IPENZ Transactions, Vol. 25, No.
Design and construction of rubble mound breakwaters
Gavin N Palmer1, BE(Hons), PhD, MIPENZ Colin D Christian2, BSc(Eng), CEng, PhD, MIPENZ , MICE, MASCE
The principal function of a rubble mound breakwater is to protect a coastal area from excessive wave action. The dissipation of wave energy through absorbtion rather than reflection distinguishes rubble mound breakwaters from other types of fixed breakwater. A principal design objective is to determine the size and layout of the components of the cross-section. Designing and constructing a stable structure with acceptable energy absorbing characteristics continues to rely heavily on past experience and physical modelling. This paper outlines key design and construction issues, with particular regard to armour stability. Keywords: breakwaters, harbour structures, revetments, riprap, rubble, shore protection
Senior Environmental Engineer, City Design, PO Box 6543, Wellesley St, Auckland (formerly Postgraduate Student, Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Auckland) and 2Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92-019, Auckland. This paper, originally received on 13 June 1997, was received in revised form on 12 June 1998.
The principal function of a rubble mound breakwater is to protect a coastal area from excessive wave action. Incident wave energy is dissipated primarily through turbulent runup within and over the armour layer (Figure 1). If the wave is steep or the seaward slope of the breakwater is relatively flat then the wave will overturn and plunge onto the slope, dissipating further energy. Some of the remaining energy is converted to potential energy as the wave runs up the slope whilst the balance is reflected seaward and also transmitted to the leeward (sheltered) side. In most situations only limited overtopping is tolerated and so most transmission occurs internally. Some of the internally transmitted wave energy is dissipated during flow through the core, with the remainder appearing as a wave on the leeward side. The effectiveness of a breakwater is judged by its ability to limit the height of this transmitted wave. The bulk of the cross-section comprises a relatively dense rockfill core. This is armoured with one or two layers of rock or one of the numerous types of precast concrete armour unit. The outer layer is referred to as the primary cover layer. The term “rubble” as used here includes rock, riprap and precast concrete armour units. Similarly, “armour unit” includes both rock and precast concrete units. The dissipation of wave energy largely through absorbtion rather than reflection distinguishes rubble mound breakwaters from other types of fixed breakwater. The famous rubble mound breakwaters at Cherbourg and Plymouth constructed late last century apparently arose from difficulties dissipating wave energy through reflection (Townson 1973). Designing and constructing a stable structure with acceptable energy absorbing characteristics continues to rely heavily on past experience and physical modelling. This paper outlines key design and construction issues, with particular regard to armour stability. It is relevant to other coastal rubble mound structures, such as groynes, revetments and training walls.
2. Design approach
A principal design objective is to determine the size and layout of the components of the cross-section. This traditionally involves empirical formulae and other guidelines like those given by the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) (1980) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (1984). 19
. 1/CE.IPENZ Transactions. 25. Vol.
Silvester and Hsu (1989) and others are useful. is normally checked with a physical model in a wave flume. Van Damme et al. particularly at the advancing end during construction (Hickson and Rodolf 1951. Fried 1965. Breakwaters in deep water should be model tested with an appropriate sea state.
3. Thorpe 1984. length of wave crest. Sorensen and Jensen (1986). It is imperative that model tests represent the sea state correctly.1 Sea state
Wave direction. Vidal et al (1995) suggest a new wave parameter in stability formulae. Moore (1989) presents useful guidance on “constructability” in which design is planned for construction. occupation of the seabed. wave reflection and wave transmission. defined as the average of the ten highest waves. Hn defined as the average height of the n largest waves in a sea state. Consideration needs to be given to environmental effects associated with visual impact. In comparison. models are scaled with the Froude model law. As the bulk of a breakwater is underwater. and the breakwater itself may influence currents which could cause scour and alter bathymetry. changes in wave patterns and the mobilisation of fines during core dumping.FIGURE 1: Cross-section of a typical rubble mound breakwater. 1985. The cost of refining the design wave height through additional data collection or analysis has to be weighed against the cost of over or under-designing the structure. especially under rough seas. refers to the direction of wave travel with respect to the breakwater axis. The practicalities of translating an idealised model into a full size structure should be borne in mind. The significant wave height. They show that both the wave height distribution and the total number of waves to achieve a given damage level are taken into account with this parameter and suggest that n is
. Sorensen and Jensen 1986). This can increase the amount of material required or affect the stability of nearby structures. Wave reflection and diffraction may impact on navigability. Viscous forces are made negligible by selecting linear scales of sufficient size and by careful selection of core material for the model. be used for the design of rubble mound breakwaters. is a threedimensional phenomenon. construction and inspection is difficult. maximum runup. Scale ratios usually depend on the maximum wave height and water depth that can be reproduced in the flume along with the available size of model armour units. either normally incident or oblique. Baird et al. The latter present information on 161 breakwaters constructed in 27 different countries. HS is often used to characterise an irregular sea and is usually defined as the average of the one-third highest waves. Following preliminary design. (1981). but are typically within the range 20 to 50. Physical models are constructed geometrically similar to the full size structure. Kaplan 1971. along with the information presented by PIANC (1985). breakwater performance. Design and construction issues
Reviews of failures of full size structures like those presented by Bruun (1979). The USACE (1984) recommend that H1/10. in particular armour stability. A design that has worked well in shallow water should only be extrapolated to deep water if due consideration has been given to the practicalities of construction and the possibly significant differences in wave climate and structural behaviour. either long or short. particularly for large breakwaters and when a two-dimensional wave flume is used. It is assumed that as gravitational forces dominate.
Because of the extensive amount of data on maximum runup. the use of the relationship:
Ru (rough) = r.2 Layer thickness Armour stability generally increases with an increase in armour layer thickness.1 Slope angle Side slopes are generally as steep as possible to minimise the volume of core material and to reduce the reach of cranes working from the crest (Moore 1989). it is approximately proportional to the ratio of θ to the local steepness of the breaking wave. with wind waves and swell arriving from different directions. Ru is measured relative to the still water level (SWL). the amount of wave reflection should be checked to assess effects on navigation and toe scour.3. wave height H and offshore wave length Lo can be expressed in terms of the Surf Similarity Parameter (ξ) or Iribarren Number (Ir) given by:
ξ= tan θ ( H/Lo )1/ 2
The usefulness of ξ has been demonstrated in the widely referenced work of Battjes (1975). As the angle increases. defined by the USACE (1984) as the elevation that the surface of the water would assume if all wave action were absent. showing that for waves that break on the slope. Although most energy is dissipated by the breakwater. where r is a roughness and permeability correction factor. setup or future changes in bathymetry through dredging or scour do not affect this assumption. If so.3. However it may be possible to develop a less steep slope if the cranes operate from a barge.Ru (smooth)
is often advocated. There is however a corresponding decrease in the slope-perpendicular component of self-weight (Price 1979).
3. The relationship between slope angle θ. Van der Meer and Stam (1992) present empirical design formulae for runup on smooth and rock slopes. then it is important to ensure that storm surge.5H to 1V:3H and influence the amount of interaction between armour units. When there is a paucity of wave data and there are shallow water conditions. He gave a physical interpretation of ξ. Large scour depths are often associated with a high reflection coefficient (Sawaragi 1967. Ru for smooth slopes. Concentrations of wave energy can result from a change in wind direction during a storm. A layer of rock extending seaward from the toe can protect against scour and may cause waves to break before reaching the seaward slope. Jensen et al (1997) suggest that H1/20 should be used for rock slopes and that n should equal 250. Slopes are typically within the range 1V:1. Resonance of uprush and downrush with wave period occurs when ξ is within the range 2 to 3 and hence breakers are of the plunging or collapsing types (Bruun 1985).approximately equal to 100.2 Wave-breakwater interaction
The wave climate along the entire length of the breakwater should be checked to see if the bathymetry concentrates wave energy anywhere. Stoa (1978) and Losada and Giménez-Curto (1981) present values of Ru for armoured slopes and show that it is not possible to associate a single value of r with each type of armour. provided the armour will tolerate settlement
. Eckert 1983). reducing the design wave height (Van Damme et al 1985). it may be appropriate to use the maximum height depth-limited wave for design.3 Cross-section configuration
3. the contribution to stability from friction and interlocking also increases due to the squeezing or increase in slope-parallel forces applied by adjacent units. Good results have been obtained for the numerical modelling of wave runup on mild slopes (Christian and Palmer 1997). but recommend further research.
3. Where appropriate the breakwater can be aligned to minimise such concentrations. 3. All layers should be constructed thicker than designed to allow for settlement. This implies optimum slope angles for maximum interaction and stability (Losada and Giménez-Curto 1982).
3. The development of the seaward profile has been physically and numerically modelled by Van Gent (1995). The internal void ensures that satisfactory space is always available for energy dissipation. Extensive damage to a breakwater with a plane seaward slope usually results in such a profile. to resist wave action.
3. A more porous armour layer is created enabling a higher proportion of wave energy to be dissipated within the voids between armour units.3. This is thought to give lower internal velocities than a conventional armour layer and so smaller armour. Hollow armour units such as the SHED (Shephard Hill Energy Dissipator) (Figure 3) and Accropode are placed in a regular pattern forming a single layer (Kobayashi and Kaihatsu 1995).without breakage.1 Armour type Armour units can be classified as compact. either rock or riprap. with material removed from a zone centred near the SWL being deposited at the toe. Allowance should also be made for the initial settlement that occurs as the units nest into a more stable position under wave action. can be used. The seaward profile retains its original overall shape. interlocking armour units.4. S-shaped or “reshaped” profiles develop with the redistribution of material under wave action. such as the Dolos (Figure 2) rely principally on interlocking with adjacent units. unlike compact and
. This should be based on maximum wave runup. but the berm compacts under wave action into a more stable form (MacIntosh and Baird 1987). The breakage of several adjacent interlocking units can lead to failure of the whole armour layer. with an allowance for freeboard and post-construction settlement. interlocking or hollow according to their shape and means of obtaining stability. with the berm occupying the full width of the armour layer.
FIGURE 2: Dolos armour unit. In comparison. 3.3.3 Crest elevation The elevation of the crest should be the minimum at which acceptable overtopping occurs.4 Armour layer
3. Compact armour units which include rock and riprap use their weight. 3.3. The similarities between beach step profiles and equilibrium profiles has been demonstrated by Van der Meer and Pilarczyk (1987). The Accropode was developed by Sogreah Consultants (France) in the early 1980s.5 Berm breakwaters Berm breakwaters are constructed with a horizontal berm at or near the SWL. and to a lesser extent friction. To ensure equilibrium is achieved they are usually restricted to sites with small tidal ranges. who also present empirically derived data on the geometry of the reshaped profile. The profile continues to develop until equilibrium between erosion and accretion is reached.4 Equilibrium profiles Equilibrium. This however tends to force the armour units apart.
hollow units are susceptible to differential settlement of the underlayer. Bruun (1985) presents a summary and evaluation of various armour types. 24
. was developed by the French company Neyrpric in 1953. The USACE (1984) list some of the many types of armour unit available.5HS below the SWL. but it may be more economic and practical to adopt a constant weight. the first of the “engineered” precast concrete armour units. Foster (1985a) describes problems interfacing Dolos and Tribar units during construction. such as 25% of the nominal weight (Van Oorschlot 1983). Wooden models were used to refine the shape with the criteria of achieving high void to solid ratio and interlocking. It was decided to develop a new unit because of patents and costs of existing types. according to the survey results of PIANC (1985). Riprap differs from rock in that a wide range of particle sizes is present and the USACE (1984) recommend that it be used only where the design wave height (average of the highest 10% of all waves) is less than about 1.interlocking armour units where porosity is dependent on their relative positions. Losada and Giménez-Curto (1981) present useful data on maximum rundown. Construction specifications developed from model testing must recognise that grading can not be checked in the field by sieving. Armouring of the extension to Wellington airport runway in 1955 was one of the earliest projects to use Tetrapods. According to the survey of PIANC (1985) it is typically equal to 1. Neyrpric sought to improve permeability and interlock between units (Dock and Harbour Authority 1957). Like interlocking units. They present a logic diagram for preliminary selection which includes royalty costs and the availability of forms as criteria. and can be used to determine the depth of termination. The choice between rock and concrete may be influenced by a desire to blend in with existing structures or natural features. which is not widely reported. This followed a film viewed by PIANC in 1949 showing the lifting of armour rock during downrush. Dolosse have been the subject of much research and insitu monitoring.5m. the lowest elevation of the runup tip. especially near the SWL where most wave action is concentrated. Their results also show that they generally weigh between 6t and 50t. Rather than resist this through self-weight.
FIGURE 3: SHED armour unit. It is unusual to use different types of precast concrete armour unit within the same cover layer. because of the large number of failures and the need to provide information to support ongoing management and maintenance of the many existing structures armoured with them. Precast concrete armour units are used when suitable rock is unavailable or. For rock it is normal to specify a tolerance on armour weight. and a limit on the maximum percentage of armour weighing less than the nominal weight (typically 50-70%). South Africa (Merrifield and Zwamborn 1967) (Figure 2). Armour below this level usually consists of rock. The Dolos (plural Dolosse) was developed in 1966 for rehabilitating the damaged breakwater at the Port of East London. when HS exceeds approximately 5m. Careful consideration must be given to the elevation at which the primary cover layer is terminated. The Tetrapod. Armour weights may vary along the length of a breakwater in accordance with a smooth variation in water depth and hence wave height (Depuy and Stickland 1976). even when concrete units are used above.
and equating these to the weight of the armour unit. as well as between similar tests (Hudson 1959).Transitions are required at changes in slope. Most. Hudson derived (3) by evaluating the fluid drag and inertial forces acting on an individual armour unit in the primary cover layer. This was followed in 1938 by the semi-theoretically derived Iribarren Formula. Losada and Giménez-Curto (1979) present design (interaction) curves based on model tests showing the relationship between H. The friction between units was ignored but its effect was assumed to be included in KD.4. 0P −0. and
H S / ∆Dn 50 = 1. particularly for oblique wave attack and where the new armour differs in weight from the existing. an independent variable in the formula.Y.18 (S / N )0.5 slope in deep water and Burcharth and Liu (1993) present design charts on the stability and strength of Dolos. varied widely with armour unit shape and method of placement. 3. by De Castro and Briones.2 cot αξ P
for surging waves. Baumgartner et al (1985) and Markle and Dubose (1985) describe the use of rock buttresses to support Dolos placed to rehabilitate damaged breakwaters. For cubes there can be difficulties nesting the outer and inner layers (Groeneveld et al 1983) and also units in the same layer (Van Damme et al 1985). defined as the ratio of the width of the octagonal central stem (measured between flats) to the longest dimension of the unit. to aid the designer in selecting a rock armour weight for a given wave height. 2P 0. Sr is the specific gravity of the armour unit and θ is the slope of the structure. Chief Engineer of the WES Wave Action Section. T as variables (PIANC 1976). then developed the well known Hudson formula:
W= wr H 3 K D (Sr . Values of KD are determined from model tests by measuring the value of H at which some threshold level of damage is exceeded. R.2 Armour size and stability It was not until 1933 that the first formula was presented. Dn50 is the nominal armour diameter.13 (S / N )0. typically on the leeward side where the flatter slope near the head is steepened to match that of the trunk (Pope and Clark 1983). Van der Meer (1995) presents the following empirically derived formulae for sizing rock armour:
HS / ∆Dn 50 x ξ = 6. some including inter-unit friction and wave period. Hudson. Zwamborn and Scholtz 1987. P is a dimensionless permeability factor and N is the number of waves to achieve the damage level. where ∆ is the relative mass density.6 for a homogeneous structure consisting only of rockfill. Equation (3) is applied to riprap by substituting the median weight. He recommends that a sensitivity analysis be performed on all parameters as part of the design process. Model tests performed at the Waterways Experiment Station (WES) of the USACE in the 1950s using cubes and Tetrapods showed that the inter-unit friction coefficient. although it is still used elsewhere today. S given by:
S = A e / D 250 n
where Ae is the cross-sectional area of erosion. Holtzhausen and Zwamborn (1993) present statistically derived design formulae for Dolos on a 1:1. Values are presented by the USACE (1984) and others and are periodically revised. Increasing the waist thickness of the Dolos. More than 20 other formulae exist. Further use of the Iribarren Formula at the WES was therefore abandoned. wr is the unit weight of the armour material. Care must be taken with transitions between new and existing armour. According to Van der Meer (1995).2
for plunging waves (ξ<2-4). including (3). KD is an empirical stability coefficient which is intended to account for all of the factors affecting armour stability that are not included as variables.1) cot θ
where W is the dry weight of an individual armour unit in the primary cover layer. H is the design wave height. T and θ for various armour types. are for the condition of long crested waves moving perpendicular to the axis of a straight breakwater. reduces stresses within the unit but decreases stability (Scholtz et al 1983.1 for an armour layer with a thickness equal to 2Dn50 on an impermeable core. Burcharth and Liu 25
. the value of P varies from a minimum of 0. to a maximum of 0. W50 for W and using the appropriate value of KD.
allowable damage distributions can be used to evaluate model test results (Partenscky et al.1993). Alternative methods of measuring stress in model units are described by Burcharth et al (1991). making comparison of different cross sections and armour types difficult. the stability of armour near the top of the leeward armour layer may be relevant (Walker et al 1975. Disadvantages of reinforcement are the substantial increase in cost and the possibility of cracking resulting from corrosion. For breakwaters subjected to heavy overtopping or internal wave transmission. Impact forces and the temporal and spatial distribution of acceleration have been the subject of experimental research by Van der Meer and Heydra (1991). but only for damage greater than 5% within the zone SWL±HS. but means that broken units can not be re-used. This avoids subjective damage interpretation. For riprap slopes. One drawback is that the value calculated depends on the number of units in the armour layer. 26
. 3. A damage distribution can then be determined by comparing percentage damage to damage class. The results of limited model tests comparing Accropode and Dolos are presented by Holtzhausen and Zwamborn (1991). Burcharth and Brejnegaard-Nielsen (1987) report the same result. This zone extends from the middle of the crest down the seaward side to a depth of one characteristic wave height below the SWL. However PIANC (1985) report that their survey shows that breakage of larger precast concrete units is no more frequent than that of smaller units. where percentage damage is expressed in terms of the total number of units within the zone of active armour removal.4. Damage is generally defined as the removal or breakage of individual armour units. A further approach is to scale the strength of the model armour unit material. This is apparently due to less interlocking and lower armour layer porosity. or sliding of the armour layer en-masse. Based on the susceptibility of each type of unit to breakage. Armour unit strength can be assessed with full scale drop tests to simulate inter-unit impacts and forces. For example Iribarren accepted that wave action would form the equilibrium slope angle if it was initially too steep. Ouellet (1973) defines the characteristic wave height as that corresponding with 1% damage. When using a model to determine threshold damage conditions. Anderson et al 1993). Groeneveld et al (1983) suggest that large concrete units are more susceptible to breakage than small units.4. D’Angremond et al (1995) present empirical design curves for the structural design of Tetrapods. One approach is to observe the number of rocking and displaced units and then estimate the number that would break in the full size structure. 3. Foster 1985b. They conclude that Accropode are more stable than Dolos for long period waves (ξ>3). a small amount of damage must be observed which is generally referred to as the “no damage” condition. but have similar stability for shorter waves. acceptable level of damage is tolerated under design conditions. rocking is classed as damage too since this can lead to breakage and progressive failure of the armour layer. One approach is to express the number of units damaged as a percentage of the total number of units on the slope. A better approach is to express damage as the percentage of armour units displaced from the zone of active armour removal (Ouellet 1973). A second approach is to measure forces at several locations within selected units which are then extrapolated elsewhere within the unit using a numerical model. It is important to assess how damage observed in the model will relate to performance of the full size structure and to interpret model results accordingly. Because precast units can break as the result of rocking. For precast concrete units. it is more appropriate to describe movement of a volume of material using (6) or similar. Users of stability formulae must ensure that their definition of “acceptable damage” is consistent with that for which each formula and its respective empirical coefficients were derived. due to reduced reserve strength and higher temperature gradients during curing. The latter can be eliminated if synthetic reinforcing material is used. Bürger et al (1993) and others. 1987).4 Armour unit strength Because of the complex time-dependent loading it is difficult to accurately design a reinforcing scheme for interlocking concrete units. including equilibrium profiles. The “zero damage” or “no damage” condition is typically within the range 0-5%.3 Definition and assessment of damage A pre-determined. a more relevant approach is to use combinations of rotation and displacement to classify the movement of individual units.
A wave trough on the leeward side coincident with maximum runup on the seaward side may create a head for internal flow. Consideration should be given to the number of crane positions and hence movements required when determining armour unit positions. Kjelstrup and Bruun 1983. Lifting slings and hooks may be difficult to attach to units insitu. and hence model tests. along with rehabilitation methods (Danel and Greslou 1963. Read 1986. with a commensurate reduction in both construction time and breakage. along with concentrations of wave energy due to diffraction. A toe structure formed from cast insitu concrete is essential with hollow units. (1991) provide guidance on required armour weights at breakwater heads. the latter is only practical in shallow water. Despite this. A toe structure of placed armour units. often rock. If an armour layer is designed assuming regular maintenance then consideration should be given during design to the lifting and placing equipment required and the methodology. harbour
. provided wave heights are not depth-limited. Luger et al (1995) surveyed 357 broken Dolos units on seven breakwaters and classified each unit according to one of six breakage modes. amongst other things. when combined with static and wave induced stresses. The literature contains numerous reports on armour layer failures initiated by loss of toe support or leaching of a sandy seabed. Although interlocking concrete units are usually oriented randomly. They report that 89% of breakages occurred near the fluke-shank intersection and recommend incorporating a large fillet extending to mid-shank. will usually be at low tide. dislodging leeward armour. If a geotextile is used. Scour of the leeward toe can result from overtopping (Walker et al 1975). Care must also be taken to prevent it being undermined. 3. Sorensen and Jensen 1986). leaving it vulnerable to wave attack. the desired packing density (number of units per unit surface area) is ensured by specifying insitu coordinates and placing each unit individually. that rocking and the associated inter unit impact produces impact stresses that. Because the head is wider than the trunk it is possible to deflect it either inwards or outwards. Placing from a barge may be more time consuming than placing from land because of loading and positioning and the prerequisite of a suitable sea state. Difficulties with construction in deep water and high exposure to storms need consideration. In some cases the stability of interlocking units is improved by modifying the shape of a unit such as the Dolos (Van Dijk et al 1983) or by special orientation. They conclude that static stress is the most significant structural design parameter for these large (38 tonne weight. and hence navigation. Turk and Melby (1995) present the results of model tests with Dolos and conclude.based on the measurement of stresses in model units. consideration must be given to the practicalities of placing it underwater. and is why they tend to be restricted to shallow water. It may also result in a higher rate of breakage during placement and limit the range of permissible working conditions. can often be high enough to exceed the concrete strengths typically found in full size units. Cast-insitu lifting eyes must be maintained in good order since retrofitting is difficult. Silvester and Hsu 1984. Exposure of the core can result. This would involve less handling. 3.4.4. Kendall and Melby (1993) present the results of monitoring Dolos on the Crescent City breakwater over a six year period. Thorpe 1984.5 Handling and placing armour units Rock armour should be placed with the longest dimension perpendicular to the slope. approximately 4.7 Special considerations near the head The seaward end of a shore connected breakwater is termed the “head” and is circular in plan. Pope and Clark (1983) and Phelp et al. From a construction point of view. provides direct support of the armour layer and also surcharges the seabed against a slip circle failure.4. 3. Smith and Gordon 1983.6 Toe support The critical sea state for toe design. (1995) describe techniques used to monitor full size Dolos armoured breakwaters. In some cases it may be economic to use a smaller number of larger units. The choice should consider the effect on the redirection of wave energy. especially underwater. Vidal et al. breakage generally occurs irrespective of the particular placement method.5 m overall length) Dolos units and report that static stress increases over time as a result of subtle movements and inter unit wedging. Fredsøe and Sumer (1997) describe scour mechanisms near the head and present empirical formulae for sizing protective rock armour.
3. Significant consolidation of the seabed can occur during construction (Fang 1982) but can be managed by staging construction such that consolidation of the seabed occurs as construction proceeds. Van der Meer and Pilarczyk 1987).
3. A parapet intended to prevent overtopping may trap waves causing additional downrush and hence loading on armour units. Although a dense core reduces wave transmission. It can also reduce the amount of overtopping and strengthen the crest. Sliding is resisted by friction between the base and the underlayer or core. which may damage armour units. Consideration should be given to whether or not the completed breakwater can be easily extended in the future. Jensen (1983) presents the following guidelines: • • • • the wave wall should not extend above the level of the seaward armour (to minimise the forces on the superstructure) key the cap block into the core with a heel extend the core up to the underside of the cap block. (1981).5 Underlayer
The underlayer acts as a foundation for the armour layer and as a filter to prevent the core being eroded. especially when the relative size of the material has been altered to satisfy hydraulic scaling requirements. Dynamic loadings result from wave impact on the seaward face and uplift pressure on the base. Earthquake or wave induced liquefaction may be relevant design considerations. a minimum of fines should be used so as to avoid internal erosion. with low permeability causing higher runup and lower stability (Timco et al 1985.
The material beneath the base should either have very high permeability to relieve uplift pressures.6 Core
Core permeability affects wave runup and armour stability. but this is not common practice. It also protects the core during construction. Hedges (1984) has suggested the use of “binders” (shear keys) between the armour layer and underlayer to prevent sliding of the former. Difficulties arise in trying to reproduce this with physical models. Penetration into the seabed may result in greater quantities being required than estimated during design. This ensures adequate interlock between adjacent layers and also that the gradation reduces the potential for internal erosion. The selection of core material generally uses empirical guidelines based on past experience. The use of this technique is described by De Carvalho (1964) in which specially shaped precast concrete “cast through stones” were used to link two layers of rock armour. but this requires a commitment to keep them clean. Extra vertical load may also result from wave overtopping. and is essential when hollow units are used. Armour stability generally increases with an increase in underlayer permeability. and extend the rear of the cap block past the leeward slope to direct overtopping jets of water past the leeward armour to fall directly on the water surface.7
A superstructure consisting of a concrete cap block or wave wall (crown wall) provides access for maintenance or cargo handling. increasing the risk of overtopping. shakedown and settlement occurs initially under wave action. The size of rock to be used in the underlayer is expressed as some proportion of W. Because the core is deposited in a loose state. The latter can be relieved with vent holes.circulation patterns and sediment transport. It is usually poured after differential settlement of the core has reduced to an acceptable rate. A graded filter prevents removal of fines from the core but does not prevent the internal redistribution of material which may cause differential settlement. The risk of damage is usually limited by specifying the maximum length of core which can be left exposed at any time during construction. Hamilton and 28
. The former may however dislodge armour on the leeward side. It may also lower the crest. Other useful comments are made by Baird et al. or be of very low permeability to prevent pore water entering. Techniques used to analyse equilibrium profiles can be used to assess the behaviour of the exposed core during a storm.
Hall (1993) present results of model tests with crown (wave) walls showing that short. stabilising legs at the seaward and leeward ends of the superstructure substantially increase stability and that stability also increases with decreasing wall height.
. they recommend direct placement on the core with armour extending up the front of the wall. Like Jensen (1983).
Armour layer damage must be clearly defined. “Breakwater Design for San Ciprian”. Smidt. Coastal Eng. W. 1997.. Christchurch. Coastal Eng. D. Coastal Eng. ASCE. Coastal Engineering Research Center. P. Venice.. IEAust.L. underlayer and core permeability.. Port. And Greslou.. Breakwater Rehabilitation Study. J. K. 20th Int. 1985a. design continues to be based largely on experience and physical modelling of the proposed structure. Coastal Model Investigation. 1964. Conclusions
The principal function of a rubble mound breakwater is to protect a coastal area from excessive wave action. Despite more than six decades of applied research.F. Magoon. Baumgartner. D’Angremond. ASCE. underlayer size and shape. Conf. Proc. 1976. with due consideration given to the construction and maintenance phases. 1992. J. J. L.-J. The Engineering Foundation.
5.F. pp43-46. and Brejnegaard-Nielsen.. Fried. Ocean Eng. “The Influence of Waist Thickness of Dolosse on the Hydraulic Stability of Dolosse Armour”. Burcharth. 1997. It is imperative that model tests represent the sea state correctly. interpreted and reported.. “Praia da Vitória Harbour (Azores). Conf. and Davidson. Fang. Coastal Eng. 37.R..W.. 1982. Battjes. Baird. H. Proc. ASCE. pp3063-3077. 1985. pp407-420. Crescent City Harbour. “Rear Side Stability of Berm Breakwaters”.N. pp331-341. 1994. ASCE. J.N. ASCE. H.R. O. “Surf Similarity”. ASCE.. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering. 19th Int. Mexico City. pp1713-1726. “Design of Toe Protection for Coastal Structures”. 1992. Edge. Proc Coastal Structures '83. pp17831796.. and Liu.P..C. 1981. 1964. Bürger.D.. ASCE. P.F. 1962”.. “On the Determination of Concrete Armour Unit Stresses Including Specific Results Related to Dolosse”.M. 1993. pp345-354. 1984. C. Armour stability is affected by armour weight and shape. Bruun. 23rd Int. Virginia. F. Coastal Eng. J. 1991. Venice. pp554-568. pp107-165. ASCE. the design of armour layers remains largely empirical. I. Conf. H. Coastal Eng.L. Van der Meer. 25.). and Sloth. 15. Coastal Eng. Coastal Eng. Proc. Fredsøe. 1985. “The Tetrapod”. Conf. 1965. 1985b. pp231-262. Coastal Eng.N. P. and Stickland. Elsevier Science Publishers B.T. Carver. Proc.. Acknowledgements
The principal author gratefully acknowledges the support of a University Grants Committee Postgraduate Scholarship and the Wilkins and Davies Engineering Research Scholarship whilst performing the research described in this paper. US Army Corps of Engineers. (ed. pp560-579. Portugal”. W. “Scour at the Round Head of a Rubble-Mound Breakwater”. Proc. Foster. Proc. Foster. Waterway. 24th Int. as a consequence. 1963. pp1067-1077. Int. and Van Nes.W. Juhl. 23rd Int. Danel. Proc. pp469-481. Howell. I.. Coastal Eng. 8th Conf. Proc. toe support and the detailing of the superstructure. O. California. Proc.
6. B. J. Coastal Eng. “A Review of Breakwater Development in Australia”. pp323-326. Coastal Eng. Methods Fluids.. Kobe. 1992. Dock and Harbour Authority. Dock and Harbour Authority. G. 1979.17th Conf. “A Deforming Finite Element Mesh For Use In Moving OneDimensional Boundary Wave Problems”. and Palmer. “Report on the Damages to the Sines Breakwater. T. Depuy. H. Conf. G.. pp1053-1066. Coastal. 1993. pp2751-2759. 29. Houston. Z. D. T.D. J. Copenhagen... and Liu. 1980. 1987. 2. 1993. Technical Report CERC-85-8. 1962.H. “Stresses in Tetrapod Armour Units Influenced by Wave Action”. 1957. Venice. Design and Construction of Mounds for Breakwaters and Coastal Protection. Burcharth. Interaction between armour units is poorly understood and. Eckert.D. Australasian Conf. Lisbon.D.. B.. 1986.. 1975. D. pp261273. ASCE. 1995. Dock and Harbour Authority. Weggel. 108. 14th Conf. 307p. 23rd Int. J.W. pp50-51. (ed. Proc. 9th Conf. 1983. pp466-479. Taipei.M. Coastal Eng. and Treadwell.
. C. R. H. ASCE. “Results of Measurements on Large Model Tetrapods and Transfer to Prototype Units”. Bruun. June. Council on Wave Research. February. and Sumer. Burcharth. “Dolos Breakwater Design Improvements”. and Partenscky.J.) 1985. Conf. “The Tetrapod Concrete Block”. Christian..V. ASCE. De Carvalho.4. The practicalities of translating an idealised scale model into a full size structure should be assessed. Caldwell. Damages in the Breakwater Due to the Storm of 26th-27th December. D. Proc. pp1020-1029. J. Numer.W. “Stability of Overtopped Rock Armoured Breakwaters”. Model tests and empirical formulae should be applied and interpreted with care. References
Anderson. Sydney.F. “Common Reasons For Damage or Breakdown of Mound Breakwaters”. 1974. “Design of Dolos Armour Units”. P. Z. Coastal Eng. June. J. Amsterdam. Washington.W.A. R. “New Coastal Works at Nahariya (Israel)”..
Conf. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses.W. 1984. 1983. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. ASCE. and Bruun.. Conf. “Hydraulic Characteristics and Field Experience of New Wave Dissipating Concrete Blocks (ACCROPODE)”. T. Van Tonder. J. ASCE. Coastal Eng.. and Clark. Mol. Proc. L. 10th Conf.. Andersen. 1985.R. 1983. Partenscky. and Rodolf. P.R. Cape Town.. 1993. J. Kobe.Y. 1967. Eastbourne. R. “The Economic Value of a New Breakwater Armour Unit ‘Dolos’”. pp2133-2143. 6. “Scouring Due to Wave Action at the Toe of Permeable Coastal Structure”. London.
. A. 1983. ASCE. Report of a working group of the Permanent Technical Committee II. May. Luger. pp1285-1298. Gronbech. J. Coastal Eng.). Conf. Brussels.A. M.). Vol. 23rd Int. and Baird. R. “Design and Construction of Jetties”. Proc. Holtzhausen. Proc Coastal Structures '83. 24th Int. Conf. “Breakwater Stability Under Regular and Irregular Wave Attack”. J. Taipei. “Prototype Experience With Rubble Mound Breakwaters”. Proc. pp215-223.W. 1950. pp1809-1825. pp885-912. Read. 1991. 1983.A. 1985.R. 1966. A. Washington. E. pp99-106. pp1231-1244. 1992. 1986. Phelp.. K. Venice. Coastal Eng. W.T. ASCE. S. 1983. 1951. Proc. T. Long Beach. 25th Int. J. 1995.. 1971. J.G. Coastal Eng. Cleveland. and Giménez-Curto. Permeable Slopes Under Wave Action”. 1986. Experimental Model Investigation. Coastal Eng. Coastal Eng. Losada. Rutte. 23rd Int. Proc. 1995. And Zwetsloot. A. and Melby. Harbors Div. Conf.. Brussels. The Constructability of a Breakwater”. 1967. Ouellet. Coastal Eng. Coastal Eng.F. M. pp193-207. 1987. pp1511-1525. Coastal Eng. M.M. Conf. Losada.. Proc. Waterways.1st Conf. 1959. 1983.G. 1979. “New Stability Formula for Dolosse”. California. Van Tonder. Proc. Pope. Conf. 1973. 66p.A. Wave Stability Tests of Dolos and Stone Rehabilitation Designs for the East Breakwater.A.R. and Giménez-Curto. Washington. pp1269-1283. 13th Conf. K. H. Hamilton. The Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters in Deeper Water. Technical Report CERC-85-10. Conf. 85. Supplement to Bulletin No. Proc. Washington. “Discussion” in Developments in Breakwaters.. Breakwaters 88. ASCE. “Mound Breakwaters Under Oblique Wave Attack”. 24th Int. Hedges. Washington. Thomas Telford.S. 1983. and Hall..). Sawaragi. Hickson. pp227-245. P. Coastal Structures '83. and Zwamborn. 1983. “Breakwater Superstructures”. 10th Conf.R. F. Thomas Telford. ASCE.A. 1987.H. Jensen. Hudson.. 1980. J. US Army Corps of Engineers. Kobe. (ed. M.P. R. pp2079-2088. 1996. 1981. Tokyo. and Kaihatsu.S. 1988. and Giménez-Curto. Tokyo.A. J. MacIntosh. L. Price. 20th Int. Proc. Cleveland. Proc. Kjelstrup.. 1997. J.. A. 15. and Holtzhausen. and Zwamborn.).A. Coastal Eng. L. S. Venice. “The Joint Effect of the Wave Height and Period on the Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters Using Iribarrens Number”. “Movement and Static Stress in Dolosse: Six Years of Field Monitoring at Crescent City”. J.E. ASCE. Merrifield. “On the Behaviour of Armour Unit in the Cover Layer”. Kaplan. J. 1993. S. O. 1992.Groeneveld. “Static Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters”. 1989. “Dolos Stability: Effect of Block Density and Waist Thickness”. (ed. ASCE. T. “Monitoring of a Dolos Armour Cover. 25. pp1217-1230.. D. 24th Int. Holtzhausen. 1976. A. 52(609). 18th Conf.A. W. Ohio”. Vol.. T. Council on Wave Research. ASCE. 1994. pp1388-1396. 1985. (ed. “Stability of Accropode (R) and Comparison with Dolosse”. Proc. pp45-56.L. Y. M. pp130-132. Coastal Eng. A. ASCE. Proc. 1992. J.J. ASCE. “Preliminary Analysis of the Stability of Rubblemound Breakwater Crown Walls”. J.A. “Factors in Breakwater Model Tests”. pp376-378. (ed. London. “Results of Extensive Field Monitoring of Dolos Breakwaters”. Coastal Eng. Breakwaters '85. 1995. Taipei.J. 36. 4. 48. The Engineering Foundation. Weggel.R. Zwamborn. Kobayashi. Luger. pp140-156. Coastal Eng. and Zwamborn. “Increased Dolos Strength by Shape Modification”. “Flow Characteristics on Rough. J.. III. Kendall.H. Coastal Eng. pp187-206.. Proc. 1966. H. “West Breakwater Sines. pp83-92. ASCE.A. J. “Laboratory Investigation of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters”. and Van Niekerk. Scholtz.H. 1979. D. Weggel.. ASCE. The Core and Underlayers of a Rubble Mound Structure”. Vancouver.D. Virginia.A. and Schmidt. pp1036-1047. Coastal Eng.G. pp59-86. M. Coastal Structures '83. A.. pp2026-2046. Supplement to Bulletin No. 3.. and Holtzhausen.. pp93-121. Coastal Engineering Research Center. R. Venice. D.J.H.A.P. 1983. II. Jensen.. Thomas Telford. N.A. Dock and Harbour Authority. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. Final Report of the International Commission for the Study of Waves. Dock and Harbour Authority. D. 1983. E. ASCE. D.J. Proc. ASCE.W. “8. Phelp. Proc. Proc. 1994. pp2-7.. A. Ohio. Coastal Eng.. Kobe. Markle. Coastal Structures '83.R. ASCE. Losada. Weggel. pp272-285. pp77-96.. Final Report of the 3rd International Commission for the Study of Waves. ASCE.. Weggel. 1993. Coastal Eng. New Aspects of Armour Units”. 1994. Breakwaters: Design and Construction. S. Brussels. 1986. “11. 1972. 20th Int. 1982. Coastal Eng. Proc. and Dubose. Orlando. and Davies. “Design of Breakwaters on Sandy Seabed”. ASCE. “Construction of Mound Breakwaters”. Proc. Moore. 23rd Int. Annex to Bulletin No. 1982. Proc. Mansard. D. Conf. pp16791692.
and Heydra. J. Washington.V. Proc. ASCE. Conf. and Dunham. 1978. Newark. Location and Impact Velocity”. Experience Gained From Breakwater Failures”. J. and Pilarczyk. 1991.P. 20th Int. pp2487-2499. Waterway.. W. pp879-898. A Review of Stability Formulas for Rock and Riprap Slopes Under Wave Attack”. “13. and Medina. Vandenbossche. 1983. 18th Conf. 1975. J. pp191-201. ASCE. J.. T. Waterway. “4. Proc. Ocean Eng.A. De F.The Design and Construction of a Breakwater on a Hostile Coast”. pp570-587. Zwamborn. R. “Wave Interaction With Berm Breakwaters”.). Port. 1989.115(3).B. Waterway. Van der Meer.S. and Mansard. Thorne.A. pp21-39. (eds). ASCE. M. “Dynamic Stability of Rock Slopes and Gravel Beaches”. Conf. A.P. “Rocking Armour Units: Number. July. H. Van der Meer.. S.J. (ed. 1987. Cape Town. Coastal. Coastal Eng..A. pp534-550.R. J. Stoa.. 1984. London. ASCE. W. Port. Coastal.W. pp103-118. pp108-121.W. Smith. Taipei. “Sines Revisited”. 1984. ASCE. Taipei. Waterway.. pp88-97. and Hsu. O. Virginia..W. Reanalysis of Wave Runup on Structures and Beaches. C. 1991. pp111-118. Notation
Ae Dn50 H Hn HS Ir KD Lo N P Ru r S Sr SWL T Cross-sectional area of erosion Nominal armour diameter Wave height Average height of the n largest waves Significant wave height Iribarren Number Stability coefficient (Hudson Formula) Offshore wavelength Number of waves Permeability factor Maximum runup Roughness and permeability correction factor Damage level Specific gravity of the armour unit Still water level Wave period 32
.D. and Ploeg. Kobe. C. 20th Int. pp253-255. Timco.D. G. Breakwaters '85. F. ASCE. “Stability of Breakwaters With Variations in Core Permeability”. C. ASCE. Developments in Breakwaters. 110(2). Van der Meer. 1985. “5. C. “The Zeebrugge Breakwaters”.R. A. L. Breakwaters. In: van der Meer. Port. J. Sorensen. and Jensen. Breakwaters: Design and Construction. J. and Hsu.A. Waterway. Proc. Proc. Ocean Eng. Turk. 48. J. Proc. 1983. Abt. J. R.N. Ocean Eng. Palmer. Technical Note. Delaware.F... 1983. 1994. J. 1992. 118(5). Coastal Engineering Research Center. Coastline and Shoreline Protection: Erosion Control Using Riprap and Armourstone. Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. Coastal.S. Dock and Harbour Authority.D. J.D. E.W. 1995. Vonk. and Pilarczyk. J Wiley and Sons Ltd.. Vidal. Van der Meer. Coastal. Civil Eng. “Breakwater Back Slope Stability”.. J. ASCE. 24th Int. J. Technical Paper 78-2. River. Port. Vidal. Port.W. Weggel. and Scholtz. pp1641-1656.R. Waterway. Coastal Eng. ASCE. 1985. Thorpe. J. and Retief. M. Coastal Engineering Research Center. and Gordon. Van Dijk. United States Government Printing Office. J. 1984. Mansard. Burcharth.P.W. E. ASCE pp1716-1732. 1985. K. “Dolos Armour Unit Considerations”.J. “Stability of Mound Breakwater’s Head and Trunk”.W.. G. Maynord. 1982. 1986. and Price. 1987. D. Conf. Conf. 1975. Proc. “Wave Runup on Smooth and Rock Slopes of Coastal Structures”. Chichester. J.W. Thomas Telford. pp304-306.
7. R. “Breakwater Design and the Integration of Practical Construction Techniques”.R. Coastal. 117(6). pp1713-1726. Foundation Problems”. 121(2). 1984. Houston.109.R. W. Losada. “Large Breakwater Toe Failures”. Washington DC.M. G.W. Ocean Eng. Silvester. 1986. G. 1986. pp229-238.. Walker. US Army Corps of Engineers. Coastal. Ocean Eng. 15. 1983. Thomas Telford.. Coastal Eng. Waterway. J. United States Army Corps of Engineers. and Stam.H. P.Q. pp2420-2434. 1995. R.W. “Discussion on Large Breakwater Toe Failures”. ASCE. 19th Int. 1995. Barends. Van Oorschlot. K.. Coastal Eng.. ASCE.A.R. ASCE. S. 121(5). Townson. (eds). Shore Protection Manual. “Gansbaai Fishing Harbour .F. A. Coastal Eng. Port. Oceans/III. M. “The Large Scale Dolos Flume Study”.C. “Suitable Wave-Height Parameter for Characterizing Breakwater Stability”. Coastal Structures '83. 4th ed.Silvester.R. J. pp327-344. G.C. and Gyselynck. J. pp98-101. Port. Coastal Eng. 1995. Losada. J.T.M.P. 1983. pp65-70... “History of Breakwaters”. Van Damme. London. Coastal. J. 1973. J. Bulletin No. ASCE. J. Ocean Eng. Proc.A.W. Proc. Van Gent. and Melby. Ocean Eng..R.J.
.W W50 wr ∆ ξ θ
Dry weight of individual armour unit in the primary cover layer Median weight of graded riprap Unit weight of armour unit material Relative mass density Surf Similarity Parameter Slope of the structure.