A case study of the new breakwater of the Port of Genova

Comparing the PIANC design method with the new EUROCODE

Serafeim Bachras
 Additional thesis submitted to Delft University of Technology in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science
in Hydraulic Engineering

A case study of the new breakwater of the Port of Genova: Comparing

the PIANC design method with the new EUROCODE

By Serafeim Bachras

Student number: 5096170

Additional Thesis committee: Dr. ir. A. (Alessandro) Antonini, TU Delft
C. (Coen) Kuiper, TU Delft
 ii

Preface
This report was written as an additional thesis project, being part of the requirements
to complete my MSc in Hydraulic Engineering offered by Delft University of Technology. This
effort started with great prospects for me to deliver a great result in a short period of time.
With the last year being a pretty bumpy ride for me personally, and despite the fact that I
needed more time than I expected, I am happy with the result and the lessons learned during
this process. I can now confidently say that the design of vertical wall breakwaters is an
exciting, yet challenging topic, for which I gained vital knowledge. Therefore, I would like to
briefly express my gratitude to the people that helped me in this study.
First of all, my additional thesis supervisor Prof. Alessandro Antonini who gave me this
opportunity by providing the idea for a case study in Italy. Secondly, to the other member of
my committee Coen Kuiper, I would like to sincerely thank you for our cooperation. Lastly, I
would like to say a huge thank you to my family and friends who stood by me this last year
and throughout my study years, and who would hopefully be there in the years to come.

Serafeim Bachras, Rotterdam, June 2022

Abstract
Breakwaters used to protect harbours and coastal areas worldwide are one of the
most common coastal structures. The complexity of the physical processes associated with
the design has led to the development of many empirical formulas while a standardized
method for the selection of breakwaters’ design parameters in the EU does not yet exist. The
most common approach to design such a structure nowadays entails using information and
recommendations from design manuals and guidelines such as PIANC and the Eurotop
Manual. A new Eurocode 1 which includes specific considerations for coastal structures such
as breakwaters is in the development process. This study aims to compare the PIANC method
with the method to derive actions/loads included in the Eurocode proposal prEN1991-1-8. To
do so the following research question has been formulated:
“What differences between the PIANC method and the method proposed by the new
EUROCODE in the design of a vertical wall breakwater can be identified, using the new
breakwater at the Port of Genoa as a case study?“
As mentioned in the question, a case study is used. The Port of Genoa one of the
biggest ports in Italy plans to construct a new vertical wall breakwater. An initial design is
openly available along with wave and water level data. This design is assessed using both
methods and is further optimized. The aim is to gain insights into the differences between the
PIANC and the new method.
At first, the failure mechanisms of such a structure are defined along with the safety
factors and parameters. The data required to perform such an assessment is also an important
aspect of the exercise. Most of the data are openly available during the consulting phase for
the new breakwater in Genoa. In cases where extra data were necessary, they were based on
the literature or on reasonable assumptions.
Based on the failure mechanisms and the retrieved data, the initial breakwater cross-
section was assessed. The assessment both with the PIANC method and the method proposed
in the new Eurocode proved that this design is sufficient and can be further optimized to
decrease its costs. A high-level optimization is also conducted as part of this study in order to
better understand the differences between the two methods. It can be concluded that the
differences lay more in the method than in the actual result. For example, the proposed
Eurocode creates a stable theoretical framework of how to choose a return period. The actual
number may be very similar to the one that one would have used either way, but the choice
can be argued in a better way.
On the other hand, the use of the new Eurocode revealed some problems and
inconsistencies in the document which is confusing in certain parts. In addition, the new
Eurocode which among others aims at standardizing the design process, However, parts like
the combination of wave and water level actions and the crucial choice of return period for
the two main limit state functions are relatively clearer providing a solid base.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Research Objective 1
1.2 Background 1
1.3 Research Question 3
1.4 Research Method 3
1.5 Report Outline 3
2 The two design methods 5
2.1 PIANC 196 method 5
2.2 The new EUROCODE 5
2.3 Problems and inconsistencies of the new method 9
3 Data Collection and Failure Mechanisms 11
3.1 Data Collection and basis of design 11
3.2 Failure mechanisms 12
4 Assessment of the basis of design 14
4.1 PIANC design method 14
4.2 The new Eurocode 16
4.2.1 Return periods – Wave and water level data 16
4.2.2 Safety factors 18
4.3 Summary of assessment 19
5 Optimization 20
5.1 Optimization using the PIANC design method 20
5.2 Optimization using the new Eurocode 1 21
5.3 The two cross-sections 21
6 Reflection 22
7 Conclusions and Recommendations 23
7.1 Conclusions 23
7.1.1 Sub-Questions 23
7.1.2 Main research question 24
7.2 Recommendations 24

1
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Port of Genoa as of 2022 2
Figure 1-2: Proposed Solution 3 – Phase Α (retrieved from Porto di Genova, 2020a) 2
Figure 2-1: PIANC design method schematization 5
Figure 3-1: Cross-section to be assessed (Porto di Genova, 2020a) 12
Figure 5-1: Optimized cross-section, based on the PIANC design method 20
Figure 5-2: Optimized cross-section, based on the new Eurocode 1 21

List of Tables
Table 2-1: Consequence Classes 6
Table 2-2: Design service life 6
Table 2-3: Hydrodynamic Estimate Approach (HEA) 7
Table 2-4: Minimum Design Approach level 8
Table 2-5: Return period for the dominant and accompanying components based on
consequence class and service life (ULS) 8
Table 2-6: Return period for the dominant and accompanying components based on
consequence class and service life (SLS-(LD)) 9
Table 3-1: Required data and sources 11
Table 3-2: First design cross section's details 12
Table 3-3: Failure mechanisms to be considered, limit states and relevant criteria 13
Table 4-1: Maximum probability of admissible damage Pf in the period of working life (PIANC,
2016) 14
Table 4-2: Failure probabilities and return periods per limit state function 14
Table 4-3: Significant wave heights and peak periods per return period 15
Table 4-4: Primary wave direction (179°Ν) return periods and inputs 15
Table 4-5: Outputs (primary wave direction, PIANC design method) 16
Table 4-6: Required parameters based on prEN1991-1-8 17
Table 4-7: Inputs for wave data 18
Table 4-8: Inputs for water level data 18
Table 4-9: Primary wave direction (179°Ν), wave and water level inputs 18
Table 4-10: Outputs (primary wave direction, prEN1991-1-8 method) 19
Table 4-11: Assessment overview 19
Table 5-1: Output of the optimization using the PIANC design method 20
Table 5-2: Output of the optimization using the new Eurocode 21

2
1 Introduction
Around the globe, various types of breakwaters have been designed and constructed
with the most common type between them being a rubble mound breakwater. Breakwaters
are used to protect vessels, harbours and ports from wave action, but some breakwaters are
also used to protect coastal areas from eroding or valuable habitats against the forces of the
sea (van den Bos & Verhagen, 2018). In cases where the water depth significantly increases
or where environmental concerns of a breakwater with a large footprint exist a vertical face
monolithic breakwater is starting to become a more attractive solution.
However, the problem of stability of monolithic breakwater is not yet solved in a way
that everyone accepts and follows (van den Bos & Verhagen, 2018). In the last decades, the
formulas first proposed by Goda in 1985 are in widespread use regarding the design of vertical
face breakwaters.
In Europe, the standardization of design processes of all civil engineering works is
something that the ten existing EN Eurocodes try to achieve. They are expected to contribute
to the development and proper functioning of the construction market along the continent
while leading to uniform levels of safety in Europe and elsewhere (European Commission,
n.d.). Breakwater design is about to be part of this standardization and included in Eurocode
1: Actions on structures — Part 1-8: General actions — Actions from waves and currents on
coastal structures.

1.1 Research Objective

The main objective of this research is to identify the changes in the cross-section of a
vertical wall breakwater that the new Eurocode will bring. At the moment, it is up to the
designer to define failure probabilities, return periods, failure mechanisms and other very
important criteria. This process is based on the PIANC 196 guidelines and other similar
standards and guidelines. Using the new breakwater at the Port of Genoa as a case study the
above objective will be achieved. This specific project is still in the design phase, but
construction can be expected to start in the next years, so a detailed design of the new
breakwater’s cross-section would be beneficial.
The breakwater will be designed using both the conventional, PIANC method and the
method that the new Eurocode is providing. The study is aiming at identifying the possible
differences between the two methods as one of its last objectives, as well as providing insights
on the design of the new breakwater of the Port of Genoa.

1.2 Background
The Port of Genoa is a multi-service port located in the northwest of Italy and is part of
the Western Ligurian Sea Port Authority (AdSPdMLO). The port is equipped to accommodate
all classes of ships and various commodity sectors like containers, general cargo, steel, solid
and liquid bulk, petroleum products along with cruise and ferry passengers. In addition,
backed up by a group of dedicated companies, the port guarantees a full range of vital
complementary services from ship maintenance and repair to customized
telecommunications and data processing. In 2019 the port dealt with 4.5 million passengers,

1
2.7 million TEUs and 15.3 million tonnes of cargo. In the picture below the Port of Genoa is
depicted as of 2022.

Figure 1-1: Port of Genoa as of 2022

Based on the above numbers the importance of the Port of Genoa for Italy itself but
also for the whole region is evident. Given that vessel sizes continue to increase in the latest
years, a new breakwater aiming to enlarge the manoeuvring basin as well as the access
channel to the port is needed to allow the port to keep playing a dominant role in national
and European markets. At the same time, the current breakwater is close to the breaker zone
of the waves and thus is considered unsafe.
A big public debate has taken place regarding the new breakwater of the port. Three
different solutions have been proposed, each one with two phases of construction. The
solution to be investigated in this study is Solution 3, as shown in the following figure, as this
is the one preferred by various stakeholders of the project including the Port Authority.

Figure 1-2: Proposed Solution 3 – Phase Α (retrieved from Porto di Genova, 2020a)

2
1.3 Research Question
Based on the introduction, the problem statement and the background related to the
breakwater of the Port of Genoa, as explained above, the research question and sub-questions
can be stated:
“What differences between the PIANC design method and the method proposed by the new
EUROCODE in the design of a vertical wall breakwater can be identified, using the new
breakwater at the Port of Genoa as a case study?“
In order to answer this research question, the following sub-questions will be addressed:
A. What are the data required to design the new breakwater and how can this data be
acquired?
B. Which are the failure mechanisms to be taken into account?
C. Which are the safety factors of the initial design for each of the two investigated
design approaches?
D. How does a cross-section of the breakwater in each of the two cases look like if
optimized and what are the differences between the PIANC design method and the
new Eurocode 1?

1.4 Research Method

The design method between the two different approaches is expected to be almost
identical, in terms of equations and graphs to be used. Therefore, the return periods and the
way the boundary conditions are defined will lead to (or may lead to) differences. The ‘PIANC
design method’ will be based on popular reports and guidelines mainly in the PIANC 196
guidelines, along with the Eurotop Manual and the Coastal Engineering Manual (Eurotop,
2018; PIANC, 2016; USACE, 2011) and the design method as explained in the publications of
Goda (Goda, 2000). The ‘new method’ will be based on the prEN1991–1–8: Final Doc (Date:
06-2020) (CEN/TC250, 2020).
As has already been mentioned the new breakwater of the Port of Genoa will be used as
a case study. A case study is a research strategy and an empirical inquiry that investigates a
phenomenon within its real-life context (Press Academia, 2018). One of the main advantages
of using such a big project as a case study -something this study will focus on- is that not much
pre-structuring is required compared to other research strategies making the use of a case
study much more flexible (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010).

1.5 Report Outline

This section is providing an outline of every chapter of this study. To begin with, in the
following Chapter, Chapter 2, the two design methods are briefly explained, paying more
attention to the new information that Eurocode 1 is providing. At the end of this chapter, a
short summary of problems and inconsistencies found in prEN 1991-1-8 is also provided.
Chapter 3, focuses on the case study. First, the data required are given, in addition to
how they were collected. Afterwards, the failure mechanisms and the initial cross-section that
is used as a basis of design are presented, answering sub-questions A and B.

3
 In the next Chapter, Chapter 4, the information provided in the two previous ones is
combined aiming at determining the safety factors (or other relevant parameters) per failure
mechanism and per method. This is conducted using the initial design of the new breakwater
and in fact, answers sub-question C. The cross-section is optimized for each method, in
Chapter 5 providing insights and answering sub-question D.
In Chapter 6, the results and insights gained during this study are discussed and a
reflection of this study is provided, and in Chapter 7, which is the last one of this report, the
recommendations for further study along with the conclusions are presented by the author.

4
2 The two design methods
In this chapter, the two investigated methods will be briefly explained. It should be noted
that reference will be done only in the aspects related to the design of a vertical wall
breakwater. The discussed reports and papers include much more information regarding
other types of breakwaters, which are outside of the scope of this research.

2.1 PIANC 196 method

In this section a (very) brief explanation of how vertical wall breakwaters are designed is
presented, as shown in the figure below. PIANC Report No. 196 along with the Eurotop manual
are the two basic documents used. As also explained in Chapter 1, this method is dependent
on the choices of the designer. As the method is widely used it is not elaborated on in this
report for the sake of simplicity.

Figure 2-1: PIANC design method schematization

The first design of the case study used for this research, the new breakwater of the Port
of Genoa, is based on this method. However, the safety factors of the design are not provided
so part of Chapter 4 will be dedicated to calculating them.

2.2 The new EUROCODE

The new ‘Eurocode 1: Actions on structures — Part 1-8: General actions — Actions from
waves and currents on coastal structures’ (prEN 1991-1-8) was first reviewed and analysed in
order to understand the procedure that the design of a new vertical wall breakwater requires,
which can be summarized as follows:
1. The first step is to pick a consequence class according to Table 4.1 of the report
(shown below with custom numbering). This choice is critical as many of the steps
that follow are based on this. The table provides a column related to the qualifications
of consequences (sub-divided between Loss of human life or personal injury and
Economic, social or environmental consequences) as well as coastal structure
examples.

5
 Table 2-1: Consequence Classes
2. The next choice that one should make is the design service life (Table 4.2 of prEN
1991-1-8, Table 2-2 below). Again examples of structures are provided to simplify and
objectify the choice.

Table 2-2: Design service life

6
3. The proposed Eurocode introduces a way to quantify the variety of wave and water
level conditions, called Hydrodynamic Estimate Approach (HEA). The two parameters
that determine the HEA are the consequence class and the hydrodynamic uncertainty.
Therefore, one of the first steps of the design process is to determine the HEA.

Table 2-3: Hydrodynamic Estimate Approach (HEA)

4. The Design Approach that is advised to be followed, is the next step in the process
proposed by prEN 1991-1-8. Five design approaches are included, which are the
following:
• DA-0: The deterministic approach in which the Return Periods together with a global
safety factor should provide the required level of safety
• DA-1: The semi-probabilistic approach that uses characteristic values and partial
factors
• DA-2: The full probabilistic approach for which a limit state function and complete
distributions are required
• DA-3: The approach in which the design is optimised based on risk, social and
economic considerations
• DA-4: The approach that uses physical modelling to assist the design; should be used
in combination with one of the other design approaches
Based on the HEA and the structural response uncertainty, a minimum required
design approach can be defined, as shown in the following table. According to the
proposed Eurocode “low structure uncertainty can, for example, apply where the
physical processes/ response mechanisms are relatively simple and/ or there is an
established structural analysis approach, whereas high structure uncertainty may
apply where the physical processes/response mechanisms are complex and/ or there
are several analytical methods available giving widely varying results and/or the
conditions are significantly outside the application limits of an established structural
analysis approach.”

7
 Table 2-4: Minimum Design Approach level

5. With the above variables chosen, using the corresponding tables of prEN 1991-1-8,
the Return Period, that the structure has to be designed for ULS and SLS-(LD), can be
found. The tables as provided by prEN 1991-1-8 are shown below. Apart from this
Table, however, Chapter 4 of prEN 1991-1-8 provides minimum RP per consequence
class. It is not clear to the author which approach is the one proposed by prEN 1991-
1-8, given that both are included. For the purpose of this study, Table 2-5 and 2-6 will
be used to determine the return period for the two limit states.

Table 2-5: Return period for the dominant and accompanying components based on
consequence class and service life (ULS)

8
 Table 2-6: Return period for the dominant and accompanying components based on
consequence class and service life (SLS-(LD))

6. With a known return period per Limit State (ULS and SLS-(LD)), and taking into account
the relevant failure mechanisms the return periods to be used for each one can be
determined. The significant wave heights, wave periods and water levels are
calculated for those return periods.
7. Regarding the use of Partial factors, Chapter 4 of prEN1991-1-8, refers to Appendix
A6 of EN1990. At the same time, Annex A.7 of prEN1991-1-8 contains a table with
different values than that of EN1990 and also refers to PIANC196. It is not clear to the
author which of the aforementioned options is the one proposed by the Eurocode.
Due to the above inconsistency, the use of partial factors will not be taken into
account in this report.

2.3 Problems and inconsistencies of the new method

This section provides a summary of different problems and inconsistencies that the
author discovered while using prEN1991-1-8. It is meant to act as constructive criticism,
aiming at an updated and more easy-to-use version of the report. The unclear or problematic
points are summarized below:
• It is not easy to read and to use. The document keeps referring to other sections,
appendices and even other documents, without providing the formulas in the
document itself.
• The way to choose the consequence class of a structure is confusing (see Table 2.1).
There are two criteria included. One is related to the loss of human life or personal
injury and the second to economic, social or environmental consequences. At the
same time, the table provides examples of structures. The way to determine the
consequence class is not clear. One could argue that you can do it based on the
examples in the last column of the table. However, if one does that but at the same
time the consequences in terms of human life are not consistent with what the table
provides, then an inaccuracy comes into place.

9
• The way to determine the return period is also confusing. Apart from Table 2.3, there
are various information in Appendix C of prEN 1991-1-8 and Chapter 4 of the
document. Even information related to the failure probabilities, which are directly
related to the return periods and therefore can be easily calculated. For this study,
Table 2.3 provided above is used.
• The Eurocode introduces partial factors, however, the exact values of those are
difficult to determine. The wave action is considered a variable action which is
reasonable; however, it is not clear to the author how to treat other wave properties
(wave length, wave period) after multiplying the wave height with the corresponding
partial factor. This may lead to unrealistic results in terms of physical meaning as in
physical terms, wave heights are limited by their steepness. Reference on this subject
is made in the last chapter of this report as part of the recommendations.

10
3 Data Collection and Failure Mechanisms
This chapter is aiming at answering sub-questions A and B. Data collection is a crucial part
of every study (Section 3.1), while determining the relevant failure mechanisms for this
vertical breakwater project is also of great importance (Section 3.2).

3.1 Data Collection and basis of design

In order to design the new vertical face breakwater of the Port of Genoa certain data are
required. These are either acquired from the open-source files available online or are based
on other sources and assumptions. In the following table, the data that are used in this study
are summarized, and the source of them is indicated along with some additional comments
that are considered useful. Appendix A contains most of the information related to wave
statistics, while Appendix C contains information related to water level data. It is important to
note that for vertical wall breakwaters the design wave height is the maximum wave height
(Hmax). The provided data, specify the significant wave height
Parameter Source Extra comments Value
Significant wave
- Check Tables A.1
height
Peak wave period - and A.2 (Appendix
(Porto di Genova, A)
Wave direction -
2020b)
Wave setup and Check Table C.1 and
-
Storm surge C.2 (Appendix C)
Tidal range - 0.15 cm
Estimation based
on available maps
(Oppenheimer et al., for RCP8.5
Sea Level Rise 0.20 cm
2019) scenario and the
time slice 2046-
2065
As shown in
Proposed cross (Porto di Genova, Check Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 below
section’s geometry 2020a) below
and Table 3-2
Breakwater’s Estimation from
(Google Earth, 2021) 110° N
orientation Solution 3 views
(Porto di Genova, As given in page
Water depth 35 m
2020a) 28
Approximation of
Bed slope (NAVIONICS, 2020) 1:78
a steady slope
Table 3-1: Required data and sources

A first, preliminary design of the new breakwater was provided by the responsible
working group for the stakeholder discussion and the open debate that followed. This design
will act as a basis for the following design steps.
The figure below gives a better understanding of this first design. The initial width of this
cross-section is 26 m and the freeboard is equal to 7 m. The breakwater consists of six
chambers (each chamber is 4 m wide) and the water depth is assumed to be around 35 m. Ιn

11
the next chapter, the safety factors for this first design with both of the investigated methods
will be calculated and later on the design will be optimized.

Figure 3-1: Cross-section to be assessed (Porto di Genova, 2020a)

Characteristic Value or type

Breakwater type Vertical wall
Freeboard 7m
Width 26 m
Amount of chambers 6
Chamber dimensions 4 x 4 m2
External concrete wall thickness 0.5 m
Internal concrete wall thickness 0.2 m
Water depth 35 m
Vertical wall depth 25 m
Table 3-2: First design cross section's details

3.2 Failure mechanisms

For the design, the failure mechanisms that are shown in the following table will be taken
into account. These are the major failure modes when designing a vertical wall breakwater.
The failure probability -and thus the return period- is related to the method, and will be
further explained in the following sections. The way that the structure would fail in any case
is shown in the second column.
The relevant parameters and the criteria presented in the last column of the table are
based on existing knowledge and literature. For sliding and overturning the typical limit used
is 1.2 according to Goda, (2000). In the same publication, Goda recommends designing caisson
breakwaters keeping the foundation pressure below 400 to 500 kPa. For the stability of the
block toe and the rubble mound, the required dimension of the block (Dfoot, Lfoot), along with
the rock mass (M50) and rock nominal diameter (Dn50) can be quantified. For both the above
failure modes the criterion considered is that no damage should occur that may endanger the
structural integrity of the caisson breakwater. According to Eurotop, (2018) tolerable
overtopping for caisson breakwaters is often not related to structural design (ULS), but more
to restrictions from port operations (SLS). In the case of the new breakwater of the port of
Genoa, the area on the lee side of the investigated breakwater is part of the access channel
and the turning circle. Allowable overtopping is set to 10 l/s per m. Lastly, the maximum

12
allowable transmitted wave height behind the breakwater is assumed to be 1.5 m, also related
to the serviceability limit state (SLS-(LD))1. This is because there is a second breakwater that is
protecting the berths where the allowable wave height is even lower.
Limit Relevant
Failure Mechanism
State parameter
Sliding ULS SFsliding > 1.2
Overturning ULS SFoverturning > 1.2
Soil bearing capacity ULS pe < 400
Block Toe Stability ULS Dfoot , Lfoot
Berm Rubble Mound
ULS Dn50, M50
Stability
Overtopping SLS-(LD) q < 10 l/s/m
Transmission SLS-(LD) HsT < 1.5 m
Table 3-3: Failure mechanisms to be considered, limit states and relevant criteria

1
It is important to note that prEN1991-1-8 introduces a new limit state called SLS-(LD) where LD means
Limited Damage. This new limit state is aimed at structures like breakwaters, where a small damage
can be acceptable as repairs are fairly easy to execute.

13
4 Assessment of the basis of design
After the two methods were briefly explained in Chapter 2, the required data were
acquired and the failure mechanisms were defined in Chapter 3, all the information that one
needs for the design of the new breakwater is available. This chapter aims at answering sub-
questions C and D of this study.

4.1 PIANC design method

The basis of design can be seen in Figure 3-1. The safety factors of this design are calculated
with both methods in this section. Based on the previous studies, two main wave directions
were identified. The main -dominant- wave direction is included in the scope of this report.
First, the PIANC design method is used. For the two limit state functions (ULS and SLS), a
corresponding failure probability is defined. This definition is based on PIANC, 2016 and Table
8-9 of the referenced document (Table 4-1 below).

Table 4-1: Maximum probability of admissible damage Pf in the period of working life
(PIANC, 2016)
The risk to human life is considered limited, as the investigated structure is a detached
breakwater. For incipient damage, the economic repercussion is low leading to a failure
probability of 0.50 for SLS. For total destruction, the economic repercussion for a port of
significant importance as the one of Genoa is considered high, leading to a failure probability
of 0.10. In the table below the failure probability and return period of the PIANC design
method are shown. The return period is calculated assuming a design life of 50 years.
Limit State Failure Return Period
Function Probability (years)
ULS 0.10 475
SLS 0.50 70
Table 4-2: Failure probabilities and return periods per limit state function

In Table 4-3 corresponding significant wave heights and peak periods are determined, for each
wave direction. For the determination of the peak period per case, the equations for both the
primary and secondary wave directions, are provided in Appendix A. Those data will be used
as input in order to determine the safety factors of the primary wave direction.

14
 Significant
Return Period Wave Peak
wave
(years) direction (°N) period (s)
height (m)
179 7.55 11.00
70 203 7.05 10.70
217 4.90 9.30
179 8.90 11.70
475 203 8.35 11.45
217 5.88 10.00
Table 4-3: Significant wave heights and peak periods per return period

Combining the information

Which wave angle to choose? provided in Sections 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2
As can be seen in Table 4.2 three wave angles are identified in the safety factor of each failure
both the primary and secondary wave direction. Taking into
mechanism is calculated. The
account the fact that Goda proposed to reduce the incident
wave angle by 15° as a safety factor for uncertainties regarding
significant wave height and peak
the wave directions, and that the shore normal equals to period related to each return period
200°N, the direction of 203° is assumed to be head-on the are used in each case. The output
breakwater, while the wave coming from 179° has a difference with the safety factor or relevant
of 21° from the shore normal, and thus the incident wave angle
parameter per failure mechanism,
is equal to 6°. Also considering, the difference in significant
wave heights between the two wave directions (8.90 vs 8.35 for using the above data and the PIANC
475 years of RP), the one with the higher significant wave design method are presented in
height is the one to be taken into account. Table 4-4. The characteristics of the
cross-section are those summarized
in Table 3-2. The storm surge and wave setup provided in Table A.3 do not cover the return
periods that are taken into account in this section (70 and 475 years). Thus, the value of the
storm surge wand wave setup for those return periods is calculated based on the existing
values (see Appendix C). Sea Level Rise and Tidal Range are assumed to be constant regardless
of the return period and are given in Table 3-1. An explanation of which wave angle was
chosen is given in the box above.
Primary Wave Direction
Significant Incident Storm surge Sea Level Rise
Return
Failure mechanism wave wave angle and wave and Tidal
Period
Height (m) (degrees) setup (m) Range (m)
Sliding 475 8.90 6
Overturning 475 8.90 6
Soil bearing capacity 475 8.90 6
0.99
Block Toe Stability 475 8.90 6
Berm Rubble 0.35
475 8.90 6
Mound Stability
Overtopping 70 7.55 6
0.74
Transmission 70 7.55 6
Table 4-4: Primary wave direction (179°Ν) return periods and inputs

Table 4-5 below provides an overview of the output for each failure mechanism.

15
 Failure Limit
Safety Factor or relevant parameter
mechanism State
Sliding ULS SFsliding = 2.21 > 1.2
Overturning ULS SFoverturning = 2.73 > 1.2
Soil bearing ULS
pe = 373 < 400
capacity
Block Toe Stability ULS l x b x t’ = 4.0 x 2.5 x 1.2
Berm Rubble
ULS M50 ≥ 1460 kg, Dn50 ≥ 0.84 m
Mound Stability
Overtopping SLS q= 0.63 < 10 l/s/m
Transmission SLS ΚΤ = 0.13 leading to an Hst = 0.98 m
Table 4-5: Outputs (primary wave direction, PIANC design method)
The exact data used for the determination of the above are summarized in Appendix B and
the equations in Appendix D. It is clear from the above table, that the proposed cross-section
is sufficient. Optimization of the cross-section in terms of geometry will be conducted as part
of Chapter 5.

4.2 The new Eurocode

In this part, a similar procedure as the one defined in the previous part is conducted. The
only difference is the way the return periods are determined based on the method explained
in Chapter 2. So firstly those return periods will be determined.
4.2.1 Return periods – Wave and water level data
The first step is to define the consequence class. According to Table 2-1, the failure of a
structure classified as CC3 – Higher class, has high consequences in terms of loss of human life
or personal injury and very great consequences when it comes to economic, social or
environmental ones. The latter is indeed true in the possibility of a failure, however, given the
fact that it is a detached breakwater, loss of lives or injuries seem unlikely. It is not clear to
the author, if the two should happen at the same time, or if the existence of one of the two
criteria is sufficient (see Section 2.3). The provided examples according to the table, include
the studied breakwater as they refer among others, to “Nationally significant port / terminal
structures, e.g. breakwaters protecting major ports”. The Port of Genoa is the second biggest
in Italy and the biggest on the west side, as the country’s biggest is the Port of Trieste (Menon,
2021). Based on the above, for the new breakwater of the Port of Genoa, a consequence class
CC3 is chosen.
Similarly, the design life according to prEN1991-1-8 is determined based on Table 2-2.
According to it, “Common port infrastructure including breakwaters for ports of nationally
significant strategic or economic value”, like the investigated one, requires a design life of 100
years.
The Hydrodynamic Estimate Approach (HEA) is determined based on Table 2-3. As
explained above the consequence class chosen is CC3. The hydrodynamic uncertainty is the
other parameter relevant for the HEA. According to prEN1991-1-8, “it is defined by the level
of understanding of environmental sea conditions at the site of interest and will depend on
the relative complexity/ severity of physical processes (boundary condition generation and
transformation to the site) and also the quality and quantity of available data (in the form of
measurements, models, semi-empirical or empirical estimates)”. The wave and water level

16
data that were used are based on real measurements and detailed modelling. At the same
time, the sea has irregular bathymetry and wind waves coming from different directions and
a relatively large fetch. Based on the above, a medium hydrodynamic uncertainty is chosen.
According to Table 2-3, for a medium HEA and a CC3 consequence class, the Hydrodynamic
Estimate Approach gets a value equal to two (2).
The way to choose the Design Approach is discussed in Chapter 2 of this report. The HEA
level and the Structure Design/Response Uncertainty are the two factors to be taken into
account. In the case of the design formulas for a vertical wall breakwater, the method is widely
used for several years but the physical processes are complex. Therefore, a medium structure
design uncertainty is chosen. Combining this with the HEA, and using Table 2-4, a Design
Approach for DA-1 is proposed. This also matches with the clause of the Eurocode according
to which “the semi-probabilistic design approach associated with the partial factors format as
proposed in EN1990 shall be the default approach for coastal structures (DA-1).”
Table 2-5 along with the consequence class and the design life, will define the return
period of the structure for the dominant component (wave action) and the accompanying
components (water level) for the ultimate limit state (ULS), while Table 2-6 provides the same
information but for SLS-(LD). For ULS, with a design life of 100 years and a consequence class
of CC3, the return period for the dominant component is 400 years, while for the
accompanying components it is 40 years. Similarly, for SLS-(LD) the return period of the
dominant component is 40 years, and for the accompanying component is 20 years.
Parameter Correspondent value
Consequence Class CC3
Design life 100 years
Hydrodynamic Estimate
2
Approach (HEA)
Design Approach DA-1
Dominant Component: 400 years
Return Periods - ULS
Accompanying Components: 40 years
Dominant Component: 40 years
Return Periods – SLS-(LD)
Accompanying Components: 20 years
Table 4-6: Required parameters based on prEN1991-1-8
For the calculation of the safety factor per failure mechanism, the following data will
be used. For wave data (dominant component), two return periods are relevant (400 and 40
years). The same applies to the water levels (accompanying components), with return periods
of 40 and 20 years being the relevant ones.
It is important to note, that the use of partial factors would have a very important
influence in the assessment as wave height may need to be increased by a factor of 1.35 or
even 1.50. However, as explained in Chapter 2 and given that the Goda method already uses
a value of the maximum wave height (Hmax) equal to the significant wave height multiplied by
1.80, the use of a partial factor would lead to non-realistic values of the wave height and is
thus not taken into account.

17
 Significant
Return Period Wave Peak
Wave
(years) direction (°N) period (s)
height (m)
179 7.05 10.71
40 203 6.58 10.42
217 4.53 9.01
179 8.77 11.66
400 203 8.20 11.36
217 5.74 9.88
Table 4-7: Inputs for wave data
Return Period Storm surge and Sea Level Rise and
(years) wave setup (m) Tidal Range (m)
20 0.63
0.35
40 0.70
Table 4-8: Inputs for water level data

4.2.2 Safety factors

The wave heights and periods, along with the water levels are the input required for
the first assessment of the initial breakwater design. Similar to Section 4.1, the inputs are
summarized in the table below, per failure mechanism.
Primary Wave Direction
Storm
Return Significant Incident surge
Return Period
Failure Period wave wave and Sea Level Rise and Tidal
accompanying
mechanism dominant Height angle wave Range (m)
component
component (m) (degrees) setup
(m)
Sliding 400 8.77 6 40 0.70 0.35
Overturning 400 8.77 6 40 0.70 0.35
Soil bearing
400 8.77 6 40 0.70 0.35
capacity
Block Toe
400 8.77 6 40 0.70 0.35
Stability
Berm Rubble
Mound 400 8.77 6 40 0.70 0.35
Stability
Overtopping 40 7.05 6 20 0.63 0.35
Transmission 40 7.05 6 20 0.63 0.35
Table 4-9: Primary wave direction (179°Ν), wave and water level inputs

18
 Failure Limit
Safety Factor or relevant parameter
mechanism State
Sliding ULS SFsliding = 2.23 > 1.2
Overturning ULS SFoverturning = 2.76 > 1.2
Soil bearing ULS
pe = 371 < 400
capacity
Block Toe Stability ULS l x b x t’ = 4.0 x 2.5 x 1.2
Berm Rubble
ULS M50 ≥ 1421 kg, Dn50 ≥ 0.83 m
Mound Stability
Overtopping SLS-(LD) q= 0.50 < 10 l/s/m
Transmission SLS-(LD) ΚΤ = 0.11 leading to an Hsi = 0.78 m
Table 4-10: Outputs (primary wave direction, prEN1991-1-8 method)

4.3 Summary of assessment

In the two previous sections, the initial design was assessed based on the two
investigated methods. The following table provides an overview of the result per failure
mechanism per investigated method. It can be summarized that the design is sufficient in both
cases and can be further optimized to reduce the dimensions (and therefore the cost) of the
cross-section. This will be done in the following Chapter.

Safety Factor or relevant parameter

Failure mechanism
PIANC design method New Eurocode 1
Sliding SFsliding = 2.21 > 1.2 SFsliding = 2.23 > 1.2
Overturning SFoverturning = 2.73 > 1.2 SFoverturning = 2.76 > 1.2
Soil bearing capacity pe = 373 < 400 pe = 371 < 400
Block Toe Stability l x b x t’ = 4.0 x 2.5 x 1.2 l x b x t’ = 4.0 x 2.5 x 1.2
Berm Rubble Mound
M50 ≥ 1460 kg, Dn50 ≥ 0.84 m M50 ≥ 1421 kg, Dn50 ≥ 0.83 m
Stability
Overtopping q= 0.63 < 10 l/s/m q= 0.50 < 10 l/s/m
ΚΤ = 0.13 leading to an Hsi = ΚΤ = 0.11 leading to an Hsi =
Transmission
0.98 m 0.78 m
Table 4-11: Assessment overview

19
5 Optimization
The safety factors using both design methods and the initial design as a basis are now
known. This chapter will lead to an updated version of the cross-section, in other words,
optimize it, again using both methods. In order to do so, the same equations are used but this
time without taking the initial design into account, but the criteria and parameters provided
in Table 3-3. This way a sufficient but more economical design will be determined, while the
width and freeboard of the breakwater will be re-calculated. This will be done first using the
PIANC design method, and then using the method of prEN1991-1-8. In the last section of this
Chapter, the two cross-sections will be drawn and possible differences between the two will
be summarized.

5.1 Optimization using the PIANC design method

The wave and water level data provided as inputs are the same as those used when assessing
the initial design, as given in Table 4-4. Using those data, a new geometry of the breakwater
cross-section is determined. The geometry of the optimized cross-section is given in Table 5-
1, along with the relevant safety factors and parameters.
Characteristic New Value Initial value
Freeboard 5.2 m 7m
Width 20 m 26 m
Amount of chambers 5 6
2
Chamber dimensions 3.65 x 3.65 m 4 x 4 m2
External concrete wall thickness 0.5 m 0.5 m
Internal concrete wall thickness 0.2 m 0.2 m
Table 5-1: Output of the optimization using the PIANC design method

The above geometry leads to a design that is sufficient. For example, pe = 399 > 400, with the
soil bearing capacity being the limiting failure mechanism in terms of width, with transmission
being the limiting one in terms of freeboard. Τhe following figure shows the new cross-section,
out of scale with five chambers instead of six, a total width of 20 m, and a freeboard of 5.2 m.

Figure 5-1: Optimized cross-section, based on the PIANC design method

20
5.2 Optimization using the new Eurocode 1
Same as in the previous section wave and water level data remain those explained before.
The output of the optimization using the new Eurocode 1, is summarized in Table 5-2 below.
Characteristic New Value Initial value
Freeboard 4.5 m 7m
Width 19 m 26 m
Amount of chambers 5 6
2
Chamber dimensions 3.48 x 3.48 m 4 x 4 m2
External concrete wall thickness 0.5 m 0.5 m
Internal concrete wall thickness 0.2 m 0.2 m
Table 5-2: Output of the optimization using the new Eurocode

Figure 5-2: Optimized cross-section, based on the new Eurocode 1

5.3 The two cross-sections

The cross-section optimized using prEN1991-1-8 is very similar to the optimized
version that is sufficient according to the PIANC design method, with a slightly reduced width
(19 m instead of 20 m) and a slightly reduced freeboard (4.5 m instead of 5.2 m). This implies
that the differences between the two methods when similar Return Periods are used are
insignificant. Given that only small differences can be identified in the optimized cross-
sections of both methods, a detailed comparison is not required. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 provide
an overview of the two cross-sections.

21
6 Reflection
In this chapter, the results of this research are discussed and new insights are briefly
explained. Precious insights gained from the Eurocode 1 proposal and the comparison with
the PIANC design method are elaborated.
This study aimed at comparing an existing method of design with a new method
proposed to be part of Eurocode 1. A new vertical wall breakwater, which is in the
development phase is used as a case study. The initial design was first assessed, using both
methods. Afterwards, the cross-section is optimized and the methods are compared. The
primary wave direction (180°-240°) was taken into account. Regarding the secondary wave
direction (105°-180°), it was decided to not investigate it, as it entails milder wave conditions.
This wave direction leads to a wave angle which at the same time is more favourable for the
breakwater to be designed.
The results of the assessment showed that the initial cross-section is sufficient
regardless of the method of use. For example, the safety factor for sliding is 2.27 and 2.29 for
the PIANC design method and the new Eurocode respectively. Reflecting on the results and
the use of the methods, the PIANC design method gives a lot of flexibility to the engineer that
uses it. The method proposed by prEN1991-1-8 tries to standardize the process, however
certain steps and decisions remain subjective and up to the engineering judgement of the user
and not entirely clear. Examples of such decisions are:
• The choice of consequence class and design life
• The determination of the return periods, as two different tables are provided
• The choice of the Hydrodynamic Estimate Approach
• The use of partial factors, and their application in other wave parameters other than
the design wave height (peak period, wavelength etc)
Lastly, making a comparison between the optimized vertical wall breakwater cross-
section of each method led to similar results while it has both “advantages” like the
combination of actions and “disadvantages” like the lack of clarity regarding the choice partial
factors, that may lead to unrealistic results. If partial factors were used the new method would
lead to more conservative results as the design wave heights would be 35-50% higher. In other
words, it is challenging to get to a final conclusion before further updating the existing
Eurocode 1 proposal (prEN1991-1-8). All the aforementioned comments are based on the
results of the investigated case study only. The wave climate and the water level fluctuations
are typical for a port in the Mediterranean but very different wave and water level loads can
be expected in other geographical areas (in Japan or in the North Sea for example). The
importance of storm surge and the tide is limited in the case of this case study which may
affect the results.
Reflecting on the work conducted during this research the author is still sceptical
about the use of regulatory texts and documents. The document used (prEN1991-1-8) proved
to be more complicated than expected. At the same time, it was made once again clear, that
certain civil engineering applications continue to rely on engineering judgement and choices
despite the significant standardization of certain processes that has happened in the past
years.

22
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
In this final chapter, the main research question and sub-questions are answered. At the
same time, the lessons learned during this process provide recommendations for further
study.

7.1 Conclusions
This section aims at summarizing the conclusions of this study, by answering the sub-questions
and the main research question.
7.1.1 Sub-Questions
The first sub-question that the author tried to answer is the following:
“What are the data required to design the new breakwater and how can they be acquired?”
In order to design the new breakwater of the Port of Genova wave data and water level data
was the first requirement. Due to the importance of the project those data were available
online for the open discussion on the project. The offshore – onshore wave transformation
was also done so the onshore significant wave heights were directly used. Water depth and
bottom slope were acquired using Navionics while some data related to the geometry of the
initial design of the breakwater were given in the open source project files. Reasonable
assumptions were done for any missing data.
A second important step in every breakwater design case is the definition of the
relevant failure mechanisms, which is a topic discussed via the second sub-question which is
as follows:
“Which are the failure mechanisms to be taken into account?”
The breakwater of the Port of Genova is a vertical wall breakwater. Based on existing
knowledge of the author and the relevant literature the following failure mechanisms were
chosen:

• Sliding
• Overturning
• Soil bearing capacity
• Block toe stability
• Berm Rubble mound stability
• Overtopping
• Transmission
Based on the two above answers, the third sub-question can be answered:
“Which are the safety factors of the initial design for each of the two investigated design
approaches?”
This question was the main focus of this study. Based on the initial design that was available
and using the two methods (the PIANC design method and the method proposed on the new
Eurocode 1), to assess the structure. Table 4-11 summarizes the safety factor and relevant
parameters per failure mechanism for both methods. The result is that this design is sufficient
for both methods.

23
The last sub-question that was addressed in this study is related to the optimization of the
cross-section of the new breakwater of the Port of Genoa:
“How does a cross-section of the breakwater in each of the two cases look like if optimized
and what are the differences between the PIANC design method and the new Eurocode 1?”
To answer this question a vertical wall breakwater was re-designed aiming at the minimum
required width and freeboard. The optimized design -given its smaller dimensions- is a more
economical option. For the PIANC design method, a cross-section with a width of 20 m and a
freeboard of 5.2 m would be sufficient. Using prEN1991-1-8 the optimized cross-section has a
width of 19 m and a freeboard of 4.5 m.

7.1.2 Main research question

In this part, the answer to the main research question of this study will be given. This is done
on the basis of and by combining the answers to the sub-questions explained in part 7.1.2.

“What differences between the PIANC design method and the method proposed by the new
EUROCODE in the design of a vertical wall breakwater can be identified, using the new
breakwater at the Port of Genoa as a case study?“
To answer this question the findings of the sub-questions are taken into account along
with other insights gained during the study. In terms of a sufficient cross-section, the two
methods as applied using the new breakwater at the Port of Genoas as a case study, appear
to be very similar. The two optimized cross-sections have similar width and freeboard.
The new Eurocode introduces a combination of actions (wave actions and water
levels) with a dominant and an accompanying component, and for each component a
corresponding return period. At the same time, the concept of the Hydrodynamic Estimate
Approach (HEA) and various design approaches are introduced. All the above lead to an
answer to the main research question: the two methods led to comparable results even if the
approach to defining return periods is quite different. The above conclusion is based on the
application of both methods in the new breakwater of the Port of Genoa, in the
Mediterranean where storm surge is limited for example.

7.2 Recommendations
This research focused on the new vertical breakwater to be constructed at the Port of
Genoa, and the differences between the PIANC design method and a new method proposed
by the new Eurocode. It is evident that not all questions that arise can be answered as part of
an additional thesis and thus certain topics that are outside of the scope of this study but
should be further studied according to the author are proposed below:
• This report touches upon the new Eurocode 1 using only one case study. Further
research, that applies the new method to more cases is necessary to get a more
convincing picture of it.
• There are not many breakwaters of this type in Europe. Thus, more research during
the design and construction of this project would be definitely beneficial as it could
provide valuable data to researchers and engineers.

24
• In this study, it was decided to disregard the secondary wave direction as both the
significant wave height and wave direction are more favourable. Nonetheless, the
possibility of waves coming from both directions at the same time is not investigated.
A more detailed, probabilistic analysis could provide a better understanding of the
situation.
• The new Eurocode 1 does not appear to be clear and consistent. Some inconsistencies
found were discussed in Chapter 2. The author is not an expert on this kind of texts,
but judging from the point of view of a young engineer, the report does not have
enough clarity when making important engineering decisions (e.g. consequence class,
HEA, partial factors). Further explanations on how to decide on those matters would
substantially improve the report.
• Inconsistencies appeared in the choice of partial factors for the wave actions as well.
The relevant chapter of the prEN1991-1-8 should be improved and made more
explicit.
• Based on the optimization of the specific breakwater case, a substantial decrease in
the dimensions of the cross sections can be achieved. This is true for both the PIANC
design method and the new Eurocode 1. It is recommended that the conducted
analysis and probabilities of failure used, should be verified by the design team of the
new breakwater of the port of Genoa and/or design the breakwater with a detailed
model in order to include parameters that may have been neglected in this report.

25
References
CEN/TC250. (2020). Eurocode 1 : Actions on structures — Part 1-8 : General actions — Actions
from waves and currents on coastal structures (Issue June).
European Commission. (n.d.). Eurocodes: Building the future - About the EN Eurocodes.
Retrieved May 24, 2021, from https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/showpage.php?id=1
Eurotop. (2018). Eurotop 2018; Manual on wave overtopping of sea defences and related
structures. An overtopping manual largely based on European research, but for
worldwide application. 320. www.overtopping-manual.com
Goda, Y. (2000). RANDOM SEAS AND DESING OF MARITIME STRUCTURES. World Scientific
Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Google Earth. (2021). Google Earth.
https://earth.google.com/web/@0,0,0a,22251752.77375655d,35y,0h,0t,0r
Menon, A. (2021). Top 14 Major Ports in Italy. https://www.marineinsight.com/know-
more/top-14-major-ports-in-italy/
NAVIONICS. (2020). Navionics ChartViewer. Navionics.
https://webapp.navionics.com/?lang=en#boating@9&key=y~wmG%7Bcqu%40
Oppenheimer, M., Glavovic, B., Hinkel, J., van de Wal, R., Magnan, A. K., Abd-Elgawad, A., Cai,
R., Cifuentes-Jara, M., DeConto, R. M., Ghosh, T., Hay, J., Isla, F., Marzeion, B.,
Meyssignac, B., & Sebesvari, Z. (2019). Chapter 4: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low
Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. IPCC SR Ocean and Cryosphere. IPCC Special
Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.- O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts,
V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A.
Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (Eds.)]. In Press., Chapter 4(Final Draft), 1–14.
PIANC. (2016). Report n° 196 - 2016 CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF BREAKWATER TYPES
AND THEIR RELATED OPTIMUM SAFETY LEVELS.
Porto di Genova. (2020a). Dossier di Progetto DIGA FORANEA DEL PORTO DI GENOVA.
Porto di Genova. (2020b). PRIMA FASE – FATTIBILITA’ DELLE ALTERNATIVE PROGETTUALI
Volume 5 – Studio meteomarino. REALIZZAZIONE DELLA NUOVA DIGA FORANEA DEL
PORTO DI GENOVA AMBITO BACINO DI SAMPIERDARENA.
Press Academia. (2018). Definition of Case Study. https://www.pressacademia.org/definition-
of-case-study/
Takahashi, S. (2002). Design of Vertical Breakwaters. Port and Airport Research Institute,
Japan, 1996(34), 110. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A7fd92ccc-
74d7-469d-b648-a456d96a18a4.
USACE. (2011). Coastal Engineering Manual, Part IV. In Engineer: Vol. VI (Issue 200).
van den Bos, J. P., & Verhagen, H. . (2018). Breakwater Design - Lecture notes CIE5308. In Delft
University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0863-9_10
Verschuren, P., & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Designing a research project. Eleven International
Publishing.

26
Appendix A – Wave data
In this Appendix, the wave data acquired are presented. It should be noted, that for the wave
data the offshore to onshore transformation was not conducted by the author of this study,
but was part of the preliminary design that was proposed during the public debate of the
project.
The wave data follow a Weibull distribution (with α = 1.00) as can be seen from the data
provided by Porto di Genova. Using the shape and scale factors and the equations provided in
van den Bos & Verhagen, (2018) the wave heights for every return period can be calculated.

Figure A.1: Peak over threshold method and wave data distribution

27
 Table A.1: Significant wave height, peak period, and wave direction for the primary wave
direction

Table A.2: Significant wave height, peak period, and wave direction for the secondary wave
directions

28
Peak period
A relation between Hs and Tp is also given and is the following:
𝑇𝑝 = 𝑎 ∗ 𝐻𝑠𝑏 , 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 = 5 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = 0.39

This equation will be used to calculate the peak period for every return period required, based on the
significant wave height calculated from the Weibull distribution, and stands for the dominant/primary
wave direction.
For the secondary wave direction the equation is as follows:

𝑇𝑝 = 𝑎 ∗ 𝐻𝑠𝑏 , 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 = 4.84 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏 = 0.39

29
Appendix Β – Strom Surge and Wave Setup

Table Β.1: Wave setup and storm surge

Using the values of this table as a basis, a relevant equation was defined, to be able to acquire
other values as well. This equation is the following: 𝑦 = 0.3927 ∗ 𝑥 0.1506 also shown in the
figure below. Based on this equation values for various return periods can be acquired.
1
0.9
0.8 y = 0.3928x0.1506
0.7 R² = 0.9833
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure Β.1: Storm surge and wave setup approximation

Storm surge and wave
Return Period
setup (m)
20 0.63
40 0.70
70 0.74
475 0.99
Table Β.2: Storm surge and wave setup for the relevant return periods

30
Appendix C – Design Calculation example
This appendix includes the design equations used in a Python script that the author of this
research developed. The design equations are the same for the two methods investigated in
this research. All equations used are based on Takahashi, 2002 unless stated otherwise. The
example in this appendix focuses in the assessment of the initial design of the new breakwater
of the Port of Genoa using the return periods and input data as defined from prEN1991-1-8.
The input data of this example (geometric parameters, wave and water level data) are
summarized below.
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Dominant
RP 400 years
component
Return period (ULS)
Accompanying
RP 40 years
component
Dominant
RP 40 years
component
Return period (SLS)
Accompanying
RP 20 years
component
Significant wave height (ULS) Hs 8.77 m
Peak period (ULS) Tp 11.66 sec
Storm surge and wave setup (ULS) ssurge 0.70 m
Significant wave height (SLS) Hs 7.05 m
Peak period (SLS) Tp 10.71 sec
Storm surge and wave setup (SLS) ssurge 0.63 m
Tidal range HAT 0.15 m
Sea Level Rise SLR 0.20 m
Water depth h 35 m
Vertical wall depth d 25 m
Cross section width B 26 m
Freeboard Rc 7 m
Amount of chambers - 6 -
Chamber dimensions - 4x4 m2
External concrete wall thickness text 0.5 m
Internal concrete wall thickness tint 0.2 m
Bottom slope tanθ 1/80 -
Wave angle β 24 degrees
Table C.1 – Input data
The various constants used, and their respective values and units are summarized in the
following Table.
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Specific weight of concrete γconcrete 24 KN/m3
Specific weight of sand γsand 20 KN/m3
Specific weight of water γwater 10.25 KN/m3
Water density ρwater 1.025 t/m3
Gravitational acceleration g 9.806 m/s2
Friction coefficient μ 0.60 -
Table C.2 – Constants

31
Design water level
The design water level will be calculated based on the following equation, and the input values
provided in Table D.1.:
𝐷𝑊𝐿 = 𝑆𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 + 𝐻𝐴𝑇 + 𝑆𝐿𝑅 = +0.98 𝑚 𝑀𝑆𝐿
ℎ𝑐 = 𝑅𝑐 − 𝐷𝑊𝐿 = +6.02 𝑚 𝑀𝑆𝐿

Design wave height

The onshore significant wave height at the toe of the structure is provided in the open source
data related to the design of the new breakwater at the port of Genoa. The design wave height
is the maximum wave height according to the equation:
𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1.8 ∗ 𝐻𝑠,𝑜𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑒
The above equation leads to an Hmax,ULS = 15.79 m and Hmax, SLS = 12.69 m

Breakwater weight calculation

The weight of the breakwater for the dry and in situ conditions is based on the dimensions of
the cross-section and the specific weight of each part, as shown in the below calculations:

𝑊𝑎 = 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∗ (𝐵 − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 − 5 ∗ 𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑡 ) ∗ 𝑑 + 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 ∗ ((𝑑 ∗ (2 ∗ 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑡 + 5 ∗

𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑡 )) + 2.5 ∗ 𝐵 + (ℎ𝑐 − 1.5) ∗ 4)

𝑊 = 𝑊𝑎 − (𝛾𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ ℎ𝑐 ∗ 𝐵) / 𝑔
The in situ weight to be used later in the stability calculations is equal to 897.3 tf/m.
Dispersion equation and other equations
Using the dispersion equation the wave number is determined: k = 0.0348, and the
wavelength L = 180.34 m. The deep water wavelength is equal to 212.18 m.
Goda method parameters
According to Goda, the intensities of wave and uplift pressure can be calculated using the
following equations:
1
𝑝1 = ∗ (1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽)(𝛼1 + 𝛼2 ∗ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2 𝛽) ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥
2
𝑝1
𝑝2 =
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝑘ℎ
𝑝3 = 𝑎3 ∗ 𝑝1
ℎ𝑐
𝑝4 = 𝑝1 ∗ (1 − ) 𝑖𝑓 𝜂 ∗ > ℎ𝑐 𝑜𝑟 𝑝4 = 0 𝑖𝑓 𝜂 ∗ ≤ ℎ𝑐
𝜂∗
In the above equation η* is the theoretical maximum level at which pressure is exerted, and is
calculated as below:
𝜂 ∗ = 0.75 ∗ (1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽) ∗ 𝛨𝑚𝑎𝑥
The uplift pressure follows the equation:
1
𝑝𝑢 = ∗ (1 + 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽) ∗ 𝛼1 ∗ 𝑎3 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥
2
The model coefficients of the Goda method as calculated as below:

32
 1 2𝑘ℎ 2
𝑎1 = 0.6 + ∗ ( )
2 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ2𝑘ℎ
ℎ𝑏 − 𝑑 𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 2𝑑
𝑎2 = min { ( ) , }
3 ∗ ℎ𝑏 𝑑 𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥
ℎ′ 1
𝑎3 = 1 + ∗ (1 − )
ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ𝑘ℎ

Using the pressures p1, p2, p3 and p4 along with the uplift pressure pu, the stability and
overturning calculations can be executed.
Stability
The horizontal force is calculated as follows:
1 1
𝐹𝐻 = (𝑝1 + 𝑝3 ) ∗ ℎ′ + ∗ (𝑝1 + 𝑝4 ) ∗ ℎ𝑐∗
2 2
In addition, the uplift force is determined using the following equation:
1
𝐹𝑈 = ∗ 𝑝𝑢 ∗ 𝐵
2
with B being the caisson width and hc*=min(η*,hc). The horizontal and uplift forces are
determined equal to FH = 215.8 tf/m and FU = 94.4 tf/m.
The safety factor against stability can now be calculated as below:
𝜇 ∗ (𝑊 − 𝐹𝑈 )
𝑆𝐹𝑆𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = = 𝟐. 𝟐𝟑 > 1.2
𝐹𝐻
Therefore, the cross-section is sufficient against sliding.
Overturning
The two moments at the toe of the structure are calculated as follows:
1 1 1
𝑀𝐻 = (2𝑝1 + 𝑝3 ) ∗ ℎ2 + (𝑝1 + 𝑝4 ) ∗ ℎ′ ∗ ℎ𝑐∗ + (𝑝1 + 2𝑝4 ) ∗ ℎ𝑐∗ 2
6 2 6
2
𝑀𝑈 = ∗ 𝐹𝑈 ∗ 𝐵
3
The two moments at the toe of the structure are: MH = 3631 tf*m/m and MU = 1637 tf*m/m.
The horizontal distance between the centre of gravity of the caisson and its heel is assumed
to be t = B/2.
Based on those the safety factor against overturning can now be calculated:
(𝑊 ∗ 𝑡 − 𝑀𝑈 )
𝑆𝐹𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 = = 𝟐. 𝟕𝟔 > 1.2
𝑀𝐻
Therefore, the cross-section is sufficient against overturning.
Soil bearing capacity
According to Goda, the foundation should be at most 400 kPa. The load is dependent on the
nett vertical force that is exerted on the soil (We), the width of the caisson (B) and the
eccentricity of the reaction force (te). The load is calculated based on the following equation:
2 ∗ 𝑊𝑒 𝐵
𝑝𝑒 = 𝑖𝑓 𝑡𝑒 ≤
3 ∗ 𝑡𝑒 3

2 ∗ 𝑊𝑒 𝐵
𝑝𝑒 = 𝑖𝑓 𝑡𝑒 >
𝐵 ∗ (2 − 3 ∗ (𝑡𝑒 /𝐵)) 3

The net vertical force is calculated as below:

33
Me = Mgt – MH - MU , while the eccentricity te is equal to Me/We The load is determined equal
to 371 kPa and given that the limit for the foundation load is 400 kPa, the bearing capacity of
the soil is sufficient.

Block toe dimensions

For the dimensions of the concrete block toe to be placed in front of the vertical wall
breakwater, the width, length and thickness of the block need to be calculated. The above is
based on Takahashi, (2002) and the following graph:

Assuming that hb/hs = 0.72 and H = 8.77 m and using the “trunk” option in the above graph, t’
is determined to be equal to 1.14 m. As a result, the following dimensions are chosen based
on the table on the right: l x b x t’ = 4.0 x 2.5 x 1.2
Minimum rock mass and rock dimension for berm stability
In order to determine the required rock mass for a stable berm the following equation is used:
𝜌𝑐
𝑀50,𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑚 = 3 ∗ 𝐻𝑠 3
𝑁𝑠 ∗ (𝑆𝑟 − 1)3

In the above equation Sr is as follows:

Sr = ρc /ρwater
while Ns is calculated as below:

1 − 𝜅 ℎ′ (1 − 𝜅)2 ℎ′
𝑁𝑠 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 {1.8, (1.3 1/3 + 1.8 ∗ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 [−1.5 1 ])}
𝜅 𝐻1/3 𝐻1/3
𝜅3
and κ is calculated based on the following:

34
 2 ∗ 𝑘 ′ ∗ ℎ′
𝜅= 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (𝑘 ′ ∗ 𝐵𝑀 )
sinh(2 ∗ 𝑘 ′ ∗ ℎ′ )
In the last equation, it is assumed that k’ = 2π/L’ where L’ is the wavelength at the water depth
h’. Using the dispersion equation, k’ = 0.0398 and the mass of the blocks at the berm should
be at least 1421 kg. In other words M50,berm ≥ 1421 kg.

For the calculation of the nominal diameter of the blocks to be placed at the berm the
following equation will be used:
𝐻𝑠
𝐷𝑛50,𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑚 =
𝛥 ∗ 𝑁𝑠
In the above equation the relative density Δ is as follows:
Δ = (ρc − ρwater )/ρwater
While Ns is calculated in the same way as before. The minimum nominal diameter of the
blocks is calculated equal to 0.83 m. In other words Dn50,berm ≥ 0.83 m

Overtopping
The acceptable overtopping discharge is assumed to be: qacceptable = 10 l/m/s. In order to
calculate the wave impact the following equation will be used:
𝑞 𝑅𝐶 𝑅𝐶
= 𝑎 ∗ exp (−𝑏 ) 𝑓𝑜𝑟 0.1 < < 3.5
3 𝐻𝑚0 𝐻𝑚0
√𝑔 ∗ 𝐻𝑚0

Where α = 0.04 and b = 1.8. Using the above equation the overtopping discharge is determined
equal to q = 0.504 l/m/s < qacceptable

Transmission
The transmission coefficient is calculated using the following graph from Takahashi, (2002).

For this example, d = 25.98 m, h = 35.98 m, as a result d/h = 0.72

Also taking into account that hc = 6.02 m and Hi = 7.05 m, hc/Hi = 0.84

35
Using the above graph, the transmission coefficient KT = 0.11 and thus the transmitted wave
height HT = 0.78 m < 1.5 m.

36
Appendix E – Jupyter notebook
For the purpose of this study, a Jupyter notebook was developed by the author to perform all
relevant calculations easily and efficiently. The QR code below leads to a Git Hub page where
the relevant notebook is uploaded.

37