This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

Hydraulic Stability of Cubipod Armour Units in Breaking Conditions|Views: 156|Likes: 1

Published by Camille Cuadra

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/101536003/Hydraulic-Stability-of-Cubipod-Armour-Units-in-Breaking-Conditions

03/28/2013

text

original

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 opportunity 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 experience, 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:

Medina, Laboratory of Ports and Coasts, Polytechnic University of Valencia Prof. Julien De Rouck, Department of Civil Engineering, Ghent University

Prof. Josep R.

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

Faculty of Engineering. Medina [7] proposed a method applicable to nonstationary conditions. Belgium Professor. Vanhoutte1 Supervisor(s): J. designed by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the Universidad Politcnica de Valencia. For every water depth different periods were considered. As the wave height is an important value when designing mound breakwaters. Their characteristics have an important inﬂuence on the hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater and explains why improvement and development of armour units is still an important subject of research. An important factor inﬂuencing the hydraulic stability is the maximum incident wave height. They avoid sliding of the armour elements and thus. based on an exponential model for individual waves of the storm. one with a single layer of Cubipods. each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Registered wave heights were separated in incident and reﬂected waves with the LASA V-method (Figueres & Medina [1]). De Rouck3 2 1 Masterthesis student. Van der Meer [8] proposed a ﬁrst formula for irregular waves. Finally.hydraulic stability . and they have a density of 2300kg/m3 . The continuous growing of the harbours meant a need for higher stones and design of artiﬁcial concrete armour units was forced. or by excessive settlement causing Heterogeneous Packing of the armour layer as described by Gomez-Marton & Medina [2]. I NTRODUCTION Mound breakwaters play an important role in the protection of harbours. Fig. each with and without toe berm were considered. J. Many different breakwater armour units exist. experiments were carried out on a section consisting of a cube layer covered by a Cubipod layer.mound breakwater . Generally. which allows to measure also the failure mode of Heterogeneous Packing. The water depth changes from 30cm to 42 cm near the model. The protuberances of the Cubipod avoid face-to-face settlement and increase the friction with the ﬁlter layer as can be seen in ﬁgure 1. All this indicates a higher hydraulic stability of Cubipods in comparison with cube elements. Belgium Abstract—In this Masterthesis an experimental study of the Cubipod armour unit was carried out on a physical model breakwater in shallow water. but the most important one is the loss of hydraulic stability of the armour layer under wave attack. II. Therefore. and not only extraction of armour units.R. establishing the damage levels Initiation of Damage. and the reﬂection coefﬁcient was obtained as CR [%] = Hr /Hi . Medina2 . The most frequently cited armour stability formula was published by Hudson in 1959[4] for regular waves. which was proved in earlier executed tests [3]. . Keywords—Cubipod . The results show that the Cubipod has low reﬂection and a high hydraulic stability. An estimation of the hydraulic stability KD coefﬁcient of the Cubipod in breaking conditions was proposed using the Virtual Net Method[2]. Polytechnic University of Valencia. I. This can be caused by direct extraction of armour units. lancing waves with increasing wave height for every period. They have many failure modes. Spain 3 Professor. In 1988. Faculty of Engineering. of Ports and Coasts. Hydraulic stability of armour layers has been intensively studied in literature and several formulae have been proposed for predicting armour damage. The wave height was increased until breaking occured. Damage progression was analysed visually. as well as quantitatively. theories estimating the maximum wave height in breaking conditions were studied and compared with the measured results in the Laboratory. Heterogeneous Packing and loss of elements above the still water level is reduced.H YDRAULIC STABILITY OF C UBIPOD ARMOUR UNITS IN BREAKING CONDITIONS L. The new armour unit: the Cubipod III.armour unit .breaking conditions The Cubipod armour unit is designed to beneﬁt from the advantages of the traditional cube. Iribarren Damage and Destruction. A RMOUR UNITS Originally. and later popularized for irregular waves by SPM using the equivalences H1/3 and H1/10 as representative of the wave height. the design of the unit is based on the cube in order to obtain his robustness. using the Virtual Net Method proposed by Gmez-Martn & Medina [2]. 1. harbours were built with wooden or stone constructions. mound breakwaters are placed in shallow water and thus subjected to breaking conditions. Results on reﬂection and damage progression were presented and compared with previous similar tests in deepwater conditions. A section with a double layer of Cubipods. Ghent University. E XPERIMENTS Regular experiments on ﬁve different physical model breakwaters were carried out in the 2D wave ﬂume of the laboratory of Ports and Coasts in the Polytechnic University of Valencia. Ghent University. Lab. but to correct the drawbacks. The Cubipod is a new armour unit. The unit weight of the Cubipods is 128g. The ﬁrst models were only valid for stationary conditions.

Division.. 85(3):93-121. they suppose mostly that the energy from the broken waves is concentrated in the breaking wave height. (6) Medina. This statement however didn’t correspond with the reality. 594-603. 1789-1802. special attention has to paid to the maximum wave height. however this inﬂuence decreases and becomes nil. and Oc. (5) Le Roux. Proc. because there is no increase of porosity at the bottom of the breakwater.. the Cubipod proves to have a high hydraulic stability in breaking conditions and shows to be a very promising armour unit. an easy placement pattern and a high hydraulic stability compared with other armour units. pp. 3. 5 and increases until 50% for small kh values. KD =18 was found for a combined armour layer with cubes and Cubipods. B. B IBLIOGRAPHY Fig. Different theories exist to estimate this maximum value. (8) Van der Meer. 120(2). 2. Eng. Hydraulic stability The reﬂection coefﬁcient differs between 10% and 30% for kh > 1. Proc of Coast. whereas underestimation could result in structural failure or signiﬁcant maintenance costs. R ESULTS A. M. Port. J. VIII Jorn. J. Eng. 179-198. he underestimates the breaking wave height and supposes a constant wave height after breaking. R. Eng. (3) Gomez-Martin. Coast. VI..R. Coast. Hydraulic stability coefﬁcients of KD =28 . Hudspeth. Many theories however. Damage analysis resulted in a higher hydraulic stability for sections with toe berm. C ONCLUSION Calculating a mound breakwater in breaking conditions.. 2004. & Medina. 1994. Graphic showing the theory of Le Roux (2007) [5] to estimate the wave height..T. Coastal Engr. For small values of kh. of the 29th Coast. Espaolas de Ing. ASCE. Further. Port. In Fig. Conf. M. which means that all the broken waves have the breaking wave height in the surﬁng zone. Conf.E.pp. overestimate this value. Wtrwy.: Wave climate simulation and breakwater stability. and Oc. Breaking wave height The incident wave height is an important factor inﬂuencing the design of coastal structures. 2007. C. 1996.R. (2) Gomez-Martin. 2 is the theory of Le Roux (2007) [6] shown to estimate the real wave heights.: A simple method to determine breaker height and depth for different deepwater height/length ratios and sea ﬂoor slopes. and Fassardi. which means that the damage will initiate earlier than in deepwater conditions.: Suitable wave-height parameter for characterizing breakwater stability.. 1959. M.R. J. pp. with D0. with a simple and robust shape. of Waterw. J. & Medina. Coast. Many existing theories overestimate this wave height. (4) Hudson: Laboratory investigation of rubble mound breakwaters.IV..: Cubipod concrete armour unit and Heterogeneous Packing.: Breakwater armor damage due to wave groups.R. L.. 114(1):6680. According to the executed tests. Those are the common built breakwater sections. 2005.: Estimation of incident and reﬂected waves using a fully nonlinear wave model. Engrg. Fig. Reﬂections coefﬁcients in shallow water is lower than in deepwater conditions because the crest breaks and a lot of energy is dissipated which means less reﬂection. J. Port. 3. independent of the wave period.: Analisis de averas de diques en talud con manto principal formado por bloques de hormigon. J. which can result in uneconomical results. J. (7) Medina. of the 25th Coast. The estimation is similar to the measured values. In Fig. Waves with higher energy reach the breakwater. the type of armour layer has a big inﬂuence on the reﬂection coefﬁcient and a single layer reﬂects less energy than a double layer. compared with the measured results in the Laboratory (1) Figueres. 54. however. 271-277. Proc. & Medina. ASCE. also in breaking conditions. 2007. J. An overly conservative estimation of this value can greatly increase costs and make projects uneconomical. and Oc. ASCE. 1988. A short study concerning the maximum wave height in breaking conditions was executed. Linearised dimensionless equivalent damage as a function of dimensionless wave height for the different studied breakwater sections V. The energy from the broken waves was distributed back over the smaller wave heights in the distribution. For high kh values.R.W. de Costas y Puertos. J.E.2 the linearized dimensionless damage proposed by Medina [6] and indication of the Initiation of damage and Initiation of Iribarren damage. the damage progression for the different breakwater sections are shown. for a double layer of Cubipods with toe berm and KD =23 for a single layer were found. Structures. Comparison between the damage progression in deepwater conditions and in shallow water shows us that KD in shallow water is less than in deepwater conditions. Wtrwy. ASCE.

. . . . . . . . . . .2. . .4 Damage criteria . .3. .1 2. . .2. . . . . . . .3 Introduction . . . .2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. . . . . .1 2. .2 General stability of a mound breakwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 v . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . . . .3 2. . 14 Quantization of the stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Heterogeneous packing . .3. . 16 2. . A Short History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the stability of a mound breakwater . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . .3. . .3. . . . . ii ix xiii 1 4 4 5 9 9 Heterogeneous packing . . . . . . . .Contents Extended abstract List of Figures List of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Stability of Mound Breakwaters 2. . . . . . . . . .1 Formula to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater . . . . . . .

.1 5. . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Models to estimate the wave height distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . . . . .5 2D Wave Flume . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 The Test Equipment . . . . . . . . . .4 vi 18 Introduction . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Classication of armour units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . . . . . . . . .5 33 Introduction . . . . . 50 Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . 28 Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3.3 5. . . . .3 5. . . . . . .2 43 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 4 Wave height in breaking conditions 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Wave Generation System . . . 47 Energy dissipation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5. . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 A new armour unit: The Cubipod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4 Calibration of the wave ume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Introduction . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5 Experimental setup 5. . . . . . . . 36 Maximum wave height in breaking conditions . . .2 4. . . 34 Types of breaking waves .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. . . . . . 44 Wave Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 History: the armour units since the 50's . . . . . .Contents 3 Armour Units 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . 33 The surf zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 78 Interpretation of the theories calculating the maximum wave height . . . . . . 88 . . . . . . . .4. . 67 Analysis of the reection coecient . . . . . .4. . . . .4. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . 54 Control of the material characteristics . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . . . .1 6. .0. . . . . . . . . 66 Analysis of the waves: LPCLAB 1. . . .Contents 5. . . . .1 Wave reection . . . . . 64 Experimental procedure .5 Preparation .3 Experiments . .3 6. . . .3. . . . .4.3 The reection coecient in function of kh .2. . . . . . . . .2 vii Physical characteristics of the studied model . . . . . .2. . .4. . . . . .1 5. .2 5. .4. .4. . . . . . . 64 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . .4. . . 70 6 Results 6. . .4. . 85 6. . . . .4. . . . . . . .1. . . . . 85 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. 65 5. . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6. . . . . . . . .4 Separating the incident and reected waves: LASA V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Realized experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . .2. 80 Hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater .4. . 85 The reection coecient in function of Ir . 66 5. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . 54 5. . . . . .4 Procedure to analyse the data .4.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Placement of the sensors . . . . . . . . . . . .4 77 Introduction . . . . . . . . . .4 5. .4. . .2. .3. . . . . .4. 69 Analysis of the damage progression . . . . . . .3 5. 59 Reconstruction of the model . .1 5. 77 Calibration of the wave ume . . . . . . 63 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Comparing with the reection coecient in deepwater . . .4. . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . .4. .2 5.4. . .1 5. . . .1 5. . . . . . 50 Construction of the physical model . . . . .4. . 56 Construction of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .4. .2 viii Damage analysis on the armour layer . . .2. . . . . . 93 Qualitative analysis . . .Contents 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .2 6.3 Introduction . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . 96 7 Conclusions A Terminology of the experiments B Wave ume C Working of the AWACS D Seperation of incident and reected waves E Calculation of the initial porosity F Example of a test report G Test results Bibliography 102 104 106 108 113 115 116 119 130 .4. . . . . . .2. .1 6. . 93 Quantitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .2 Types of breaking waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Mound Breakwater failure modes dened by Bruun . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 A new armour element: the Cubipod . . . . concerning that all the broken wave heights will have the breaking wave height in the surng zone . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. . 32 4. . . . . . .3 3. . 42 ix . . 10 The two most important failure modes by mound breakwaters: extraction of armour elements and heterogeneous packing. . . . . . . . . . . 32 The casting system designed by SATO and the tongs for movement and manufacture . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . 36 Distribution of the wave heights by breaking. . . . . . . . 30 Penetration of the Cubipods in the armour layer .5 3. . .1 3. .8 Face to face tting by cubes reducing the friction with the lter layer . . . . . . 28 Drop test results of Cubipods compared with cubes showing the lost weight . . the heterogeneous packing view . . . . The classical view vs. . . . . . 19 A selection of the existing concrete armour units .1 4.7 3. . . 37 4. . . . . . .3 Distribution of the breaking wave heights over the distribution of the unbroken waves (Goda [46]) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 The separating eect of the protuberances avoiding the face-to-face arrangement 31 Example of placement in a depository of Cubipods . . . . . . . . . .6 3. . . . .

. . . . . .4 5. . . 59 5. 53 5. . . . . . . . . . . .11 Construction of the model: the core and the lter . . .5 Wave energy dissipation system in the LPC wave ume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods with toe berm (C2B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Parameter window of the LPCLab software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5. . . . .19 Damage levels in the armour layer .15 Example of the separation of incident and reected wave trains by LASA V . 52 5. . . . . . . 1 layer of Cubipods with toe berm (C1B) . 44 Wave generation system in the LPC wave ume and setup of active wave absorption system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 . . . . . . . 74 5. . . . . . .2 x Longitudinal section of the 2D wave-ume . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5. . . . . . . . . 1 layer of Cubipods (C1). .List of Figures 5. . . . 1 layer of cubes covered by one layer of Cubipods (CB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5. 49 Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods (C2). .12 Construction proses of the armour layer . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. . . . 76 . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5. 57 5. . . . . 55 Grading curve for the core material . . .8 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. . . . . . . . 73 5. . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. . . . . . . .3 Wave gauges for wave measurement and Step-Gauge Run-up Measurement System (S-GRMS) constructed by University of Ghent .10 Grading curve for the lter material . . . . . . 62 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The concrete grout to provide a rough surface for the model . . .14 Parameter window of the LASA-V software . . . . . .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) . .17 Virtual net to measure the equivalent damage analysis and counting the units in AutoCAD for damage calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Draw the cross section of the mound breakwater on the wall of the canal . . . . . . . .

. . . Above: the qualitative calculated KD 's. . . . Under: the quantitative calculated KD 100 6. . . and with Quarrystone in breaking conditions.3 Theoretical models to estimate the relation Hb /H0 in function of H0 /L0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6. . . . . .9 The reection coecient (CR) in function of the number of Iribarren . Collins for dierent slopes. . . 79 Theoretical models to estimate the breaking wave height in function of the water depth. 92 Inuence of the presence of a toe berm on the hydraulic stability of a mound breakwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensionless damage as a function of dimensionless wave height . . . . Sakai and Battjes (S&B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6. . . . 99 6. . . . . . . . . 84 6. .1 6. . . . . .2 xi Results of the calibration of the wave ume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Theorecal model of Le Roux to estimate the real water wave height for h=30cm. .8 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 . . . .5 The reection coecient (CR) in function of the dimensionless relative wave depth (kh) . . . . 107 C. . .11 Comparison a double Cubipod layer in breaking with non-breaking conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 The linearised dimensionless damage as a function of a dimensionless height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . compared with the maximum measured wave height: Keulegan and Patterson (K&P). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 6. . . compared with the measured results: Komar and Gaughan (K&G). compared with the measured results . . . . . . SPM for dierent slopes and Weggel for a horizontal bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .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 .List of Figures 6. . . . . . . . . . . .1 A detailed scheme of the working of the AWACS . . . 101 B. . . . . 83 6. . . .6 The reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth (kh): comparing single and double layers of Cubipods . . . . . . . . 90 6. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Cross section of the 2D wave-ume of the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the Politecnic University of Valencia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .1 Example of a test report . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 The program Multicard. . . . . . . for the aquisition of the datas . . . . Above: the startscreen Under: the calibration of the AWACS . . . . . 117 F. . . 112 E. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Calculation of the initial porosity . . . . . . . . . . . 112 C. . . . . 115 F. . . . . 110 C. .3 Software to manage the AWACS.2 The steps to activate the control system . . . . . . . . .2 Example of a test report . . 118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures xii C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Windows to realize the wave generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 C.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . .3 9 Classication of breakwater armour units by shape [34] .1 Hydraulic stability criteria for the armour layer of a mound breakwater as cited in[1] . . . . . . . 61 Position of the wave gauges and distance between them in the canal .1 Theoretic characteristics of the used materials . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Theoretical and measured characteristics of the Cubipods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 xiii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . placement and stability factor. 51 5. . .List of Tables 2.3 5. . . 35 Calculating the theoretic equivalent cube size and the theoretic volume of the Cubipods . . .2 3.5 5.2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The real initial porosity in the dierent models [%] . . . . . . . . . . 64 Incident wave heights producing the levels of damage: IDa and IIDa . . . . . . . . . .7 6. . . . . . . .6 5.1 5. . .4 5. . 51 Grading characteristics of the core material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Classication of armour units by shape. . . . . . . . . 26 Classication of armour units by placement method and structural strength (Mijlemans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . 2006) . . . . . . . . .1 Type of breaking in function of the number of Iribarren . 27 4. . . . . . 57 Grading characteristics of the lter material . . . . . . . . . . .

the natural protection can no longer resist the wave action and ports grow through sea side. breakwaters are divided in two dierent types: mound breakwaters and vertical breakwaters. an original harbour is protected in a natural area. Generally. as there are ports. covered by one or two lter layers and an armour layer. Breakwaters start to play an important role. As the economy keeps growing. Very often. but also reection plays an important role. Due to this facts. resting on a rubble mound foundation. They reduce the transmitted energy by forcing the waves to break and reect when hitting the breakwater. A principal design objective is to determine the size and layout of the components of the cross-section. The mound breakwaters are sloped structures. the importance and application of the ports increase and a continuous port expansion is necessary. Designing and constructing a stable structure with acceptable energy absorbing characteristics continues to rely heavily on past experience and physical modelling. coastal areas and coastal installations. Vertical breakwaters function mainly in reecting the incident waves and consist of a vertical wall. Growing ship draughts also oblige to expand the existing ports. constructed with a low permeable core. port facilities. 1 . The dissipation of wave energy is mainly through absorbtion.Chapter 1 Introduction Breakwaters are articial structures with the principal function of protecting a coastal area from excessive wave action.

First a historical resume is given. provide insucient structural stability. This is followed by an overview of the dierent failure modes and the quantization of the stability. The Cubipod is a new armour element. as theoretical background on breakwater design. an experimental study of the hydraulic stability of the Cubipod armour unit has been carried out on a physical scale model in 2D.Introduction 2 In the beginning of the mound breakwater use. each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the dierent existing armour units. The 80's meant a decade of big changes: not only the hydraulic stability and interlocking. As ports kept growing. stabilised by their own weight. however. they consisted typically of quarrystone. In Chapter 2. starting by the rst published formula to calculate the weight of rock materials of a mound breakwaters until the last developments. First. A historical overview . stability studies in deepwater conditions showed successful results for this element and also overtopping performance seemed to be smaller in comparison with cubes. Failures in the 70's. which may cause progressive failure. Later on. but also the structural strength and robustness of the elements has been recognized. structural strength and hydraulic stability. dierent shapes were developed. problems concerning those elements were discovered. the elements were simple cubes. the stability of a mound breakwater is discussed. in shallow water. They dier in placement pattern. In recent history. This was no longer possible with quarrystone. The aim of this project is to study the characteristics of the Cubipod in breaking conditions. number of layers. Concrete units were used. Dierent models are obtained: a model with a double armour layer. the mound breakwaters had to resist higher wave action. as their size is limited. but soon. The results also will be compared with the earlier obtained results in the deepwater tests. designed for maximum interlocking. risk of progressive failure. invented by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts in the Polytecnic University of Valencia. showed that slender units. The main objective is determining the hydraulic stability in breaking conditions and to compare those results for the dierent sections. This event set an end to the rapid development of elements with high hydraulic stability and reduced weight. Now. with a single armour layer and with a combined layer of cubes covered by a Cubipod layer.

Chapter 6 gives the results of the realised tests. Further. Dierent 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 conditions. followed by dierent systems to classify the existing armour units. given its idea and concept including the dierent advantages of the element. the Cubipod. the new armour unit. the experimental setup is described. presents the conclusions of the realized work. including the test equipment and the experimental design. Those results are compared to previously executed test in deepwater conditions. Here the physical characteristics of the studied model are given. damage progression and estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient KD for the dierent sections are discussed. the construction of the model is described and the experimental procedure and the entire procedure to analyse the data are given. The reection results. The theories estimating the maximum wave height in breaking conditions are compared with the measured results in the Laboratory. is presented. the maximum existing wave height in shallow waters is briey discussed. . In Chapter 4. Chapter 7.Introduction 3 since the 50's is given. Finally. In Chapter 5.

however is a complex theme and has been studied across the world. forming the base of the mound breakwater. 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. high capacity to disperse the incoming energy and resist big storms. the armour layer. The bulk of the cross-section comprises a relatively dense rock ll core. An important evolution is made from elementary studies. the toe and the crest. The most important parts of a traditional mound breakwater are the core. Sometimes a screen wall 4 . dissipating further energy. 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. lter layers. considering only stationary regular waves to more complicated models. Design of mound breakwaters. The armour layer. 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.Chapter 2 Stability of Mound Breakwaters 2. able to predict breakwater stability due to non-linear wave action in non-stationary conditions. 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.1 Introduction Mound breakwaters are the most commonly used breakwaters in Europe because of their easy construction and reparation process.

similar to the formula of Iribarren. water density. the angle of the slope. In this chapter. Since his work. Two years later Larras (1952) [4] presented another formula taking into account the depth and the length of the wave. the weight of the armour elements. Castro (1933) [1] published the rst formula to calculate the weight of rock materials of a mound breakwater. They were constructed based on experiences giving us qualitative criteria about the inuence of the waveheight. many studies about mound breakwater stability were developed. Many formulae. In 1938.1. however.2 A Short History Breakwater design depends on many variables as there are: wave height. etc. The reality.C. Iribarren [2] developed a theoretical model for the stability of armour units on a slope under wave attack. Further a study of the analysis of their stability is described. core permeability.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 5 is placed above the crest of the mound breakwater to avoid overtopping and improve the conditions during construction. Until 1933 there didn't exist any method to calculate mound breakwaters. including the description of a new failure mode called heterogeneous packing. showing dierent formulae to predict damage in the armour layer due to wave attack. were developed (F. using a modication in the wave-height. This makes clear why during many years authors proposed dierent formulae to estimate damage on the armour layer due to wave attack. 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. a brief historical background concerning the most important evolutions in the studies of mound breakwaters is given. The majority of those formulae assume a constant incident wave and initial damage zero. That's why new methods should be developed applying to no stationary processes. followed by the way to quantify the stability of an armour layer. armour density. Tyrrel (1949). . wave period. An overview of the most important formulae can be found in table 2. storm duration. wave grouping. etc. armour slope. shows that wave conditions are not stationary. 2.

In 1976. storm duration. Analysis of the results from all of these tests has resulted in two practical design formulae that describe the inuence of wave period. Iribarren (1965) presented in the Navigation Conference the relation of the friction coecient with the number of elements on the slope. within the scatter of the results. armor grading. Hudson's formula was originally proposed for regular waves. grouping of waves. the erosion damage showed a clear dependence on the wave period.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. Core permeability. The most frequently cited armour stability formula was published by Hudson (1959) [5] based on the pioneering work of Iribarren. showing the big dierence in results between the dierent methods. One of their main conclusions was that. Font (1968) veries empirically the inuence of the storm duration on the stability of mound breakwaters. the eect of the period in the stability. storm duration. as a starting point for an extensive model research program. Carstens et al. An extensive investigation was performed by Thompson and Shuttler (1975) on the stability of rubble mound revetments under random waves.(1966) [7] present the rst results of tests on rock mound breakwaters with irregular waves. wave grouping were not considered. Bruun and Bünbak (1976). in an indirect way. He also limited in this year the use of his formula by introducing. random 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. and the permeability of the core. Other experimental works in the same line were done by Ahrens and McCartney (1975). wave period. spectrum shape. 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. The work of Thompson and Shuttler has therefore been used. Bruun and Johannesson (1976). PIANC [9]. presented the most important used formulae and calculations of breakwaters until this time.

Van der Meer (1988) [16] proposed formulae including wave period. In 1982 Losada and Giménez-Curto [14] present a hypothesis to calculate the stability of quarrystone mound breakwaters with non-perpendicular incident wave. that the security margin between initiation of damage and destruction of the armour layer is very low. the fragility of the slopes with dolosse with big size. because of their structural weakness. resistance of the elements). introducing for the rst time the concept "fragility" of the slope. 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. using results of eld tests.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. Vidal et al. Whillock and Price (1976) [10] showed by interlocking elements. The cumulative eects of previous storms however were not included. 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. 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.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 7 The occured damages in the breakwaters in Bilbao (1976). permeability and storm duration. 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. Magoon and Baird (1977) [11] accentuated the importance of the movements of the armour elements due to wave attack when the armour elements break. especially by the most slender elements with the highest interlocking development. Lorenzo and Losada (1984) show. laboratory tests and numerical modelling. (1995) [17] introduced a new wave height parameter Hn (The average of the n highest waves . Losada and Giménez-Curto (1979.

Also the project CLASH (2002-2004) was focussed in obtaining a neural network model to predict overtopping on coastal structures (De Rouck et al. the most important failure mode in case of armour layers formed by cubes or concrete elements. as there are displacement of the armour layer or the lifting up of elements because of suppression.) [21]. He showed that increase of placement density not always means an increase of stability. The model is also applicable in non-stationary conditions. considering the dierence in porosity compared to the initial porosity of each of the zones of the armour layer. Gómez-Martín and Medina (2004-2006) [23] adjusted the wave-to-wave exponential model to estimate the n50% parameter for rubble mound breakwaters. Vandenbosch et al.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 8 in a sea state). An armour layer with a high density can cause other failure modes. including the non-stationary conditions of waves. dened as the average of the 50 highest waves in the structures lifetime. new methods to be applied in non-stationary conditions are required to avoid simplifying the concept of 'design sea state'. Vidal et al. (1996) indicated that H250 is a suitable wave height parameter for irregular waves. It is characterized by a decrease of porosity of the armour layer on some places and increase on others. designed in 2003 a Neural Network model applicable to non-stationary conditions. Medina (1996) [18] developed an exponential model applicable to individual waves of the storm. Medina et al. Accordingly. to characterize breakwater stability under irregular waves and Jensen et al. can be used to describe the evolution of damage in rubble mound breakwaters attacked by sea states of any duration and wave height distribution. which implies stationary conditions. showed that the H50 parameter. named 'Heterogeneous Packing'. without extracting armour units. (2004) [22]. They also described a new methodology 'Virtual Net Method' to provide damage measurement. (2002) [20] analyzed the inuence of placement density on the stability of a mound breakwater with two layers of concrete cube armour units. in case of rock slopes or slopes with cubes. In 2005 Gómez-Martín and Medina [24] dened a new failure mode of mound breakwaters. Melby and Kobayashi (1998) [19] characterized relationships for predicting temporal variations of mean damage with wave height and period varying with time for breaking wave conditions. .

and thus the dierent failure modes have to be dened.3 Analysis of the stability of a mound breakwater 2. . Bruun (1979) [25] specied eleven dierent principal failure modes demonstrated in gure 2. causing excessive transmission of energy to the interior of the breakwater. Damage of the inner slope by wave overtopping.0162 H 2 T γr tan3 (45−θ/2) (γr /γw −1)3 · K· γr H 3 (cotθ−sinθ) (γr /γw −1)3 H 3 γr K0 (µcosθ+sinθ)3 (γr /γw −1)3 H 3 γr K (µcosθ−sinθ)3 (γr /γw −1)3 H 3 γr 1 KD cotθ (γr /γw −1)3 3 2πH L sinh 4πz L 3 Hydraulic stability criteria for the armour layer of a mound breakwater as cited in[1] 2.1. the dierent reasons for loss of stability should be understood. 5. Loss of armour units (increasing porosity). 1.75sinθ)2 (γr /γw −1)3 0.1: 9 1933 1938 1949 1951 1951 1952 1953 1953 1959 W = W = W = W = W = W = W = W = W = 0.704 √ (cotθ+1)2 cotθ−2/γr K (cosθ−sinθ)3 · H 3 γr (γr /γw −1)3 H 3 γr (γr /γw −1)3 H 2 T γr K 3 · (µ−tanθ) (γr /γw −1)3 0. 3. 2.Stability of Mound Breakwaters Castro Iribarren Tyrrel Matthews Rodolf Larras Hedar: climbing waves Hedar: descending waves Hudson Table 2.1 General stability of a mound breakwater To understand the structural stability of mound breakwaters. Rocking of the armour units. this might lift the breakwater cap and the interior layers. in the rst place. 4.3. breaking is due to fatigue.0149 H 3 γr (µcotθ−0. Lack of compactness in the underlying layers. Sliding of the armour layer due to a lack of friction with the layers below.

It includes the movement of the armour layer or the movement of big parts (4. simply by exceeding its structural resistance or by slamming into other units. III Structural stability: resistance of the elements or their material. Those failure modes can be rearranged into ve families of failure (Gómez-Martín.1: Mound Breakwater failure modes dened by Bruun 6. 5. . 11. Erosion of the breakwater toe or the breakwater interior. 9. 2. II Global stability: the stability of the entire breakwater. of the entire armour layer. Loss of the mechanical characteristics of the materials. 2). 6). 10. 7. Undermining of the crone wall.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 10 Figure 2. Construction errors. acting as one piece. This includes the ability of the elements of resisting the tensions caused by transport. the used granular and the movements caused by currents (7. 8. construction. 2002) [26]: I Unit stability: the capacity of each piece to resist the movement caused by wave action (1. 3). Breaking of the armour units caused by impact. or more specic. Settlement or collapsing of the subsoil. wave action.

Once dened the dierent types of damage. Therefore. dened by Losada et al. there's a need to specify the moment when a mound breakwater is considered as damaged. type of the ground. This failure mode can be caused by two dierent reasons: the simple extraction of the armour units under wave attack. as there are: intensity of the waves. Loss of stability of the armour layer. This last failure mode is proposed by Gómez-Martín and Medina [24] and will be commented later in this chapter. only the hydraulic stability of the armour units will be studied. four damage levels will be distinguished. etc. depth of the mound breakwater. type of construction materials. In this report.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 11 IV Geotechnical stability: the resistance of the underground or the sensitivity to erosion of the breakwater toe (8. 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. in 1986 [27]. more specically the loss of armour elements in certain zones of the breakwater slope. 9).4. The relative importance of every failure mechanism depends on dierent factors. causing a heterogeneous packing.2. 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. or their excessive settlement. 11). 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.2): Initiation of Damage (IDa) Initiation of Iribarren Damage (IIDa) Initiation of Destruction (IDe) Destruction (De) . V Errors in the construction (10.

but only by moving them within the armour layer. however. due to slamming between each other.2. Their structural stability.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 12 2. may not be forgotten. 2. the capacity of the elements to resist against movement due to wave attack supposing that they don't break. they observed that this failure mode tends to increase the packing density below the still water level. decreasing their weight.3.1 Introduction This project works with armour layers consisting of cubes or Cubipod elements.2 Heterogeneous packing 2. Those are robust armour elements which means that in the rst place the hydraulic stability.3. An element in the armour layer can move in three dierent ways: I: Pitching in their position in the armour layer.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. This is important when the structural stability can be the origin of additional tensions on the elements. and thus decreasing their structural stability. The monolithic and robust elements probably won't reach such a tensional situation able to break them.2. which is balanced by a corresponding reduction in packing density above and . In tests. 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. without extracting armour units. III: Packing of the elements as a result of small unit movements and frequent face-to-face arrangements. will be studied. II: Displacement by extraction out of the armour layer. but the elements can break partially. 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.

the armour layer is damaged by two dierent failure mechanisms: armour unit extraction and Heterogeneous Packing. It's important to know that during this process. Heterogeneous Packing occurs always. Thus. and only their own weight oer resistance to displacement. called 'Partial Stability'. formed by the contact between the protuberances of the elements. Heterogeneous Packing of the elements can . To have extraction of an armour element out of the armour layer. If the height of the wave exceeds a critical point. Their probability to displacement is high. because the reduction of the packing density near the mean water level can facilitate the extraction of units from the inner layers. When the wave exceeds a certain value. In both cases. it's very important to take this failure mode into account together with the extraction of elements. Studying the stability of the armour layer by wave attack. the armour layer won't obtain a stable situation. but develop until complete destruction occurs. the wave attack and his duration. the result is similar: a decrease in the number of armour units near the mean water level. interlocking refers to a macroscopic type of resistance. Friction is a microscopic type of resistance between dierent elements. extraction of elements or heterogeneous packing of armour elements starts. The mound breakwater obtains a stable situation. the wave has to overcome the friction and the interlocking between the elements in the armour layer and their own weight. 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.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 13 near the still water level. Those extractions or Heterogeneous Packing stop when the wave decreases. The moved elements are in an unfavourable situation. which depends on the number of displaced elements.

because wave action can damage the second armour layer. however. This classic denition. 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. 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. The classical view vs. it is considered as seriously damaged.2: The two most important failure modes by mound breakwaters: extraction of armour elements and heterogeneous packing. 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.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. If the breakwater reaches this state. but can also lead to important disintegrations. because damage depends on the size of the armour layer.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 14 Figure 2. and the underlayer will be in danger as well and total destruction of the breakwater is impending.3. the heterogeneous packing view increase the capacity of the armour layer in some places. doesn't allow generalizing the result. A better denition was given by Van de Kreeke [29] and Oullet [30].2. Iribarren (1965) [31] proposed a clear damage denition for mound breakwaters. 2. causing damage. .

is only valid for small damages which is evenly distributed over the slope. Qualitative criteria's: important changes in the morphology of the armour layer are concerned.4. Concerning this facts.2. which consequently aect the basic idea of a two-layer armour cover and eventually even lead to exposure of the second layer and core. taking into account the number of displaced elements and the changes in porosity of the armour layer by Heterogeneous Packing. Initiation of destruccion and Destruccion. 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 important to observe whether concentrations of block removal occur. An equivalent dimensionless damage measurement is used to take into account the dierence in porosity.2. a new method for damage estimation. With appreciable damage. 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. which can be very important in situations with Cubipod elements in the armour layer. The method is complemented using qualitative criteria's considering dierent levels of damage: Initiation of damage. Gómez-Martín and Medina (2006) [24] present a new method for damage estimation: the Virtual Net Method. .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 necessary.3. Those are explained further in 6. in each zone of the armour layer. compared to their initial porosity. Initiation of Iribarren damage. It is obvious that such a classication is subjective. This method is explained in 6. Therefore. but has a principal disadvantage to be subjective. In general. The second method provides qualitative information about the damage level.4. A disadvantage of quantitative citeria's is that they don't give information about Heterogeneous Packing.2.

The Shore Protection Manual (1984) [6]. in N/m3 H is the incident wave-height. 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) . in degrees H is the design wave height at the structure. proposes the next formulae to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater: W = Ns = With: 1 H3 γr 3 cotα kD (Sr − 1) ∆ = Sr − 1 and Dn50 = 3 (2.2) W the weight of on individual element of the armour layer. in m Sr is the specic gravity of the armour units.4 Quantization of the stability 2. based on the works of Hudson (1959) [5]. in meter Ns the hydraulic stability coecient KD is the hydraulic stability coecient. ∆Dn50 W γr (2.1 Formula to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater As described in the short history.1) Hs = (KD cotα)1/3 . many formulae to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater have been developed. relative to the water at the structure α is the angle of the structure slope.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 16 2.4. in N γr is the unit weight of the armour elements. during the years. respective to the horizontal.

the way of collocation (uniform or random). Therefore. where the most important one is the used armour unit. . shows some shortcomings. KD is an important characteristic for every armour unit. determining the wave-height that produces initiation of damage. 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. the number of armour layers. The wave-height for irregular wave was not dened. SPM [6] resumed recommended KD values in a table. storm duration. The value KD takes into account many variables. KD doesn't depend on the period. This method to obtain the KD values experimentally however. as to provide a unit characteristic that allows comparison with other units. They give the hydraulic stability factor in function of the type of the armour unit. wave grouping. etc. Further. the part of the mound breakwater (head or body) and the water depth (breaking or non-breaking). as well to be able to use the Hudson design formula. SPM recomended H=H1/3 and later H=H1/10 .Stability of Mound Breakwaters 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 17 The values of KD need to be obtained experimentally.

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 hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater. Further, the cost of the armour layer is an important 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 parallelepipedic 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. However, 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 indicated 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. Therefore relatively conservative KD values are recommended for design. developed by the US Army of Engineers in 1994. it was found that the structural stability of the CoreLoc was signicantly better than for dolos units because of his more compact central section. therefore Sogreah recommends various techniques for placement. Each . The Accropode is a compact shape and the basic concept of the unit was a balance between interlocking and structural stability. residual stability after breaking as well as ease of casting and placement. Single layer randomly placed armour units have been applied since 1980. The orientation of the block has to vary. It is a high interlocking armour unit that has been applied up to know only for revetments and not for breakwater armouring. The CoreLoc. However. The armour layer consists of hollow blocks that are placed orderly in one layer. appeared to be more slender then the Accropode and to have a higher hydraulic stability. Hence. The reasons of failure were analysed and new methods of calculation and design were searched. However he showed with respect to structural stability. The 80's meant a decade of big changes. The elements are very slender and the structural stability might be very critical if the blocks exceed a great size (1-2m3 ). sling techniques and grid placing do not guarantee a perfect interlocking of the individual armour units. CoreLoc and A-Jack are further examples of this type of single layer randomly placed armour units that have been developed subsequently. 1980) was the rst block of this new generation of armour units and became the leading armour unit worldwide for the next 20 years. After drop tests. Sogreah did not succeed to overcome these diculties by developing a more reliable placement procedure. Unfortunately. introduced by Armortec (1997) consists of three long cement stakes joined at the middle. these blocks are more economical than traditional double armour layers. The parallel development of a completely dierent type of armour concept started in the late 60th. 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 blocks are placed in a single layer on a predened grid. forming six legs. The Accropode (France. The A-Jack.

and during all service loading conditions (including violent rocking during severe storms) and avoidance of rapid failure. Concrete is a very strong material in compression. These elements provide a erce reduction of the weight and a relatively high porosity of the armour layer. The main benets of reinforcement of concrete armour units are added strength during casting. Typical examples of these elements are Cob. Given the maintance problems and catastrophic failures that have been experienced by concrete armour unit installations. but is extremely high as it is based on friction between the block and the blocks around. especially during impact events. . but with very little strength in tension. Shed and Seabee. 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. As placement of these elements is very dicult under water. if indeed failure occurs at all.Armour Units 22 block is tied to its position by the neighbouring blocks. Their hydraulic stability is not based on weight or interlocking. they are normally only applied in circumstances where construction can be done above low water. Treadwell and Wagoon (2006) [33] are of opinion that concrete armour units for coastal structures need reinforcement. Another possible discussion concerning armour elements is reinforcement of slender units. but on the other hand some of the sections have to be reinforced due to their slenderness. curing. Concrete armour units are believed to be one of the very few coastal concrete structures that generally do not contain reinforcement. in the internal voids of the blocks. moving. Therefore a friction type armour layer is more homogeneous than interlocking armour and very stable. placing. The wave energy is dissipated in the proper elements. The friction between uniformly placed blocks varies signicantly less than interlocking between randomly placed blocks.

2: A selection of the existing concrete armour units .Armour Units 23 Figure 3.

There are many criteria. Modied cube. N-shaped block. Hollow square Stabit. Tripod 2D: Accropod. Hexaleg. Toskane Tetrapod. the number of layers. Seabee Classication of breakwater armour units by shape [34] The placement pattern of armour elements can be uniform or randomly. Akmon. their structural strength and the way they resist wave action. the construction is much easier then in case of uniform placement. armour units can be classied in slender blocks and compact blocks. a manner to classify them is needed. and Klabbers (2004) [34]. This classication was made by Muttray. Core-Loc 3D: Hexapod. Trilong. Grabbelar. their placement pattern. In case of robust elements. the stability is mainly due to interlocking and the average . Cob. A-Jack Bipod Tribar.1.1: Armour blocks Cube. Antifer cube. Each of those classicationsystems are described. armour units can be classied according their shape. 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. In case of slender armour units. Shed Dolos. 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.3 Classication of armour units As there are over a hundred dierent armour units. Concerning the risk of progressive failure. the risk of progressive failure. Reedijk.Armour Units 24 3. Gassho. Shape Cubical Double anchor Thetraeder Combined bars L-shaped blocks Slab type (various shapes) Others Table 3. Tethrahedron. 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.

Hollow elements will resist wave action mainly by friction. because if they break in parts. (2003) [35] and is shown in table 3. The placement in two layers on at slopes is an uneconomical solution. the variation in hydraulic resistance is also relatively large and the structural stability is low. In case of slender armour units. is proposed by Bakker et al. the stability is mainly due to interlocking and the average hydraulic stability is large. thus the structural integrity of the armour units is jeopardized. the structural stability is high. Thus. Therefore slender blocks shall be considered as a series system with a large risk of progressive failure. . Armour elements can resist wave action by their own weight. The stability of compact blocks is mainly due to the own weight. combining dierent classication criteria. However. However. He includes criteria for placement pattern (random or uniform). The stability of compact blocks is mainly due to the own weight. Single armour layer is more cost ecient due to the reduced number of armour blocks. the hydraulic stability sharply decreases causing simultaneous loss of weight and interlocking. there is less rocking then in double armour layer and therefore a lower risk of impact loads and breakage . shape (simple and complex) and domimant method of hydraulic stability (resisting wave action by own weight. It means saving concrete and lower costs for fabrication and placement of blocks.Armour Units 25 hydraulic stability is large.because the second layer tends to create breaking and is sensitive to rocking. A more general overview.2. however. the structural stability is low. Single layer placement also has technical advantages. interlocking or friction). The elemens can be placed in one or two layers. The structural stability is high and the variation in hydraulic stability is relatively low. by interlocking or by friction. The average hydraulic stability is low. Double armour layers do not provide additional safety against failure -except for compact armour units with large structural stability and limited interlocking. the armour layer can be considered as a parallel system with a low risk of progressive failure. number of layers (single or double layer).

the stability coecient. Interlocking and a higher friction usually mean a signicant reduction in structural strength. Tripod Stabit. 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. A classication by structural strength of the units is done by Mijlemans in 2006 [36].2: Classication of armour units by shape. Elements can be subdivided in three groups: robust units that dispose of a very high structural strength. interlocking and higher friction with the inner layer. Akmon. Shed complex Uniform single layer simple complex Table 3.3. Armour units can increase their hydraulic stability by increasing their own weight. Dolos A-Jack Random single layer simple Cube Accropode Core-Loc accropode Seabee. Hollow Cube. placement and stability factor. As a general rule. however this means a decrease of the structural strength. KD increases from the massive to the slender category. Diahitis Cob. The large and . fragile armour units with low structural resistance and an intermediate group that provides a reasonably high structural stability. A common problem in the design of armour units is the need to choose between higher hydraulic stability and higher structural strength. The robust units have a massive form that provides a high structural strength. Tribar.Armour Units Placement Number pattern of layers double layer simple 26 Shape Own weight Cube Antifer cube Modied cube complex Stability factor Interlocking Friction Tetrapod.

and slender solid units where the slender members interlace with one another. Their variation in hydraulic stability however is quite high and together with the low structural stability. where the interlocking is provided by their reciprocal friction. They provide a high hydraulic stability and an intermediate structural resistance which decreases their risk of progressive failure in comparison with the fragile units above. therefore their dominant hydraulic stability factors are their own weight and interlocking. The most important stability factor is interlocking which provides them with a high average hydraulic stability. the risk of progressive failure is high. they present a low risk of progressive failure. Fragile elements can be subdivided into hollow units. Structural resistance Placement method Random multiple layers one layer Uniform multiple layers one layer group 6 group 9 Robust group 1 Intermediate group 2 group 5 group 7 group 10 group 8 group 11 group 12 Fragil group 3 group 4 Table 3. They have a rather massive form. Their form provides an amount of resistance by interlocking. They resist wave attack mainly by their own weight and the average hydraulic stability can be considered rather low. Fragile units have a very low structural stability because of their limited cross-sectional areas.Armour Units 27 compact cross-sections cause small tensile stresses which decreases the risk of unit breaking. Because of their high structural stability and their low variation in hydraulic stability. but avoids also too slender cross-sectional areas to maintain a high structural strength. The intermediate group is originated to combine the high structural stability of robust armour units with the interlocking characteristics of the fragile elements.3: Classication of armour units by placement method and structural strength (Mijlemans. 2006) .

Medina and M. these units do have certain drawbacks that must be taken into consideration. Accropodes.Armour Units 28 3. furthermore there is a low risk to progressive failure.2 Idea Numerous armour units have shown high hydraulic stability such as Tetrapods.3: A new armour element: the Cubipod 3. however they have a low structural strength. patented in 2005 by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the UPV (Patent number: P200501750) and licensed by SATO. Dolos. Randomly placed massive units with a simple shape like cubes or parallellepipedics are widely used because of their numerous advantages: structurally robust.4. Esther Gómez-Martín. etc. Figure 3. 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.4 A new armour unit: The Cubipod 3. Core-locs. X-blocks. store and put into place. . manufacture.1 Introduction The Cubipod is a new armour unit for the protection of maritime structures invented by Josep R. Nevertheless. cheap and easy to fabricate. which permit a reduction in the concrete armour unit weight.4.

hydraulic or maritime constructions or in general to resist wave breaking. overturning. Face-to-face tting The protuberances avoid sliding of the armour elements. free fall and extreme free fall tests have been carried out.3 Concept The Cubipod is designed to form the protective layer of mound breakwaters. Robustness and high structural strength The design of the unit is based on the cube in order to obtain his robustness. Preferably the size of the protuberances had to be small in comparison with the cube or parallelepiped. The Cubipod armour units were able to withstand higher drops than did the conventional cubic blocks [37]. Due to this. the total volume of the protuberances should be an order of magnitude lower than the volume of the basic element. In order to assess the structural strength of this new armor unit. not exceed 15% of the volume of the basic element without protuberances. the protuberances penetrate in the lter layer and provide an important increase of the friction with this layer.g. 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. which means a decrease of the friction between the armour layer and the lter layer. seawalls and piers in order to protect coasts. Therefore.4. e. like the high structural strength and easy placement. This . The cross-sectional areas are large and not slender.Armour Units 29 They have a low hydraulic stability (KD =6 for cubes) and a high Heterogeneous Packing failure mode. fact face-to-face tting and the loss of elements above the still water level is reduced.3. In case of Cubipods. High friction with the lter layer Cubic elements tend to place their sides parallel to their underlying layer. Its principal function should be to avoid settlement while the structural strength and hydraulic stability of a cube is maintained. The nal result is shown in gure 3. The aim of the new armour unit is to benet from the advantages of the traditional cubic block. 3. but to correct the drawbacks by preventing self packing and increasing the friction with the lter layer. that's why the Cubipod has a high individual structural strength.

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 30 Figure 3.

This means a reduction of the loss of elements above the upper parts and a lower run-up and overtopping. This is proved in earlier tests in deepwater conditions [38]. . The separating eect of the protuberances avoiding this face-to-face arrangement is showed is gure 3.Armour Units 31 Figure 3.6.6: 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. 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.

using little space (Fig 3. . 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. the storage can be done eciently.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. 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. Thanks to this system the fabrication can be done easy and fast [?]. Thanks to their form.7). the placement of the elements is much easier then in case of uniform placement.8).

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 shortens. 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 entrainment 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 =
**

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 Ir

Table 4.1:

spilling

plunging

collapsing

surging

Ir < 0, 5

0, 5 < Ir < 2, 5

2, 5 < Ir < 3

Ir > 3

Type of breaking in function of the number of Iribarren

Wave height in breaking conditions 36 Figure 4. those with height exceeding the breaking limit will break and cannot occupy their original position in the wave height distribution. . based on a Gaussian distribution of instantaneous values of surface evaluation. which means that a group of random waves entering the surf zone is assumed to have a Rayleigh distribution. In shallow water. 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. the wave behaviour is more complicated and the knowledge of the statistical description of wave eld characteristics is more limited. All the broken waves will have the breaking wave height in the surng zone (Fig ??). resulting in a Rayleigh distribution of wave heights. Among the waves obeying that distribution.4 Models to estimate the wave height distribution In deep water.1: Types of breaking waves 4. Breaking causes a truncation of the waveheight distribution. the approximately linear behaviour of the waves allows for a theoretically sound statistical description of the wave characteristics. Several authors have developed wave height distributions that modify the Rayleigh distribution of deepwater waves to take into account wave shoaling and breaking. The distribution before wave breaking can be approximated as being Rayleighan.

Glukhovskiy (1966) proposed a distribution for shallow waters by maken the exponent an increasing function of the wave-height-to-depth ratio.Wave height in breaking conditions 37 Figure 4. resulting in explicit analytical expressions. including the eect of wave breaking. 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. are algorithmic and do not result in explicit expressions for further analyses or extrapolation to low probabilities of exceedance. yielding a local wave height distribution for given local depth and wave parameters (lowest two spectral moments). 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. For suciently low wave height-to-water depth ratio.2: Distribution of the wave heights by breaking. 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 distributions given by Glukhovskiy an Tayfun are both point models. however. Tayfun (1981) presented a theoretical model for the distribution of wave heights. Collins (1970). the distribution becomes a Rayleigh distribution. Given a sequence of wave heights and periods and direction at some oshore location. 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. These methods. The Glukho- . they apply a monochromatic wave model for shoaling and breaking to calculate the onshore transformation of that monochromatic wave class. based on a narrow-banded random phase model with a nite number of spectral components. or a joint probability distribution of those variables.

21 for a 5O slope. bottom slope and total wave energy with signicantly accuracy than existing models. with the result that they apply only to limited conditions.72 over a horizontal bed. do not employ all the variables aecting the breaker height and depth. many equations have been proposed to express the breaker height/breaker depth ratio as a function of other variables. His equation which yields a ratio of 0. this distribution still overestimates the extreme wave heights and underestimates the lower wave heights on shallow foreshores. Those models however. Collins (1970) [41] was among the rst to consider the eect of the bottom slope on wave breaking. Here. 4. 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. 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. This abrupt transition does not lend itself to a distribution with one single expression and one shape parameter. matched at the transition height Htr . some models are explained.Wave height in breaking conditions 38 viskiy distribution yields a better approximation. 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. however. in general.78. This gives us a simple formula to calculate the breaking height. but did not take other variables into account. mentioning that this list is not complete at all as there exist many formulae to calculate breaking characteristics. Therefore a combination of two Weibull-distributions was assumed. increases to 1. because it does not take into account the bottom slope α. over the years. neither the wave period T.71 and 0. The model predicts the local wave height distribution in shallow foreshores for a given local water depth. each having a dierent exponent. .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.

Wave height in breaking conditions

39

Hb = 0, 72 + 5, 6tanα db

(4.1)

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 E2 Hb = E1 − db gTw 2 1, 56 E1 = 1 + e−19,5tanα 43, 75 E2 = 1 + e−19tanα

(4.2)

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.

Hb = 0, 56 H0

H0 L0

−1/5

(4.3)

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:

Hb = H0 0, 3839 Hb = H0 0, 6683 H0 L0

H0 L0

−0,3118

when

H0 < 0, 0208 L0 H0 < 0, 1 L0

(4.4)

−0,1686

when 0, 0208 ≤ when 0, 1 ≤

Hb = H0

H0 L0

Wave height in breaking conditions

40

Komar (1998) proposed two seperated equations for Hb and db , where S is the sea oor gradient.

Hb = 0, 39g 0,2 T H0 2 0,27 S db = Hb 1, 2 0,5

Hb L0

0,4

(4.5a) (4.5b)

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:

Hb = db −0, 0036α2 + 0, 0843α + 0, 835

(4.6)

Le Roux (2006) [45] presents approximations providing a very simple method to estimate wave parameters and using the wave period as fundamental parameter because it is assumed to be constant in all water depths. The expressions apply to smooth bottom proles without ridge and runnel systems and assuming an absence of marine currents. As a wave begins to shoal under these conditions, its height decreases initially and then increases shortly before breaking whereas the wavelength decreases up to breaking. The wave height Hw in any water depth changes in accordance with the deepwater wave height H0 , wavelength L0 and water depth d:

Hw = H0 A exp

where

H0 B L0

(4.7)

A = 0.5878 A = 0.9672 d L0

2

d L0

−0,18

when

d ≤ 0, 0844 L0 d ≤ 06 L0

(4.8) (4.9) (4.10) (4.11)

− 0.5013

d L0

+ 0, 9521 when 0, 0844 ≤ d > 06 L0

A = 1 when B = 0, 0042

d −2,3211 L0

Wave height in breaking conditions

41

By replacing Hb with Hw and db with d in equation 4.6 and using specic of H0 and L0 , changing the waterdepths simultaneously in equations 4.7 and 4.6 until the breaker height Hw coincides, the breaker height and depth for both developing and Airy waves over any bottom slope can be calculated. Examining Hb for dierent wave periods shows that:

Hb =

Lb gTw 2 = 16 48π

(4.12)

Among Goda [46], however, the breaking limit for random sea waves should be allowed a range of variation because even a regular wave train exhibits some uctuation in breaker height and a train of random sea waves would show a greater uctuation owing the variation of individual wave periods and other characteristics. Therefore wave breaking is assumed to take place in the range of relative wave height from x2 to x1 with a probability of occurrence which varies linearly between the two boundaries. With this assumption, the portion of waves which is removed from the original distribution due to the process of breaking is represented by the zone of slashed lines shown in gure 4.3 The heights of individual random waves after breaking are assumed to be distributed in the range of nondimensional wave heights between 0 and x1 with a probability proportional to the distribution of unbroken waves.

Wave height in breaking conditions 42 Figure 4.3: Distribution of the breaking wave heights over the distribution of the unbroken waves (Goda [46]) .

the practical design values of the model will presented. the characteristics of the experiments and the methodology used for the tests. 43 . Next the calibration of the wave generator and the experimental design of the models will be set out. including the wave ume. As the theoretical values are not the real values for the model. To end the chapter. First of all. the method used to analyse the data is set out. together with the construction method and the position of the wave gauges. This experimental design is concluded with the realized experiments. This laboratory disposes of a 2D wind and wave ume with sensors gauging the position to control the exact parameters of the experiments. the experimental setup of the hydraulic model tests will be discussed.1 Introduction In this chapter.Chapter 5 Experimental setup 5.2 The Test Equipment The experiments are performed in het Laboratory of Port and Coastal Engineering to investigate the hydraulic stability of Cubipods in breaking conditions. the test equipment will be presented. starting with the theoretical characteristics of the model. 5. the dierent measurement sensors and the data processing system. the system used to generate the waves.

This slope and platform assure the recirculation of the water in the ume. A detailed plot of the total test setup within the wave ume is shown in Appendix B.2 Wave Generation System On one of the ends of the ume. This movement is transmitted . m from the wave generator slab (measured at the toe of the breakwater) and is built on a scale of 1/50. The water depth used for the experiments is between 55 cm and 65 cm near the wave generator and between 30 cm and 40 cm near the model.15m. The slope and the foreshore are intended to stabilize the return ow during the tests and if not present. the translational movements of the water volumes would result in an elevation of the water level on one side of the canal.2m and is 30 m long. Another important advantage from the upward slope of the canal oor is that it permits the wave generation to occur at a higher water depth than the water depth near the model. It consists of a metal slab that moves horizontally by aid of a electronic piston. The model is placed at a distance of . 5. .1 2D Wave Flume The 2D wave ume has a square cross-section of 1. a wave generating system is constructed. and thus attack the model with higher waves. tanα = 1/25) over 6.2m x 1. . On the raised oor the model is put. the bottom shows a gentle upward slope (4%. hence the water depth near the model is 25 cm less than the water depth near the wavemaker.Experimental setup 44 Figure 5.2.1: Longitudinal section of the 2D wave-ume 5. In the centre of the wave ume. without the limitation of wave breaking at the wavemaker that occurs in umes with a uniform oor.2.

which is guided by a position gauge communicating with the central electronic-informatics system and transmitting the necessary corrections to obtain the correct movement. The used system in the laboratory is DHI AWACS2. which results in an uncontrollable. AWACS is a digital control system. Hereby. The hydraulic compressor provides oil under pressure to a piston that moves the metal slab which transmits its movements on the water. desired waves. The measured waves are compared with the specied.2. However. absorb spurious reected waves. spurious re-reection from the wave paddle is eliminated.Experimental setup on the water. which enables wavemakers to generate the desired waves and. The measured waves are the superposition of the desired waves and the reected waves returning to the wavemaker. most undesirable nonlinear distortion of the desired waves impinging on the test structure. the wave generator is provided with an Active Wave Absorption Control System (AWACS). The system provides superior wave generation accuracy in hydraulic umes. As the reected waves return to the wavemaker. 45 The piston is attached to the upper part of the paddle which means that a strong momentum is introduced in the vertical slab when moving the water mass. a rigid steel frame forces the paddle to move equally in a horizontal way on bronze rolls sliding on steel rail tracks. from Denmark. here a mound breakwater. Hydraulic model testing of wave impact on structures is often hampered by wave reection from the test structure. Photos of the wave generation system are shown in gure 5. . at the same time. because the wavegenerator keeps having the same movement. The detailed working of the software to manage the AWACS and to generate the waves in the ume is explained in Appendix C. The principle of the AWACS is to measure the surface elevation (waves) by two installed wave gauges integrated in the paddle front. The movement of the piston is controlled by a valve. By use of the digital recursive lter of the AWACS the reected waves are identied and absorbed by the wavemaker. they are usually re-reected. The wavegenerator has a theoretical movement to generate a certain wave. Therefore.

Experimental setup 46 Figure 5.2: Wave generation system in the LPC wave ume and setup of active wave absorption system .

3 Wave Measurement The measuring system consists out of wave gauges. run-up sensors and a measurement system for the erosion of the armour layer.2. These changes can aect on the working of the gauges signicantly.3). This output is proportional to the instantaneous depth of immersion. The distance between the armour units and the gauge can be set to less than 2mm. The output voltage can be calibrated in terms of the wave height by varying the depth of immersion of the probe in still water by a measured amount and noting the change in output signal. Each electrode is connected to a circuit which detects if the electrode is dry or wet. They consist of two vertical parallel conductors that work as a dielectric. The working of a step-gauge is very simple.Experimental setup 47 5. Wave Height The wave height is measured by wave gauges (Fig 5. in this way they follow the prole of the breakwater. There are two analogue outputs: the rst gives a voltage which corresponds to the position of the highest electrode that still makes contact with the water. to intercept the changes in water level in the ume caused by leaks and the climatically changes being change in temperature or humidity. The measured results of the Steup-Gauge Run-up System are not used in this Masterthesis. the second gives a voltage that corresponds to the number of electrodes that are wet. The gauges have to be calibrated every day before starting the experiments. The measured data are sent to the computer which translates the signals in wave heights in relation to the average water level. Run-up A Step-Gauge Run-up System constructed by the University of Ghent is used to measure the run-up (Fig 5. The electrodes of dierent length are placed one behind the other.3). To allow this calibration. This type of gauges is very reliable in calibration and linear in the transformation of the data. The current is noticed by an electronic circuit providing an output voltage. The conductors dip into the water. the gauges are connected with the electronic equipment. . The current that ows between the wires is proportional to the depth of immersion. The sending of the data happens at a sampling frequency of 20Hz. the wave height in cm above the mean water level. without touching the Cubipods.

Experimental setup 48 Figure 5. Those pictures are used to measure the erosion of the armour layer as explained in 5. visual support is given by a person and a camera next to the canal.4. The fourth and fth group have a porosity of 30% and again. and thus the bars and voids are wider. with the highest porosity starting at the side where the wave approaches. Erosion of the armour layer Measuring of the erosion of the armour layer is done as described in (Gómez-Martín and Medina) [24] and is based on the method of the virtual mesh.4 Energy dissipation system On the other side of the canal there is an energy dissipation system. the rst is ner .3: Wave gauges for wave measurement and Step-Gauge Run-up Measurement System (SGRMS) constructed by University of Ghent Above this Step-gauge System. This system consists of ve groups of three grooved metal frameworks. pictures are made of the armour layer with a camera that is placed on a standard over the wave ume. 5.4. A rst group of three frameworks with 70% porosity is followed by two groups with a porosity of 50%. The rst of these two groups has many and thin bars. the second has the same porosity but less bars.2. The metal frameworks have three dierent porosities: 70%. 50% and 30%. After every test. there's a person looking to perceive the run-up with help of the measuring rod on the wall and there's a camera next to the canal lming the right side of the model through the glass wall. Accomplishing every test. and a plastic perforated plate.4.

are sent to the same central computer to analyse these results.4: Wave energy dissipation system in the LPC wave ume than the secons one.Experimental setup 49 Figure 5.2. This is explained more in detail in Appendix C. Afterwards the measured data by the wave gauges and the Step-Gauge Run-up System. The voids between the three frameworks of this group have been lled with quarrystone. the correct data is inputted. .5 Data Processing In the central computer situated in the oce area of the laboratory. This data is sent to the wave generator to generate the correct wave. 5.

2. also made of resin. The mound breakwater consists of three parts. 5. The factor that needs to be veried to calibrate and control these conditions is the wave generation.Experimental setup 50 5.30t/m3 . it is important to know if the wave generation in the laboratory is representative for those that really need to be generated. .1.3 Calibration of the wave ume Before starting the experiments on the breakwater model.82cm. The calculation of the theoretic equivalent cube size and theoretic volume using the known dimensions of the Cubipods is shown in table 5. A basic scale factor of 1:50 is considered. this will aect the results of the experiments. The Cubipods are made of resin and have a density of 2. To control the operation of wavemaker.00cm. If the required conditions are not represented accurately.4. The theoretical characteristics of all the used materials are shown in table 5.2g each and have a cube size of 4.4 Experimental Design 5. The cubes. The armour units reach until the toe of the structure. they weight 128g and have a theoretic equivalent cube size of 3. weight 147. The core of ne gravel (type G2) forming the base of the mound breakwater. Calibration experiments in the wave ume were carried out to examine these eects before starting the actual model experiments. slightly bigger than the size of the Cubipods. Although no specic prototype breakwater is considered. the theoretical dates (wave height and wave period) of the lanced wave have to be compared with the measured wave height and wave period near the wavemaker. which corresponds with real Cubipods of 16ton and standard Mediteranean dimensions. reference is made to prototype values. The proposed porosity of the armour layer is 41%. The energy absorption system AWACS in the wavemaker guarantees a constant wave generation. a lter layer (type G1) forming the underground for the main armour units and the armour layer existing of the Cubipods (or cubes).1 Physical characteristics of the studied model The used model is a mound breakwater with an inner slope of 4:3 and an outer slope of 3:2.

82 1. each with the same core.80 0.70 Table 5.819 Calculating the theoretic equivalent cube size and the theoretic volume of the Cubipods Model of the cubes D50 [cm] Armour layer Filter (G1) Core (G2) 4.666 55.30 2.2 16 0.00 1. Only tests in breaking wave conditions were carried out: the breakwater is assumed to be in shallow water.686 3.2: Model of the Cubipods D50 [cm] 3. will be considered (Fig 5.90 density [t/m3 ] 2.575 0.90 147.70 density [t/m3 ] 2.6): double layer of Cubipods: C2 single layer of Cubipods: C1 single layer of cubes covered by a single layer of Cubipods: CB double layer of Cubipods with toe berm: C2B single layer of Cubipods with toe berm: C1B .70 2.80 0.Experimental setup cubes Cubipods L cube [cm] h pyramid trunc [cm] V cube [cm3 ] V pyramid trunc [cm3 ] V total [cm3 ] D50 [cm] Table 5.3 2. Five dierent models.and lterconstruction.70 2. The crest is supposed to be high enough so that overtopping is not considered.70 weight [g] Theoretic characteristics of the used materials The considered water depths vary between 30cm and 42cm near the model.1: 51 4 0 64 0 64 4 3.70 weight [g] 128 16 0.5 and Fig 5.691 1.894 45.

5: Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods (C2). 1 layer of cubes covered by one layer of Cubipods (CB) .Experimental setup 52 Figure 5. 1 layer of Cubipods (C1).

6: Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods with toe berm (C2B). 1 layer of Cubipods with toe berm (C1B) .Experimental setup 53 Figure 5.

Placing a toe berm is therefore common. which can cause fast erosion of the lower part of the breakwater.Experimental setup 54 First the tests C2 will be considered. The models C2B and C1B with toe berm however.2. .2 Construction of the physical model 5. in the beginning only the layer of cubes will be placed. while the upper layer is painted in dierently coloured strips.4.7). Also the cubes are painted in two dierent colors: white and blue. The lower layer is completely white. Afterwards. For the experiments with a single layer of Cubipods. Waves will be lanced to stabilize this layer before collocating the second layer of Cubipods. the toe berm is constructed. To realize the tests CB. are marked correctly to the ume wall and the cross section can be drawn correctly (Fig 5. The armour units in the model setup are painted in dierent colours to easily recognize unit movements during the experiments.8). are more realistic sections.1 Preparation First the wave ume is cleaned and its interior is repainted with anti-oxidant paint. which provides a rough surface for the model (Fig 5. The cross section is also painted at the other side of the wave ume by perpendicular projection. 5. The two types of experiments without toe berm C2 and C1 are executed rst because those are the standard sections of the 'Ports of the State'. the section C2B is removed and a new layer with Cubipods is placed. and thus not the rst layer of the former experiments. The toe berm is placed to sustain the bottom rows without making this too rigid. In breaking conditions a lot of turbulence near the bottom takes place. and the double layer of Cubipods is placed. as done in the tests without toe berm. all the elements are removed of the model. The real cross section of the model breakwater is plotted and is attached to the inner side of the wave ume. Afterwards the tests C2B and C1B with a toe were executed. To execute those two series of experiments (C2B and C1B). indicated by a small gap.4. The oor of the canal is cleaned and a concrete grout is poured in the wave ume on the place where the breakwater will come. the second layer is removed and the rst layer of C2 will be used to execute the experiments C1. Signicant points.

7: Draw the cross section of the mound breakwater on the wall of the canal Figure 5.Experimental setup 55 Figure 5.8: The concrete grout to provide a rough surface for the model .

For a part of the Cubipods the practical values are measured and controlled with the theoretical ones. The results can be seen in table 5. The lter layer (G1) The proposed particle size of the core material for the mound breakwater is D50 =17mm and D85 /D15 =1. D50 and D85 are the corresponding diameters of the sieves where respectively 15%.2 Control of the material characteristics 56 The received materials for the core and the lter layer show a great dispersion of particle size. There can be concluded that the theoretic and the real values of the lter material dier very little.Experimental setup 5. After the sieving. After sieving. Obtaining the results in table 5. a part of the Cubipods (5%) are weighted to know their real average weight and the standard deviation. which means that the theoretic values are accepted. The armour layer (G0) The Cubipod model units are fabricated by a private enterprise. To verify this. There can be concluded that the theoretic and the real values dier very little. to afterwards be able to make right conclusions concerning the stability of those elements.3 and in gure 5. The used terms D15 .4. which means that the theoretic values are accepted. the proposed theoretical values are considered satisfactory and thus accepted. the granulometric distribution is controlled and the material is washed.2.4 and in gure 5.5 . Also the Cubipods need to have the correct theoretical weight and density.9. Therefore we make a granulomatric separation of the received materials and compare this with the theoretical values. and are supposed to be delivered in the requested size and weight. . The core (G2) The proposed particle size of the core material for the mound breakwater is D50 =7mm and D85 /D15 =2. the granulometric distribution is also controlled and the materials of the lter layer are also washed.5. The results can be seen in table 5. 50% or 85% of the materials can pass.10.

69 0.3: 3000 9.00 5.64 1.45 3001.25 7.93 0.14 0.Experimental setup 57 theoretic design values measured values Sample weight [g] D85 [mm] D50 [mm] D15 [mm] D85 /D15 W85 [g] W50 [g] W15 [g] Table 5.9: Grading curve for the core material .83 0.50 1.38 Grading characteristics of the core material Figure 5.20 1.68 2.5 8.75 5.55 6.

35 23.55 15.82 15.00 1.24 1.50 14.00 7.Experimental setup 58 theoretic design values measured values Sample weight [g] D85 [mm] D50 [mm] D15 [mm] D85 /D15 W85 [g] W50 [g] W15 [g] Table 5.27 9.00 14.55 Grading characteristics of the lter material Figure 5.41 3001 20.10: Grading curve for the lter material .4: 3000 21.59 17.00 17.50 25.

29 0.29 0.Experimental setup 59 weight [g] density [g/cm3 ] volume [cm3 ] D50 [cm] Theoretical values Measured average dry Measured standard deviation dry Measured average saturated Measured standard deviation saturated Percentage measured Table 5.30 2.008 2.3 Construction of the model First. being 3.67cm only on the outer slope. making sure that the slope is constant over the whole width of the breakwater.2 2.44 3.82cm. In collocation tests with a crane. Finally the armour units are collocated.37 129.86 56.65 55.011 5% 55.11). For this reason.4.11: Construction of the model: the core and the lter 5.84 Theoretical and measured characteristics of the Cubipods Figure 5.36 5% 2. The number of collocated units depends on the proposed theoretical porosity. . A perfect placement of the core is very important because it has to support the other layers: the lter and the armour layer.82 3. the lter is constructed with a thickness of 6. The theoretic thickness of the layer is the equivalent cube size of the Cubipod. the core material is put in place according to the indicated lines on the ume walls. Afterwards.5: 128 128 2. On the inner slope no lter material is placed (Fig 5.823 3.2. they have seen that the porosity of Cubipods placed in a 'blind' way can vary between 36% and 50%.

if there was place left. Ntheor = (1 − P ) Vt D50 3 (5. tests on the cube layer were executed and this provocated face to face tting of the cubes. In the reverse case. 18 units were collocated.2) In gure 5.1 and 5.1) (1 − P ) b number = row D50 With P the porosity of the armour layer Vt the theoretic volume of the determined elements in m3 D50 the size of the equivalent cube b the width of the canal being 1. It is clear that the elements are placed randomly and are not following an exact line. Therefore the porosity of this layer is lower than 36%.Experimental setup 60 in those experiments will be worked with a proposed porosity of 41%. First the under layer of white Cubipods is collocated. Only the porosity of the cube layer is lower than 36%. . This caused a little dierence in porosity.22m (5. which is comparable to earlier tests. This means that the number of elements sometimes can dier from the theoretic calculated number.6 can be seen that the initial porosities of each Cubipod strip are between 36% and 50% which are acceptable values. the construction proses of the armour layer for a double layer of Cubipods C2 is shown step by step. The way of collocating the units. afterwards the second layer with the dierent colours covers this under layer. as is also done in real life. however. a number of 19 elements per row is found. which is also in reality. Before placing the Cubipods. They let the elements fall without determining a certain position before.12. In table 5.2. If there was no place left for 19 elements. is done randomly. The theoretic number of the units per area and per row to collocate to reach a porosity of 41% can be calculated with the formulae 5. Details of this calculation can be seen in Appendix E. an extra Cubipod was placed.

13 and in the sections in gure 5. now also a lter layer is placed on the inner slope to guarantee a higher stability. For the further experiments. but with a little change to guarantee the stability in the following experiments. This change can be seen in gure 5. C1B and CB. the core and the lter are destroyed partially. The single layer of Cubipods (C1) is formed by removing the second layer of Cubipods of B2 and thus is formed by the same number of Cubipods as the rst layer of C2. a little crest with lter material is built on the inner side of the mound breakwater. 5. Further.4. As the lter was only constructed on the outer slope. a change is executed in the construction of the core and lter structure. the way of construction is the same.2. To guarantee their stability.5 and 5. .6: 61 Preal C2 Preal C2B Preal C1B Preal CB 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 39 42 42 38 36 42 39 39 38 39 39 39 41 38 39 38 39 38 39 39 24 37 35 35 35 38 36 38 39 39 The real initial porosity in the dierent models [%] For the other models C2B.4 Reconstruction of the model After the rst experiments however. this construction is always used. rst some waves are lanced to stabilize this cube layer. which means that the experiments are not done with the real section of 'The ports of the State'. to sustain the Cubipods placed over there. before collocating the Cubipods.Experimental setup Color white cyan yellow red grey blue green magenta yellow cyan Table 5. For the combined layer CB.6. on the top of the breakwater.

Experimental setup 62 Figure 5.12: Construction proses of the armour layer .

a ninth wave gauge is place on the breakwater model to measure the run-up. They propose three wave gauges per group and recommend the following distances. Those nine wave gauges will permit us to obtain the incident and reected wave in the canal. the measured values will be used to calculate the stability of the mound breakwater.5 Placement of the sensors The wave gauges are placed in the main line of the canal between the wave generator and the breakwater model in two dierent groups. The distance between the wave gauges of the same group are determined according to the criteria proposed by Mansard and Funke. Furthermore.Experimental setup 63 Figure 5.4. relative to the used wave length: d1 ≈ L 6 L 10 L 3 < d1 + d2 < L 5 3L 10 d1 + d2 = d1 + d2 = .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 5. based on the used wave periods and lengths. one group of four wave gauges near the wave generator and another group of four wave gauges near the model. The most important group of wave gauges is the one near the model. The other group near the wavemaker is rather to know if the wave generation is representative for those that really need to be generated.2.

while for every period.28s. Another restriction to the positioning and separation of the gauges is that they should be at least one meter away from the bottom slope in the centre of the ume. before they experienced that irregular waves do not damage more than regular waves. both. For each of those water depths. regular and irregular wave tests are considered. and the gauges can be kept xed for all wave periods to avoid loss of time. The eventually lack of one of the equations. h=38 cm. in this project only the regular waves will be studied because.13s.Experimental setup 64 Position in the canal [cm] Wave gauge 1 Wave gauge 2 Wave gauge 3 Wave gauge 4 Near wave generator Near model 340 1446 d1 20 30 360 1476 d2 50 50 410 1526 d3 30 20 440 1546 Distance [cm] Near wave generator Near model Table 5.3 Experiments 5.55s) is considered. Anyhow.4. the wave in every experiment is characterized by his wave height and period.4. T(s)=2. a series of increasing periods (T(s)=0. h=40 cm).7. h=35 cm. T(s)=2. T(s)=1. The representative wave height is the average wave height (Hm ).3.85s. is not a big problem because we have four wave gauges in every group. T(s)=1.7: Position of the wave gauges and distance between them in the canal In the present experiments the four wave gauges in each group are separated according to these recommendations. however. However. 5. the wave gauges are placed in a way that all occurring waves and wave lengths can be registered accurately. In regular wave tests. This results in the distances between the wave gauges shown in Table 5.70s. to keep the gauge registering away from being inuenced by a change in water depth. a series waves with increasing design wave height (step of . Increasing water depths are considered (h=30cm.1 Realized experiments To study the hydraulic stability of the Cubipod armour units.

This is done by opening the measured data in an Excel le and plotting them. 65 Starting with wave heights that don't produce damage. Those are used afterwards to analyse the damage progression using the virtual net method. Before starting a new test. During each test. Having the correct water level. the heights are increased until the waves break (this is the maximum wave height compatible with the water depth) in the model. is started with a wave height that for sure will not produce any damage to the armour layer. a photograph is taken with a xed camera perpendicular to the slope. After the calibration. In practice wave trains of 100 waves were executed.3.4. the breakwater slope is guarded by a camera so the damage progression can be looked after. a photograph of the armour layer is taken. The loss of water had to be compensated and during the tests. . rst the water level is controlled. Every test set with a certain water depth. the water in the canal has to be still. the depth was automatically and continuously measured and compensated when necessary. which is used to dene the nine strips that divide the slope for damage analysis. a wave is lanced and the data registered by the wave gauges is reviewed to make sure that all of the wave gauges continue to measure correctly.2 Experimental procedure Every day. This is done by moving them up and down over a range of 15cm (10cm for the wave gauge on the mound breakwater) while a second person adjusts the measurements in the data acquisition system. the manual calibration of the wave gauges can be done. before starting the experiments. After every test. to make sure that all inuence of earlier introduced waves was excluded and could not inuence. 5. calibration of this sensor has to be repeated. If one of the sensors doesn't work correctly. Before starting the tests. One with and one without the virtual framework.Experimental setup 1cm) is lanced.

To obtain the water surface elevation corresponding to the incident and reected wave trains at any point of the record.1 Separating the incident and reected waves: LASA V The response of maritime structures depends on the incident wave eld. waves with a higher period (and again a low wave height) are lanced. This makes it necessary to distinguish the incident wave train seperated from the reected wave train to study and predict response of maritime structures both in model tests and in prototype.4 Procedure to analyse the data 5. After the complete test set of the ve dierent periods.4.Experimental setup 66 After every test. This programme separates incident and reected wave trains. This method is an optimization of the 'LASA local wave model' method developed by Medina [54]. The optimized model that is used in . the wave height is increased by one centimeter until breaking of the waves occurs. are loaded in Photoshop to draw a virtual framework on it. 5. Various methods for wave separation have been developed. based on linear and Stokes-II nonlinear components and a simulated annealing algorithm to optimize the parameters of the wave model in each small local time-segment of the measured record. In this project. however in laboratory model tests as well as in prototype only the incident wave added to its reection can be measured. The registered data by the wave gauges are rst analysed by the software LASA-V. The pictures made by the camera. Afterwards those results are examined by the software LPCLAB. the separation of the waves is done using the LASA-V method.4. the results of the optimization in each time window overlap. Some (two or three) waves with higher wave height are lanced to be sure that the maximum wave height will be reached. the water depth is changed.4. This software generates a report that represents all the requested and useful information about the waves. Afterwards this photograph is loaded in AutoCAD to indicate the Cubipod by points and to calculate the damage progression using the Virtual Net Method. proposed by Figueres and Medina [55]. Then. a short resume can be found in Appendix D.

as in intermediate depth conditions. reduction of control parameter. generating a report in Excel . LPCLAB 1.0.4. developed by the laboratory of Ports and Coasts in Valencia. the waves are analysed by a sofware. 5. generation mechanism.Experimental setup 67 Figure 5.0. also the number of linear wave components. After separating the incident and reected waves by LASA-V.4.and frequency domain. number of nonlinear Stokes V wave components and the duration of the time window which is xed to 2∆t = 2T0 (Fig. The seven parameters controlling the simulated annealing process are: cost function. initial control parameter. 5. This model is able to analyse experiments with highly nonlinear waves. length of markov chains and stop criterion. This software analyses the wave data in time.14). These results are referred to the central sensors (here S3 and S7). initial solution.14: Parameter window of the LASA-V software this Masterthesis uses an approximate Stokes-V wave model. The program LASA-V is applied to the four sensors near the model and near the slab. Those have to be implemented in the program.2 Analysis of the waves: LPCLAB 1.

the Iribarren number and the measured wave heights. For a correct analysis of the breakwater behaviour. we select the central part of the register. From the slab without movement to movement you need time to generate the correct height. . the slap can't stop immediately. ignoring the transitions in the beginning and at the end as shown in gure 5. and the two others concerning the measurements near the model. At the end.0. To analyse the dates with LPCLab 1. the same phenomenon occurs. The second graphic shows the calculated incident and reected waves separated. Two concerning the measurements near the slab.15: Example of the separation of incident and reected wave trains by LASA V with all the relevant wave parameters. Those real wave characteristics dier from the theoretic values. propagation and reection. There are four graphics generated. as well as some graphics. it is critical that the real wave characteristics are taken into account correctly. depending on various parameters like the wave generation. The rst always shows the measured wave together with the sum of the calculated separated waves. Further. An example of such a report is represented in Appendix ??. The most important parameters for further research are the wave reection coecient. In the beginning the register of the sensors is not regular due to transition.Experimental setup 68 Figure 5.16. We will use the average wave heights Hm and H1/10 for further calculations. there are two more graphics showing the wave spectrum.

4.4. 5. This value indicates how much energy is dissipated by the mound breakwater and how much energy is reected.Experimental setup 69 Figure 5. we know the next wave heights: Htotal registered in the sensors: Ht Hreected by separating the wave: Hr Hincident by separating the wave: Hi Hregenerated .16: Parameter window of the LPCLab software After utilizing the programs LASA-V and LPCLAB 1.0.3 Analysis of the reection coecient The reection coecient is the ratio of the reected wave height to the incident wave height. total by counting up the incident and the reected wave: Hrt Hrt should x with Ht to consider that the separation was done correctly. .0. and is calculated by the program LPCLAB 1.

4 Analysis of the damage progression In all the executed tests.1).Experimental setup 70 CR = Hr . the reection coecient will be described in function of two dierent values: the Iribarren number or the dimensionless relative water depth kh: Ir = tan (α) H L0 (5. the damage progression of the breakwater armour layer was analysed both quantitatively with the Virtual Net Method and qualitatively through visual analysis . it is natural to try to relate the reection coecient to Ir.4) kh = 2π d L (5.3) The wave height used to establish this reection coecient is the average wave height in regular wave tests (Hm ).4. The graphics showing the reection coecient in function of the Iribarren number will give us information about the relation between the reection on the mound breakwater and the type of wave breaking. Hi (5. Therefore. and thus seems not ideal to represent the reection coecient results. To show the inuence of those wave characteristics. 5. describes a certain type of wave breaking (Table 4.5) The reection coecient mainly depends on the wave length. The relative amount of wave energy that can be reected o a slope depends intimately on the breaking processes . The reection coecient depends on the characteristics of the wave (wave length. The number of Iribarren however. will be accomplished for the executed tests. wave period. knowing that this parameter only shows the inuence of the wave lengths. also called the breaker parameter. a good way to show the results will be in function of the dimensionless relative water depth. Both representations.4. Because of this. The number of Iribarren shows the inuence of both wave height en wave length. the reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth and in function of the number of Iribarren. water depth) and on the type of construction.

therefore.17). Dn50 is the equivalent cube size or nominal diameter.8) . as there is the visual counting method considers only the extraction of armour units assuming constant porosity to measure damage of the armour layer. the porosity of the armour layer changes over time.7) In which Ne is the number of eroded armour units. and the equivalent dimensionless armour damage should be measured taking into account the changes in porosity for each area of the armour layer in regard to initial porosity. Quantitative analysis Conventional analysis of mound breakwater takes into account only the armour unit extraction failure mode. The dimensionless damage in each strip can be calculated using the equation: Di = n 1 − φi φ0i =n 1− 1 − pi 1 − p0 (5. each of which is n times the width of the equivalent cube Dn50 (Fig 5. The visual counting method denes the eroded area by: A= And the dimensionless damage by: Ne Dn50 3 Ne Dn50 3 = b (1 − p) bφ (5.6) S= A Dn50 2 (5. Important to mention is that this analysis is done after seperating incident and reected wave. traditional methods. and thus calculating with only the incident wave height. p and φ = 1 − p are the constant porosity and packing density coecient of the armour layer and b is the observed cross section width. GómezMartín and Medina (2006) described the Virtual Net Method to measure the equivalent dimensionless armour damage.Experimental setup 71 of photos after each test. This method involves projecting a virtual net over the armour layer dividing it into nine strips. When Heterogeneous Packing takes place.

Counting up the armour damages in each strip over the slope. A negative value of the damage stands for a higher packing density. an equal virtual net is drawn with the graphical . being n times the equivalent cube size.9) Ni is the number of armour units in strip i (upper layer). A real metal net that can be placed on the top of the armour layer is used to divide the armour layer in nine strips. After every test. here 75cm. because of the presence of the Step Gauge above the model during the tests. Pi takes into account the number of elements in every strip. Therefore. Not the whole width of the mound breakwater is considered. and the strip width 'b'. wave-height and period. caused by Heterogeneous Packing or unit extraction. pi and φi are the porosity and packing density coecient after the wave attack.10) where only the damages higher than zero are taken into account. A damage higher than zero. respectively. which means higher stability and thus not considered as damage. the dimensions of each strip are the strip height 'a'. The most important advantage is that this method takes into account the change of porosity in the armour layer. The extreme parts are not taken into account to avoid calculating with parts inuenced by of the ume wall. the equivalent damage De can be obtained using the following equation: De = Di (5. using the following equation: pi = 1 − Ni Dn50 2 = 1 − φi ab (5. Only the positive values of the calculated damages in the dierent strips are counted up to receive the total damage. but only the central part. means loss of packing density (higher porosity).Experimental setup 72 In which p0 and φ0i are the initial porosity and packing density coecient. a photograph perpendicular on the mound breakwater is taken using a camera that is placed on a standard over the wave ume. Every photo corresponds with a certain water depth. Only the rst and last photo of the day could be taken with this real metal net.

At the end of a sequence of tests with a constant water depth (h=30cm. we calculate the dimensionless damage only after a series of tests. the dimensionless damage will be measured. It's important that the camera doesn't move. and not after every wave. Figure 5. the Cubipods in every layer can be counted easily. using dierent layers for the dierent strips of the armour layer (Fig 5. every Cubipod is marked with a point. h=40cm. h=42cm). With the command PRICAPAXYZ. With this result. As we are interested in the behaviour of the mound breakwater after a series of waves. Using the technical drawing program AutoCAD.17: Virtual net to measure the equivalent damage analysis and counting the units in AutoCAD for damage calculation . developed by LPC.17). to make sure that this virtual net is placed equal as the real net (Fig 5.18). the porosity of every strip and thus the damage can be calculated with the former equations. h=35cm.Experimental setup 73 computer program 'Photoshop' on the photos without the real net. h=38cm.

18: Above: foto with the real net and the designed net in Photoshop (start of the tests with h=38).Experimental setup 74 Figure 5. Under: foto without the real net and the pasted virtual net in Photoshop (end of the tests with h=38) .

(1986) [27] proposed the following three damage levels: Initiation of Damage (IDa). IIDa and IDe) is obtained out of the visual qualitative analysis and in each case the corresponding dimensionless armour damage will be calculated. In this research we adopted for this number a value of 2% of the displaced units required to achieve Iribarren's damage. If the wave height does not change the mound will denitely be destroyed and it will cease to give the level of service dened in the design. Holes larger than average porous size are clearly appreciable. Those four damage levels were dened based on experimental information and provide an internationally known basis for comparison with other results. two or three. Initiation of Iribarren Damage (IIDa). A representation of the four damage levels is given in gure 5.19. They are dened through a visual analysis of photos after every test. Initiation of Destruction (IDe) A small number of units. In order to me more precise.(1991) [28] called Initiation of Destruction (IDe).Experimental setup 75 Qualitative analysis To verify qualitatively the failure modes. To dene this level. and Destruction (De). in the lower armour layer are forced out and the waves work directly on pieces of the secondary layer. Initiation of Iribarren damage (IIDa) This damage occurs when the extension of the failure area on the main layer is so large that the wave action may extract armor units placed on the lower armour layer. . there are dierent classications: Losada et al. Destruction (De) Pieces of the secondary layer are removed. it's necessary to dene a method to validate the level of damage. The wave height corresponding to the three signicant damage levels (IDa. Initiation of damage (Ida) This level of damage denes the condition attained when a certain number of armour units are displaced from their original position to a new one at a distance equal to or larger than a unit length. another stage of damage is included by Vidal et al. The wave height corresponding to the initiation of damage will be used to calculate a rst estimation of the hydraulic stability factor KD .

19: Damage levels in the armour layer .Experimental setup 76 Figure 5.

in the last section. A short explanation of the used terminology is resumed in Appendix A. 77 . The damage is studied qualitatively and quantitatively. In the second part. A rst indication of the value of the hydraulic stability coecient is calculated for the dierent mound breakwater sections in shallow water. In the rst part the results of the ume calibration are presented. A good working of the wavemaker is necessary to be able to interpret the obtained results afterwards. the discussed theories to calculate the maximum wave height in breaking conditions are compared with the measured results in the laboratory. All the results of the dierent studied sections rst will be described. while the complete results of the LPCLab test reports can be found on the available cd-rom. Both results on wave reection and on damage progression of the armour layer are presented. the results of the experiments on the mound breakwater model of Cubipods are commented. A comparison with earlier executed tests in deepwater conditions is also done. then explained and nally compared with the obtained results of the other sections. the results of the executed experiments are discussed and is subdivided in three parts. An overview of the executed tests and the most important results can be found in Appendix G. Graphics are used to illustrate the results in a clear way.Chapter 6 Results 6. which have an important inuence on the physical model tests.1 Introduction In this chapter. Further.

We see that the real average wave height near the wavemaker is less than the theoretical value. Those results are represented graphically in gure 6.2 Calibration of the wave ume As mentioned in Chapter 5. This calibration has been carried out with the following characteristics: The generated wave is irregular with a JONSWAP spectrum (γ = 3. larger the loss of energy. This energy loss increases with increasing wave height and decreasing period.1. . being sensor 3. 45cm. In the graphic of the period can be seen that the real period and the theoretical period correspond very well. before starting the experiments. 1. This dierence is due to the loss of energy in the wave ume. a dierence that increases with increasing wave height and decreasing period. 3) The considered water depths are 40cm. the theoretical dates (wave height and wave period) of the lanced wave are compared with the measured wave height and wave period in the sensor near the wavemaker. and is measured by a sampling frequency of 20Hz To control the operation of wavemaker. and larger the dierence between theoretical and measured value. 2.5s and 3s are used Wave heights between 2cm and 30cm are lanced The energy dissipation system that will be used during the model experiments has been put in place The AWACS active energy absorption system in the wavemaker is put in place to guarantee a constant wave generation The measurement of the generated wave height is registered simultaneously. the calibration of the wavemaker is executed. 2s.Results 78 6. 50cm and 55cm (near the wavemaker) Wave periods of 1s. Concerning those graphics. we can decide that the wavemaker realizes the waves with the asked characteristics. Larger the wave height and smaller the period.5s.

1: Results of the calibration of the wave ume .Results 79 Figure 6.

the highest value of the maximum wave heights near the model is taken. three curves are drawn with three dierent bottom slopes: a horizontal bottom (as in the executed tests). the slope α in the executed tests is zero. To calculate the wavelength L0 in deepwater. those results are compared with the measured results in the laboratory. The water depth in shallow water is the water depth near the model. Further. .2). As the breaking wave height Hb . The following characteristics are taken into account: As the tests are done with a horizontal bottom. This is not totally correct. the measured wave height near the wavemaker is used. is eliminated. This means that the inuence of the present mound breakwater. a smooth slope of 3O and a steeper slope of 10O (Fig 6.Results 80 6. For the formula of Collins and of SPM and Demirbilek and Vincent. being the inuence of the reected wave on the total wave height. SPM and Demirbilek and Vincent depend only of the breaking depth and the bottom slope. The models proposed by Keulegan and Patterson. the Airy formula (1845) is used: L0 = gT 2 2π As measured wave height in deepwater H0 . The measured wave lengths will not reach L0 and the measured wave heights will be higher than H0 . because the the situation near the wavemaker is in intermedias water depths. being 25cm less than the water depth near the wavemaker. Collins. Those can be visualized in a graphic showing the breaking wave height in function of the water depth. The measured wave heights used to compare with the dierent theories are the incident wave heights (after separating the total heights by the software LASA-V).3 Interpretation of the theories calculating the maximum wave height The theoretical breaker height and breaker depth are presented in dierent graphics using the presented models in Chapter 4 to calculate the characteristics of breaking waves.

change a lot in function of the bottom slope. which means decreasing wave period. The upper boundary of Keulegan and Patterson and the theory of Weggel overstimate the breaking wave height a bit.22cm if the slope becomes 10O . The two theoretical curves have the same form as the curve of the measured values. This dierence is very small.3).40cm for a bottom slope of 3O and increases until 51. the values of Collins are clearly higher. but for higher bottom slopes. We see that the lower boundary of the theory of Keulegan and Patterson and the model of Collins for horizontal slopes give us the smallest values of breaking height. the relation Hb /H0 can be described in function of H0 /L0 (Fig 6. is not possible. For a horizontal bottom the model of SPM and Demirbilek and Vincent gives higher values than Collins.6cm for a horizontal bottom.Results 81 All the theories give a linear link between the two variables. The model of SPM and Demirbilek and Vincent also shows the inuence of the bottom slope. Concerning the formulae given by Komar and Gaughan and Sakai and Battjes. the breaking wave height also increases with a certain factor. H0 and L0 of the executed tests are dened as described above. we see that the lower boundary of Keulegan and Patterson and the model of Collins (horizontal bottom) estimates the breaking wave height very well. and SPM and Demirbilek and Vincent give us an overly conservative estimation which can increase the cost of a project. The lower measured breaking wave height for depth 40cm than for depth 38cm. the . For increasing H0 /L0 . The values concerning the theory of Collins. The highest wave that can exist in a water depth of 30cm changes from 25. but the inuence of the slope is rather small.49cm when the bottom slope changes from horizontal to 3O until 10O .18cm until 25. Comparing those results with the results measured during the experiments.05cm to 25. while this is 30. The highest wave on a water depth of 30cm is 21. and the reason has to be searched in the measurement system of the wave heights or the analyses afterwards. As the water depth increases. the breaker wave height decreases. The values Hb . For the same characteristics in deepwater conditions (means also for the same peiod). Little higher values are given by the upper boundary of Keulegan and Petterson together with the model of Weggel for a horizontal slope.

Results 82 Figure 6. SPM for dierent slopes and Weggel for a horizontal bottom .2: Theoretical models to estimate the breaking wave height in function of the water depth. Collins for dierent slopes. compared with the maximum measured wave height: Keulegan and Patterson (K&P).

the breaker height is given by the formula proposed by SPM concerning a horizontal bottom. Sakai and Battjes (S&B) model of Sakai and Battjes gives higher values for Hb /H0 than the theory of Komar and Gaughan. This means that both theories tends to underestimate the maximum wave height which could result in structural failure or signicant maintenance costs. Also can be seen that the waves with a dierent period have the same breaking wave height. the wave height given by the formula of SPM and Demirbilek . This is in the graphics a horizontal line given by: H = 0. The same can be done for the other water depths. we will x a certain water depth. compared with the measured results: Komar and Gaughan (K&G). Concerning the theory. The results of Le Roux are shown in a graphic giving the deepwater wave height H0 . 05cm.3: Theoretical models to estimate the relation Hb /H0 in function of H0 /L0 . in function of Hw .Results 83 Figure 6. Concerning the iterative method of Le Roux to calculate the characteristics. and a xed deepwater wave height.4). 835 · 30cm = 25. calculated with the formula of Airy. because we x a water depth of 30cm. the real wave height increases. are higher than both. we see that for increasing period. The measured values Hb /H0 however. being the wave height in any water depth (Fig 6. To compare this theory with the measured results. being h=30cm.

Further. compared with the measured results and Vincent. will have an equal maximum wave height in shallow waters. Ones reached the breaking wave height. the real wave height also increases.4: Theorecal model of Le Roux to estimate the real water wave height for h=30cm. higher the breaking wave height. which means that the real wave heights are underestimated by the theory of Le Roux. it doesn't reach anymore the breaking wave height Hb. we see that for increasing period and a xed deepwater wave height. higher the period. Another dierence is that the breaking wave height changes with the period. as can be seen in the curves of the measured results. however. however is not seen in the theoretical model of Le Roux. for higher deepwater wave heights. which will result in a lower wave height.Results 84 Figure 6. saying that the loss of energy by breaking will be higher. the maximum wave height in shallow waters decreases. as explained in the theory of Le Roux. all the waves with a higher deepwater wave height. how stronger the breaking will be. we see also clearly that the measured results are a little higher than the calculated values. concerning Le Roux. we see that ones reached the maximum wave height. This fact. Comparing those results with the measured ones. . The reason therefore can be found in the fact that how higher the deepwater wave height.

however. and thus large wave lengths and small wave periods. because this has no inuence on the reection coecient. For kh > 1. First of all. and secondly in function of the number of Iribarren. does not inuence on the wave length. the reection coecient will be represented in function of the dimensionless relative water depth rst.Results 85 6.4.2) 6. which explains the separated groups of points in the graphics.5). single cubipod layer. For a certain water depth and period. coincide with higher . This means that the dierent experiments with the same water depth and the same period (but dierent wave height) have a constant value of kh. Small numbers of kh.1) Ir = tan (α) H L (6. This wave height. the obtained results are compared with the results in deepwater conditions [36].4. and further.50. kh = 2π d L (6. so does not inuence on kh.4.1 Wave reection As mentioned in 5. we see that the executed tests can be divided in groups with a constant value of dimensionless relative water depth.1 The reection coecient in function of kh In the three cases (double cubipod layer. The results in the dierent sections are explained. while for smaller kh values the reection coecient increases. Here we don't make a dierence between the models with or without toe berm.3.4. We conclude that there is a correlation between the wave reection and the parameter kh. and the combination of a cube with a cubipod layer) the same tradition can be seen in the graphics showing the reection coecient in function of kh (Fig 6. dierent waves with increasing wave height were lanced. rising more steeply for kh approximately 0. 5 the reection coecient is rather small.4 Hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater 6. Further can be seen that the wave length and wave period will play an important role.1.

This dierence for high values of kh is due to the higher porosity in case of one armour layer. Further increasing of the wave lengths. the situation is opposite. A double armour layer can dissipate more energy than a single one. thus a higher reection coecient will occur.Single Cubipod layer Comparing the reection coecient in case of two layers of Cubipods with a single layered mound breakwater. for both sections. which means that a single layer of Cubipods and a double layer of Cubipods dissipate the same energy in case of waves with high wave lengths. the double layer reaches values of 10% .Combined layer A comparison of a mound breakwater consisting of a cube-cubipod combined layer with a double layer of Cubipods is shown in gure 6.20% while the single layer reaches higher values from 15% to 25%. The results are very similar but for high values of kh. This dierence however decreases when kh decreases. (Fig 6. For small values of kh the dierence can be supposed as nil. Double Cubipod layer . Two layers of armour elements decrease the access to the core and less energy will be dissipated. For kh approximately one. Waves with small wave lengths will dissipate more energy on a one layered mound breakwater than in case of a double layer. The crest does not break on the slope but only runs up and down on it. Double Cubipod layer .Results 86 reection coecients. there can be easily seen that for high values of kh. the CR varies between 30% and 50%. which explains less reection in case of a double layered armour layer compared with a single layer. The dierence in the coecient of reection is negligible for small kh. Few energy is being dissipated. means less inuence of the number of armour layers on the reection coecient as can be seen in the graphics. means that the crest does not break on the slope but runs up and down on it and the type of armour layer will inuence the reection coecient.6).15%). the reection coecient is clearly higher for a double layer of Cubipods (15% .25%) than for a single layer (7% . Decreasing kh.7. and thus easier access to the core to dissipate a lot of energy. which leaves room for signicant reection. a double layered mound breakwater of Cubipods reects a little less energy than in case of the combined cube-cubipod layer. This is due to the fact that cube elements tend to re-organize its units to an almost solid . however.

Decreasing the kh coecient. Single Cubipod layer . which means that less energy can be dissipated. less energy can be dissipated and more reection occurs.8). Therefore. while waves with high numbers of Iribarren have a high reection coecient. 5 < Ir < 2.Results 87 plate where all the cubes have the same orientation and with a very low porosity. The higher porosity in case of one armour layer compared to two armour layers. 5 < Ir < 3). however. the dierence in reection coecient decreases and the importance of the type of armour layer seems less important. for waves with small wave lengths. 6. Small numbers of Iribarren coincide with little reection. a mound breakwater with one layer of Cubipods dissipates more energy than in case of the combined layer. The reason is the same as explained above in the comparison between the single and double layer with only Cubipods. which means that the porosity in the upper layer will be similar in both cases.2 The reection coecient in function of Ir The graphics showing the reection coecient in function of the number of Iribarren are also enclosed (Fig 6.4. because those Cubipods tend to re-organize to an almost solid plate with a very low porosity. Thus. causes a lower reection of energy. the reection coecient of the one layered cubipod armour layer becomes a little higher then in the combined case.7). A clear dierence can be seen between the reection coecient for waves with Ir > 3 and Ir < 3. the dierence is bigger. the reection coecient of the mound breakwater with one cubipod layer is less than in case of the combined layer. This explains the little dierence in reection coecient between both.Combined layer Also the comparison of a combined cubecubipod layer is made with a single cubipod layer (Fig 6. where short wave lengths and thus small periods occur.1. As this cube layer is covered by a cubipod layer. 5) and collapsing (2. For high values of kh. Experiments with small Iribarren numbers. this re-organization will only take place partially. As the wave length increases. . As the double layered armour layer now also has a cube layer. A lot of energy is dissipated which means little reection. coincide with plunging breaking (0.

In deepwater conditions. The crest does not break on the slope but only runs up and down on it. 6.3 Comparing with the reection coecient in deepwater Earlier tests were executed in deepwater on mound breakwaters with an armour layer existing of a double layer of Cubipods. means large wave lengths and thus large periods occur. and in shallow water between 10% and 50%. . High Iribarren numbers coincide with surging wave breaking.Results 88 A high theoretical Iribarren's number. This correlation between wave reection. Those results can be compared with our tests. the reection coecient varies between 15% and 60%. Few energy is dissipated.4. the crest will break and thus a lot of energy is dissipated which means little reection. which leaves room for reection.1. their overall wave length shortens. As waves enter shallow water. on the other hand. number of Iribarren and type of wave breaking is also shown in Battjes [8].

5: The reection coecient (CR) in function of the dimensionless relative wave depth (kh) .Results 89 Figure 6.

6: The reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth (kh): comparing single and double layers of Cubipods .Results 90 Figure 6.

Results 91 Figure 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 .

8: The reection coecient (CR) in function of the number of Iribarren .Results 92 Figure 6.

2 Damage analysis on the armour layer 6. 6. The aim is to obtain the value of the incident wave height corresponding with Initiation of damage (IDa).1 Introduction To make a rst estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient for the considered breakwater sections in breaking conditions.4.4. thus only one level is obtained.4 and to compare those results for the dierent breakwater sections.2 Qualitative analysis To make a rst estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient. The corresponding incident wave height producing those levels of damage.2 for IDa and De =3 for IIDa. The dimensionless damage corresponding to those two damage levels is calculated.4. using the photos made after every experiment.4. taking into account the heterogeneous packing. Those values of incident wave height will be used later on to estimate the hydraulic stability coecient. Initiation of damage of Iribarren (IIDa) and Initiation of destruction (IDe) using the denitions explained in 5. to receive more exact results. A more correct result is obtained. They dier a little between the dierent types of armour layers but the average values can be given as: De =1. for a single layer of Cubipods. . Further. the damage is analysed qualitatively.4. only the rst two levels will be considered here. based on the photos made after every experiment. using the Hudson [5] formula proposed by SPM[6]. the damage progression is studied using a quantitative method.1. is taken as the maximum of the signicant incident wave heights H1/10 of all the earlier lanced waves by this type of armour layer. The results can be seen in 6. Concerning the denitions of the damage levels. damage analysis is executed using the qualitative method. there is no dierence between IDa and IIDa.2. As the tests were always stopped before IDe.2.Results 93 6. Here can be mentioned that during the experiments could be seen clearly that heterogeneous packing took place before extraction of armour units. the Virtual Net Method described by Gómez-Martín & Medina [24].

The reason therefore. The formula of Hudson.4 16.1: 94 IAI H1/10 [cm] 16.10 1. taking o the coloured elements of the upper layer. which means that they can resist a higher wave height before reaching a damage level.5 19. proposed by SPM.9 3.20 1.4 1.26 1.37 Incident wave heights producing the levels of damage: IDa and IIDa For the double armour layer. has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a toe berm.Results IA De Double layer Cubipods without toe berm: C2 Single layer Cubipods without toe berm: C1 Double layer Cubipods with toe berm: C2B Single layer Cubipods with toe berm: C1B Combined layer: CB Table 6.96 H1/10 [cm] 23. thus damage will occur earlier. For the combined section CB.97 23. The dierence for the higher wave height in case of a single layer B1 compared with the double layered breakwater B2. no explicit conclusion can be made concerning the hydraulic stability in comparison with the other sections. The elements move more downwards if there is no toe berm. The wave height corresponding with IDa for the double layered breakwater with toe berm C2B is higher than for the single layered.8 19. to calculate the number of stability Ns is used to .15 23. which indicates a higher hydraulic stability of the section C2B than of the section C1B.6 De 2. however. can be explained in the same way. The elements of the under layer were already stabilized during the tests on the double layered section and thus have a higher friction with the lter. the breakwater section with toe berm can resist a higher wave height until IDa or IIDa occurs than in the situation without toe berm. The executed tests on the section without toe berm are formed by the rst layer of B2. More tests are necessary to exclude the right solution.7 18.32 1. the situation seems to be opposite.6 2. For the single armour layer.

Also necessary to mention is that the calculation of the hydraulic stability coecient here is based on results of damage tests assuming damage by Heterogeneous Packing. those can be seen in table ??.Results estimate the hydraulic stability coecient and is dened as: 95 NS = H1/10 1 = (KD cotα) 3 ∆Dn NS 3 KD = cotα (6. the dimensions of the armour units (Dn =3. More experiments need to be carried out to optimize this parameter. in the structure head of a mound breakwater and random collocation of the Cubipods. the calculation is done with the dimensions of the cubes. the received results here probably will be more exact than those received by the traditional methods. Also here.3) (6.82cm for Cubipods and Dn =4. as proposed by SPM [6]. because this results in a lower value of stability than when it should be calculated with the lower cubipod dimensions. . KD =35 for a single layer of Cubipods and KD =23 for a combined armour layer with cubes and Cubipods. Important to mention is the high value of hydraulic stability coecient of Cubipods. KD =43 was found for double layer of Cubipods. are just a rst estimation. For the combined layer CB. Some of them are published in SPM (1984) [6]. Those values. the value of KD can be calculated. their density (2. the maximum signicant incident wave height of all the earlier tests is taken as corresponding wave height. Knowing the breakwater slope (1:1.00cm for cubes).5). compared with other armour units. however.4) The incident wave height is dened as the signicant wave height H1/10 causing IDa.30t/m3 ) and the wave height producing IDa. knowing that this lower value is also due to the calculation with the cube dimensions. Important to know is that those values are valid for shallow water (breaking conditions). Knowing that this failure mode occurs almost always before extracting of armour units.

especially because low density concrete is used. the same remark as in the qualitative analysis about the wave height can be made.KD =6 . [47]. The quantitative analysis of the damage is done using the Virtual Net Method.4. The results are also compared with the equation proposed by Medina et al.2. however.4. this results in HD=0 (KD =6)=10. To provide a more accurate representation and especially to be able to compare the obtained results with the results of the earlier cubipod model tests in non-breaking conditions in deepwater [38]. Thus. a quantitative analysis is necessary.4. the linearized dimensionless damage of the wave tests are presented with respect to a dimensionless wave height: H1/10 /HD=0. that compares the porosity in every zone of the armour layer to the initial porosity and results in the equivalent dimensionless damage.03 cm. the maximum measured incident average wave height Hm during the series of tests with the concerned water depth is taken. To obtain a more correct restult. where Hm is the average incident wave height: . In a graphical presentation this ultimate value provides a clearly understandable image. the comparison with the former results can be done eectively. Using the Hudson formula.2 (Eq. and this for the dierent studied models. it is rather dicult to interpret them and to compare them with other test results. a general equation for each type of armour unit can be deduced. As corresponding wave height. as explained in section 5.4.2 (6.Results 6. With this conversion.3 Quantitative analysis 96 The qualitative analysis gave us a rst estimation of the stability of the dierent armour breakwaters. This can be transformed to the linearized dimensionless damage by elevating it to the power 0.5) After every series of tests with a constant water depth.5). Here. but KD of a regular cube. If the linearized dimensionless damage D* values are represented simply as a function of the corresponding scaled wave heights. 6. Based on this equation. D∗ = D0. based on the test results for quarrystone in SPM [6]. the average incident wave height is divided by the wave height that causes IDa (HD =0) for an equivalent cube with the density and weight of the used Cubipods. the dimensionless damage De is calculated.

2 D 1. . has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a toe berm. however. an explicit conclusion can't be made. taking o the elements of the upper layer.6) 1/3 Hm HD=0 (6. little damage takes place. working like a toe berm.Results 97 H1/10 = HD=0 D∗ = D0. For the elements near the bottom. After a series of experiments. thus higher damage occurs in the beginning. which explains the small dierence at the end. The graphics showing the results of the single armour layer. the removed elements are collected at the bottom and form a massive entity. In this case. The reason therefore. The mound breakwater without toe berm seems to have a higher hydraulic stability. The executed tests on the section without toe berm is formed by the rst layer of B2. however. there is no damage at the bottom near the toe berm.9) showing the results of the double armour layer is it clear that the hydraulic stability is lower if there is no toe berm.2 = 1. 6 4 KD 0.7) First.2 (6. and thus increase of porosity will only occur at the top of the breakwater. we study the inuence of the presence of a toe berm by comparing both: the double armour layer with and without toe berm and the single armour layer with and without toe berm. but the damage is only due to removing units at the top of the breakwater. In the results of the section without toe berm can be seen that at the top of the breakwater. In the graphics (Fig 6. In case of a toe berm the armour elements at the bottom of the mound breakwater can't remove. The elements were already stabilized during the tests on the double layered section and thus have a higher friction with the lter layer. 60. After a series of experiments however can be seen that this dierence becomes nil. show the opposite. When this toe berm is not present. the porosity decreases because the elements from above push them down. and thus due to the absence of a toe berm. In the experiments with toe berm. however. the elements near the bottom can remove and also here the porosity will increase. the majority of the damage is due to the layers at the bottom.

comparing the results with the executed tests in deepwater for a double layered breakwater. Also the lines indicating IDa and IIDa are drawn. in the graphics. there can be seen that the results in breaking conditions are less stable than in non-breaking conditions. the results of the dimensionless damage (the isolated points) seem to be higher than the equations. KD =35 and KD =23. while the combined layer of cubes and Cubipods gives the lowest results. We can draw the lines with KD =43. which means that the qualitative manner to calculate KD overestimates the stability coecient. the single Cubipod layer and the combined layer of Cubipods and cubes. corresponding with the double Cubipod layer. to receive a certain level of dimensionless damage. the further hydraulic stability analysis will only be executed with this types of breakwater. KD =23 for a single layer of Cubipods and KD =18 for the combined layer as we prefer to place the line on the safe side. Better adjustment would be obtained with the line KD =28 for double layer of Cubipods. The result can be seen above in the gure 6.10. For the dierent breakwater sections. using the qualitative calculated stability coefcient predict. Changing KD by a certain hydraulic stability coecient in the equation 6. On the other hand. Further. which means that the damage will initiate earlier than in deepwater conditions. The graphics with the calculated dimensionless damage results (the isolated points in Fig 6. in non-breaking conditions a higher incident wave height is needed than in breaking conditions. This is shown in the second graphic of gure 6. The double layer gives more stable results than the single layer of Cubipods. This is normal because in breaking conditions.10.10) show a dierence between the three breakwater sections. . For the same incident wave height a higher dimensionless damage is occurred in case of breaking conditions than in case of a non-breaking situation.7.Results 98 As mound breakwaters with toe berm are the common built breakwaters in breaking conditions. waves with higher energy reach the breakwater. the equivalent line for every armour unit can be drawn in the graphic showing D* in function of Hm /HD=0 .

Results 99 Figure 6.9: Inuence of the presence of a toe berm on the hydraulic stability of a mound breakwater .

Under: the quantitative calculated KD .Results 100 Figure 6. Above: the qualitative calculated KD 's.10: The linearised dimensionless damage as a function of a dimensionless height.

Dimensionless damage as a function of dimensionless wave height . and with Quarrystone in breaking conditions.11: Comparison a double Cubipod layer in breaking with non-breaking conditions.Results 101 Figure 6.

many theories suppose that the energy from the broken waves is concentrated in the breaking wave height. the design of the unit is based on the cube in order to obtain his robustness. more specically the loss of armour elements in certain zones of the breakwater slope which can be caused by two reasons: simple extraction of the armour units under wave attack or their excessive settlement causing Heterogeneous Packing. ecient storage and handling are other advantages. They avoid sliding of the armour elements. a short study is done concerning the maximum wave height in breaking conditions. The hydraulic stability in breaking conditions of the recently invented Cubipod is studied. Furthermore. The protuberances of the Cubipod avoid face-to-face settlement and increase the friction with the lter layer. In general can be concluded that the theories overestimate the maximum wave height. Therefore. All this indicates a higher hydraulic stability of Cubipods in comparison with cube elements. Dierent existing theories were commented and compared with the measured values. but in this project only the hydraulic stability of the armour units is studied. 102 . As the incident wave height is an important factor inuencing the design of coastal structures. Heterogeneous Packing and loss of elements above the still water level is reduced. easy casting. Due to this. The goal of the Cubipod unit is to benet from the advantages of the traditional cube. but to correct the drawbacks. Further.Chapter 7 Conclusions The stability of the armour layer of a mound breakwater depends on many factors.

This statement however doesn't correspond with the measured results. 5 and increases until 50% for small kh values. with a simple and robust shape. compared with all other published armour unit values. All tests proved that the Cubipod has a high hydraulic stability in breaking conditions. Comparison between the damage progression in deepwater conditions and in shallow water shows us that the hydraulic stability coecient in shallow water is less than in deepwater conditions. The most important results were the reection coecient and the hydraulic stability coecient of the armour layer. The reection coecient of the Cubipod armour layer diers between 10% and 30% for kh > 1. Finally. also in breaking conditions. The aim of this nal project was the experimental study of the behaviour of Cubipod breakwaters under wave attack in breaking conditions. however this inuence decreases and becomes nil. The energy from the broken waves is distributed back over the smaller wave heights in the distribution. which means that the damage will initiate earlier than in deepwater conditions. probably as well for many other armour units. The obtained results were compared to the similar previous tests on Cubipod breakwaters in deepwater conditions. It can certainly be a very good alternative for regular cubes. For a combined layer with Cubipods above cubes. the type of armour layer has a big inuence on the reection coecient. Waves with higher energy reach the breakwater. the Cubipod shows to be a very promising armour unit. For small values of kh. Stability factors of KD =28 and KD =23 were obtained for respectively a double layer and a single layer of Cubipods. For high kh values. an easy placement pattern and a high hydraulic stability. . a stability factor KD =18 was obtained.Conclusions 103 which meant that all the broken waves would have the breaking wave height in the surng zone. and when more experiments will be carried out. Reections coecients in shallow water is lower than in deepwater conditions because the crest breaks and a lot of energy is dissipated which means less reection.

VB01_3216 or VB04_5117. The terminology of the experiments is the following: The rst two letters VB stand for the laboratory where the tests have been carried out (V=Polytechnic University of Valencia) and for the conditions of the executed tests (tests in breaking conditions).Appendix A Terminology of the experiments Every experiment has a code: VBWX_YZAC. As we only consider regular waves. The following values are considered: 1: hmodel = 20 cm 104 . The next number (W) refers to the wave type. e.g. Further. is this number always 0. the type of armour layer is dened by the following denitions: 1: double armour layer 2: single armour layer 3: double armour layer with toe berm 4: single armour layer with toe berm 5: cubipods above cubes The number 'Y' stands for the water depth in the model.

results in 'AC'=06.13 s 5: T = 2. .Terminology of the experiments 2: hmodel = 25 cm 3: hmodel = 30 cm 4: hmodel = 35 cm 5: hmodel = 38 cm 6: hmodel = 40 cm 7: hmodel = 42 cm The next value represents the period of the lanced wave in model being: 105 1: T = 0.85 s 2: T = 1.28 s 3: T = 1.55 s The last two numbers describe the wave height in model.70 s 4: T = 2. a wave height of 12 cm in model results in 'AC'=12. A wave height of 6 cm in model.

the breakwater model. From left to right one can see: the wavemaker. an extra wave gauge to measure the run-up together with the Step-Gauge system and nally in the right end the energy dissipator. 106 . the transition slope. a rst group of four wave gauges. the second group of wave gauges.Appendix B Wave ume A detailed plot of the total test setup within the wave ume is shown on the next page.

Wave ume 107 Figure B.1: Cross section of the 2D wave-ume of the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the Politecnic University of Valencia .

First.1. However. the wavemaker will not take into account possible re-reections. the principal button. and last. A more detailed scheme of the working of the AWACS. the two wave gauges should be calibrated. This is done by putting 108 . Every day before starting the experiments. if not. Now the control unit receives alimentation. provided by DHI AWACS2.3). have to be followed. the next steps in the central control unit behind the wavemaker. an important option is 'Active Absorption'. DHI AWACS2 features self-calibration of the paddle-mounted wave gauges. Than. The wavegenerator in the laboratory is provided with an Active Wave Absorption Control System AWACS. has to be swithed on. most of the wave absorption methods have not been published and some doubts still remain regarding the true eectiveness of methods based on sophisticated lters and black boxes. Then the software 'DHI Wave Synthesizer' can be started (Fig C. the second button. providing 24V has to be swithed on. Before starting any other software.Appendix C Working of the AWACS Many authors and laboratories resolved the re-reection problem by placing an active reection absorption system in the wave generator. feeding the other two. The AWACS only will work if this option is activated. the third button that provides 220V. Afterwards the converter is activated to change analogical signals from the computer in optical signals going to the control system of the AWACS. is given in gure C. Here. Schäer and Klopman (2000) [48] review various types of those techniques.

If not.4). If the values of the standard deviations are less than 0. All those values are in prototype and without taking into account any scale. In the window 'wave parameter' we dene 'regular waves' and further 'Stokes 1st order'. It's important to check if the utilization of the wavemaker is less than 100%. the scale of the used model has to be dened. When nished. this comment is used to put the present water level of the wavemaker on zero. This duration will be little higher than the duration given in 'DHI Synthesizer' to be able to also have datas after the wavegenerator stopped moving. in our case two (called A & B). the datas has to be saved and the next experiment can be started. After putting 'realizar ensayo' the wave height in cm and the period in seconds of the model are asked. the period in seconds and the water depth in meters have to be introduced. and in the window 'toma los datos' the duration of the test has to be dened. Now the waves to generate can be dened.5). . In this window the wave height in meters. At the end. Afterwards the calibration is done. the button 'skipp all' is pushed and the oset scan is executed a second time. The number of columns depends on the number of wave gauges. the old and new values have to be controlled and should be similar. it is accepted. Here the water depth near the wavemaker has to be given.002V. the software 'Multicard' for the aquisition of the datas has to be activated (Fig C. The program starts to work and the information on the screen is actualizing continual.005V. First 'oset scan' is done. The duration of the test is obtained by multiplying the theoretical period of the experiment by the number of desired waves. and should be higher than 1.Working of the AWACS 109 the button DSC in the starting window of the program. The standard deviation in calm water is supposed to be more or les 0. In the next window 'wave generation' (Fig C. Before putting the start button. Now the experiment can be started. The program calculates the amplitud and the velocity of the wavemaker.

2: The steps to activate the control system .1: A detailed scheme of the working of the AWACS Figure C.Working of the AWACS 110 Figure C.

3: Software to manage the AWACS.Working of the AWACS 111 Figure C. Above: the startscreen Under: the calibration of the AWACS .

4: Windows to realize the wave generation Figure C. for the aquisition of the datas .Working of the AWACS 112 Figure C.5: The program Multicard.

Therefore. however can only separate the incident wave from its direct reection on the breakwater. however is only usefull in numerical and noise free simulations. Some methods like the three-point least squares method of Mansard and Funke (1981) [50] may reduce the instability and sensitivity to noise. The basic method on which most existing techniques for separating incident and reected waves in laboratory are founded is the two-point method. which means that they don't take into account multireections in the wave ume. Various methods for wave separation have been developed but those.Appendix D Seperation of incident and reected waves The response of maritime structures depends on the incident wave eld. This method. but stationarity and linearity still remain 113 . This makes it necessary to distinguish the incident wave train seperated from the reected wave train to study and predict response of maritime structures both in model tests and in prototype. This method is popularized by Goda and Suzuki (1976) [49] and is based on linear dispersion and wave superposition. the wave ume in the laboratory is provided with an AWACS. but not when using real measurements in wave umes. however in laboratory model tests as well as in prototype only the incident wave added to its reection can be measured.

and a simulated annealing algorithm to optimize the parameters of the wave model in each small local timesegment of the measured record. Figueres and Medina [55] optimized the 'LASA local wave model' method. One of their main disadvantages is the inconsistency produced by the fact that future measured data are needed to estimate earlier analysed data. The LASA method (Local Approximation using Simulated Annealing) developed by Medina [54] for the analysis of incident and reected waves in the time-domain. based on linear and Stokes-II nonlinear components to the 'LASA-V wave model' using an approximate Stokes-V wave model.Seperation of incident and reected waves 114 as two fundamental principles of the frequency-domain techniques used by most laboratories for separating incident and reected waves. To obtain the water surface elevation corresponding to the incident and reected wave trains at any point of the record. the results of the optimization in each time window overlap. The method can directly be applied to regular and irregular two-dimensional waves without excessive steepness. is based on a local approximation model considering linear and Stokes-II nonlinear components. considering the fact that up till this time. no other methods were available to analyse adequately the wave separation of this very common and necessary experiment type. using whatever number of measuring gauges. The method can be used for nonstationary and nonlinear waves. This model is able to analyse experiments with highly nonlinear waves as in intermediate depth conditions. Time-domain methods like those proposed by Kimura (1985) [51] and further developed by Frigaard and Brorsen (1994) [52] or Schäer and Hyllested (1999) [53] resolve this problem but still assume linear models. . This implies a huge advantage for the use in both prototype and laboratory model tests with irregular and nonstationary waves. The LASA method has been compared with the 2-point method from Goda and Suzuki and the method developed by Kimura and resulted very robust in numeric experiments and very consistent in physical experiments with both regular and irregular waves.

1: Calculation of the initial porosity 115 .Appendix E Calculation of the initial porosity Figure E.

The reports of all the executed tests can be found on the included cd-rom.Appendix F Example of a test report An example of the report le for the results near the wavemaker generated by the software tool LPCLab is presented here. 116 .

1: Example of a test report .Example of a test report 117 Figure F.

2: Example of a test report .Example of a test report 118 Figure F.

The used terminology of the experiments can be found in Appendix A and all the complete LPCLab test reports can be found on the available cd-rom.Appendix G Test results An overview of the executed tests and the most important results are given. 119 .

Test results 120 .

Test results 121 .

Test results 122 .

Test results 123 .

Test results 124 .

Test results 125 .

Test results 126 .

Test results 127 .

Test results 128 .

Test results 129 .

Goda. Negro and O. Torum. Diseño de diques rompeolas. Tokyo. Coastal and Ocean Division. 2002. 2004. Revista de Obras Públicas. Septembre. 4 edition. 1984. Development of an innovative breakwater armour unit. [3] M. Port.Bibliography [1] Y. 239277. The Netherlands. [2] V. Reedijk. volume 2. Laboratory investigation of rubble mound breakwaters. Muttray. pages 958971. Carstens. Colegio de ingenieros de caminos. Journal of Waterway. Iribarren. Generalización de la fórmula para el cálculo de los diques de escollera y comprobación de sus coecientes. [8] Shore Protection Manual U. 1959. pages Le Génie Civil. Bermejillo Usabiaga. [7] Hudson. [6] J. 2000. Washington. L'equilibre sous-marin d'un massif de materiaux soumis a la houle. Random seas and design of maritime structures. A. Delta Marine Consultance b. Larras. B. Varela. [5] R.. Klabbers. M. Iribarren and C. [4] R. Traetteberg. University of Tokyo. Madrid. [9] T. canales y puertos. Proceedings of 10th conference on Coastal Engineering. 1952. The stability of rubble mound breakwaters against irregular waves. Una formula para el calculo de los diques de escollera. 130 . Gouda. and A. Department of the Navy Waterways Experiment Station. 1966. and M. Pasajes.S. Nogales. 85(3):93121..v. Government Printing Oce. 1938. 1950.

6.A. 3. 3:7796. 114(1):6680. Port. [19] C.A. Deterministic and probabilistic design of breakwater armor layer. Price. ASCE. Desiré. 1974. Paper No. Isle of Wight. Coastal and Ocean Engineering. 1982. Proceedings 15th conference on Coastal Engineering. annexe bul 1. pages 17891802. British overcraft corporation. 1988. Final report of the international comission for the study of waves. 5:147157. Coastal and Ocean Engineering. [18] J. Losada and L. The joint inuence of the wave height and period on the stability of rubble mound breakwaters in relation to iribarren's number.F. 25. [16] M. Losasa and L. 1985. 131 Proceedings of 14th International Conferenc on Coastal Engi- neering. Vidal. Suitable wave-height parameter for characterizing breakwater stability. Aplicación a diques rompeolas de bloques paralelepipédicos. 1996. pages 466479. Coastal Engineering. Port.W. PhD thesis. 1979a.A. M.A. Giménez-Curto. [17] J. ASCE.A. Journal of Coastal Engineering. Proceedings of 25th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. Giménez-Curto. Symp design rubble mound breakwaters. Coastal Engineering. [20] J. 6:8392. An approximation to the failure probability of maritime structures under sea state. Losada.R. Universidad de Cantabria. Van der Meer. Breakage of breakwater armour units. 1976. Journal of Waterway. Surf similarity. no.S. Journal of Waterway. [14] M. Medina. ASCE. 1976. [13] O. Giménez-Curto. [11] PIANC. [12] A. 121(2):8897. 1981.A. [15] M.M. pages 25642571. Losada and L. Magoon and W. Mound breakwaters under oblique wave attack. Whillock and W. Wave climate simulation and breakwater stability. Armour blocks as slope protection. ASCE. Mansard. . 1995. a working hypothesis. Comportamiento de un Sistema granular bajo ujos oscilatorios. Honolulú. and E.R.Bibliography [10] J.A. 1977. Battjes. Baird.

2003. Melby and N. [23] J. Gómez-Martín. Full scale wave overtopping measurements. [29] M. ASCE.M. . Wave height and period parameters for damage description on rubblemound breakwaters. [27] P. ASCE. Wave-to-wave exponential estimation of armour damage progression. Gómez-Martín and J. pages 35923604.E. ASCE. [26] M. Proceedings of the Coastal Engineering Conference. [28] M. Journal of Structural Engineering. Losada. 124(6):15371549.Bibliography 132 [21] J. Bruun. [25] M. [30] C. Losada.A.R. 1986. 124(6):286294. M. Medina. Coastal and Ocean Engineering.M. Stability of blocks as breakwater armor units.R. Medina. Vidal. Coastal and Ocean Engineering. 2005. Progression and variability of damage on rubble mound breakwaters. Estudio experimental de la variabilidad y evolución de la avería en el manto principal de diques en talud. 494506. Coastal Structures.R. Alejo. and J. 2002. 2002. Common reasons for damage or breakdown of mound breakwaters. Engineering. Port.A. VIII Jornadas Españolas de Ingeniería de Coastal Costas y Puertos. 1991. Gómez-Martín and J. Vandenbosch et al. ASCE. 1979. Desire. 2004. Kobayashi.E. pages 36883700. Master's thesis. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia. J.E. Stability of mound breakwater's head and trunk. ASCE.A. De Rouck et al. Port. Journal of Waterway. Journal of Waterway. 2:261273. pages Proceedings of 29th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. Análisis de averías de diques en talud con manto principal formado por bloques de hormigón. Vidal et al. 117(6):570 587. 2004. [24] C. Proceedings of 29th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. ASCE. [22] A. 1998. and L. 112(11):23922401. Inuence of the density of placement on the stability of armour layers on breakwaters. Medina.

Model investigations as a tool part of the design of rubblemound breakwaters. Magoon. PIANC Italy. Paape and H.Bibliography [31] J. Iribarren. [37] L.D. 1980. 2006.D. III Congreso Nacional de la Asociación Técnica de Puertos y Costas. Medina. 1972.Universiteit Gent. [35] D. 133 Journal of Waterway. Groenendijk. 1st Coastal.R. Bakker et al. 40:161182. and Oshore Engineering Specialty Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Es- tuary. Van de Kreeke. Stockholm. ASCE. . Master's thesis. Damage function of rubble-mounds breakwaters. pages 5175 5183. Santander. ranean Days of Coastal and Port Engineering. [38] A. ASCE. 2008. Treadwell and O. Cubípodo: ensayos de estabilidad hidráulica 2d y 3d. Proceedings of 13th Inter- national Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. 2000. XXI Congreso Internacional de la Navegación. Gómez-Martín and J. 1969. Analysis of the stability of the armour unit cubipod in breakwater structures. Oullet. [39] M. pages 18091825. Proceedings of Coastal Structures. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia . Considerations on factors in breaking model test. diseño del encofrado y ensayos de caída de prototipos. estudio del remonte y rebase. 1965. [32] Y. [36] P.. 2007. Fórmula para el cálculo de los diques de escolleras naturales o articiales. Corredor et al. [33] R. Ligteringen. 95(3):345354. [34] A.W. 2003. Coastal and Ocean Division.A. ASCE. Mijlemans. Palermo. Battjes and H. 2008. Wave height distribution on shallow foreshores.E. [41] J. Cubipod concrete armour unit and heterogeneous packing. Coastal Engineering. Casting system and drop tests of the cubipods armor unit. 2006. Development of concrete breakwater armour units. Port. Proceedings of 30th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. Mediter- [40] A. Reinforced concrete armor units for coastal structures. Corredor et al. International Seminar on Criteria for Design and Construction of Breakwaters.

pages 399414. Journal of Waterway. Medina. 2000. Klopman.T. Weggel. Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division. 1970. [47] J. Gaughan.A. Proceedings of the 12th Con- [43] L. and G. Review of multidirectional active wave absorption methods.W. pages 828845. Proceedings of 15th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. pages 594603. Probability of breaking wave characteristics. Coastal and Ocean Engineering. J. Coastal and Ocean Engineering. 1973. [45] P. ference of Coastal Engineering. Fasardi. Estimating incident and reected waves using a fully nonlinear wave model.R. [46] T. 2008.R. Komar and M. R. 2000. Goda and Y. 1940. Breakwater armor damage due to wave groups. Port. 55:295301. An extension of the airy theory for linear waves into shallow water. [48] M. ASCE. 4:65. 126(2):8897. Schäer. ASCE. Port. Suzuki. Le Roux. Figueres and J. Keulegan and G. Journal of Waterways. Coastal and Ocean Engineering.R. ASCEM. Estimation of incident and reected waves using simulated annealing. Wave theory calculated from cokelet's theory. .84. Medina. [51] A. Coastal EngiCoastal neering.P. 1980. 120(2):179 198. Res. Collins. [52] Y. Hudspeth.Bibliography 134 [42] G.K. Maximum breaker height. ASCE. [50] J. nal of Waterway. Sakai and J. ASCE. Patterson.D. Bur. 1972.A. Port.. 1976. Mathematical theory of irrotational translation waves. Stand. Airy wave theories and breakder height prediction. 127(4):213221. pages 405418.R. [49] J. Engineering. Proceedings of 29th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. 2004. Estimation of incident and reected waves in random wave experiments. and C. Battjes. Medina. Hemming. Natl. Jour- ASCE. 1994. 98:529548. ASCE.H. Proceeding of 13th Coastal Engineering Conference. 24:47101. [44] J. Journal of Waterway.

Proceedings of 24th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. Reection analysis using an active wave absorption control system. [56] H. 28:5969. The decomposition of incident and reected random wave envelopes. Kimura. . pages 9399. Funke. A time-domain method for separating incident and reected irregular waves. Coastal Structures. 1994. pages 202203. Engineering in Japan. Mansard and E. [54] A. 1980.Bibliography 135 [53] R. Proceedings of 17th International Conferenc on Coastal Engineering. [55] P. Frigaard and M. pages 154172. 1985. Coastal ASCE. The measurent for incident and reected spectra using a least squares method. 1999.A. Brorsen. Schäer and P. ASCE. Hyllested.

1981 USBR Freeboard Criteria

Fifty Years of Wave Growth Curves

Guideline on Nonstructural Measures in Urban Flood Management

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Cottonwood Creek Watershed Group

Modern Water Control and Management Practices in Irrigation: Impact on Perfor...

Ballast 1

Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams

Centrifugal Pumps Handbook(Www.chemicalebooks.com)

Metallurgy the Art of Extracting Metals From Their Ores

LNG Transport

Jones-The Treasures of the Earth 1868

A Thousand Miles in the Rob Roy Canoe on Rivers and Lakes of Europe by MacGregor (With Images)

Glossary of Oceanographic Terms 1966

Chemical

Reefs at Risk Revisited

EPA Water Treatment Manual Primary Secondary Tertiary1

Government of Bermuda, Energy Green Paper - A National Policy Consultation on Energy, 2-2009

Chem Recycle

Recycled PET (rPET) in Retail Packaging

Engineering Rock Mechanics

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Opening Brief a.12!04!019

Sourcebook Version Nov 2010 Cop16-1

Goldmine5 Integrating With Goldmine

Surpac Introduction Tutorial

Power Technologies Energy Data Book

The 2007 Red List of threatened fauna and flora (Sri Lanka)

Impact Assessment Survey of Recent Energy Interventions on the Security and Sustainability of the Caribbean Energy Sector

Volvo Group CSR and Sustainability Report 2011

Vegetation Mapping Report Final Santa Lucia

EPA Contructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters

Energy Year Book 2005-06

Analysis of Laterally Loaded Piles in Multilayered Soil Deposits

The Fifth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-5)

Practical Geostatistics by Isobel Clark PG1979

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd