Alexandria Engineering Journal (2016) 55, 627–633

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Investigating the effect of wave parameters on

wave runup
A.I. Diwedar

Researcher, Hydraulics Research Institute, National Water Research Center, Egypt

Received 18 March 2015; revised 16 November 2015; accepted 9 December 2015

Available online 4 January 2016

KEYWORDS Abstract The research presents the results and findings of an experimental work to investigate the
Rubble mound breakwater; influence of wave condition on the wave runup and rundown of rough armoured rubble mound
Rough slope; breakwater. This work has been supported by the Hydraulics Research Institute (HRI). An exper-
Wave runup; imental program was designed including more than 70 tests. A physical model with a scale of 1:20
Wave steepness; was constructed in the coastal laboratory of HRI. Measuring devices were arranged, and measure-
Surf similarity parameter ments were undertaken and analyzed from which the impact of wave height, wave period so as the
steepness on the resulting wave run-up so as the rundown, on rough armoured rubble mound break-
water, was recognized. The experiments were executed in the domain of dimensionless wave steep-
ness that ranged between 0.01 and 0.07 while the measured dimensionless run-up varied between
1.26 and 2.24. The results were used to validate selected existing equations. Based on the results,
it was clear that the wave steepness has a great effect on the run-up.
Ó 2015 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction structure side slope, the surface roughness, the permeability

and porosity of the slope. Hydraulic parameters also affect
Wave runup is defined as the distance between the mean sea the runup value, as wave steepness, wave height and the angle
level and the highest point of wave crest that touches the struc- of wave attack, oblique waves produce less runup rather than
ture. Wave rundown is the vertical lower level reached by perpendicular waves. The relative wave runup decreases with
backwash of a wave on a coastal structure. The wave runup increasing wave steepness especially in smooth and rough
level is one of the most important factors affecting the design impermeable models according to Shankar and Jayaratne [4].
of coastal structures such as dikes, revetments, and breakwa- The most widely used method to predict the wave runup is
ters ([1–3]). Wave runup is one of the main physical processes the regression method (RM) developed by Van der Meer et al.
which are taken into account in the design of the crest level of [3], used to predict runup on rock armoured breakwater. This
sloping coastal structures. empirical model is also recommended by different manuals
Information about runup is used to predict the damage that and guidelines in coastal engineering such as USACE [2].
can happen to the inner structure slope. Wave runup is Wave runup phenomenon was studied extensively in the
affected by the geometrical and structural characteristics as past by Allsop et al. [5], Saville [6]. Recent summary works
include Dentale et al. [7], De Walle [8], EurOtop [9], Juhl
and Sloth [10], Kobayashi [11], Koraim et al. [12], Rasmeemas-
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University.
muang et al. [13], Stockdon et al. [14], and De Waal et al. [15].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2015.12.012
1110-0168 Ó 2015 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
628 A.I. Diwedar

Nomenclature

Notations L0 deep water wavelength (m)

Tp peak period (s) Lm0 deep water wavelength based on the mean irregu-
Hs significant wave height (m) lar wave period Tm (m)
Fr Froude number (–) Hm0/Lm0 wave steepness (–)
V mean velocity of the flow (m/s) Ru wave runup (m)
g gravity acceleration (m/s2) Rd wave rundown (m)
h local water depth (m) Ru2% runup level exceeded by 2% of the incident waves
n0m surf similarity parameter based on mean wave (m)
period (–) Ru/Hm0 dimensionless wave runup (–)
Hi incident wave height (at toe of structure) (m) Rd/Hm0 dimensionless wave rundown (–)
Hm0 spectral significant wave height at the toe of struc- h breakwater slope (degrees)
ture based on the mean irregular wave period Tm
(m)

Most of these studies were focusing on wave runup on smooth hydraulic parameters on wave runup using a large number of
and impermeable and less work was focusing on rough and laboratory tests. They analyzed the effect of the permeability,
permeable structures. the slope angle, the spectral shape, significant wave height and
De Rouck et al. [16] stated that preliminary prototype mea- mean wave period separately. They concluded that the most
suring campaigns (1993–1996) indicated clearly higher wave significant factors influencing runup phenomenon on rock
runup values than the values found by laboratory testing armoured slopes, are the permeability of the structure and
and reported in the literature. The uncertainties in empirical the surf similarity parameter.
formulas inevitably increase the factor of safety and the con-
struction costs ([17]). Therefore, recently, more studies have 2. Objectives
been carried out to develop more accurate models for wave
runup calculation. Erdik et al. [18] proposed a new runup Different parameters affect the wave runup and rundown,
model using TAKAGI–SUGENO Fuzzy approach for some are related to structure characteristics and others are
predicting the wave runup. An improvement of the prediction due to wave conditions. Therefore this research was initiated
accuracy of wave runup on rubble-mound using Artificial with the following objectives:
Neural Network (ANN) method was proposed by Erdik
et al. [19].  Determining the effect of wave run-up on the rough
Predictions of wave action on slopes, and various wave and armoured rubble mound breakwater.
water depth induced processes in the surf zone rely on two  Analyzing the relation of run-up to the wave conditions in
principal parameters: wave steepness and surf parameter terms of steepness, surf similarity and the wave heights.
([20]). Wave steepness has great effects on the wave runup;  Using the experimental results to develop a design method-
SubbaRao et al. [21] argued that wave steepness is inversely ology to give more accurate forms.
proportional to wave runup. Shankar and Jayaratne [4] argued
that wave steepness proves to be a good parameter for describ-
ing the combined effect of wave height and period on wave 3. Methods
runup.
According to Battjes [22], surf similarity parameter is also In order to achieve the above objectives, a methodology was
an important parameter in determining the runup and it is cal- designed. A physical model tool was used in this study as the
culated using the following equation: physical model is a helpful tool to get in-depth understanding
tan h of the phenomena and the interaction between the structure
n0 qffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
Hi and the waves and to investigate the influence of wave condi-
L0
tion on the wave run-up and rundown on rough armoured
where: rubble mound breakwater. The experimental program was
n0: surf similarity (–) designed that included more than 70 tests. A physical model
h: angle of structure front slope to the horizontal with a scale of 1:20 was constructed, measuring devices were
(breakwater slope) (degrees) arranged, and measurements were undertaken and analyzed
Hi: incident wave height at the structure (m) from which the impact of wave height, wave period so as the
L0: wavelength in the deep water (m) steepness on the resulting wave run-up, was recognized.

The runup level could be reduced by using berm structure, 3.1. Model scale
permeable and rough structure slope. Steep structure slope
produces high runup level due to the surging waves. Van der Geometrical scale of 1:20 is selected for the present investiga-
Meer et al. [3] evaluated the effects of various structural and tion, where Froude scaling technique is adopted for physical
Wave parameters on wave run-up 629

modeling, which allows for the correct reproduction of gravi- (Hs) and the peak period (Tp). The selected wave heights sim-
tational and fluid inertial forces and due to the fact that both ulate the Suze Gulf of Egypt wave conditions.
inertia and gravitational forces are dominant. It means that the
Froude number in both physical model and prototype must be 3.4. Arranging devices and measurements
identical based on the following equation:
v Measuring devices were arranged and measurements were
Fr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ð2Þ
gh undertaken. Wave data were measured using wave height
meters (WHM), which are designed for dynamic fluid level
where Fr is the Froude number, v is the average flow velocity
measurements as wave-height measurements in hydraulic mod-
(m/s), h represents local characteristic water depth (m) and g
els. Two WHM were installed in front of the wave generator,
is the gravity acceleration (m/s2).
two just before the breakwater and two in the lee side of the
structure. WHM were also used to measure the run-up and
3.2. Model detail
rundown in addition to the visual monitoring using video cam-
era and fixed ruler on the breakwater cross section.
The wave basin has an area of 34 m  31 m, maximum water
depth of 0.45 m and a length of 25 m long. The wave generator 3.5. Model runs
consists of 96 paddles each is 26.5 cm wide and 40 cm high.
The wave board is capable of generating regular/monochro-
Tests with standard irregular waves of JONSWAP spectra
matic and irregular/random waves. The wave generator is con-
with specified wave height and peak period were executed to
nected to computer system for the steering, wave generation
have at least 1000 measured waves. Tests were carried out
and data acquisition. Wave data were measured using wave
under different wave conditions with wave height (Hs) of
height meters (WHM), Fig. 1.
0.05, 0.75, 0.10 and 0.125 m.
Fig. 2 presents the setup of the 3D breakwater model,
For each wave height, different wave periods were tested to
where a permeable rough breakwater with rubble stones
simulate both short and long waves. The generated waves and
(riprap) armor layer was simulated with breakwater length of
the measured waves in front of the structure were measured
6 m. The breakwater was constructed in 0.25 m water depth
and the measured wave run-up and rundown are presented
and the slope of the seabed, in front of breakwater was 1:50.
in Table 3.
A spending beach was placed around the basin boundaries
to dissipate the transmitted waves. The breakwater is designed
under significant wave height (Hs) of 0.10 m, and peak period 4. Results and discussion
(Tp) equals 1.5 s.
The wave direction was set perpendicular as the critical case The model was operated according to the abovementioned test
for the wave run-up. The tested breakwater is designed based program to examine the effect of different parameters on the
on the wave conditions and the water depth, where it consists wave run-up. The influential wave parameters were measured
of one stone armour layer with weight of 178–356 gm, and and analyzed for all tests. Thus, relationships between dimen-
stone under layer with weight of 15–37 gm, and more details sionless wave run-up and the wave steepness, surf similarity
are listed in Table 1. The constructed breakwater is presented and wave height were determined. Model results are presented
in Fig. 3. and discussed in the following sections.

3.3. Test program 4.1. Effect of surf similarity on wave runup

A test program was designed to inspect the different wave con- The relative wave run-up height is plotted against surf similar-
ditions that influence the wave run-up and rundown. It ity parameter. Figs. 4 and 5 present two different wave condi-
included more than 70 tests. The amount of energy available tions. They indicate that as the surf similarity parameter
for runup depends on structure slope, roughness, permeability increased (from 1.90 to 2.65), the relative run-up increased,
of the structure and also on the wave angle and wave steepness, where the plunging and transitional wave breaking case took
and some of these parameters are included in the surf similar- place. The results correlate well with the formulas of delft
ity. Broad range of wave characteristics was investigated, [23], Van der Meer [24] and ACES [25], which are the most
Table 2. The main parameters are the significant wave height used equations for the rock armoured permeable and

Figure 1 Instruments used for measuring wave runup.

630 A.I. Diwedar

Figure 2 Schematic diagram for the model setup including breakwater, wave generator, and instruments.

Fig. 6. The tests results showed that the wave run-up decreased
Table 1 Breakwater Characteristics.
by 20% when the wave height increased from 0.05 to 0.125 m.
Layer Type Weight (gm) Density t/m3
Armour Stones 108–216 2.4 4.3. Effect of wave height on wave runup
Under Stones 11–27 2.4
Toe Stones 11–27 2.4 Fig. 7 presents the relation between the measured wave run-up
Core & bedding Stones 0.5–2.16 2.4
to the surf similarity parameter under different wave condi-
tions. It was observed that when the wave height was
increased, the dimensionless run-up (Ru/Hm0) decreased. The
relative wave run-up under the storm conditions was less com-
impermeable slopes based on the Ru, having the same trend pared to mild condition, as during storm condition overtop-
with recognizing underprediction of the existing equation. This ping is dominant.
is possibly due to the considered parameters and data
limitation of each equation.
4.4. Effect of surf similarity on wave rundown
This was also recognized by Shankar and Jayaratne [4],
where he found that about 15% of his data underestimated
the computed wave run-up using Losada and Gimenez-Curto In the design of the breakwater wave run-up is dominant
[26] formula, while he found they possessed an underprediction than rundown. From the executed measurements and obser-
of Chue [27] by 70%. He argued that this might be due to the vation, it was found that wave rundown increases with
highly empirical nature of the proposed equation. increasing surf similarity, Fig. 8. The rundown for higher
wave heights was found to be less compered to low wave
4.2. Effect of wave steepness on wave runup heights.

5. Statistical analysis
The wave run-up was measured for different wave heights and
wave period, and also it was visually monitored. From the
analysis of the measured data, it was found that for the differ- Applying regression analysis using Data Fit Software, the mea-
ent wave heights, the dimensionless wave run-up (Ru/Hm0) surements results were found to produce Eq. (3). The equation
decreased with the increase of relative wave height (H/L), could predict the wave run-up based on the correlation

Figure 3 Model during operation.

Wave parameters on wave run-up 631

Table 2 Tests condition.

Parameter Test range
Wave height (H) m 0.05–0.125
Wave period (T) s 0.82–2.86
Wave steepness (Hi/L0) 0.01–0.07
Surf similarity 1.93–5.43

Table 3 Measured data for the different wave period

conditions.
Tests Measurements
conditions
Hs (m) in front Hm0 (m) in Ru Rd (m)
(m)
of wave front of (m) Figure 5 Comparative relative wave runup with surf parameter
generator breakwater (H = 0.125 m).
Hs = 0.05 0.041–0.057 0.048–0.08 0.08– (0.06)
0.17 to
(0.14)
Hs = 0.075 0.070–0.080 0.084–0.13 0.12– (0.10)
0.25 to
(0.19)
Hs = 0.10 0.096–0.104 0.110–0.15 0.15– (0.12)
0.30 to
(0.24)
Hs = 0.125 0.12–013 0.137–0.18 0.17– (0.17)
0.29 to
(0.22)

Figure 6 Relative wave runup with wave steepness for various

wave heights (0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.125 m).

Figure 4 Comparative relative wave runup with surf parameter

(H = 0.10 m).

between relative wave run-up (Ru/Hm0) and wave steepness

(n0m).
Figure 7 Relative wave runup with surf parameter for various
Ru =Hm0 ¼ a þ b  ðn0m Þ3 ð3Þ wave heights (0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.125 m).

where
a = 1.19
b = 0.00772 The abovementioned equation was validated using the mea-
sured data in the physical model, Fig. 9 where it is limited to
with coefficient of Multi determination R2 = 0.76. the examined data range.
632 A.I. Diwedar

showed that common existing formulas describing wave run-

up under estimate the values of wave run-up in comparison
with test results.
Based on the obtained results, the following conclusions are
deduced from this study:

 The wave run-up for long waves is higher than that for the
short waves.
 As deep water wave steepness increases, relative wave run-
up (Ru/Hm0) decreases for all tested wave heights in the pre-
sent study where (Ru/Hm0) ranged between 1.26 and 2.24.
 The wave rundown (Rd/Hm0) decreased as deep water wave
steepness increased.

It is recommended to:
 Investigate the effect of different water depths in front of
Figure 8 Relative wave rundown with surf parameter for various
the breakwater and different structure slope for this wave
wave heights (0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.125 m).
conditions
 Formulate a clear idea about the relation between the dif-
ferent parameters affecting the wave run-up in this case.

Acknowledgments

This work was done as a basic research work carried out as

part of the research plan of the Hydraulics Research Institute.
The author wishes to express his appreciation to HRI staff
who worked and contributed for the success of this research
work.

References

[1] S.A. Hughes, Estimation of wave run-up on smooth,

impermeable slopes using the wave momentum flux parameter,
Coast. Eng. 51 (11) (2004) 1085–1104.
[2] USACE, 2003. Coastal Engineering Manual. Washington, DC,
United States: US Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report
No. EM 1110-2-1100, 330p [Part VI-Chapter 5].
[3] J.W. Van der Meer, C.M. Stam, Wave runup on smooth and
rock slopes of coastal structures, J. Waterway, Port, Coast.
Ocean Eng. 118 (5) (1992) 534–550.
[4] N.J. Shankar, P.R.M. Jayaratne, Wave runup and overtopping
Figure 9 Equation validation using measured data. on smooth and rough slopes of coastal structures, Ocean Eng. J.
30 (2) (2003) 221–238.
[5] N.W.H. Allsop, P.J. Hawkes, F.A. Jackson, L. Franco, Wave
6. Conclusions and recommendations runup on steep slopes model tests under random waves,
Oxfordshire, UK: Hydraulic Research Wallingford, Technical
Report SR2, 1985, 985p.
This research study focused on checking the hydrodynamic [6] T. Saville, Jr., Wave runup on composite slopes, in: Proceedings
behavior of the rubble mound breakwater under different of 6th Conference on Coastal Engineering (Council on Wave
wave conditions focusing on runup and rundown to protect Research, ASCE), 1958, pp. 691–699.
the lee side area. This was achieved experimentally by employ- [7] F. Dentale, G. Donnarumma, E.P. Carratelli, Wave run up and
ing physical model technique. reflection on tridimensional virtual breakwater, Hydrogeol.
In general, it was clear that the wave steepness has a great Hydrol. Eng. 1 (1) (2012) 102–110.
impact on the wave run-up. Also the surf similarity was found [8] V.B. De Walle, Wave runup on rubble mound breakwaters,
Ghent, the Netherlands: University of Ghent, Ph.D.
to be a good parameter describes the inspiration of wave steep-
dissertation, 2003, 463p.
ness and the structure parameters on the wave run-up. The
[9] EurOtop, Wave overtopping of sea defenses and related
study results indicated that the run-up decreases with increas- structures: assessment manual, United Kingdom:
ing of wave steepness, while it increases with the increasing of Environmental Agency, ISSN 0452-7739, 2007, 193p.
surf similarity parameter. Results of the experimental work [10] J. Juhl, P. Sloth, Wave overtopping of breakwaters under
showed that the wave run-up is higher for longer waves in oblique waves, in: Proceeding of 24th International Conference
comparison with the shorter wave. The results trends were on Coastal Engineering (Kobe, Japan, ASCE 1), 1994, pp. 1182–
found to match with previous studies trends. The research also 1196.
Wave parameters on wave run-up 633

[11] N. Kobayashi, Wave runup and overtopping on beaches and [19] T. Erdik, M.E. Savci, Z. Sen, Artificial neural networks for
coastal structures, Adv. Coast. Ocean Eng. 5 (7) (1999) 95–154, predicting maximum wave runup on rubble, Exp. Syst. Appl. J.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812797544_0002. 36 (3) (2009) 6403–6408.
[12] A.S. Koraim, E.M. Heikal, A.A. Abo Zaid, Hydrodynamic [20] M.A. Tayfun, Distributions of wave steepness and surf
characteristics of porous seawall protected by submerged parameter, J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng. 132 (1)
breakwater, Appl. Ocean Res. J. 46 (6) (2014) 1–14. (2006) 1–9.
[13] T. Rasmeemasmuang, W. Chuenjai, W. Rattanapitikon, Wave [21] S.K. SubbaRao, K. BalakrishnaRao, V.R. Chandramohan,
runup on sandbag slopes, Maejo Int. J. Sci. Technol. 8 (1) (2014) Stability aspects of non-reshaped berm breakwaters with
48–57. reduced armor weight, J. Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng.
[14] H.F. Stockdon, A.R. Holman, A.P. Howd, A.H. Sallenger, 134 (2) (2008) 81–87.
Empirical parameterization of setup, swash, and runup, Coast. [22] J.A. Battjes, Surf similarity, in: Proceedings of the 14th
Eng. J. 53 (7) (2006) 573–588. International Coastal Engineering Conference (ASCE), vol. 1,
[15] J.P. De Waal, J.W. Van der Meer, Wave runup and overtopping 1974, pp. 466–479.
on coastal structures, in: Proceeding of 23rd, International [23] Delft Hydraulics, Slopes of loose materials: wave runup on
Conference on Coastal Engineering (Venice, Italy II, ASCE), statistically stable rock slopes under wave attack. The
1992, pp. 1759–1771. Netherlands, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Report M 1983,
[16] J. De Rouck, B. Van de Walle, P. Troch, L. Van Damme, M. 1989.
Willems, F.P. Jens, P. Frigaard, R.J. Medina, Wave runup on a [24] Van der Meer, wave runup and wave overtopping at dikes.
rubble mound breakwater, In: E. Ozhan (Eds.), Proceedings of Delft, The Netherlands: Technical Advisory Committee on
the 5th International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Flood Defense, Technical Report, 2002, 50p.
Environment (MEDCOAST01, Hammamet, Tunisia), 2001, pp. [25] J. Ahrens, B.L. McCartney, Wave period effect on the stability
1153–1164. of riprap, in: Proceeding Civil Engineering in the Oceans III
[17] D.H. Kim, W.S. Park, Neural network for design and reliability (Reston, VA, USA), 1975, pp. 1019–1034.
analysis of rubble mound breakwaters, Ocean Eng. J. 32 (11) [26] M.A. Losada, L.A. Gimenez-Curto, Flow characteristics on
(2005) 1332–1349. rough permeable slopes under wave action, Coast. Eng. J. 4
[18] T. Erdik, M.E. Savci, TAKAGI-SUGENO fuzzy approach in (1981) (1981) 187–206.
rock armored slopes for 2% wave runup estimation, Coast. Eng. [27] S.H. Chue, Wave run-up formula of universal applicability, in:
J. 50 (2) (2008) 161–177. Proceeding ICE Part 2, 69(4), 1980, pp. 1035–1041.