Hydraulic stability of Cubipod armour units in Breaking conditions
Lien Vanhoutte
Promotor: Prof. Josep Medina (UPV Valencia) Co-Promotor: . Prof. dr. ir. Julien De Rouck
Masterthesis to obtain the degree: Master of Science in Civil Engineering
Laboratory of Ports and Coasts, Polytechnic University of Valencia Departement of Civil Engineering, Ghent University Academic year 2008-1009
i
Preface
I would like to thank my tutor of this project Prof. Medina for giving me the great opportu- nity to make my nal year project at the Laboratory for Ports and Coasts of the Polytechnic University of Valencia, and for his guidance throughout the project.
Special thanks also to Prof. De Rouck as my Erasmus-coordinator and co-tutor of this thesis for providing the possibility of this abroad experience.
Deep gratitude goes to Guille, for his guidance throughout the project, for sharing his ex- perience, for helping me with every single doubt, for encouraging me and helping me out in the stressful moments. A warm thanks as well to Jorge, Vicente, Kike, Mireille, Steven, César and Pepe, for providing a very nice working space in the laboratory.
Finally I want to thank my parents, my sisters, friends, and at mates in particular, for their support and many hours of listening during this thesis.
COPYRIGHTS
The author grants the permission for making this thesis available for consultation and for copying parts of this thesis for personal use. Any other use is subject to the limitations of the copyright, specically with regards to the obligation of referencing explicitly to this thesis when quoting obtained results.
1st of June 2009, Lien Vanhoutte ii
Overview
Hydraulic stability of Cubipod armour units in breaking conditions
Author: Lien Vanhoutte
Master thesis to obtain the degree of Master of Civil Engineering Academic year 2008-2009
Tutors: Prof. Josep R. Medina, Laboratory of Ports and Coasts, Polytechnic University of Valencia Prof. Julien De Rouck, Department of Civil Engineering, Ghent University
Summary In this report, the study of the new armour unit, Cubipod, designed by the Laboratory of Ports and Coastas of the Politecnic University of Valencia, is described. The general stability of mound breakwaters are discussed and an overview of dierent existing armour elements is given. Further, the wave height distribution in shallow water is analysed theoretically and compared with the obtained results. An experimental study of the Cubipod armour unit is carried out on a physical scaled mound breakwater model in breaking conditions. Results on reection and damage progression are presented and compared with previous similar tests in deepwater conditions. A rst estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient of the Cubipod in breaking conditions is proposed. The results show that the Cubipod has low reection and high hydraulic stability.
Keywords: Cubipod - armour unit - mound breakwater - hydraulic stability - breaking conditions HYDRAULIC STABILITY OF CUBIPODARMOUR UNITSINBREAKINGCONDITIONS L. Vanhoutte1 Supervisor(s): J.R. Medina2, J. De Rouck3 1 Masterthesis student, Faculty of Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium 2 Professor, Lab. of Ports and Coasts, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain 3 Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium
Abstract—In this Masterthesis an experimental study of the Cubipod ar- The Cubipod armour unit is designed to benefit from the ad- mour unit was carried out on a physical model breakwater in shallow water. vantages of the traditional cube, but to correct the drawbacks. The Cubipod is a new armour unit, designed by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the Universidad Politcnica de Valencia. As the wave height is an Therefore, the design of the unit is based on the cube in order to important value when designing mound breakwaters, theories estimating obtain his robustness. The protuberances of the Cubipod avoid the maximum wave height in breaking conditions were studied and com- face-to-face settlement and increase the friction with the filter pared with the measured results in the Laboratory. Results on reflection layer as can be seen in figure 1. They avoid sliding of the ar- and damage progression were presented and compared with previous sim- ilar tests in deepwater conditions. An estimation of the hydraulic stability mour elements and thus, Heterogeneous Packing and loss of el- KD coefficient of the Cubipod in breaking conditions was proposed using ements above the still water level is reduced. All this indicates a the Virtual Net Method[2]. The results show that the Cubipod has low re- higher hydraulic stability of Cubipods in comparison with cube flection and a high hydraulic stability. elements, which was proved in earlier executed tests [3]. Keywords—Cubipod - armour unit - mound breakwater - hydraulic sta- bility - breaking conditions
I.INTRODUCTION Mound breakwaters play an important role in the protection of harbours. They have many failure modes, but the most im- portant one is the loss of hydraulic stability of the armour layer under wave attack. This can be caused by direct extraction of armour units, or by excessive settlement causing Heterogeneous Packing of the armour layer as described by Gomez-Marton & Medina [2]. Generally, mound breakwaters are placed in shallow water Fig. 1. The new armour unit: the Cubipod and thus subjected to breaking conditions. An important fac- tor influencing the hydraulic stability is the maximum incident III.EXPERIMENTS wave height. Hydraulic stability of armour layers has been in- tensively studied in literature and several formulae have been Regular experiments on five different physical model break- proposed for predicting armour damage. The first models were waters were carried out in the 2D wave flume of the laboratory only valid for stationary conditions. In 1988, Van der Meer [8] of Ports and Coasts in the Polytechnic University of Valencia. A proposed a first formula for irregular waves. Medina [7] pro- section with a double layer of Cubipods, one with a single layer posed a method applicable to nonstationary conditions, based of Cubipods, each with and without toe berm were considered. on an exponential model for individual waves of the storm. The Finally, experiments were carried out on a section consisting of most frequently cited armour stability formula was published by a cube layer covered by a Cubipod layer. Hudson in 1959[4] for regular waves, and later popularized for The unit weight of the Cubipods is 128g, and they have a 3 irregular waves by SPM using the equivalences H1/3 and H1/10 density of 2300kg/m . The water depth changes from 30cm to as representative of the wave height. 42 cm near the model. For every water depth different periods were considered, lancing waves with increasing wave height for II.ARMOURUNITS every period. The wave height was increased until breaking oc- Originally, harbours were built with wooden or stone con- cured. Registered wave heights were separated in incident and structions. The continuous growing of the harbours meant a reflected waves with the LASA V-method (Figueres & Medina need for higher stones and design of artificial concrete armour [1]), and the reflection coefficient was obtained as CR [%] = units was forced. Many different breakwater armour units ex- Hr/Hi. Damage progression was analysed visually, establish- ist, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Their ing the damage levels Initiation of Damage, Iribarren Damage characteristics have an important influence on the hydraulic sta- and Destruction, as well as quantitatively, using the Virtual Net bility of the mound breakwater and explains why improvement Method proposed by Gmez-Martn & Medina [2], which allows and development of armour units is still an important subject of to measure also the failure mode of Heterogeneous Packing, and research. not only extraction of armour units. IV. RESULTS for a double layer of Cubipods with toe berm and KD=23 for a single layer were found. K =18 was found for a combined A. Breaking wave height D armour layer with cubes and Cubipods. Comparison between The incident wave height is an important factor influencing the damage progression in deepwater conditions and in shallow the design of coastal structures. An overly conservative estima- water shows us that KD in shallow water is less than in deepwa- tion of this value can greatly increase costs and make projects ter conditions. Waves with higher energy reach the breakwater, uneconomical, whereas underestimation could result in struc- which means that the damage will initiate earlier than in deep- tural failure or significant maintenance costs. A short study con- water conditions. In Fig. 3, the damage progression for the dif- cerning the maximum wave height in breaking conditions was ferent breakwater sections are shown, with D0,2 the linearized executed. dimensionless damage proposed by Medina [6] and indication Different theories exist to estimate this maximum value. of the Initiation of damage and Initiation of Iribarren damage. Many theories however, overestimate this value. Further, they suppose mostly that the energy from the broken waves is con- centrated in the breaking wave height, which means that all the broken waves have the breaking wave height in the surfing zone. This statement however didn’t correspond with the reality. The energy from the broken waves was distributed back over the smaller wave heights in the distribution. In Fig. 2 is the theory of Le Roux (2007) [6] shown to estimate the real wave heights. The estimation is similar to the measured values, however, he underestimates the breaking wave height and supposes a con- stant wave height after breaking, independent of the wave pe- riod.
Fig. 3. Linearised dimensionless equivalent damage as a function of dimension- less wave height for the different studied breakwater sections
V. CONCLUSION Calculating a mound breakwater in breaking conditions, spe- cial attention has to paid to the maximum wave height. Many existing theories overestimate this wave height, which can re- sult in uneconomical results. According to the executed tests, the Cubipod proves to have a high hydraulic stability in break- ing conditions and shows to be a very promising armour unit, with a simple and robust shape, an easy placement pattern and a high hydraulic stability compared with other armour units, also in breaking conditions.
VI.BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) Figueres, M. & Medina, J.R.: Estimation of incident and reflected waves Fig. 2. Graphic showing the theory of Le Roux (2007) [5] to estimate the wave using a fully nonlinear wave model. Proc. of the 29th Coast. Eng. Conf., pp. height, compared with the measured results in the Laboratory 594-603, 2004. (2) Gomez-Martin, M.E. & Medina, J.R.: Analisis de averas de diques en talud B. Hydraulic stability con manto principal formado por bloques de hormigon. VIII Jorn. Espaolas de Ing. de Costas y Puertos, 2005. The reflection coefficient differs between 10% and 30% for (3) Gomez-Martin, M.E. & Medina, J.R.: Cubipod concrete armour unit and Heterogeneous Packing. Proc of Coast. Structures, ASCE, 2007. kh > 1, 5 and increases until 50% for small kh values. For high (4) Hudson: Laboratory investigation of rubble mound breakwaters. J. Wtrwy., kh values, the type of armour layer has a big influence on the Port, Coast. and Oc. Division, 85(3):93-121, 1959. reflection coefficient and a single layer reflects less energy than (5) Le Roux, L.: A simple method to determine breaker height and depth for a double layer. For small values of kh, however this influence different deepwater height/length ratios and sea floor slopes. Coastal Engr. 54, 271-277, 2007. decreases and becomes nil. Reflections coefficients in shallow (6) Medina, J.R., Hudspeth, R.T. and Fassardi, C.: Breakwater armor damage water is lower than in deepwater conditions because the crest due to wave groups. J. Wtrwy., Port, Coast. and Oc. Engrg., ASCE, 120(2),pp. breaks and a lot of energy is dissipated which means less reflec- 179-198, 1994. (7) Medina, J.R.: Wave climate simulation and breakwater stability. Proc. of the tion. 25th Coast. Eng. Conf., ASCE, pp. 1789-1802, 1996. Damage analysis resulted in a higher hydraulic stability for (8) Van der Meer, J.W.: Suitable wave-height parameter for characterizing sections with toe berm, because there is no increase of porosity breakwater stability. J. of Waterw., Port, Coast. and Oc. Eng., ASCE, 114(1):66- at the bottom of the breakwater. Those are the common built 80, 1988. breakwater sections. Hydraulic stability coefficients of KD=28 Contents
Extended abstract ii
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xiii
1 Introduction 1
2 Stability of Mound Breakwaters 4
2.1 Introduction ...... 4
2.2 A Short History ...... 5
2.3 Analysis of the stability of a mound breakwater ...... 9
2.3.1 General stability of a mound breakwater ...... 9
2.3.2 Heterogeneous packing ...... 12
2.3.2.1 Introduction ...... 12
2.3.2.2 Heterogeneous packing ...... 12
2.3.3 Damage criteria ...... 14
2.4 Quantization of the stability ...... 16
2.4.1 Formula to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater ...... 16
v Contents vi
3 Armour Units 18
3.1 Introduction ...... 18
3.2 History: the armour units since the 50's ...... 19
3.3 Classication of armour units ...... 24
3.4 A new armour unit: The Cubipod ...... 28
3.4.1 Introduction ...... 28
3.4.2 Idea ...... 28
3.4.3 Concept ...... 29
4 Wave height in breaking conditions 33
4.1 Introduction ...... 33
4.2 The surf zone ...... 34
4.3 Types of breaking waves ...... 34
4.4 Models to estimate the wave height distribution ...... 36
4.5 Maximum wave height in breaking conditions ...... 38
5 Experimental setup 43
5.1 Introduction ...... 43
5.2 The Test Equipment ...... 43
5.2.1 2D Wave Flume ...... 44
5.2.2 Wave Generation System ...... 44
5.2.3 Wave Measurement ...... 47
5.2.4 Energy dissipation system ...... 48
5.2.5 Data Processing ...... 49
5.3 Calibration of the wave ume ...... 50
5.4 Experimental Design ...... 50 Contents vii
5.4.1 Physical characteristics of the studied model ...... 50
5.4.2 Construction of the physical model ...... 54
5.4.2.1 Preparation ...... 54
5.4.2.2 Control of the material characteristics ...... 56
5.4.2.3 Construction of the model ...... 59
5.4.2.4 Reconstruction of the model ...... 61
5.4.2.5 Placement of the sensors ...... 63
5.4.3 Experiments ...... 64
5.4.3.1 Realized experiments ...... 64
5.4.3.2 Experimental procedure ...... 65
5.4.4 Procedure to analyse the data ...... 66
5.4.4.1 Separating the incident and reected waves: LASA V . . . . . 66
5.4.4.2 Analysis of the waves: LPCLAB 1.0...... 67
5.4.4.3 Analysis of the reection coecient ...... 69
5.4.4.4 Analysis of the damage progression ...... 70
6 Results 77
6.1 Introduction ...... 77
6.2 Calibration of the wave ume ...... 78
6.3 Interpretation of the theories calculating the maximum wave height ...... 80
6.4 Hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater ...... 85
6.4.1 Wave reection ...... 85
6.4.1.1 The reection coecient in function of kh ...... 85
6.4.1.2 The reection coecient in function of Ir ...... 87
6.4.1.3 Comparing with the reection coecient in deepwater . . . . . 88 Contents viii
6.4.2 Damage analysis on the armour layer ...... 93
6.4.2.1 Introduction ...... 93
6.4.2.2 Qualitative analysis ...... 93
6.4.2.3 Quantitative analysis ...... 96
7 Conclusions 102
A Terminology of the experiments 104
B Wave ume 106
C Working of the AWACS 108
D Seperation of incident and reected waves 113
E Calculation of the initial porosity 115
F Example of a test report 116
G Test results 119
Bibliography 130 List of Figures
2.1 Mound Breakwater failure modes dened by Bruun ...... 10
2.2 The two most important failure modes by mound breakwaters: extraction of armour elements and heterogeneous packing. The classical view vs. the hetero- geneous packing view ...... 14
3.1 Face to face tting by cubes reducing the friction with the lter layer ...... 19
3.2 A selection of the existing concrete armour units ...... 23
3.3 A new armour element: the Cubipod ...... 28
3.4 Drop test results of Cubipods compared with cubes showing the lost weight . . 30
3.5 Penetration of the Cubipods in the armour layer ...... 30
3.6 The separating eect of the protuberances avoiding the face-to-face arrangement 31
3.7 Example of placement in a depository of Cubipods ...... 32
3.8 The casting system designed by SATO and the tongs for movement and man- ufacture ...... 32
4.1 Types of breaking waves ...... 36
4.2 Distribution of the wave heights by breaking, concerning that all the broken wave heights will have the breaking wave height in the surng zone ...... 37
4.3 Distribution of the breaking wave heights over the distribution of the unbroken waves (Goda [46]) ...... 42
ix List of Figures x
5.1 Longitudinal section of the 2D wave-ume ...... 44
5.2 Wave generation system in the LPC wave ume and setup of active wave ab- sorption system ...... 46
5.3 Wave gauges for wave measurement and Step-Gauge Run-up Measurement Sys- tem (S-GRMS) constructed by University of Ghent ...... 48
5.4 Wave energy dissipation system in the LPC wave ume ...... 49
5.5 Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods (C2), 1 layer of Cubipods (C1), 1 layer of cubes covered by one layer of Cubipods (CB) . . . . 52
5.6 Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods with toe berm (C2B), 1 layer of Cubipods with toe berm (C1B) ...... 53
5.7 Draw the cross section of the mound breakwater on the wall of the canal . . . . 55
5.8 The concrete grout to provide a rough surface for the model ...... 55
5.9 Grading curve for the core material ...... 57
5.10 Grading curve for the lter material ...... 58
5.11 Construction of the model: the core and the lter ...... 59
5.12 Construction proses of the armour layer ...... 62
5.13 Construction of the lter on the inner slope and a crest on the top of the mound breakwater after destruction of the core and the lter layer ...... 63
5.14 Parameter window of the LASA-V software ...... 67
5.15 Example of the separation of incident and reected wave trains by LASA V . . 68
5.16 Parameter window of the LPCLab software ...... 69
5.17 Virtual net to measure the equivalent damage analysis and counting the units in AutoCAD for damage calculation ...... 73
5.18 Above: foto with the real net and the designed net in Photoshop (start of the tests with h=38). Under: foto without the real net and the pasted virtual net in Photoshop (end of the tests with h=38) ...... 74
5.19 Damage levels in the armour layer ...... 76 List of Figures xi
6.1 Results of the calibration of the wave ume ...... 79
6.2 Theoretical models to estimate the breaking wave height in function of the water depth, compared with the maximum measured wave height: Keulegan and Patterson (K&P), Collins for dierent slopes, SPM for dierent slopes and Weggel for a horizontal bottom ...... 82
6.3 Theoretical models to estimate the relation Hb/H0 in function of H0/L0, com- pared with the measured results: Komar and Gaughan (K&G), Sakai and Bat- tjes (S&B) ...... 83
6.4 Theorecal model of Le Roux to estimate the real water wave height for h=30cm, compared with the measured results ...... 84
6.5 The reection coecient (CR) in function of the dimensionless relative wave depth (kh) ...... 89
6.6 The reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth (kh): comparing single and double layers of Cubipods ...... 90
6.7 The reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth (kh): comparing a combined cube-cubipod layer with a double layer of Cubipods and a single layer of Cubipods ...... 91
6.8 The reection coecient (CR) in function of the number of Iribarren ...... 92
6.9 Inuence of the presence of a toe berm on the hydraulic stability of a mound breakwater ...... 99
6.10 The linearised dimensionless damage as a function of a dimensionless height.
Above: the qualitative calculated KD's. Under: the quantitative calculated KD 100
6.11 Comparison a double Cubipod layer in breaking with non-breaking conditions, and with Quarrystone in breaking conditions. Dimensionless damage as a func- tion of dimensionless wave height ...... 101
B.1 Cross section of the 2D wave-ume of the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the Politecnic University of Valencia ...... 107
C.1 A detailed scheme of the working of the AWACS ...... 110 List of Figures xii
C.2 The steps to activate the control system ...... 110
C.3 Software to manage the AWACS. Above: the startscreen Under: the calibration of the AWACS ...... 111
C.4 Windows to realize the wave generation ...... 112
C.5 The program Multicard, for the aquisition of the datas ...... 112
E.1 Calculation of the initial porosity ...... 115
F.1 Example of a test report ...... 117
F.2 Example of a test report ...... 118 List of Tables
2.1 Hydraulic stability criteria for the armour layer of a mound breakwater as cited in[1] ...... 9
3.1 Classication of breakwater armour units by shape [34] ...... 24
3.2 Classication of armour units by shape, placement and stability factor...... 26
3.3 Classication of armour units by placement method and structural strength (Mijlemans, 2006) ...... 27
4.1 Type of breaking in function of the number of Iribarren ...... 35
5.1 Calculating the theoretic equivalent cube size and the theoretic volume of the Cubipods ...... 51
5.2 Theoretic characteristics of the used materials ...... 51
5.3 Grading characteristics of the core material ...... 57
5.4 Grading characteristics of the lter material ...... 58
5.5 Theoretical and measured characteristics of the Cubipods ...... 59
5.6 The real initial porosity in the dierent models [%] ...... 61
5.7 Position of the wave gauges and distance between them in the canal ...... 64
6.1 Incident wave heights producing the levels of damage: IDa and IIDa ...... 94
xiii Chapter 1
Introduction
Breakwaters are articial structures with the principal function of protecting a coastal area from excessive wave action, as there are ports, port facilities, coastal areas and coastal instal- lations. They reduce the transmitted energy by forcing the waves to break and reect when hitting the breakwater.
Very often, an original harbour is protected in a natural area. As the economy keeps growing, the importance and application of the ports increase and a continuous port expansion is necessary. Growing ship draughts also oblige to expand the existing ports. Due to this facts, the natural protection can no longer resist the wave action and ports grow through sea side. Breakwaters start to play an important role.
Generally, breakwaters are divided in two dierent types: mound breakwaters and vertical breakwaters. The mound breakwaters are sloped structures, constructed with a low permeable core, covered by one or two lter layers and an armour layer. The dissipation of wave energy is mainly through absorbtion, but also reection plays an important role. A principal design objective is to determine the size and layout of the components of the cross-section. Designing and constructing a stable structure with acceptable energy absorbing characteristics continues to rely heavily on past experience and physical modelling. Vertical breakwaters function mainly in reecting the incident waves and consist of a vertical wall, resting on a rubble mound foundation.
1 Introduction 2
In the beginning of the mound breakwater use, they consisted typically of quarrystone, sta- bilised by their own weight. As ports kept growing, the mound breakwaters had to resist higher wave action. This was no longer possible with quarrystone, as their size is limited. Concrete units were used. First, the elements were simple cubes, but soon, problems concerning those elements were discovered. Later on, dierent shapes were developed, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. They dier in placement pattern, risk of progressive failure, number of layers, structural strength and hydraulic stability. Failures in the 70's, however, showed that slender units, designed for maximum interlocking, provide insucient structural stability, which may cause progressive failure. This event set an end to the rapid development of elements with high hydraulic stability and reduced weight. The 80's meant a decade of big changes: not only the hydraulic stability and interlocking, but also the structural strength and robustness of the elements has been recognized.
The aim of this project is to study the characteristics of the Cubipod in breaking conditions. The Cubipod is a new armour element, invented by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts in the Polytecnic University of Valencia. In recent history, stability studies in deepwater conditions showed successful results for this element and also overtopping performance seemed to be smaller in comparison with cubes. Now, an experimental study of the hydraulic stability of the Cubipod armour unit has been carried out on a physical scale model in 2D, in shallow water. Dierent models are obtained: a model with a double armour layer, with a single armour layer and with a combined layer of cubes covered by a Cubipod layer. The main objective is determining the hydraulic stability in breaking conditions and to compare those results for the dierent sections. The results also will be compared with the earlier obtained results in the deepwater tests.
In Chapter 2, as theoretical background on breakwater design, the stability of a mound break- water is discussed. First a historical resume is given, starting by the rst published formula to calculate the weight of rock materials of a mound breakwaters until the last developments. This is followed by an overview of the dierent failure modes and the quantization of the stability.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the dierent existing armour units. A historical overview Introduction 3 since the 50's is given, followed by dierent systems to classify the existing armour units. Further, the new armour unit, the Cubipod, is presented, given its idea and concept including the dierent advantages of the element.
In Chapter 4, the maximum existing wave height in shallow waters is briey discussed. Dier- ent types of wave breaking are mentioned and models to estimate the wave height distribution are discussed followed by theories to estimate the maximum wave height in breaking condi- tions.
In Chapter 5, the experimental setup is described, including the test equipment and the experimental design. Here the physical characteristics of the studied model are given, the construction of the model is described and the experimental procedure and the entire procedure to analyse the data are given.
Chapter 6 gives the results of the realised tests. The theories estimating the maximum wave height in breaking conditions are compared with the measured results in the Laboratory. The reection results, damage progression and estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient KD for the dierent sections are discussed. Those results are compared to previously executed test in deepwater conditions.
Finally, Chapter 7, presents the conclusions of the realized work. Chapter 2
Stability of Mound Breakwaters
2.1 Introduction
Mound breakwaters are the most commonly used breakwaters in Europe because of their easy construction and reparation process, high capacity to disperse the incoming energy and resist big storms. Design of mound breakwaters, however is a complex theme and has been studied across the world. An important evolution is made from elementary studies, considering only stationary regular waves to more complicated models, able to predict breakwater stability due to non-linear wave action in non-stationary conditions.
The most important parts of a traditional mound breakwater are the core, lter layers, the armour layer, the toe and the crest. The bulk of the cross-section comprises a relatively dense rock ll core, forming the base of the mound breakwater. This core should form a good foundation for the lter layers which avoid the small particles of the core to escape and has to be relative impermeable to avoid transmission of energy through the mound breakwater. The armour layer, founded on the lter layer(s) consists of rock or concrete blocks and should be permeable and robust to protect the mound breakwater against excessive wave action. The dissipation of wave energy occurs rather through absorption than reection. Incident wave energy is dissipated primarily through turbulent run-up within and over the armour layer. If the wave is steep or the seaward slope of the breakwater is relatively at then the wave will overturn and plunge onto the slope, dissipating further energy. Sometimes a screen wall
4 Stability of Mound Breakwaters 5 is placed above the crest of the mound breakwater to avoid overtopping and improve the conditions during construction.
In this chapter, a brief historical background concerning the most important evolutions in the studies of mound breakwaters is given. Further a study of the analysis of their stability is described, including the description of a new failure mode called heterogeneous packing, followed by the way to quantify the stability of an armour layer.
2.2 A Short History
Breakwater design depends on many variables as there are: wave height, water density, armour density, armour slope, core permeability, wave period, storm duration, wave grouping, etc. This makes clear why during many years authors proposed dierent formulae to estimate damage on the armour layer due to wave attack. An overview of the most important formulae can be found in table 2.1.
Until 1933 there didn't exist any method to calculate mound breakwaters. They were con- structed based on experiences giving us qualitative criteria about the inuence of the wave- height, the angle of the slope, the weight of the armour elements, etc. Castro (1933) [1] published the rst formula to calculate the weight of rock materials of a mound breakwater.
In 1938, Iribarren [2] developed a theoretical model for the stability of armour units on a slope under wave attack. Since his work, many studies about mound breakwater stability were developed, showing dierent formulae to predict damage in the armour layer due to wave attack. The majority of those formulae assume a constant incident wave and initial damage zero. The reality, however, shows that wave conditions are not stationary. That's why new methods should be developed applying to no stationary processes. Many formulae, similar to the formula of Iribarren, were developed (F.C. Tyrrel (1949), Mathews (1951) and Rodolf (1951)) and in 1950 Iribarren and Nogales [3] generalized the formula by introducing the eect of the depth and the period, using a modication in the wave-height. Two years later Larras (1952) [4] presented another formula taking into account the depth and the length of the wave. Stability of Mound Breakwaters 6
Hedar (1953) marks up that it's necessary to consider two possible states to lose stability: when the wave climbs on the slope before breaking and when the broken wave descends from the mound breakwater.
The most frequently cited armour stability formula was published by Hudson (1959) [5] based on the pioneering work of Iribarren. Hudson's formula was originally proposed for regular waves, yet SPM (1973) and SPM (1984) [6] popularized the formula as well for irregular waves using the equivalences H1/3 and H1/10 respectively as representative of the wave height of irregular waves. Core permeability, wave period, storm duration, random waves, wave grouping were not considered. Iribarren (1965) presented in the Navigation Conference the relation of the friction coecient with the number of elements on the slope. He also limited in this year the use of his formula by introducing, in an indirect way, the eect of the period in the stability.
Carstens et al.(1966) [7] present the rst results of tests on rock mound breakwaters with irregular waves. Font (1968) veries empirically the inuence of the storm duration on the stability of mound breakwaters.
Battjes (1974) [8] introduces for the rst time the parameter of Iribarren in the study of characteristics of the ow on smooth and impermeable slopes. Other experimental works in the same line were done by Ahrens and McCartney (1975), Bruun and Johannesson (1976), Bruun and Bünbak (1976).
An extensive investigation was performed by Thompson and Shuttler (1975) on the stability of rubble mound revetments under random waves. One of their main conclusions was that, within the scatter of the results, the erosion damage showed a clear dependence on the wave period. The work of Thompson and Shuttler has therefore been used, as a starting point for an extensive model research program. Analysis of the results from all of these tests has resulted in two practical design formulae that describe the inuence of wave period, storm duration, armor grading, spectrum shape, grouping of waves, and the permeability of the core.
In 1976, PIANC [9], presented the most important used formulae and calculations of break- waters until this time, showing the big dierence in results between the dierent methods. Stability of Mound Breakwaters 7
The occured damages in the breakwaters in Bilbao (1976), Sines (1978) and San Siprian (1979) showed the importance of the calculation of a mound breakwater and of the methods to calculate the incident waves.
Whillock and Price (1976) [10] showed by interlocking elements, that the security margin be- tween initiation of damage and destruction of the armour layer is very low, introducing for the rst time the concept "fragility" of the slope. Magoon and Baird (1977) [11] accentuated the importance of the movements of the armour elements due to wave attack when the ar- mour elements break, especially by the most slender elements with the highest interlocking development.
Losada and Giménez-Curto (1979,a) [12] use the concept of interacting curves to analyze the stability using the wave-height and the period and recognize the intrinsic arbitrariness of the response of rock mound breakwaters. Losada and Giménez-Curto (1981) [13] use for the rst time the hypothesis of equivalence in the study of probability of failure and analyse the inuence of the duration in the probability of failure. In 1982 Losada and Giménez-Curto [14] present a hypothesis to calculate the stability of quarrystone mound breakwaters with non-perpendicular incident wave.
Lorenzo and Losada (1984) show, using results of eld tests, laboratory tests and numerical modelling, the fragility of the slopes with dolosse with big size, because of their structural weakness. Those results can be generalized for slender elements showing interlocking.
Desiré (1985) [15] and Desiré and Losada (1985) study the stability of mound breakwaters with paralelipepidic armour elements by doing many experiments with regular waves, observing a big deviation in the results. They concluded that the results of the tests should be seen like a statistic problem caused by the random nature of the variables (characteristics of the ow, resistance of the elements).
Van der Meer (1988) [16] proposed formulae including wave period, permeability and storm duration. The cumulative eects of previous storms however were not included. Vidal et al.
(1995) [17] introduced a new wave height parameter Hn (The average of the n highest waves Stability of Mound Breakwaters 8 in a sea state), to characterize breakwater stability under irregular waves and Jensen et al.
(1996) indicated that H250 is a suitable wave height parameter for irregular waves.
Medina (1996) [18] developed an exponential model applicable to individual waves of the storm, including the non-stationary conditions of waves. Melby and Kobayashi (1998) [19] charac- terized relationships for predicting temporal variations of mean damage with wave height and period varying with time for breaking wave conditions.
Vandenbosch et al. (2002) [20] analyzed the inuence of placement density on the stability of a mound breakwater with two layers of concrete cube armour units. He showed that increase of placement density not always means an increase of stability. An armour layer with a high density can cause other failure modes, as there are displacement of the armour layer or the lifting up of elements because of suppression.
Medina et al. designed in 2003 a Neural Network model applicable to non-stationary condi- tions. Accordingly, new methods to be applied in non-stationary conditions are required to avoid simplifying the concept of 'design sea state', which implies stationary conditions. Also the project CLASH (2002-2004) was focussed in obtaining a neural network model to predict overtopping on coastal structures (De Rouck et al.) [21].
Vidal et al. (2004) [22], showed that the H50 parameter, dened as the average of the 50 highest waves in the structures lifetime, can be used to describe the evolution of damage in rubble mound breakwaters attacked by sea states of any duration and wave height distribution.
Gómez-Martín and Medina (2004-2006) [23] adjusted the wave-to-wave exponential model to estimate the n50% parameter for rubble mound breakwaters, in case of rock slopes or slopes with cubes. The model is also applicable in non-stationary conditions. In 2005 Gómez-Martín and Medina [24] dened a new failure mode of mound breakwaters, named 'Heterogeneous Packing', the most important failure mode in case of armour layers formed by cubes or concrete elements. It is characterized by a decrease of porosity of the armour layer on some places and increase on others, without extracting armour units. They also described a new methodology 'Virtual Net Method' to provide damage measurement, considering the dierence in porosity compared to the initial porosity of each of the zones of the armour layer. Stability of Mound Breakwaters 9
3 Castro 1933 0√,704 H γr W = 2 · 3 (cotθ+1) cotθ−2/γr (γr/γw−1) 3 Iribarren 1938 K H γr W = 3 · 3 (cosθ−sinθ) (γr/γw−1) 2 Tyrrel 1949 K H T γr W = 3 · 3 (µ−tanθ) (γr/γw−1) 3 Matthews 1951 0,0149 H γr W = 2 3 (µcotθ−0,75sinθ) (γr/γw−1) 2 Rodolf 1951 0,0162 H T γr W = 3 3 tan (45−θ/2) (γr/γw−1) 2πH 3 K· L sinh 4πz 3 Larras 1952 L γrH W = 3 3 (cotθ−sinθ) (γr/γw−1) 3 Hedar: climbing waves 1953 K0 H γr W = 3 3 (µcosθ+sinθ) (γr/γw−1) 3 Hedar: descending waves 1953 K H γr W = 3 3 (µcosθ−sinθ) (γr/γw−1) 3 Hudson 1959 1 H γr W = 3 KDcotθ (γr/γw−1)
Table 2.1: Hydraulic stability criteria for the armour layer of a mound breakwater as cited in[1]
2.3 Analysis of the stability of a mound breakwater
2.3.1 General stability of a mound breakwater
To understand the structural stability of mound breakwaters, in the rst place, the dierent reasons for loss of stability should be understood, and thus the dierent failure modes have to be dened.
Bruun (1979) [25] specied eleven dierent principal failure modes demonstrated in gure 2.1.
1. Loss of armour units (increasing porosity).
2. Rocking of the armour units; breaking is due to fatigue.
3. Damage of the inner slope by wave overtopping.
4. Sliding of the armour layer due to a lack of friction with the layers below.
5. Lack of compactness in the underlying layers, causing excessive transmission of energy to the interior of the breakwater; this might lift the breakwater cap and the interior layers. Stability of Mound Breakwaters 10
Figure 2.1: Mound Breakwater failure modes dened by Bruun
6. Undermining of the crone wall.
7. Breaking of the armour units caused by impact, simply by exceeding its structural resistance or by slamming into other units.
8. Settlement or collapsing of the subsoil.
9. Erosion of the breakwater toe or the breakwater interior.
10. Loss of the mechanical characteristics of the materials.
11. Construction errors.
Those failure modes can be rearranged into ve families of failure (Gómez-Martín, 2002) [26]:
I Unit stability: the capacity of each piece to resist the movement caused by wave action (1, 2, 3).
II Global stability: the stability of the entire breakwater, or more specic, of the entire armour layer, acting as one piece. It includes the movement of the armour layer or the movement of big parts (4, 5, 6).
III Structural stability: resistance of the elements or their material. This includes the ability of the elements of resisting the tensions caused by transport, construction, wave action, the used granular and the movements caused by currents (7, 2). Stability of Mound Breakwaters 11
IV Geotechnical stability: the resistance of the underground or the sensitivity to erosion of the breakwater toe (8, 9).
V Errors in the construction (10, 11).
The relative importance of every failure mechanism depends on dierent factors, as there are: intensity of the waves, depth of the mound breakwater, type of the ground, type of construction materials, etc. Loss of stability of the armour layer, being extraction of armour units out of the armour layer or breaking of individual armour units by exceeding their structural strength and crest overtopping of the breakwater are considered to be the most important failure modes of a mound breakwater. Those failure modes have been intensively studied and play a dominant roll in the design of a breakwater.
In this report, only the hydraulic stability of the armour units will be studied, more specically the loss of armour elements in certain zones of the breakwater slope, which is usually considered as the main mode of failure and is classied into the failure family of 'Unit Stability' in the classication of Gómez-Martín. This failure mode can be caused by two dierent reasons: the simple extraction of the armour units under wave attack, or their excessive settlement, causing a heterogeneous packing. This last failure mode is proposed by Gómez-Martín and Medina [24] and will be commented later in this chapter.
Once dened the dierent types of damage, there's a need to specify the moment when a mound breakwater is considered as damaged. Therefore, four damage levels will be distinguished, dened by Losada et al. in 1986 [27], and completed by Vidal et al in 1991 [28] with the level of Initiation of destruction (this is commented later in this Masterthesis in 6.4.2.2):
Initiation of Damage (IDa)
Initiation of Iribarren Damage (IIDa)
Initiation of Destruction (IDe)
Destruction (De) Stability of Mound Breakwaters 12
2.3.2 Heterogeneous packing
2.3.2.1 Introduction
This project works with armour layers consisting of cubes or Cubipod elements. Those are robust armour elements which means that in the rst place the hydraulic stability, the capacity of the elements to resist against movement due to wave attack supposing that they don't break, will be studied. Their structural stability, however, may not be forgotten. The monolithic and robust elements probably won't reach such a tensional situation able to break them, but the elements can break partially, due to slamming between each other, decreasing their weight, and thus decreasing their structural stability. An element in the armour layer can move in three dierent ways:
I: Pitching in their position in the armour layer. This is important when the structural stability can be the origin of additional tensions on the elements.
II: Displacement by extraction out of the armour layer. The extraction of elements out of their original position was during many years considered as the principal indicator of the stability of an armour layer under wave attack and the stability calculations were based on this failure mode (Fig. 2.2).
III: Packing of the elements as a result of small unit movements and frequent face-to-face arrangements. This new failure mode is dened by Gómez-Martín and Medina [24] and is called 'Heterogeneous Packing' also shown in gure 2.2.
2.3.2.2 Heterogeneous packing
Heterogeneous packing is the most important failure mode in case of armour layers formed by cubes or concrete elements and is characterized by a decrease of porosity of the armour layer on some places and increase on others, without extracting armour units, but only by moving them within the armour layer. In tests, they observed that this failure mode tends to increase the packing density below the still water level, which is balanced by a corresponding reduction in packing density above and Stability of Mound Breakwaters 13 near the still water level. Heterogeneous Packing occurs always, but the intensity and the relative importance of this failure mode depends on four main factors:
Type of armour unit
Dierence between the initial porosity and minimum porosity
Slope of the armour layer
Friction coecient between the armour layer and the lter layer
The Heterogeneous Packing has an eect similar to the erosion caused by extracting armour units, because the reduction of the packing density near the mean water level can facilitate the extraction of units from the inner layers. Thus, the armour layer is damaged by two dierent failure mechanisms: armour unit extraction and Heterogeneous Packing. In both cases, the result is similar: a decrease in the number of armour units near the mean water level. Studying the stability of the armour layer by wave attack, it's very important to take this failure mode into account together with the extraction of elements.
To have extraction of an armour element out of the armour layer, the wave has to overcome the friction and the interlocking between the elements in the armour layer and their own weight. Friction is a microscopic type of resistance between dierent elements; interlocking refers to a macroscopic type of resistance, formed by the contact between the protuberances of the elements. If the height of the wave exceeds a critical point, extraction of elements or heterogeneous packing of armour elements starts, and only their own weight oer resistance to displacement. Those extractions or Heterogeneous Packing stop when the wave decreases. The mound break- water obtains a stable situation, called 'Partial Stability', which depends on the number of displaced elements, the wave attack and his duration. The moved elements are in an unfavourable situation. Their probability to displacement is high. When the wave exceeds a certain value, the armour layer won't obtain a stable situation, but develop until complete destruction occurs. It's important to know that during this process, Heterogeneous Packing of the elements can Stability of Mound Breakwaters 14
Figure 2.2: The two most important failure modes by mound breakwaters: extraction of armour elements and heterogeneous packing. The classical view vs. the heterogeneous packing view increase the capacity of the armour layer in some places, but can also lead to important disintegrations, causing damage.
2.3.3 Damage criteria
The classic denition declares damage of an armour layer as the percentage of displaced units compared to the total number of units used to construct the slope. The classic failure criteria are directly (extraction of armour units) or indirectly (changing in prole of the armour layer) connected to lose or extract armour units due to wave attack as shown in the left side of picture 2.2. This classic denition, however, doesn't allow generalizing the result, because damage depends on the size of the armour layer.
A better denition was given by Van de Kreeke [29] and Oullet [30]. This denition consists in comparing the displaced elements with the initial number of elements in a determined zone of the breakwater slope near the mean water level.
Iribarren (1965) [31] proposed a clear damage denition for mound breakwaters. A mound breakwater reaches his failure level when the rst armour layer has been displaced in an area suciently large to expose at least one armour unit of the layer below. If the breakwater reaches this state, it is considered as seriously damaged, because wave action can damage the second armour layer, and the underlayer will be in danger as well and total destruction of the breakwater is impending. Stability of Mound Breakwaters 15
In 1980 Paape and Ligteringen [32] mentioned that measuring the number or percentage of blocks removed and displaced to the toe of the structure, is only valid for small damages which is evenly distributed over the slope. With appreciable damage, it is important to observe whether concentrations of block removal occur, which consequently aect the basic idea of a two-layer armour cover and eventually even lead to exposure of the second layer and core. Therefore, they proposed a damage classication in function of the percentage of displaced blocks and the eect of such removal on the armour layer. It is obvious that such a classication is subjective.
In general, two dierent systems exist to quantify the damage:
Quantitative criteria's: the number or percentage of displaced armour units is compared to the initial ones.
Qualitative criteria's: important changes in the morphology of the armour layer are concerned.
A disadvantage of quantitative citeria's is that they don't give information about Hetero- geneous Packing, which can be very important in situations with Cubipod elements in the armour layer. The second method provides qualitative information about the damage level, but has a principal disadvantage to be subjective. Concerning this facts, a new method for damage estimation, taking into account the number of displaced elements and the changes in porosity of the armour layer by Heterogeneous Packing, is necessary. Gómez-Martín and Medina (2006) [24] present a new method for damage estimation: the Virtual Net Method. An equivalent dimensionless damage measurement is used to take into account the dierence in porosity, in each zone of the armour layer, compared to their initial porosity. This method is explained in 6.4.2.3. The method is complemented using qualitative criteria's considering dierent levels of damage: Initiation of damage, Initiation of Iribarren damage, Initiation of destruccion and Destruccion. Those are explained further in 6.4.2.2. Stability of Mound Breakwaters 16
2.4 Quantization of the stability
2.4.1 Formula to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater
As described in the short history, during the years, many formulae to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater have been developed. The Shore Protection Manual (1984) [6], based on the works of Hudson (1959) [5], proposes the next formulae to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater:
3 1 H γr (2.1) W = 3 kD (Sr − 1) cotα s Hs 1/3 3 W Ns = = (KDcotα) ; ∆ = Sr − 1 and Dn50 = (2.2) ∆Dn50 γr
With: W the weight of on individual element of the armour layer, in N
γr is the unit weight of the armour elements, in N/m3 H is the incident wave-height, in m
Sr is the specic gravity of the armour units, relative to the water at the structure α is the angle of the structure slope, respective to the horizontal, in degrees H is the design wave height at the structure, in meter
Ns the hydraulic stability coecient
KD is the hydraulic stability coecient, depending on many characteristics:
Form of the element of the armour layer
Number of layers of the armour layer
Way of collocating the elements
Roughness of the elements
Interlocking between the elements
Water depth near the structure (breaking or non-breaking) Stability of Mound Breakwaters 17
Part of the mound breakwater (head or body of the mound breakwater)
Angle of the incident wave
Porosity of the core
Size of the core
Width of the crest
Other geometrical characteristics of the section
The values of KD need to be obtained experimentally, determining the wave-height that pro- duces initiation of damage. The value KD takes into account many variables, where the most important one is the used armour unit. Therefore, KD is an important characteristic for ev- ery armour unit, as well to be able to use the Hudson design formula, as to provide a unit characteristic that allows comparison with other units. SPM [6] resumed recommended KD values in a table. They give the hydraulic stability factor in function of the type of the armour unit, the number of armour layers, the way of collocation (uniform or random), the part of the mound breakwater (head or body) and the water depth (breaking or non-breaking).
This method to obtain the KD values experimentally however, shows some shortcomings. KD doesn't depend on the period, storm duration, wave grouping, etc. The prototype can be dierent from the real construction: the real construction method is not the same as in the laboratory and the used materials can be very dierent. Further, The wave-height for irregular wave was not dened, SPM recomended H=H1/3 and later H=H1/10. Chapter 3
Armour Units
3.1 Introduction
Originaly, harbours were built with wooden or stone constructions. The continuous increase of the economy, however, meant the necessity of bigger harbours. Therefore, the harbours were built more into sea, which led to an increase of the height of the attacking waves. The design of the harbour evolved to constructions with a heavy rock outer layer. The continuous increase of the attacking waves meant always a need for larger stones to guarantee the stability of the construction. The size of natural stones has their limits, and design of articial concrete armour units was forced. The rst elements were simple cubes, but soon, problems concerning those elements were discovered. Nowadays, many dierent breakwater armour units exist, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
The characteristics of the concrete armour elements have an important inuence on the hy- draulic stability of the mound breakwater. Further, the cost of the armour layer is an im- portant part of the total cost of the breakwater. Those facts explain why improvement and development of armour units is still an important subject of research.
In this chapter a historical overview of the development of the armour units for breakwaters during the last 50 years is given. Further, dierent ways to classify the existing elements are discussed and lastly the new armour unit, the Cubipod, is introduced. The motivation and concept of the design, with his advantages are explained.
18 Armour Units 19
Figure 3.1: Face to face tting by cubes reducing the friction with the lter layer
3.2 History: the armour units since the 50's
In the past 50 years a large variety of concrete breakwater armour units has been developed. Today design engineers have the choice between many dierent breakwater armour concepts. However, in many cases standard type solutions are applied and possible alternative concepts are not seriously considered. The most important and mentioned armour units in this part are resumed in the table 3.2.
Until World War II breakwater armouring was typically either made of rock or of parallelepi- pedic concrete units (cubes). The placement was either random or uniform. Breakwaters were mostly designed with gentle slopes and relatively large armour units that were mainly stabilised by their own weight. Those units have numerous advantages: a high structural strength, cheap and easy to fabricate, store and put into place; furthermore the elements have a low risk to progressive failure. But these units do have certain drawbacks that must be taken into consideration. They have a low hydraulic stability (KD=6) and tend to settle to a regular pattern. The layer becomes an almost solid layer which can lead to excess pore pressure and lifting of the blocks. This also means an important loss of friction with the underlying layer and can cause a sliding of the armour units. Another important disadvantage to mention is the phenomenon of Heterogeneous Packing. This failure mode, without extraction of units, tends to reduce the packing density of the armour layer near the still water level without extracting armour units, but only by moving the units within the armour layer, caused by unit movements and face-to-face tting (Fig 3.1).
From the 50's the economical development and the increase of the dimensions of the tankers, Armour Units 20 obliged us to realize depth mound breakwaters. Many laboratories in the world tried to develop and patent new types of articial breakwater armour units. The main objective was to design elements with a high stability coecient to reduce the weight of the mantel elements and thus the total cost of the structure.
In 1950 The Laboratoir Dauphinois d'Hydraulique in Grenoble introduced the Tetrapod, a four-legged concrete structure and the rst interlocking armour unit. The tetrapod is the rst of the "engineered" precast concrete armour units widely used all over the world produced by many contractors and no longer protected by a patent. His main advantages are a slightly improved interlocking compared to a cube element and a larger porosity of the armour layer, which causes wave energy dissipation and reduces the wave run-up.
The tetrapod inspired similar concrete structures for use in breakwaters, including the modied Cube (US, 1959), the Stabit (U.K., 1961), the Akmon (Netherlands, 1962), the Dolos (South Africa, 1963), the Seabee (Australia, 1978), the Accropode (France, 1981), the Hollow Cube (Germany, 1991), the A-jack (U.S., 1998), and the Xbloc (Netherlands, 2001), among others.
A large variety of concrete armour units has been developed in the period 1950 - 1970. How- ever, most of the blocks from those days have been applied only for a very limited number of projects. These armour units are typically either randomly or uniform placed in double layers. The governing stability factors are the units' own weight and their interlocking.
The Dolos was developed in the 60´s for rehabilitating the damaged breakwater at the Port of East London in South Africa. Dolosse are armour units with a slender shape, a relatively slender central section and long legs will face high stresses in the central part of the armour block. These blocks have a high risk of breaking in the central part and broken armour units have little residual stability and reinforcement should uneconomical.
The failure of the Sines breakwater (Portugal, 1978) who was constructed with dolosse in- dicated that slender armour units, designed for maximum interlocking, provide insucient structural stability and breakage of armour units may cause progressive failure. This event set an end to the rapid development of elements with high stability coecient and reduced weight. Armour Units 21
More failures in the last two decades meant the end of the general condence and the optimism in the classical techniques to design. The 80's meant a decade of big changes. The reasons of failure were analysed and new methods of calculation and design were searched.
Single layer randomly placed armour units have been applied since 1980. The Accropode (France, 1980) was the rst block of this new generation of armour units and became the leading armour unit worldwide for the next 20 years. The Accropode is a compact shape and the basic concept of the unit was a balance between interlocking and structural stability. The blocks are placed in a single layer on a predened grid. The orientation of the block has to vary; therefore Sogreah recommends various techniques for placement. However, sling techniques and grid placing do not guarantee a perfect interlocking of the individual armour units. Therefore relatively conservative KD values are recommended for design. Unfortunately, Sogreah did not succeed to overcome these diculties by developing a more reliable placement procedure.
CoreLoc and A-Jack are further examples of this type of single layer randomly placed armour units that have been developed subsequently. Hence, these blocks are more economical than traditional double armour layers. The CoreLoc, developed by the US Army of Engineers in 1994, appeared to be more slender then the Accropode and to have a higher hydraulic stability. After drop tests, it was found that the structural stability of the CoreLoc was signicantly better than for dolos units because of his more compact central section. However he showed with respect to structural stability, residual stability after breaking as well as ease of casting and placement.
The A-Jack, introduced by Armortec (1997) consists of three long cement stakes joined at the middle, forming six legs. It is a high interlocking armour unit that has been applied up to know only for revetments and not for breakwater armouring. The elements are very slender and the structural stability might be very critical if the blocks exceed a great size (1-2m3), however the large KD value limits the block size and thus A-Jacks can be cost-ecient for temporary structures and moderate wave conditions.
The parallel development of a completely dierent type of armour concept started in the late 60th. The armour layer consists of hollow blocks that are placed orderly in one layer. Each Armour Units 22 block is tied to its position by the neighbouring blocks. Their hydraulic stability is not based on weight or interlocking, but is extremely high as it is based on friction between the block and the blocks around. The friction between uniformly placed blocks varies signicantly less than interlocking between randomly placed blocks. Therefore a friction type armour layer is more homogeneous than interlocking armour and very stable. The wave energy is dissipated in the proper elements, in the internal voids of the blocks. These elements provide a erce reduction of the weight and a relatively high porosity of the armour layer, but on the other hand some of the sections have to be reinforced due to their slenderness. As placement of these elements is very dicult under water, they are normally only applied in circumstances where construction can be done above low water. Typical examples of these elements are Cob, Shed and Seabee.
Another possible discussion concerning armour elements is reinforcement of slender units. Treadwell and Wagoon (2006) [33] are of opinion that concrete armour units for coastal struc- tures need reinforcement. Concrete armour units are believed to be one of the very few coastal concrete structures that generally do not contain reinforcement. Concrete is a very strong ma- terial in compression, but with very little strength in tension, especially during impact events. The main benets of reinforcement of concrete armour units are added strength during casting, curing, moving, placing, and during all service loading conditions (including violent rocking during severe storms) and avoidance of rapid failure, if indeed failure occurs at all. Given the maintance problems and catastrophic failures that have been experienced by concrete armour unit installations, it is clear that the added cost of reinforcement would be more than oset by reduced costs of maintance and repair and evaluations and the avoidance of the negative economic impacts to revenue streams when coastal protection systems suer severe damage. Armour Units 23
Figure 3.2: A selection of the existing concrete armour units Armour Units 24
3.3 Classication of armour units
As there are over a hundred dierent armour units, a manner to classify them is needed. There are many criteria; armour units can be classied according their shape, their placement pattern, the risk of progressive failure, the number of layers, their structural strength and the way they resist wave action. Each of those classicationsystems are described. All the mentioned armour units can be seen in the table 3.2.
A rst way to classifying armour units is by their shape as shown in table 3.1. This classication was made by Muttray, Reedijk, and Klabbers (2004) [34].
Shape Armour blocks
Cubical Cube, Antifer cube, Modied cube, Grabbelar, Cob, Shed Double anchor Dolos, Akmon, Toskane Thetraeder Tetrapod, Tethrahedron, Tripod Combined bars 2D: Accropod, Gassho, Core-Loc 3D: Hexapod, Hexaleg, A-Jack L-shaped blocks Bipod Slab type (various shapes) Tribar, Trilong, N-shaped block, Hollow square Others Stabit, Seabee
Table 3.1: Classication of breakwater armour units by shape [34]
The placement pattern of armour elements can be uniform or randomly. In case of robust elements, random placement is suggested to guarantee the porosity of the armour layers and to avoid the excess pore pressure inside the breakwater which may lift the blocks. If the placement of the elements is random and there's no request concerning the orientation of the individual elements to obtain a good disposition, the construction is much easier then in case of uniform placement.
Concerning the risk of progressive failure, armour units can be classied in slender blocks and compact blocks. In case of slender armour units, the stability is mainly due to interlocking and the average Armour Units 25 hydraulic stability is large. However, the variation in hydraulic resistance is also relatively large and the structural stability is low. Therefore slender blocks shall be considered as a series system with a large risk of progressive failure, because if they break in parts, the hydraulic stability sharply decreases causing simultaneous loss of weight and interlocking. The stability of compact blocks is mainly due to the own weight. The structural stability is high and the variation in hydraulic stability is relatively low. Thus, the armour layer can be considered as a parallel system with a low risk of progressive failure.
The elemens can be placed in one or two layers. Single armour layer is more cost ecient due to the reduced number of armour blocks. It means saving concrete and lower costs for fabrication and placement of blocks. Single layer placement also has technical advantages, there is less rocking then in double armour layer and therefore a lower risk of impact loads and breakage . Double armour layers do not provide additional safety against failure -except for compact armour units with large structural stability and limited interlocking- because the second layer tends to create breaking and is sensitive to rocking, thus the structural integrity of the armour units is jeopardized. The placement in two layers on at slopes is an uneconomical solution.
Armour elements can resist wave action by their own weight, by interlocking or by friction. In case of slender armour units, the stability is mainly due to interlocking and the average hydraulic stability is large, however, the structural stability is low. The stability of compact blocks is mainly due to the own weight. The average hydraulic stability is low. However, the structural stability is high. Hollow elements will resist wave action mainly by friction.
A more general overview, combining dierent classication criteria, is proposed by Bakker et al. (2003) [35] and is shown in table 3.2. He includes criteria for placement pattern (random or uniform), number of layers (single or double layer), shape (simple and complex) and domimant method of hydraulic stability (resisting wave action by own weight, interlocking or friction). Armour Units 26
Placement Number Shape Stability factor pattern of layers Own weight Interlocking Friction
Cube double layer simple Antifer cube Modied cube complex Tetrapod, Akmon, Tribar, Tripod Random Stabit, Dolos A-Jack single layer simple Cube Accropode Core-Loc complex accropode
Seabee, Hollow Uniform single layer simple Cube, Diahitis complex Cob, Shed
Table 3.2: Classication of armour units by shape, placement and stability factor.
A common problem in the design of armour units is the need to choose between higher hy- draulic stability and higher structural strength. Armour units can increase their hydraulic stability by increasing their own weight, interlocking and higher friction with the inner layer. Interlocking and a higher friction usually mean a signicant reduction in structural strength.
As a general rule, the stability coecient, KD increases from the massive to the slender cate- gory; however this means a decrease of the structural strength.
A classication by structural strength of the units is done by Mijlemans in 2006 [36]. Elements can be subdivided in three groups: robust units that dispose of a very high structural strength, fragile armour units with low structural resistance and an intermediate group that provides a reasonably high structural stability. The classication of Mijlemans (2006) is also based on the placement method (number of layers and placement pattern) and creates in this way ten families of articial concrete armour emelents as shown in table 3.3.
The robust units have a massive form that provides a high structural strength. The large and Armour Units 27 compact cross-sections cause small tensile stresses which decreases the risk of unit breaking. They resist wave attack mainly by their own weight and the average hydraulic stability can be considered rather low. Because of their high structural stability and their low variation in hydraulic stability, they present a low risk of progressive failure.
Fragile units have a very low structural stability because of their limited cross-sectional areas. The most important stability factor is interlocking which provides them with a high average hydraulic stability. Their variation in hydraulic stability however is quite high and together with the low structural stability, the risk of progressive failure is high. Fragile elements can be subdivided into hollow units, where the interlocking is provided by their reciprocal friction, and slender solid units where the slender members interlace with one another.
The intermediate group is originated to combine the high structural stability of robust ar- mour units with the interlocking characteristics of the fragile elements. Their form provides an amount of resistance by interlocking, but avoids also too slender cross-sectional areas to maintain a high structural strength. They have a rather massive form, therefore their dom- inant hydraulic stability factors are their own weight and interlocking. They provide a high hydraulic stability and an intermediate structural resistance which decreases their risk of pro- gressive failure in comparison with the fragile units above.
Structural resistance Placement method Robust Intermediate Fragil
group 3 Random multiple layers group 1 group 2 group 4 one layer group 5
Uniform multiple layers group 6 group 7 group 8 group 11 one layer group 9 group 10 group 12
Table 3.3: Classication of armour units by placement method and structural strength (Mijlemans, 2006) Armour Units 28
3.4 A new armour unit: The Cubipod
3.4.1 Introduction
The Cubipod is a new armour unit for the protection of maritime structures invented by Josep R. Medina and M. Esther Gómez-Martín, patented in 2005 by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the UPV (Patent number: P200501750) and licensed by SATO.
Figure 3.3: A new armour element: the Cubipod
3.4.2 Idea
Numerous armour units have shown high hydraulic stability such as Tetrapods, Dolos, Ac- cropodes, Core-locs, X-blocks, etc. which permit a reduction in the concrete armour unit weight, however they have a low structural strength. The collapse in Sines (Portugal) and the severe damage in San Ciprián (Spain) showed us that the structural strength is an important parameter in the choice of the armour element.
Randomly placed massive units with a simple shape like cubes or parallellepipedics are widely used because of their numerous advantages: structurally robust, cheap and easy to fabricate, manufacture, store and put into place; furthermore there is a low risk to progressive failure. Nevertheless, these units do have certain drawbacks that must be taken into consideration. Armour Units 29
They have a low hydraulic stability (KD=6 for cubes) and a high Heterogeneous Packing failure mode.
3.4.3 Concept
The Cubipod is designed to form the protective layer of mound breakwaters, seawalls and piers in order to protect coasts, hydraulic or maritime constructions or in general to resist wave breaking. The aim of the new armour unit is to benet from the advantages of the traditional cubic block, like the high structural strength and easy placement, but to correct the drawbacks by preventing self packing and increasing the friction with the lter layer. The new element is a massive cubic element with equal protuberances on every side which have the form of truncated pyramids with a square section. Preferably the size of the protuberances had to be small in comparison with the cube or parallelepiped. Its principal function should be to avoid settlement while the structural strength and hydraulic stability of a cube is maintained. Therefore, the total volume of the protuberances should be an order of magnitude lower than the volume of the basic element; e.g. not exceed 15% of the volume of the basic element without protuberances. The nal result is shown in gure 3.3.
Robustness and high structural strength The design of the unit is based on the cube in order to obtain his robustness. The cross-sectional areas are large and not slender, that's why the Cubipod has a high individual structural strength. In order to assess the structural strength of this new armor unit, overturning, free fall and extreme free fall tests have been carried out. The Cubipod armour units were able to withstand higher drops than did the conventional cubic blocks [37].
High friction with the lter layer Cubic elements tend to place their sides parallel to their underlying layer, which means a decrease of the friction between the armour layer and the lter layer. In case of Cubipods, the protuberances penetrate in the lter layer and provide an important increase of the friction with this layer.
Face-to-face tting The protuberances avoid sliding of the armour elements. Due to this, fact face-to-face tting and the loss of elements above the still water level is reduced. This Armour Units 30
Figure 3.4: Drop test results of Cubipods compared with cubes showing the lost weight
Figure 3.5: Penetration of the Cubipods in the armour layer Armour Units 31
Figure 3.6: The separating eect of the protuberances avoiding the face-to-face arrangement means that Cubipods reduce the Heterogeneous Packing failure mode of the armour layer compared with the former used cube elements. The separating eect of the protuberances avoiding this face-to-face arrangement is showed is gure 3.6.
Hydraulic stability The hydraulic stability of Cubipods is higher than of cube elements thanks to higher friction with the lter layer and reduce of the Heterogeneous Packing as explained above. This is proved in earlier tests in deepwater conditions [38]. This means a reduction of the loss of elements above the upper parts and a lower run-up and overtopping. Armour Units 32
Figure 3.7: Example of placement in a depository of Cubipods
Figure 3.8: The casting system designed by SATO and the tongs for movement and manufacture
Easy casting, ecient storage and handling The Spanish construction company SATO has designed a casting system and specially adapted tongs for the ecient movement and manufacture of Cubipods (Fig 3.8). Thanks to this system the fabrication can be done easy and fast [?]. Thanks to their form, the storage can be done eciently, using little space (Fig 3.7). As the placement of the Cubipods is random and there's no request concerning the orientation of the individual elements to obtain a good random disposition, the placement of the elements is much easier then in case of uniform placement. Chapter 4
Wave height in breaking conditions
4.1 Introduction
As the majority of mound breakwaters are built in shallow waters, a study of the behaviour of waves in breaking conditions may be important knowing that those dier a lot from the conditions in deepwater. The height of waves is an important factor inuencing the design of coastal constructions. An overly conservative estimation can greatly increase costs and make projects uneconomical, whereas underestimation could result in structural failure or signicant maintenance costs.
In this chapter, rst, general information will be given about breaking waves: the dierent types are shortly discussed. Some existing theories are presented to estimate the wave height distribution in shallow waters followed by formulae to calculate the maximum wave height in breaking conditions. In the next chapter, showing the results, a short comparison between the obtained maximum wave height in the executed experiments and the existing theories is done. The goal of this chapter is not to propose new formulae to calculate breaking characteristics, but to give an overview of existing models and to compare dierent theories with the measured results in the laboratory experiments.
33 Wave height in breaking conditions 34
4.2 The surf zone
As waves enter shallow water, they slow down, grow taller and change shape. At a depth of half its wave length, the rounded waves start to rise and their crests become shorter while their troughs lengthen. Although their period stays the same, their overall wave length short- ens. The 'bumps' gradually steepen and nally break in the surf. There is a distinct dierence between the oscillatory wave motion before breaking and the turbulent waves with air entrain- ment after breaking. In case of actual sea waves, some waves break far from the shore, some at an intermediate distance and others approach quite near the shoreline before breaking. In coastal waters therefore, wave breaking takes place in a relatively wide zone of variable water depth, which is called the wave breaking zone or the surf zone.
4.3 Types of breaking waves
There are four types of breakers in the surf zone (Fig 4.1); spilling, plunging, collapsing and surging. The slope of the beach and the types of waves approaching the surf zone determine which type of breaker is going to be predominant.
Spilling In this type of wave, the crest undergoes deformation and destabilizes, resulting in it spilling over the front of the wave. Only the top portion of the wave curls over. Light foam tends to appear up the shore. It occurs most often on gentle beaches and is usually the most observed type of wave.
In a spilling breaker, the energy which the wave has transported over many miles of sea is released gradually over a considerable distance. The wave peaks up until it is very steep but not vertical. Only the topmost portion of the wave curls over and descends on the forward slope of the wave, where it then slides down into the trough. This explains why these waves may look like an advancing line of foam.
Plunging The wave peaks up until it is an advancing vertical wall of water. The crest of the wave advances faster than the base of the breaker, curls over and crashes into the base of the wave, creating a sizable splash. It tends to happen most often when the gradient of the Wave height in breaking conditions 35 sea oor is medium to steep or from a sudden change in depth (a rock ledge or reef). It is also a feature of breaking waves in oshore conditions. These type of waves arise when the steep gradient of the sea oor or ledge is angular to the approaching swell direction.
In a plunging breaker, the energy is released suddenly into a downwardly directed mass of water. A considerable amount of air is trapped when this happens and this air escapes explosively behind the wave, throwing water high above the surface. The plunging breaker is characterized by a loud explosive sound.
Collapsing Collapsing waves are a cross between plunging and surging, in which the crest never fully breaks, yet the bottom face of the wave gets steeper and collapses, resulting in foam.
Surging On steeper beaches, a wave might advance up without breaking at all. It deforms and attens from the bottom. The front of the wave advances up towards the crest, creating reection.
Iribarren's number The deepwater Iribarren number (Iribarren and Nogales, 1949) Ir = p tan(α)/ H/L0, also called the breaker parameter describes a certain type of wave breaking
and contains a combination of structure slope and wave steepness: s0 = H/L0 (table 4.1). For the executed tests we nd numbers of Iribarren with values between 2 and 5. This is because the slope is the mound breakwater is rather high (compared to the slope of a beach). Breaking due to the mound breakwater will happen by collapsing or surging. As we are in shallow waters with a horizontal bottom, the wave breaking taking place before the breakwater will happen as spilling or plunging.
Breaking type spilling plunging collapsing surging
Ir Ir < 0, 5 0, 5 < Ir < 2, 5 2, 5 < Ir < 3 Ir > 3
Table 4.1: Type of breaking in function of the number of Iribarren Wave height in breaking conditions 36
Figure 4.1: Types of breaking waves
4.4 Models to estimate the wave height distribution
In deep water, the approximately linear behaviour of the waves allows for a theoretically sound statistical description of the wave characteristics, based on a Gaussian distribution of instan- taneous values of surface evaluation, resulting in a Rayleigh distribution of wave heights. In shallow water, the wave behaviour is more complicated and the knowledge of the statistical description of wave eld characteristics is more limited. The distribution before wave break- ing can be approximated as being Rayleighan, which means that a group of random waves entering the surf zone is assumed to have a Rayleigh distribution. Among the waves obeying that distribution, those with height exceeding the breaking limit will break and cannot occupy their original position in the wave height distribution. Breaking causes a truncation of the waveheight distribution.
Several authors have developed wave height distributions that modify the Rayleigh distri- bution of deepwater waves to take into account wave shoaling and breaking. Two dierent kind of models can be distinguished to account for the portion of energy retained by the broken waves:
The rst type supposes that the energy from the broken waves is concentrated in the breaking wave height. All the broken waves will have the breaking wave height in the surng zone (Fig ??). Wave height in breaking conditions 37
Figure 4.2: Distribution of the wave heights by breaking, concerning that all the broken wave heights will have the breaking wave height in the surng zone
The second type presents truncated wave height distributions that distribute the energy from the broken waves back over the smaller wave heights in the distribution.
Collins (1970), Mase and Iwagaki (1982) and Dally and Dean (1986) presented a method to calculate the distribution of the heights of breaking waves in shallow water. Given a sequence of wave heights and periods and direction at some oshore location, or a joint probability distribution of those variables, they apply a monochromatic wave model for shoaling and breaking to calculate the onshore transformation of that monochromatic wave class. These methods, however, are algorithmic and do not result in explicit expressions for further analyses or extrapolation to low probabilities of exceedance.
Another approach consists of making empirical adaptations to the Rayleigh distribution of the wave heights to allow for the eects of shallow water and breaking, resulting in explicit ana- lytical expressions. Glukhovskiy (1966) proposed a distribution for shallow waters by maken the exponent an increasing function of the wave-height-to-depth ratio. For suciently low wave height-to-water depth ratio, the distribution becomes a Rayleigh distribution. Tayfun (1981) presented a theoretical model for the distribution of wave heights, including the eect of wave breaking, based on a narrow-banded random phase model with a nite number of spectral components. The distributions given by Glukhovskiy an Tayfun are both point models, yielding a local wave height distribution for given local depth and wave parameters (lowest two spectral moments). The Rayleigh distribution gives a poor description of the measured wave height distribution. It underestimates the lower wave heights and overestimates the higher ones. The Glukho- Wave height in breaking conditions 38 viskiy distribution yields a better approximation, however, in general, this distribution still overestimates the extreme wave heights and underestimates the lower wave heights on shallow foreshores.
Battjes and Groenendijk (2000) [39] proposed a composite Weibull wave height distribution to give a better description of the measured wave height distributions in shallow waters. The wave height distributions on shallow foreshores show a transition between a linear trend for lower heights and a downward relation for the higher waves. This abrupt transition does not lend itself to a distribution with one single expression and one shape parameter. Therefore a combination of two Weibull-distributions was assumed, each having a dierent exponent, matched at the transition height Htr. The model predicts the local wave height distribution in shallow foreshores for a given local water depth, bottom slope and total wave energy with signicantly accuracy than existing models.
4.5 Maximum wave height in breaking conditions
As the wave height is one of the most important factors inuencing the design of a mound breakwater, over the years, many equations have been proposed to express the breaker height/breaker depth ratio as a function of other variables. Those models however, do not employ all the variables aecting the breaker height and depth, with the result that they apply only to limi- ted conditions. Here, some models are explained, mentioning that this list is not complete at all as there exist many formulae to calculate breaking characteristics.
Keulegan and Patterson (1940) [40] noted that the Hb/db ratio is related to wave breaking which they considered to take place at values between 0,71 and 0,78. This gives us a simple formula to calculate the breaking height, because it does not take into account the bottom
slope α, neither the wave period T.
Collins (1970) [41] was among the rst to consider the eect of the bottom slope on wave breaking, but did not take other variables into account. His equation which yields a ratio of 0,72 over a horizontal bed, increases to 1,21 for a 5O slope. Wave height in breaking conditions 39
H b = 0, 72 + 5, 6tanα (4.1) db
Weggel (1972) [42] published one of the most useful equations. He considered the eect of the sea oor slope α in addition to the gravity constant g and wave period T. We can see however, that the function becomes independent of the period T if the sea bottom is horizontal (E2=0).
His equation is valid for tanα ≤ 1.
Hb E2Hb (4.2) = E1 − 2 db gTw 1, 56 E = 1 1 + e−19,5tanα 43, 75 E = 2 1 + e−19tanα
Komar and Gaughan (1973) [43] derived a semi-empirical relationship from linear wave theory, where the subscript 0 denotes deepwater conditions (Fig 6.3). This equation takes into account the wave period T, using the formula of Airy for L0, but does not take the bottom slope into account, neither the water depth in shallow water.
H H −1/5 b = 0, 56 0 (4.3) H0 L0
Sakai and Battjes (1980) [44] plotted a curve of the wave breaking limit as function of Hb/H0 against H0/L0 (Fig 6.3). They also only take into account the wave period T, but do not take into account the bottom slope neither the water depth in shallow water. This curve is described by the following equations:
" −0,3118# H0 H0 Hb = H0 0, 3839 when < 0, 0208 L0 L0 " −0,1686# H0 H0 Hb = H0 0, 6683 when 0, 0208 ≤ < 0, 1 (4.4) L0 L0
H0 Hb = H0 when 0, 1 ≤ L0 Wave height in breaking conditions 40
Komar (1998) proposed two seperated equations for Hb and db, where S is the sea oor gradient.
0,2 20,4 Hb = 0, 39g TH0 (4.5a) 0,27 S (4.5b) db = Hb 1, 2 0,5 Hb L0
Experimental work (Shore Protection Manual, 1984 [6]; Demirbilek and Vincent, 2002) for waves breaking over dierent bottom slopes with wave periods between 0s - 6s resulted in a formula showing the dependance of the water depth and bottom slope: