Each curve behaves so Figure 7 shows two curves illustrating the relationship between
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
that Q= g Hs3 reduces to zero when Rc/Hs  Rmax/Hs. The data Q= g Hs3 and Rc/Hs for a 1: 2 slope with incident waves
reported by Hawkes et al. for a smooth, impermeable 1: 2 described by a Pierson–Moskowitz spectrum (for which
slope,11 shown earlier in Fig. 1, are again shown here. Note that Hs/Lop ¼ 0·0256, giving xp ¼ 3·12). One curve is for a smooth
the data have values of the surf similarity parameter in the slope and the other represents a slope with a run-up coefficient,
range 2·26 < xp < 4·77, giving estimates of the dimensionless gr, of 0·8. Note that the areas under the curves might be

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 6. Relationship between Q/ g H3s and Rc/Hs for a smooth pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 : 2 slope and various values of Rmax/Hs (Rmax estimated as Fig. 7. Variation of Q/ g H3s with Rc/Hs using natural scales
(Rmax)37%,100) (Rmax estimated as (Rmax)37%,100)

118 Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis
 Fig. 9. Some locations at which wave conditions may be
specified
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 8. Variation of Q/ g H3s with Rc/Hs using a logarithmic
scale for the dimensionless discharge (Rmax estimated as
(Rmax)37%,100)

Offshore
. well-defined area
. foreshore and seawall may be treated as a single complex entity
. effects of refraction, wave^current interaction and other wave processes occurring between the selected offshore location and
the seawall must be accounted for
Toe of foreshore
. poorly defined location along many coasts
. foreshore and seawall may be treated as a single complex entity
. definition of wave parameters at the toe of the foreshore must account for the fact that random wave frequencies may span
deep, intermediate and shallow water conditions
Toe of seawall
. well-defined location in many situations. However, if the foreshore has the same slope as the seawall, then the overtopping rate
could be related to wave conditions in either of two water depths (see Fig. 9)
. foreshore and seawall are treated separately even if the wall itself has a complex profile
. definition of wave parameters at the toe of the seawall must account for the fact that random wave frequencies may span deep,
intermediate and shallow water conditions; and the influence of wave-breaking on the foreshore must be accounted for,
including the effects of set-up
. how are wave conditions to be defined if the toe of the seawall is above still-water level?

Table 3. Features of locations at which wave conditions are specified

regarded as a measure of the performances of the slopes: the
smaller the area under a curve, the better is the slope’s
performance with regard to overtopping. Fig. 8 shows the same
two curves drawn with a logarithmic scale for the dimension-
less discharge. This figure better illustrates the significant
reduction in the overtopping rate provided by a rough slope for
the normal range of freeboards (1  Rc =Hs  4). Roughness
makes little difference when the freeboard is very small.
5. WHERE SHOULD THE INCIDENT WAVES BE
SPECIFIED?
Clearly, in applying overtopping models, it is important to be
aware of where the input wave conditions should be specified.
The most common are: offshore, at the toe of the foreshore
slope,1,8 and at the toe of the seawall itself.9 The input wave
conditions are the same at the three locations if the toe of the
seawall is in deep water (see next section). Some features of the
three locations are noted in Table 3 and Fig. 9.
If the wave conditions are specified offshore or at the toe of the
foreshore, then the foreshore and seawall may be treated as a
single entity in estimating overtopping. If the wave conditions
are specified at the toe of the seawall, then it is important to be
aware of the influence of wave-breaking over the foreshore,
particularly as wave-breaking will induce a set-up of the water
level in front of the structure. Wave-breaking becomes import-
ant if the ratio of the depth of water, ds, to the significant wave
height, Hs, at the toe of the seawall is less than about 3 : 1.
Finally, note that Owen’s data set,8 against which the Hedges
and Reis model was calibrated, related overtopping rates to
wave conditions at the toe of a foreshore sloping uniformly
seaward at 1 : 20, to a depth unaffected by wave-breaking. The
relative water depths at the toes of the model embankments
were in the range 1·65 < ds/Hs < 5·20.1 Use of the Hedges and
Reis model is currently limited to the specification of wave
conditions at the toe of the foreshore and for slopes in the
range 1 : 1 to 1 : 4. Work is now in hand to extend the model to
gentler slopes.15
6. A COMPARISON WITH EXPONENTIAL
OVERTOPPING MODELS
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Figure 10 again shows the curve relating Q= g Hs3 to Rc/Hs for
a smooth, impermeable 1 : 2 slope, once more drawn with a
logarithmic scale for the dimensionless discharge but also

Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis 119
 superimposing the two relationships provided by the exponen-  
Q Rc
tial overtopping models of Owen and van der Meer and 15 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 02 exp
26
g Hs3 Hs
Janssen.8,9
In preparing Fig. 10, it has been assumed (for simplicity) that
Owen’s model, written for a smooth slope, is: the incident wave conditions are specified at the toe of a slope
  located in deep water. As for Figs 7 and 8, Fig. 10 is drawn for
Q Rc incident waves described by a Pierson–Moskowitz spectrum (for
14a ¼ Ao exp
Bo pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Tm g Hs Tm g Hs
which Tm ¼ 0·71Tp). The Hedges and Reis model predicts lower
overtopping rates than the two exponential models for both low
or and high relative freeboards, together with similar or higher
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
overtopping rates in the central range for which most data are
" sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
Q g Tm2 Rc Hs available.
14b pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ Ao exp
Bo
g Hs3 Hs Hs g Tm2
Figure 11 provides examples of the freeboards required to limit
in which Tm is the mean zero-crossing wave period. The wave overtopping to specified rates according to Owen’s
empirical coefficients, Ao and Bo, have the values 0·0125 and model,8 van der Meer and Janssen’s model9 and the Hedges and
22·06, respectively, for a slope of 1 : 2.13 Note that for fixed Reis model,1 employing both (Rmax)37%,100 and (Rmax)99%,100 as
values of Rc and Hs, the above equations suggest that the estimates of the actual maximum run-up. Like the previous
overtopping discharge always increases with an increase in Tm. figures, it is drawn for a smooth, impermeable 1 : 2 slope and a
This is not the case, and Owen’s relationship8 tends to Pierson–Moskowitz spectrum (here, with Hs ¼ 2 m, Tp ¼ 7·07 s
overestimate overtopping rates for swell conditions.16 and Tm ¼ 5·02 s).

The relationship provided by van der Meer and Janssen for a
smooth slope with xp > 2 is9
In order to put the specified overtopping rates into context, Fig.
12 shows the critical mean overtopping discharges currently
used in the design of seawalls. The main point to note from this
figure is that the range of critical discharges runs from as little
as 0·001 litres/s/m to about 200 litres/s/m. A mean overtopping
rate greater than about 0·001 litres/s/m is unsafe for vehicles at
high speed and may cause minor damage to the fittings of
buildings in the immediate lee of the seawall. Conditions
become dangerous for pedestrians when the mean discharge
exceeds 0·03 litres/s/m. Mean discharges greater than about
2 litres/s/m may damage embankment seawalls, whilst 50 litres/
s/m is approximately the critical discharge for seawalls without
back slopes.

Returning to Fig. 11, it is clear that both Owen’s model8 and

Fig. 10. Comparison of the Hedges and Reis model with two
exponential overtopping models (Rmax estimated as
(Rmax)37%,100)
Fig. 11. Examples of required freeboards to limit overtopping
to specified values (upper Hedges and Reis curve: Rmax
estimated as (Rmax)99%,100; lower Hedges and Reis curve: Rmax
estimated as (Rmax)37%,100)
van der Meer and Janssen’s model9 predict the need for much
higher freeboards than the Hedges and Reis model1 if over-
topping is to be restricted to the relatively small discharges
associated with functional safety requirements. For example, to
restrict the mean overtopping rate to 0·01 litres/s/m (10
5 m3/s/
m), Owen’s model suggests that a freeboard of about 11·81 m is
necessary, van der Meer and Janssen’s model suggests 9·30 m,
whilst the Hedges and Reis model suggests 8·55 m and 7·12 m
using (Rmax)99%,100 and (Rmax)37%,100, respectively, as the
estimates of Rmax during the design storm. Recalling that the
incident significant wave height, Hs, is 2 m, the required
magnitudes of Rc/Hs, according to the two exponential models,
are well above any values supported by published data (for
which Rc/Hs < 4, approximately). Some of the conditions
represented in Fig. 11 may therefore fall outside the strict limits
of applicability of the two exponential models. Finally, note
that the figure has deliberately been drawn both to show where
results are similar and to emphasise the differences between the
various models. In practice, a rubble structure may be adopted
in such wave conditions in order to reduce run-up and
overtopping.
7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Hedges and Reis model for predicting mean overtopping

120 Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis
 Fig. 12. Critical mean overtopping discharges (modified after CIRIA/CUR14)
rates has been compared with data reported by Hawkes et al.,11
not used in its original calibration. It is shown to be in good
agreement with the new data, almost certainly a consequence
of the fact that it is firmly founded on a theoretical description
of the process which accounts for the relevant physical
boundary conditions. The model has also been extended to cope
with rough slopes. The method is in line with existing
procedures, converting the actual freeboard to an equivalent
value for a smooth slope.13 Comments have then been provided
with regard to the locations at which input wave conditions
might be specified. Use of the Hedges and Reis model is
currently limited to the specification of wave conditions at the
toe of the foreshore and for slopes in the range 1 : 1 to 1 : 4.
Finally, comparisons have been made with two alternative
models for predicting mean overtopping rates. It has been
shown that, for the conditions considered, the Hedges and Reis
model predicts lower overtopping rates than the exponential
models of Owen8 and van der Meer and Janssen,9 for both low
and high relative freeboards. It predicts similar or higher
overtopping rates in the middle range of freeboards for which
most data are available. The close agreement between Owen’s
model and the Hedges and Reis model in the middle range of
freeboards is a result of the common set of data used in their
calibration.1,8,13 The different behaviour of the models outside
the middle range is for conditions for which data are scarce.
The Hedges and Reis model attempts to overcome this
deficiency, at least in part, by employing information available
on wave run-up.
Not all seawalls have uniform front slopes and, as noted earlier,
if wave conditions are specified offshore or at the toe of the
foreshore, then the foreshore and seawall may be treated as a
single entity. Various procedures have been suggested for
dealing with compound slopes.9,17 However, until further
investigation, no recommendations are made here with regard
to the use of an ‘equivalent uniform slope’ in the Hedges and
Reis overtopping model. Recommendations have been made
Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions
elsewhere with regard to an ‘equivalent peak period’,18 which
may be used when a seawall is subject to the action of a
combination of local wind-generated waves and swell, resulting
in a bimodal incident wave spectrum. Finally, work is currently
in hand to extend the available empirical overtopping predic-
tion methods to cover gentler slopes and to provide improved
guidance on the range of applicability of the various pro-
cedures.15
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to HR Wallingford for their permission
to use the wave overtopping data collected by Michael Owen
and Peter Hawkes. They also acknowledge the assistance of
Mohamed Shareef. Finally, the authors are grateful for the
financial sponsorship of Dr Reis’s postdoctoral studies by
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal.
REFERENCES
1. HEDGES T. S. and REIS M. T. Random wave overtopping of
simple sea walls: a new regression model. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers—Water, Maritime and
Energy, 1998, 130, No. 1, 1–10.
2. KIKKAWA H., SHI-IGAI H. and KONO T. Fundamental study of
wave overtopping on levees. Coastal Engineering in Japan,
1968, 11, 107–115.
3. STREETER V. L. and WYLIE E. B. Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-
Hill Kogakusha Ltd, Tokyo, 1979.
4. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Coastal Engineering Manual.
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, US Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, 2003.
5. HOGBEN N. Long term wave statistics. In The Sea (LE
MÉHAUTÉ
EHAUTE B. and HANES D. M. (eds)). Wiley, New York,
1990.
6. MASE H. and IWAGAKI Y. Run-up of random waves on
gentle slopes. Proceedings of the 19th Coastal Engineering
Conference, Houston, ASCE, 1984, vol. 1, 593–609.
7. HUGHES S. A. and BORGMAN L. E. Beta-Rayleigh distribution
Hedges
Reis 121
 for shallow water wave heights. Proceedings of a Con-
ference on Coastal Hydrodynamics, New York, ASCE, pp.
17–31, 1987.
8. OWEN M. W. The hydraulic design of seawall profiles.
Proceedings of a Conference on Shoreline Protection,
Institution of Civil Engineers, London, 1982, pp. 185–192.
9. VAN DER MEER J. W. and JANSSEN J. P. F. M. Wave run-up
and wave overtopping at dikes. In Wave Forces on Inclined
and Vertical Wall Structures (KOBAYASHI N. and DEMIRBILEK
Z. (eds)). ASCE, New York, 1995.
10. OCHI M. K. Ocean Waves: the Stochastic Approach. Cam-
bridge Ocean Technology Series 6. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1998.
11. HAWKES P. J., COATES T. T. and JONES R. J. Impact of Bi-
modal Seas on Beaches and Control Structures. Report SR
507, HR Wallingford, Oxfordshire, 1998.
12. HEDGES T. S. Interpolating H&R wave overtopping coeffi-
cients. Proceedings of the Coastal Environment 2000
Conference. WIT Press, Southampton, 13–22, 2000.
13. HYDRAULICS RESEARCH STATION. Design of Seawalls Allowing
for Wave Overtopping. Report No. EX 924, Hydraulics
Research Station, Wallingford, 1980.
14. CIRIA/CUR. Manual on the use of Rock in Coastal and
Shoreline Engineering. Special Publication 83, Construc-
tion Industry Research and Information Association,
London, 1991.
15. BAY I., PULLEN T., HEDGES T. and SHAREEF M. Wave
overtopping of shallow sloping seawalls: extension and
refinement of empirical prediction methods. Proceedings of
the 29th Coastal Engineering Conference, World Scientific,
Singapore (in press).
16. HAWKES P. J. Mean overtopping rate in swell and
bimodal seas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers—Water, Maritime and Energy, 1999, 136, No. 4,
235–238.
17. NAKAMURA M., SASAKI Y. and YAMADA J. Wave runup on
compound slopes. Proceedings of the 19th Japanese
Coastal Engineering Conference, Tokyo, JSCE, 309–312 (in
Japanese), 1972.
18. HEDGES T. S. and SHAREEF M. Predicting seawall overtopping
by bimodal seas. Proceedings of the 28th Coastal
Engineering Conference, Cardiff, World Scientific,
Singapore, 2002, vol. 2, 2153–2164.

Please email, fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 March 2005: email: journals@ice.org.uk;
fax: +44 (0)20 7665 2294; or post to Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1^7 Great George Street,
London SW1P 3AA.

122 Maritime Engineering 157 Issue MA3 Accounting for random wave run-up in overtopping predictions Hedges
Reis

View publication stats