CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence

Congres annuel 2007 de l`ACB

St. John`s, NL, Canada
CANADIAN DAM ASSOCIATION September 22 -27, 2007
ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES BARRAGES du 22 au 27 septembre 2007
DETERMINING NECESSARY RESERVOIR FREEBOARD
TWO METHODS OF ESTIMATING WAVE RUNUP AND WIND SETUP
Brendan Buggeln, P. Eng., Hydrotechnical Engineer, Hatch Energy, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
David Judge, P. Eng., Company Hydrotechnical Leader, Hatch Energy, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT:
Dam saIety assessments require the determination oI Ireeboard requirements by quantiIying the wind setup and
wave runup on a reservoir. Herein are presented two approaches to this determination: a very simple approach
used Ior existing dams and a sophisticated approach used Ior both new designs as well as in cases where the
simplistic approach suggests that an existing structure requires remediation.
Hatch Energy`s simplistic method involves applying directionless wind pressures (converted to velocities) listed
in the National Building Code to the longest Ietch in the reservoir. This is very conservative because the actual
Ietch might not coincide with the wind direction that produced the high wind pressures (and velocities). II this
analysis indicates that the existing Ireeboard (and rip-rap) is adequate, no Iurther analysis is warranted.
However, iI this approach suggests that the existing inIrastructure requires modiIication, a more sophisticated
approach is easily justiIied. For new designs, a sophisticated analysis is always justiIiable in order to avoid
providing unnecessary Ireeboard and rip-rap that is too large.
The sophisticated approach involves the analysis oI (typically) more than 20 years oI historic hourly wind data.
Analyses are perIormed on the data to determine estimates oI 100- and 1,000-year wind magnitudes, durations
and directions. Freeboard calculations are then perIormed iteratively to determine the critical conditions Ior the
site. Details oI both the simplistic and sophisticated approaches are given. A case study is included to illustrate
their use.
RSUM
En procedant aux evaluations de la securite des barrages, on doit determiner la hauteur necessaire de la revanche
en quantiIiant la denivellation due au vent et la remontee des vagues sur un reservoir. Deux approches
permettront d`y arriver : une approche tres simple utilisee pour les barrages existants et une autre, sophistiquee,
utilisee pour les nouveaux designs ainsi que dans les cas ou l`approche simple suggere qu`un ouvrage existant
doit tre restaure.
La methode simple d`Hatch Energy implique l`application de pressions de vent sans direction (converties en
velocites), qui Iigurent dans le Code national du batiment du Canada, au Ietch le plus long du reservoir. C`est
tres conservateur, car le Ietch en question pourrait ne pas concider avec la direction du vent a l`origine des
Iortes pressions de vent (et velocites). Si cette analyse indique que la revanche existante (et l`enrochement) est
adequate, il n`est pas necessaire de l`approIondir. TouteIois, si elle suggere une modiIication de l`ouvrage
existant, il tout a Iait justiIie de se tourner vers l`approche sophistiquee. Pour les nouveaux designs, cette
approche est toujours legitime aIin d`eviter la construction d`une revanche trop haute et d`un enrochement trop
gros.
En general, l`approche sophistiquee implique l`analyse de donnees horaires des vents sur plus de 20 ans. Les
analyses des donnees ont pour but d`estimer l`intensite, la duree et la direction des vents sur 100 ans et 1000 ans.
Les calculs de la hauteur de revanche sont ensuite eIIectues de maniere iterative pour determiner les conditions
critiques pour le site. La communication ainsi resumee donne des details sur les approches simple et
sophistiquee. Elle comprend aussi une etude de cas pour en illustrer l`utilisation.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 2
1 INTRODUCTION
As wind blows over a body oI water, two phenomena can be observed: wind wave generation and wind setup.
Both are the result oI the shear stress at the interIace oI the wind and the water surIace and are a Iunction oI
many parameters including, the Ietch length, wind speed, wind duration and water depth. Both wind wave
generation and wind setup are oI interest to dam owners and operators.
Wind over an open reservoir generates waves that can propagate across the reservoir, reaching the dam. As the
waves reach the dam, water runs up the surIace and can overtop the dam iI suIIicient Ireeboard is not present.
For earth dams, signiIicant overtopping can lead to erosion oI the downstream Iace and ultimately to dam Iailure.
For concrete dams, overtopping is not necessarily as critical, but is oIten undesirable.
The magnitude oI the wave heights, to which an earth dam is exposed, is also the primary Iactor determining the
required armour stone size. A dam exposed to large waves requires more massive rip-rap to prevent erosion than
a dam exposed to only small waves.
Wind setup occurs as the shear stress at the interIace oI the wind and water surIace Iorces water particles in the
direction oI the wind, generating surIace currents. As the water impinges on the solid surIace oI a shoreline or a
dam, the water can 'pile up. This has the eIIect oI increasing the water level at the downwind end oI the
reservoir and lowering the level oI the upwind end. Generally, wind setup on a reservoir is very small (generally
a Iew centimetres), but on large, relatively shallow bodies oI water it can be signiIicant. Wind setup on Lake
Erie between Toledo, Ohio and BuIIalo, New York can exceed 3m. II a dam is at the downwind end oI a
reservoir, wind setup can increase the mean water level at the dam providing an elevated starting point Ior waves
to run up the dam Iace.
Many large dam owners and operators include wave runup and wind setup estimations as part oI their regular
dam saIety assessments. This paper outlines a calculation methodology to estimate these parameters given wind
speeds and corresponding Ietch lengths Ior the reservoir. Two methods oI estimating wind speeds and
corresponding Ietch lengths are also presented.
The simplistic method requires relatively little time and produces a conservative estimate oI the maximum water
level, including wind setup and wave runup. This method should be used Iirst and iI the calculated Ireeboard
(and rip-rap size) is adequate, no Iurther analysis is warranted. However, iI this approach suggests that the
existing inIrastructure requires modiIication, a more sophisticated approach is easily justiIied. Similarly, Ior
new designs, a sophisticated analysis is always justiIiable in order to avoid providing unnecessary Ireeboard and
rip-rap that is too large.
The sophisticated approach involves analyzing a great deal oI detailed wind data. Typically twenty or more years
oI hourly average wind speed and direction data can be obtained Ior a relevant meteorological station. The data
are separated into sixteen directional bins (representing the major points oI the compass) and annual maximum
wind speeds Ior various wind durations are determined. A Gumbel Irequency distribution is Iit to the data Ior
each direction and duration and estimates oI extreme wind events are made. Polynomial equations are then Iit to
this extreme wind data allowing Ior estimation oI 100- and 1,000-year wind events Ior any wind duration, at any
oI the sixteen major points oI the compass. Wind setup and wave runup calculations are then perIormed Ior each
relevant wind direction by applying the calculated extreme wind events over the corresponding Ietch lengths.
An iterative approach is used to determine the critical wind duration that will result in Iully developed waves.
The critical direction that results in the largest waves at the dam is then determined.
2 Calculating Wind Setup and Wave Runup
2.1 Wave Runup
Wind waves are generated as wind blows over a body oI open water. The waves generated are a Iunction oI a
variety oI Iactors including the Ietch length (the length oI open water over which the wind can generate waves),
the wind speed, the duration oI the wind and the water depth.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 3
The US Army Corps oI Engineers 'Shore Protection Manual (USACE (1984)) proposes the Iollowing Iormulae
(equations 1 through 6) Ior estimating the maximum height and other parameters oI deepwater waves generated
over a body oI water:
F U H
A m
o
=
2
10 616 . 1 (1)
Where: H
mo
Deepwater signiIicant wave height (average oI the highest 1/3 oI waves), m
U
A
Wind stress Iactor
F EIIective Fetch length, km
The wind stress Iactor, U
A
, is related to the over-water wind speed, U
W
, by the equation:
23 . 1
71 . 0
w A
U U = (2)
Where: U
w
Over-water wind speed, m/s
Over-water wind speeds Ior the reservoirs oI concern are rarely available. Typically, the best available wind
speed inIormation is compiled Ior over-land wind at a nearby site. (The selection and analysis oI the available
wind data is the subject oI this paper and will be discussed in later sections.) Over-water wind speeds, U
W
, can
be estimated Irom nearby over-land wind speeds, U
L
, by the Iormula:
L L T W
U R R U = (3)
Where: R
T
AmpliIication ratio due to temperature diIIerences over land and over water
R
L
Location ratio due to surIace roughness eIIects
U
L
Over-land wind speed, m/s
For small bodies oI water (normal Ior most reservoir projects), it is commonly assumed that the eIIect oI the
over-land and over-water air temperatures is negligible, i.e. the ampliIication ratio R
T
1. The location ratio is a
Iunction oI the surIace roughness. Wind speeds close to the ground are dependant on the shear eIIects associated
with the surIace. Land has signiIicantly more surIace roughness than water, thus wind speeds over water are
generally higher than over land. A typical value Ior the location ratio Ior small reservoirs is R
L
1.2.
Typically, Ior dam saIety assessments, wave runup calculations on earth dams are perIormed Ior the average oI
the highest 5 oI all waves, H
5
, not the signiIicant wave height, H
mo
. H
5
can be calculated by:
o
m
H H = 37 . 1
5
(4)
Where: H
5
the 5 wave height, m
The deepwater signiIicant wave length can be calculated Irom the Iollowing Iormula:
( )3
2
607 . 0 F U L
A
= (5)

Where: L Deepwater signiIicant wavelength, m
The required wind duration to Iully develop waves over the Ietch length can be calculated Irom the Iollowing
Iormula:

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 4
3
1
2
893 . 0
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
A
U
F
t (6)

Where: t Required wind duration, hr
A check must be made to ensure that the waves calculated by the above method are not depth limited. II the
reservoir does not have suIIiciently deep water, bottom eIIects can limit the height oI the wave that can be
Iormed. II the water depth is not equal to at least halI the wavelength oI the calculated wave, the waves are said
to be depth limited and the above Iormulae are no longer valid. The Shore Protection Manual (USACE (1984))
provides details about wave Iorecasting in transitional and shallow water.
The Ietch length, F, is the length oI clear water Ironting the dam that contributes to wave generation. A standard
method oI estimating Ietch lengths Ior wave generation involves estimating an eIIective Ietch` length that takes
shoreline irregularities into account. The process involves determining the longest straight line Ietch Irom the
point oI interest (the dam) and drawing Iour radials to each side oI this line at small increments (3
o
is common).
II a directional approach is used (as in the sophisticated method), the central radial is in the direction oI concern
(generally one oI the sixteen points oI the compass) with Iour radials to each side. These radials terminate at the
opposite shoreline or at any other impediment to wave generation (including islands, very shallow areas, etc.).
The eIIective Ietch length is the arithmetic average oI the nine radials.
As waves impact the dam Iace, the water will run up the Iace, usually reaching elevations higher than the top oI
the waves. The height oI the wave runup is a Iunction oI the wave height, the slope oI the dam Iace and surIace
material oI the dam (the material over which the wave is running up). Hatch Energy uses the Iollowing Iormula
to calculate the extent oI wave runup (ACES (1992)):

s b
s a H
R
i
+

=
1
(7)

Where: R Height oI wave runup above the mean water level, m
H
i
Incident wave height, m
a, b Empirical coeIIicients based on armour material (Table 1)
The slope coeIIicient, s, can be calculated Irom:
L
H
S
s
i
l
= (8)

Where: S
l
Structure slope (vertical / horizontal)
L Wave length, m
Table 1: Rough Slope Runup CoeIIicients
Armour Material a b
Rip Rap 0.956 0.398
Rubble (Permeable No Core) 0.692 0.504
Rubble (2 Layers Impermeable Core) 0.775 0.361
2.2 Wind Setup
Wind setup is oI concern when wind blows over a reservoir in the direction oI the dam. The extent oI wind
setup can be calculated by the Iormula (USBR (1981)):

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 5
Kd
F U
S
s
2
= (9)

Where: S Wind setup above still water level, m
U Wind speed, m/s
F
s
Setup Ietch length, km
K CoeIIicient 4800 (USBR, 1981)
d Average reservoir depth, m
The setup Ietch may not be equal to the Ietch used in the wave Iorecasting calculations. While wave generation
requires a near straight line Ietch, setup eIIects do not. SurIace currents generated by the wind may be able to
by-pass small islands or bends in the reservoir that would limit the Ietch in wave generation calculations.
3 WIND ASSESSMENT METHODS
It is apparent that wind speed is an important parameter in calculating both the wave runup and wind setup.
However, this is also oIten the most diIIicult parameter to estimate accurately. Two sources oI data are
examined in this paper: wind pressure data in the National Building Code (NRC (2005)), used in the simplistic
method, and Environment Canada's database oI historical climate data (EC (2006)), used in the sophisticated
method.
3.1 Simplistic Method
The NBC (2005) lists regionally representative or reIerenced wind pressures Ior over 600 locations across
Canada. The wind pressures correspond to one-hour wind speeds at a measurement height oI 10m Ior 10- and
50-year return periods. By its nature, this data set is directionless, providing magnitudes only. Conversions are
listed in the NBC (2005) to convert the wind pressures to wind speeds.
In the simplistic method, the methodology discussed above is used to estimate a wave runup and wind setup.
Directionless wind pressures listed in the NBC (2005) are converted to wind speeds and applied over the longest
Ietch in the reservoir (as determined by the eIIective Ietch methodology`).
3.1.1 Wind Duration
The wind pressures provided in the NBC (2005) are one-hour average wind speeds. For small reservoirs, the
required wind duration to Iully develop the waves could be less than one hour leading to the possibility that the
shorter duration could increase the wind speed and produce a larger wave (and higher setup).
This eIIect is most likely small and is not considered in the simplistic method. It is thought that the conservatism
inherent to the directionless approach overshadows the increase in wind speed due to a short required duration.
(More discussion about short wind durations is included in Section 3.2.4.)
3.1.2 Return Period
The wind speeds required by most dam saIety guidelines are the 100- and 1,000-year annual maximum wind
speeds. The NBC (2005) wind pressure data is provided Ior 10- and 50-year return periods. These values are
derived Irom 30-year wind speeds and a Gumbel extreme value distribution. The NBC (2005) provides the
Iollowing Iormula to convert Irom the 10- and 50-year wind speeds to n-year wind speeds:
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ + =
n
J J
J J J
n
/ 1 1 ln
0339 . 0
ln
1339 . 1
4565 . 0
4565 . 1
1
10 50
10 50
(10)

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 6
Where: V
n
the n-year wind speed
V
50
the 50-year wind speed
V
10
the 10-year wind speed
n return period, years
Thus, the one hour, 100- and 1,000-year maximum wind speeds are easily available Ior most locations in
Canada.
3.1.3 Summarv
The directionless nature oI the simplistic method renders the method inherently conservative. Most sites have a
predominant wind direction, with larger events originating Irom that general direction. By applying the
maximum wind over the maximum Ietch, the implied assumption is that predominant wind direction lies in the
same direction as the maximum Ietch. This may be the case Ior some reservoirs, but Ior many others it is not.
For these reservoirs, the simplistic method may be overly conservative.
However, this method is also relatively straight Iorward and is not particularly time consuming. The wind data
is readily available and requires little analysis to be usable. ThereIore, the simplistic method is the preIerred
deIault method to use Ior a dam saIety review. II the structure has suIIicient Ireeboard and the existing shore
protection is suIIicient to withstand the wave action Iorecast by this method, then no Iurther analysis is
necessary; the existing structure is adequate. However, iI the analysis suggests that remedial work is required to
either increase the available Ireeboard or improve the shore protection, a more detailed approach is easily
justiIied. Similarly, Ior new designs, a sophisticated analysis is always justiIiable in order to avoid providing
unnecessary Ireeboard and rip-rap that is too large.
3.2 Sophisticated Method
Environment Canada (EC (2006)) provides access to historical climatic data Ior weather monitoring sites at
many locations across Canada. The climatic data includes historic hourly wind magnitudes and directions, oIten
Ior very long periods oI record. The sophisticated approach involves analyzing this large amount oI detailed
wind data Ior the site in question. Typically twenty or more years oI hourly average wind speed and direction
data can be obtained Ior a relevant meteorological station.
In the sophisticated method, this available wind data is analysed on a directional basis and applied to the
reservoir in question. Frequency analyses are perIormed on the data, also on a directional basis, and Iunctions
are Iit to estimate wind speeds oI diIIering durations. The resulting critical wind speed Ior each direction is
applied to the eIIective Ietch length corresponding to that direction to determine the maximum wave runup and
wind setup Ior the reservoir.
The Iollowing is a discussion oI the sophisticated method oI wave runup and wind setup calculation.
3.2.1 Wind Direction and Duration
Unlike the simplistic method, the sophisticated method assesses the variability oI wind speeds by direction and
duration. The bulk data downloaded Ior the site is initially separated into sixteen directional bins (representing
the major points oI the compass) and annual maximum one-hour wind speeds Ior each direction are summarised.
The historical hourly wind data is then processed to generate a historical record oI two- , three-, Iour- and Iive-
hour average wind speeds and directions. Averaging oI wind speeds must be done using vector mathematics.
For example, iI two consecutive one-hour winds are 14m/s Irom the north and 2m/s Irom the east, the two-hour
wind speed Ior that period is 7.1m/s, 8.1 east oI north(Figure 1). II sixteen directional bins are used, each
direction includes 12.5 to either side; thereIore the binned vector average would be 7.1m/s also Irom the north.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 7
Figure 1: Wind speed and direction averaged by vector mathematics
The resulting two-, three-, Iour-, and Iive-hourly historical wind data sets are separated into the directional bins
and summarized to yield the annual maximum wind speeds by direction and duration, as was done Ior one-hour
winds.
3.2.2 Return Period
The 100- and 1,000-year annual maximum wind events by direction and duration are required Ior analysis by the
sophisticated method. Gumbel extreme value distributions are Iit to each set oI annual maximum wind data.
Gumbel distributions generally Iit the annual maximum wind speeds adequately, but other distributions can be
used, iI required.
PerIorming the Gumbel Iits on such a large number oI data sets (sixteen directions Ior each oI Iive durations -
eighty data sets total) is only practical iI an automated process is used. Hatch Energy has developed a
spreadsheet tool that partially automates this process, but as with any distribution Iitting, care must be taken to
assure that adequate Iits are achieved. Alternatively, Iewer directions and/or durations can be used with a
corresponding loss in data resolution.
With the estimation oI the 100- and 1,000-year extreme wind events by direction, wind roses can be created by
wind duration. By overlaying the wind rose data on the reservoir alignment, it can become evident whether or
not the sophisticated method will provide a signiIicant reduction in estimation oI wave runup and wind setup.
Most sites will have a predominant wind direction, with larger events originating Irom that general direction. II
the longest Ietch directions align with this predominant wind direction, little will likely be gained Irom the
sophisticated method. However, iI the predominant wind direction aligns with over-land wind or only very short
Ietch lengths, signiIicant reductions in the wave runup and wind setup may be expected.
3.2.3 Runup/Setup Calculation
Estimation oI wave runup and wind setup Iollows the methodology presented in Section 2. Some additional
steps are required to take wind duration and wind direction into account, which is not done in the simplistic
method presented in Section 3.1.
For each direction and return period, a polynomial is Iit to the wind events oI diIIerent durations. Typically the
polynomial is oI the Iorm:
2
1
c
Dur c U = (11)
Where: U wind speed, km/hr

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 8
c
1
, c
2
coeIIicients
Dur Wind duration, hrs
This allows Ior 100- and 1,000-year wind speeds to be estimated, by direction, Ior any wind duration. However,
care should be taken iI the wind duration is very small, as discussed in Section 3.2.4.
The calculation oI wave runup and wind setup by taking wind duration into account becomes an iterative
process. For each direction, an initial wind duration is selected and the corresponding wind speed is used in the
wind wave analysis Irom Section 2. As part oI the analysis, the required wind duration is calculated; this is
compared to the duration used in the calculation. The calculation is then iterated to determine the minimum
wind duration that creates Iully developed wave conditions. This is the critical wind duration Ior that direction
and produces the highest values oI wave runup and wind setup.
3.2.4 Summarv
The sophisticated method yields the maximum wave runup and wind setup Ior the reservoir by direction. The
wind direction that yields the largest runup/setup condition is then selected as the design case Ior the dam in
question. II the prevailing wind direction does not align with a long Ietch length, this may result in a signiIicant
reduction in the design condition over the simplistic method.
Care must be taken Ior several reasons iI the calculations yield a critical wind duration that is very short:
1. The polynomial Iit relating the wind durations and speeds may not be reliable at very low wind durations.
Due to the Iorm oI the polynomial, at low wind durations very large wind speeds can be predicted. While
this may be true, with only hourly wind data available there is no means oI veriIying the predicted wind
speeds. As with any polynomial Iitting, it is wise to pay close attention when extrapolating beyond the range
oI data Irom which the polynomial was developed.
2. The physical processes that drive wave generation and wind setup may not behave the same Ior short
durations as they do Ior longer durations. Short critical wind durations imply short Ietch lengths, over which
edge eIIects may be more signiIicant than over longer Ietches. In this case, the location ratio, R
L
(which
increases the over-water wind speed relative to the over-land wind speed, Section 2.1) may not be as high as
Ior longer Ietches. The Iormulae used in the wave generation analysis were derived Ior large Ietches (over 1
km) and may not hold true over very short Ietch lengths.
3. The expected duration to develop wind setup is greater than Ior wave generation, thereIore, with very small
Ietch lengths and wind durations, wind setup may not have suIIicient time to Iully develop. The magnitude
oI wind setup is generally very small compared to wave runup, so this eIIect may be minimal.
All oI these Iactors, however, lead to a more conservative estimate oI wave runup and wind setup. II a very
short Ietch length is used and the resulting Ireeboard and rip rap requirements do not indicate a problem, then no
Iurther analysis is warranted.
4 CASE STUDY
The Iollowing is a case study oI wave runup and wind setup calculations perIormed Ior a Iictional reservoir near
Timmins, Ontario. Both the simplistic and sophisticated methods are used to estimate the required Ireeboard and
rip-rap size. However, because the wind data sources are diIIerent, a direct comparison oI the two is not
inIormative. A directionless application oI the sophisticated method (including the determination oI the critical
wind duration) is also perIormed to provide a comparison between directionless and directional approaches.
Figure 2 illustrates the Iictional reservoir. The average depth in the reservoir is approximately 12m. An earth
Iill dam is present at the north-west end oI the reservoir. The upstream slope oI the dam is 1:2.5 (vertical
:horizontal) and is protected with rip rap.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 9
The nine three-degree radials used to calculate the eIIective Ietch length Irom the east-south-east (ESE) (the
longest eIIective Ietch in the reservoir) are also included in Figure 2. Table 2 lists the Ietch lengths calculated by
direction Ior the dam.
Figure 2: The case study reservoir
Table 2: EIIective Fetch Lengths
Direction Effective Fetch (m)
ENE 870
E 2085
ESE 3500
SE 2745
SSE 1800
S 835
SSW 280
SW through NW 0
4.1 Simplistic Method
Appendix C oI the NBC (2005) lists the design 10- and 50-year hourly wind pressures Ior Timmins, Ontario to
be 0.25 and 0.35 kPa respectively. This corresponds to wind speeds oI 19.7 and 23.3 m/s, respectively (Table C-
1 in Appendix C oI the NBC (2005)). By equation (10), the 100- and 1,000-year wind speeds are calculated to
be 24.8 and 29.9 m/s respectively.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 10
The methodology presented in Section 2 is then Iollowed to estimate the wave climate expected on the reservoir.
The maximum eIIective Ietch length in the reservoir, 3500m, is used in the simplistic method. The parameters
calculated by the simplistic method are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Wave Climate Parameters Calculated by the Simplistic Method
Return Period 100-yr 1,000-yr
Over-land wind speed, U
L
24.8 29.9 m/s
Over-water wind speed, U
W
29.8 35.8 m/s
Wind stress factor, U
A
46.2 57.9 m/s
Significant wave height, H
mo
1.4 1.8 m
5% Wave Height, H
5
1.9 2.4 m
Significant Wave length, L 18.0 21.0 m
Required wind duration, t 0.6 0.5 H
Wavelength/depth, L/d 0.7 0.6 Deepwater waves-> OK
Wave runup, R 1.5 1.8 m
Wind setup, S 0.1 0.1 m
Required freeboard (R+S) 1.6 1.9 m
4.2 Sophisticated Method - with directionality
As with the simplistic method, the Iirst step in the sophisticated method is to obtain wind data. Hourly wind
speeds and directions Ior Timmins Airport Meteorological Station are downloaded Irom Environment Canada
Ior the period spanning 1955 to 2006. The hourly data is processed to generate tables oI annual maximum wind
speeds, by direction, Ior one-, two-, three-, Iour- and Iive-hour wind durations, as discussed in Section 3.2.1.
Gumbel extreme value distributions are then Iit to the sets oI annual maximum wind speeds. In this case, only
seven wind directions can contribute to any signiIicant wave action, so the other directions need not be
calculated. This reduces the required number oI Gumbel Iits Irom eighty to thirty-Iive. Figure 3 illustrates the
data Iit Ior the two-hour wind speeds Irom the ESE.
Figure 3 Gumbel Iit to 2-hour wind speeds, ESE direction

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 11
4.2.1 Directional Assessment
Estimates oI the 100- and 1,000-year wind speeds obtained through the Irequency analysis by direction are used
to generate wind roses, by wind duration, as described in Section 3.2.2. Figure 4 illustrates the Iive wind roses
generated Ior Timmins Airport. (Despite the Iact that only seven directions are strictly necessary, all sixteen
directions are included in Figure 4 Ior the sake oI illustration.) Note that the magnitude oI the wind events
decreases as the wind duration increases; a larger wind will generally have a shorter duration.
The wind roses also indicate that the largest wind events are associated with northern and south-western winds;
comparatively small events are associated with winds Irom the east. The site dam under investigation is towards
the north-west end oI the reservoir with the longest Ietch lying to the east-south-east. Because the large wind
events and the longest Ietch lengths do not align, the directionality associated with the sophisticated method has
the potential to reduce the magnitude oI the estimate oI the wave runup and wind setup Ior this reservoir.
Figure 4 Wind Roses oI Annual Maximum Events, by Direction
4.2.2 Durational Assessment
A durational assessment is perIormed Ior the site, by direction, as described in Section 3.2.3. For each direction,
a polynomial in the Iorm oI equation (11) is Iit to relate wind speeds to wind durations Ior events oI 100- and
1,000-year return periods. Figure 5 illustrates the polynomials Iit to the Timmins Airport data Ior the ESE
direction, including the corresponding coeIIicients.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 12
Figure 5 Extreme Wind Events by Duration Ior ESE Winds at Timmins Airport
The polynomials relating wind speeds to wind duration is very good. However, as discussed in Section 3.2.4, it
can be noted that wind speeds increase dramatically as the wind duration approaches zero.
4.2.3 Critical Wind Duration
The polynomials relating wind speed to wind duration allow Ior the critical duration to be determined. The
calculation oI the critical wind duration is an iterative process perIormed Ior each direction and return period that
proceeds according to the Iollowing steps:
1. A starting wind duration is selected (a short one hour duration is used due to the short Ietch lengths) and the
corresponding wind speeds Ior the direction and return period are calculated by equation (11).
2. The over-water wind speed, equation (3) and the wind stress Iactor, equation (2) are then calculated.
3. The required wind duration to Iully develop waves over the Ietch is calculated by equation (6).
4. The new wind duration is compared to the starting wind duration. II they do not match, the newly calculated
duration is used in step (1) and the calculations are repeated.
The critical duration generally converges very quickly, within 2 or 3 iterations. The critical durations Ior the
ESE direction are 45 and 42 minutes Ior the 100- and 1,000-year events and are included in Figure 5.
4.2.4 Runup/Setup Calculations
With the critical wind durations and speeds known Ior each direction oI concern Ior both the 100- and 1,000year
return periods, the Iormulae in Section 2 are used to complete the wave runup and wind setup calculations.
Table 4 summarizes the wave climate parameters calculated Ior the site, by direction Ior the 100-year wind
event. It is interesting to note that although the largest wave runup and wind setup combination is aligned with
the largest Ietch length, the SSE direction has very similar values Ior wave runup and wind setup (0.70 and
0.90m required Ireeboard Ior the 100- and 1,000-year events respectively Irom the SSE direction versus 0.74 and
0.90m Ior events Irom the ESE direction). This is due to both the larger wind events Irom the SSE direction and
the increase in wind speeds associated with the short wind duration.
U
1,000
52.27Dur
-0.12
U
100
44.17Dur
-0.12

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 13
Table 4: 100-year Wave Climate Parameters Calculated by the Sophisticated Method, by Direction
Direction ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW
EIIective Ietch length, m 870 2085 3500 2745 1800 835 280
Over-land wind speed, m/s 14.7 12.9 12.7 13.3 17.0 17.5 24.8
Required wind duration, min 17 32 45 38 26 15 6
Significant wave height, m 0.37 0.48 0.61 0.57 0.63 0.44 0.40
Wave runup, m 0.39 0.55 0.72 0.67 0.69 0.46 0.37
Wind setup, m 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
Required freeboard, m 0.40 0.56 0.74 0.68 0.70 0.47 0.37
The largest resulting combination oI wave runup and wind setup Ior the 100- and 1,000-year return periods is
0.74 and 0.90m respectively and occurred Ior wind Irom the ESE. This was selected as the design condition.
The parameters calculated by the sophisticated method Ior the critical direction (ESE) are listed in Table 4.
Table 5: Wave Climate Parameters Calculated by the Sophisticated Method Ior the Critical Direction (ESE)
Return Period 100-yr 1,000-yr
Over-land wind speed, U
L
12.7 15.1 m/s
Over-water wind speed, U
W
15.2 18.2 m/s
Wind stress factor, U
A
20.2 25.1 m/s
Significant wave height, H
mo
0.61 0.76 m
5% Wave Height, H
5
0.84 1.04 m
Significant Wave length, L 10.4 12.0 m
Required wind duration, t 0.76 0.7 H
Wavelength/depth, L/d 1.16 1.00 Deepwater waves-> OK
Wave runup, R 0.72 0.88 m
Wind setup, S 0.01 0.02 m
Required freeboard (R+S) 0.74 0.90 m
4.3 Sophisticated Method - without directionality
A direct comparison oI the two methods presented above is not oI much interest because any oI the several
diIIerences between the methods can contribute to the diIIerences in the outcomes. Along with directionality,
the most signiIicant diIIerence lies in the data source. The historic data obtained Irom Environment Canada
yields smaller 100- and 1,000-year events than the NBC (2005) data, hence reducing the expected values Ior
wave runup and wind setup. Wind duration is also not taken into consideration in the simplistic method.
The intent oI this paper is to illustrate the potential advantages oI using the directionality present in the
sophisticated method when analysis by the simplistic method indicates a problem with the site. To this end, a
directionless modiIication to the sophisticated approach is used. The analysis presented above Ior the
sophisticated approach is repeated without directionality, i.e. the maximum wind speeds, regardless oI direction,
are placed over the longest eIIective Ietch. As with the sophisticated approach, the historic one-hour wind data
is processed to Iind the annual maximum wind speeds Ior one- through Iive-hour wind durations. Gumbel
distributions are Iit to the historic data sets and 100- and 1,000-year wind speeds are estimated Ior each wind
duration. Wind speed versus duration polynomials are generated and the critical wind speeds are Iound Ior this
directionless sophisticated method.
The parameters calculated by this modiIied sophisticated method are listed in Table 6. These are directly
comparable to the sophisticated method and illustrate the beneIit oI the directional approach.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 14
Table 6: Wave Climate Parameters Calculated by the Directionless Sophisticated Method
Return Period 100-yr 1,000-yr
Over-land wind speed, U
L
21.6 26.1 m/s
Over-water wind speed, U
W
26.0 31.3 m/s
Wind stress factor, U
A
39.0 49.1 m/s
Significant wave height, H
mo
1.18 1.48 m
5% Wave Height, H
5
1.61 2.03 m
Significant Wave length, L 16.1 18.8 m
Required wind duration, t 0.61 0.56 H
Wavelength/depth, L/d 0.75 0.64 Deepwater waves-> OK
Wave runup, R 1.30 1.59 m
Wind setup, S 0.04 0.06 m
Required freeboard (R+S) 1.34 1.65 m
4.4 Case Study Summary
Table 7 lists the signiIicant wave runup and wind setup parameters calculated Ior the Iictional reservoir by each
oI the above three methods.
Table 7: SigniIicant Wave Climate Parameters Calculated by All Methods
Calculation Method Simplistic Method
Sophisticated Method
Directional
Sophisticated Method
Directionless
Return Period 100-yr 1,000-yr 100-yr 1,000-yr 100-yr 1,000-yr
Over-Land Wind Speed, m/s 24.8 29.9 12.7 15.1 21.6 26.1
Required Wind Duration, min 34 32 45 42 36 34
SigniIicant Wave Height, m 1.4 1.8 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5
Required Freeboard
(Runup Setup), m
1.6 1.9 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7
A direct comparison between the simplistic method and the directional sophisticated method is not particularly
helpIul because there are several diIIerences between the methods, not least oI which is a diIIerent wind data set.
The sophisticated method uses a 20 year historical data set oI hourly wind speeds Irom Environment Canada
(2006) while the simplistic method uses the NBC (2005) wind pressures and Iormulae to calculate wind speeds.
Wind speeds calculated by the directionless sophisticated method should be directly comparable to the NBC
(2005) wind speeds because both are long term, directionless wind speeds. However, the 1,000-year, one-hour
wind speed estimates diIIer. The simplistic method (NBC (2005)) estimates 29.9m/s versus 23.7m/s estimated
by the directionless sophisticated method. The diIIerence between the magnitudes oI wind events most likely
comes Irom diIIerences in the periods oI record and the long-term event estimation methodology and was not
explored in detail. Instead, the directionless sophisticated method was used to provide a direct comparison to the
directional sophisticated method. The only diIIerence between the methodologies oI the two methods is the
directionality.
As indicated in Table 6, the required Ireeboard Ior the dam being investigated is reduced Irom 1.7m to 0.9m (Ior
a 1,000-year event) when directionality is taken into account. The signiIicant wave height is also greatly
reduced (Irom 1.5m to 0.8m) which can lead to signiIicant savings in the design oI erosion protection. The mass
oI armour stone required to protect a slope Irom wave action is proportional to the signiIicant wave height cubed
(see the Hudson Iormula, USACE (1984)). ThereIore, halving the signiIicant wave height reduces the required
armour stone weight by a Iactor oI eight, drastically reducing the cost.

CDA 2007 Annual ConIerence, St. John`s, NL, Canada - September 2007 15
5 CONCLUSIONS
The simplistic method oI determining the required Ireeboard Ior a dam is a relatively straight Iorward method.
Wave runup and wind setup are estimated based on accepted Iormulae with extreme winds based on NBC (2005)
criteria. This method is, however, very conservative. II the analysis oI an existing dam indicates that remedial
work is necessary, the sophisticated method may be warranted. This method involves a statistical analysis oI
historic annual maximum wind data by direction and duration beIore applying the winds to the reservoir and
selecting the critical conditions.
The sophisticated method is shown to have the potential to reduce both the required Ireeboard Ior a dam and the
signiIicant wave height. Both can considerably reduce costs by reducing the required height oI the dam (or
increasing the maximum operating level) and decreasing the required armour stone size. However, it should not
be used in every situation. For existing structures, it should almost never be used beIore the simplistic method
indicates a problem. The sophisticated method requires a substantial investment oI time to complete the
complex analysis. The simplistic method, on the other hand, is comparatively easy to complete and may be
entirely adequate. II the simplistic method indicates that an existing structure has the required Ireeboard and
erosion protection, no Iurther analysis is warranted.
For new structures, the sophisticated method is almost always warranted. The advantage oI potentially reducing
the required Ireeboard and erosion protection Iar outweighs the added cost oI the analysis. The sophisticated
analysis may not reduce the construction costs in all cases; the longest Ietch may align with the largest winds.
However, the potential savings iI the large wind events and long Ietches do not align are almost always large
enough to warrant a directional analysis.
REFERENCES
ACES (1992), 'Automated Coastal Engineering System, Technical ReIerence, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Department oI the Army, U.S. Army Corps oI Engineers, September, 1992
EC (2006), 'Weather Data Online, Green Lane
TM
, The Weather OIIice, Environment Canada,
http://www.climate.weatheroIIice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canadae.html
NRC (2005), 'National Building Code oI Canada, National Research Council Canada - Institute Ior Research in
Construction, 2005
USACE (1984), 'Shore Protection Manual, U. S. Army Corps oI Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fourth
Edition, 1984
USBR (1981), 'Freeboard Criteria and Guidelines Ior Computing Freeboard Allowances Ior Storage Dams, ACER
Technical Memorandum No. 2, Assistant Commissioner Engineering and Research, Denver, Colorado, U. S. Bureau oI
Reclamation, 1981