OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

6200 North Central Expressway

Dallas, Texas 75206
PAPER
NUMBER aTe 2543
A
Review of Developments and Problems
In Using Floating Breakwaters
By
Bruce H. Adee, U. of Washington
THIS PAPER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION
@Copyright 1976 .
Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of the American of Mining, and
Engineers, Inc. (Society of Mining Engineers, The Metallurgica! SocIety and.Soclety ,of Petroleum.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American InstItute of ChemIcal Engmeers, Amerrcan ?oclety
of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electric.al and En-
gineers, Marine Technology Society, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and SocIety of Naval ArchItects
and Marine Engineers.
_ This paper was prepared for presentation at the Eighth Annual Offshore Technology Confprence, Hous!on,
Tex., May 3-6, 1976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustratIons
may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by
whom the paper is presented.
ABSTRACT
In this review the basic types of floating
breakwaters are examined. Data on a number of
current installations and their construction
costs are included. Materials used in
construction are discussed in the light of
present applications and pro1Jlems that llave
been encountered. The field performance and
measured mooring force13 are presented for
breakwaters that have been instrumented. The
conclusion is that current installations are
effective in reducing the incident-wave energy.
However, their performance is closely tied to
the incident-wave frequency. As experience with
these structures is accumUlated, their use in
increasingly severe environments can be
expected.
INTRODUCTION
As the number of_floating breakwaters used
to provide sheltered harbors grows, interest in
these fascinating structures for various
additional applications also increases enor-
mously. At the present time
than a dozen floating-breakwater installations
in operation and many more are in the planning
stages. For many sites, floating breakwaters
References and illustrations at end of paper.
have advantages over other methods of harbor
protection. This is particularly true where
deep water contributes to their cost advantage
and where ecological considerations are
important.
A floating-breakwater system is illustrated
in Fig. 1. Here, an incident wave travels from
left to right toward the breakwater. A portion
of the energy contained in the incident wave is
reflected by the breakwater, part passes
beneath the breakwater, and some is lost
through dissipation. Another part of the
incident-wave energy excites the motions of the
breakwater. These motions are restrained by the
mooring system. The oscillating breakwater in
turn generates waves that travel away from the
breakwater in the directions of the reflected
and transmitted waves. The total transmitted
wave is the sum of the component that passes
beneath the breakwater and the components
generated by the breakwater motions. The total
reflected wave is composed similarly.
The mechanism through which the
wave energy is reduced provides two basic
classifications into which present floating
breakwaters may be separated. Some floating
breakwaters function primarily through
226
A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS AND PROBLEMS
IN USING FIDATING BREAKWATERS OTC 2543
dissipation of the energy in the incident wave.
This category of breakwaters is represented by
the tethered float braakwater.
1
-
3
The second
type of breakwaterprov.icies a Elhel"t,ered harb()r
by reflecting the energy contained in the
incident waves. This type of breakwater is
illustrated in Fig. 2.. The breakwater shown in
Fig. 2 has a cross-section. Of
course, all floating b:reakwaters reflect .and
dissipate energy to a certain extent. In fact,
some floating breakwaters have been proposed
that attempt
4
tg combine these two forms of wave
elimination. ,
In response to a clear need in the North-
west for accurate information and a better
understanding of performance, .the U. of
Washington has been involved in research on
floating breakwaters foX' several years. To
date, floating breakwaters have been primarily
located on the inland waters of Puget Sound
and Southeastern Alaska, where they are not
subject to the direct attack of ocean waves.
The floating breakwaters gonstru.cted in this
area are of the reflecting type. A typical
example, the floating breakwater at Port .
Orchard, Wash., is shown in Fig. 2. There is
over 1,500 ft of breakwater in the L-shaped
portion of this brel3kwater . whic.h p:r'ovicies safe
moorage for many pleasure boats and small
commergial vessels. A recent paper by the
author shows many of the floating breakwaters
presently in operation. Table 1 is a summary
of information on several floating breakwaters.
In addition to collecting information on
floating breakwaters, the program at the U. of
Washington has included the development ofa
suite of instruments for measuring floating-
breakwater performance at prototype installa-
tions. Measurements have been taken at two
sites in Alaska and one in the State of
Washington.?
While full-scale measurements are extremely
valuable in verifying predicted performance,
there is also a need for. model-scale experiments
in order to obtain sufficient data for the
application of rational engineering design
principles. When one the.myria<i.
possible breakwater configurations that have ..
beenrrroposedto date
8
-
10
and the different
conditions that prevail at each potential
breakwater site, the number of required experi-
mental measurements and the attendant expense
become prohibitive. To avoid thiJ:l expense and
also to permit .. a:iIned at ...
obtaining optimum breakwater cross-sections, a
theoretical model for reflecting-type bre?k-
waters has been developed. 11-13 The goal was to
predict theoretically the performance that could
be measured in laboratory studies or at proto-
type installations.
FLOATING-BREAKWATffi BEHAVIOR
The response of floating breakwaters to
incident-wave excitation is critically dependent
on incident-wave frequency. If the transmission
coefficient, defined as transmitted wave height
divided by incident-wave height, is used as a
performance measure, then there are three
distinct frequency regions that normally occur.
The transition between these is not distinct and
depends strongly on the size and mass of the
breakwater. Nonetheless, the response is the
same for breakwater-type floating structures.
At low frequencies, the waves are long compared
with the dimensions of the breakwater and they
pass the breakwater unaffected. The breakwater
behaves as a small ball thrown into the water,
following the undulations of the surface waves.
As frequency increases and wavelength decreases,
a frequency region is reached where the incident
wave energy passing directly beneath the break-
water decreases. A plot of the transmission
coefficient for a model of the Alaska-type
breakwater when it is held rigidly fixed is
shown in Fig. 3. In this region the waves
generated by breakwater .motions become
increasingly important. Heave and roll motions
are the dominant wave generators in this region.
The importance of each mode of motion is
dependent on its natural frequency. For the
breakwaters studied to date, the natural fre-
quencies in heave and roll fall within this
frequency region. The final frequency region
extends to the' higher frequencies. In this
range the transmitted wave is generated
predominantly by sway motion.
THEOREI'ICAL MODEL .AND EXPERIMENTAL
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
The theoretical model is adapted from the
linear hydrodynamic theory used in ship-motion
analysis and has been described.in several
recent papers. 11-13 As long as the problem is
linear, computing the performance of a floating
breakwater may be separated into three parts.
1. Formulate equation of motion. (a)
Calculate hydrostatic forces and moments. (b)
Evaluate hydrodynamic coefficients in equations
of motion. (c) Compute exciting forces on
breakwater. (d) Solve for the motions and
motion-generated waves. (e) Compute static
mooring-line response. (f) Calculate forces in
the mooring lines.
2. Solve for the waves diffracted by a:
rigidly restrained breakwater.
3. Sum components to obtain total
reflected and total transmitted waves.
The theoretical model that has been
developed applies to the case of a
OTC 2543 BRUCE H. ADEE
227
two-dimensional floating breakwater. Under this
restriction, the breakwater is assumed to be
very long in one direction with long-crested
waves approaching so that their crests are
parallel to the long axis of the _breakwater. At
most breakwaters where the wave climate results
from wind-generated waves, this condition would
rarely be approached. _FIO'\vever, experiments
performed. using a boat wake to generat-e incident
waves on the beam and at an angle to a floating
breakwater indicate larger breakwater motions,
and larger transmitted waves when the incident
wave crests approach parallel to the long axis
of the breakwater. 14 As a design tool, a two-
dimensional theory provides information on the
worst conditions that might be expected to
occur. In addition, the two-dimensional wave-
channel experiments that haYE:l _been performed
provide some of the data for testing the theory.
Tests to determine the transmission coeffi-
cient for a breakwater used in Alaska have been
performed at the U. of Washington. The results
are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The prototype of
this breakwater has a beam of 21 ft (further
details in Ref. 12). Fig. 3 shows the predicted
and measured transmission coefficient when the
model is held rigidly fixed so that it does not
move. Here, the theory and experimental results
agree very closely except at a beam-to-
wavelength ratio of 0.78 where there is a very
sharp peak. The experimental data indicates an
upward trend, but the magnitude is considerably
lower than the theory predicts. This peak may
be related to a wave-resonance phenomena within
the open well of' -the catamaran-type structure.
In Fig. 4, when the model is free to move,
the transmission coefficient is given for the
experimental measurements and for two theoreti-
cal predictions. Problems _are encountered with
the linear theory when roll motion begins to
play an important role. _ When roll motion is
large, nonlinear second-order damping is
present. In a simple linear theQry this may be
approximated by arbitrarily increasing the
calculated wave damping. The two theoretical
predictions shown in Fig. 3. are without any in-
crease in damping and with two times the
computed wave damping. Looking back to Fig. 3,
one can see that the fixed-body transmission
is decreasing rapidly between
wavelength ratios of 0.3 and 0.5 Between 0.5
and 0.9 the roll and heave motion-generated
waves are dominant. Above a beam-to-wavelength
ratio of 0.9 the sway-motion generated waves
are responsible for most of the transmitted
wave. The comparison shows that, where roll
motion is important, damping is underpredicted
and should be increased. However, there may
be a region of sway-generated wave dominance
where the transmitted wave would be under-
predicted when additional damping is included.
Field measurements and a theoretical
prediction of the transmission coefficient for
the floating breakwater at Friday Harbor, Wash.,
are shown in Fig. 5. This particular data was
selected for analysis because the wind was
nearly on the beam of the breakwater providing
conditions as close as possible to the two-
dimensional case. The theory gives a reasonable
prediction of performance so long as twice the
calculated damping is used. The drop shown in
the measured transmission coefficient below a
frequency of 0.2 Hz probably results from a lack
of energy in the incident waves in this
frequency range, rather than an actual perform-
ance improvement at lower frequencies.
Further comparisons between theory and
experiment are shown in Ref. 11-13. The point
is that a useful theoretical tool has been
developed that can contribute to the improved
design of floating breakwaters.
MooRING-UNE FORCES
The mooring system is a critical design
consideration in any floating structure. This
is particularly true because of the failure in
the mooring system of the Normandy floating
breakwaters and because of the large mooring_
forces that have been indicated by model-scale
tests. 15
In present installations within the near-
shore area, the ratio of mooringline length to
water depth ranges between 3 and 6. This makes
;these mooring systems compliant. Applying
the catenary equation and assuming that the
mooring system behaves as a simple spring leads
to the conclusion that the
coefficients are quite small when compared with
the hydrostatic restoring-force coefficients
for the breakwater. Even with the mooring
springs set to zero, the transmission coeffi-
cient calculated for the model tests of
Davidson
15
shows good correlation with the
experimental results. 13 This indicates that the
mooring forces have little effect on performance
for these "loosely moored" structures. Design
of the mooring line then becomes a matter of
finding the maximum forces imposed on the
mooring system by the response of the break-
water.
This is not intended to dissuade anyone
from examining Figs. 3 and 4 critically and
noting, that the completely restrained
water would show consistently better trans-
mission performance than a "compliantly
restrained" breakwater. _ However, there clearly
will be a trade-off between increased mooring-
line force and. better performance as the degree
of breakwater restraint is increased. A good
deal more work in this area will be required
before a move toward increased restraint through
A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTSAND PROBLEMS
228
IN USING FLOATING BREAKWATERS OTC 2543
the mooring system can be attemptedwith con-
fidence.
Field measurementsof mooring forces made
at Tenakee Springs and Sitka, Alaska, and at
Friday Harbor, Wash., have consistentlyshown
small oscillationsin the mooring-lineforces.
Although no extremeweather event has been
recorded during performancemonitoring at these
sites, the mtimum excursionsfrom the mesn
forces have-beenunder plus or minus 1,000 lb.
Typical results are shown in Fig. 6 for the
floatingbreakwater.atTenskee, Alaska. The
mooring-forceco-efficientused in this figure
is defined as
Mooring-ForceCoefficient =
ooring-ForceSpectralDensity 1
- ncident-WaveSpectralDensity
v
Weight per Unit Length
This is a nondimensional-responsesmp~tude
operator.
Two phenomenahave appearedin the pPogram
of prototype instrumentationend in the compari-
sons made using the linear theory which indicatf
the presence of nonlinear behavior. First, the
time historiesof mooring-lineforce show long-
period oscillationssuperposedover the force
oscillationsthat csn be attributeddirect~ to
the incidentwaves. These oscillationsmay be
due to.exc%ki.ngfOTCeS @ the difftience.
frequenciesbetween incident waves at the fre-
quencies, Y@lg the exeiting force -atthe
di3?fer~ncefrequencyc=?ae. expectedto be -
small, if the differencefrequency is in the
neighborhoodof the sway natural frequency,thi:
may lead to the longperiodforce oscillations-
Secondly,the shape of the theoretically
predicted-mooring-forcecoefficientagrees with
the measured value, but-the-predictedmagnitude
is considerablyless than the measured value.
This appears to be due to a difference& the
computed and actual sprfig constsnts. If a
nonline=.tiiftforce is present, this would
result in an increase in the calculatedspring
constsnts. Both of these phenomena sre under
investigationat the present.time. Further
results may be expectedin the future.
One que9tion_that_=deseyves=@_vestigation
is: Does the Froude scalingrelationshipapply
when model-scaleresults are used to predict
prototype mooringlineforces? I.f-nonlheN.
phenomenaplay an importsntrole, then great
care must be exercisedin the use of model-test
data.
FLOATING-BREAKWATERCONSTRUCTIONMATERIAIS
Several materialsincluding steel, wood,
plastic and reinforced concretehave been used
in floating-breakwaterconstruction. The
oldest installationknown to the author is at
Lund, British Columbia,where a steel and wooden
A-frsme breakwaterhas been in place for 12
yesrs6 snd still appears to have a few years of
life left. However, problems have developed.at
the connectionsof the modules. With the modern
coating systemspr-esentlyavailable,steel may
be a useful material if the cost can be kept
down. Although the possibilityof corrosionhas
to be tsken into account, steel does have the
advsntageof being able to endure rough hsndling
snd requires only simple proceduresfor repair.
The most pop~ar material for floating-
breakwater constructionhas been reinforced
concretein conjunctionwith foam flotation.
A lightweightconcretewas used in the Alaska
breakwatersthat has been in place for 4 years
without major problems. These breakwaterswill
have to be monitored carefullyfor crackingof
the concrete or corrosionof the reinforcing
material to determinethe sertice life of this
material. The disadvantageof the concrete is
that care must be exercisedin handling the .-
breakwatermodules snd they must be connected
so that modules will not bumpone another.
The damage that csn occur is shown in Fig. 7,
a photograph of dsmage sustainedby concrete
floats. (Thisphoto isnot of afloating
breakwater.) When damage does occur with con-
crete, it is difficultto repair in the field.
Plastic flotation ~containershave.been
used in conjunctionwith a continuous wooden
decking in constructingthe floating breakwater
at I&iday Harbor, Wash. The breakwaterbefore
the wooden deck was completedis shown in Fig.
8. While plastic has many propertiesthat mske
it useful in a marine ernzirorment,these
particularflotation containershave caused
trouble, Many of the containershave suffered
what appesrs to be a fatigue-failurethat occur:
just below the wooden rail holding them in
place. This problem might be alleviatedby a
containerconfigurationthat decreasedthe
potential for stress concentrationin this area.
Because ofthe experienceat this installation,
csreful testing should be done for similar
bredcwater constructionschemes.
CONNECTIONS
Where modular constructionof floating
breakwatersis employed, severe stresses can be
expected at the connections. Failure or
recurrent maintenancerequirementsseem to be
the most bothersomeproblem encountered.
Experiencehas shown that careful design at the
outset will pay for itself through reduced
maintenanceas time passes.
The most widely used connectionmethod
includes a combinationof a compl@t _rnaterial
as a bumper snd a more rigid link compressing
the bumper. A photographof the connectionuse
at the Sitka, Alaska, breakwateris shown in
~ftinut~! is P.l.aced. ..-
Fig._9. Here, a square .
between concretemodules and a chain is
attachedthat pulls the breakyatey.modules
against the bump_eq.__Theonly problemen-
counter!edwith these connectionshas been-the
tendencyfor the rubber donuts to take a
perrn~entset with time. .13has.been sug-
gested that a high-densityurethane foam might
serve as sn improved bumper material,but this
has not been tested.
floating breakwaters will be large structures.
As a result, the progressionto the use of
floatingbreakwatersin less-protectedsites
will.probably be made through incremental
enlargementof present breakwaters.
A great deal also must be learned about
the behavior of the various materials employed
in floating-breakwaterconstruction. As time
passes, the monitoringof various types of
breakwatersthat are currentlyin use will pro
tide sn excellenttest of materialsbehatior.
ACKNOWLEWMENT
The detail used in the Port Orchard,Wash.,
breakwateris a step toward an even.moreelastic
connection. For this breakwater,rubber donuts
also were used as bumpers. However,.rather thsn
chain directly connectingmodules, each module
was attachedto the donut through the hole in th
the middle. Four of these connectionswere used
at each joint between modules. A schematic
drawing is shown in Fig. 10.
The author gratefullyacknowledgesthe
supportreceived for floating-breakwater
research from the National Oceanic snd
AtmosphericAdministrationthrough the Sea GPa
Program and from the U.S. Army Corps of lhgi-
neers EngineeringResearch Center.
REFERENCES
1. Se?nnour.R. J.. and Isaacs. J. D.:
The modules used to constructpresent
breakwatershave all been about 60 ft in length,
This uniformityis partly due to the availa-
bility of posttensioningrods in that size. An
alternativemight be to constructvery long
modules similarto the long reinforced-concrete
girders used in highway bridges. These could b{
launched at the factory or placed on barges and
moved to the constructionsite. A first
reaction to this proposal might be that the
connectionswould have to hold considerably morf
mass with increasedmodule length. This
certainlyis true, but there is also another
aspect. For the nesrshoreprotected sites, at
least, increasingmodule size would make the
modules @rger than the longest waves to be
expected. If larger modules are used, then
when the excitingforces are integratedover
the surface,there actuallymight be a smaller
netforce on the module.
CONCLUSION
Over the past few years, considerable
progress toward the development of effective
floating breakwaters has been made. Present
structureshave proved th_eireffectivenessby
providing actual harbor protection. At_present
there are still msny questionsthat need to be
resolved. The developmentto date has largely
been in response to a clew.need .wd has.proved
floatingbreakwatersto be costeffectivein thf
nearshore environment.
For offshore harbor protection,floating
breakwaterscertainlyhave potential. One must
be aware, however, that the floatingbreakwater
must be on the order of onefifththe size of
the incidentwave. This implies that offshore
OTC 2543 ~uCEH. DEE 229
I
1974 Floatfi
t!T&her&dFloa~ Breakwaters?
BreakwatersConferencePapers, Newport,
R. I. (April 23-25, 1974) 55-72.
2. Seymour,R. J.:
~~waveInduced Loads on
Multi-ElementArrays, Symposium on
Modeling TechniqueszSan Francisco,Calif,
(Sept.3-5, 1975) 1552-1567.
3. Essoglou, M. E., Seymour,R. J., and
Berkeley, J. B.: TFB: A Transportable.
Open Ocesn Breakwater,Ocean 75 San
Diego, Calif. (Sept. 22-2!5,1975~ 723-72=5
4. Msrks, W.:
11AperforatedMobile Break-
water for Fixed and Floating App_Hcations,
Proc. of the 10th Conferenceon Coastal
Ik@neering, Tokyo, Japan (Sept. 1966) .
1079-1129.
5.
Chen, K., and Wiegel, R.: tFloatingBresl
water for Reservoir Marinas, Proc. of
12th Conferenceon Coastal Engineering,
Washington,D.C. (Sept. 13-18, 1970) 1647-
1666.
6. Adee, B. H.:
l~Floatin~Breakwaters: ~
IdeaWhoseTime has Re~urned,l~
Y
Ssn Diego, Calif. (Sept. 22-25, 1975 707-
715.
7. C&istensen, D. R., snd Richey, E. P.:
~!~ototypePerformwce Characteristicsof
a Float~g Breakwater, 1974 Floatin.q
Breakwaters Conference Papers, Newport,
R.I. (April 2325, 1974) 159-179.
8. OIBrien~ J. T., Kuchenreuther, D. I., and
Jones, R. E.:
I?MobilePiers snd Break-
waters - An ExploratoryStudy of Efisting
concepts.~!U.S.Naval Civil Fa=ineerinz
Laboratory, Technical Report ~27 (April.
1961) (AD 256843).
9. Jones,-D.B.:
w&asportable Breakwaters
A Survey of Concepts,~~U.S. Naval Civil
EngineeringLaboratory,TechnicalReport
Z3U
IN USING FIOATING BREAKWATERS OTC 2543
R727 (1971) (AD 8$7841). 13. Adee, B. H.: Analysisof Floating Bresk-
10. Griffin, O-.M.: RecentDesigns for Trens- water Mooring Forces, Ocean Eng. Mech.,
portable_.Wave Ba@%grs_ and.Breakwaters, Winter Annual Meeting ASME, ~ouston~ex.,
Msrine Tech. Sot. J. (1972)b, No. 2, 7- Noi. 30-Dec. 5, 1975, 77-92.
16. 14. Stramandi,N.:
!!Transmission Response of
11. Adee, B. H., and Martin, W.: Theoretical FloatingBreakwatersto Ship Waves, MS
Analysis of Floating BreakwaterPerform- thesis, Civil & ineeringDept., U. of
ante, 1974 Floating BreakwatersConference
7
Washington (1975 .
ml Newport? R= @P@l 23-25T 1974) 15s Datidso% DO Dc: wave Transmissionand
Mooring Force Tests of Floating Breakwater, .
12. Adee, B. H.:
lr~alysiso-fFloating Bre~-
Oak Harbor, Washington,U.S. Army Engineer
water Performance,Proc. of the SYMPosium WaterwaysExperimentStation, Vicksburg,
~n Modeling TechniquesASCE, San Francisco, Miss., TechnicalReport H71-3 (April
Calif. (Sept.3-5, 1975) 1585-1602. 197s).
J
TABLE1- COMPARATIVE DATAFORVARIOUS FLOATING BREAKh/ ATERS (C-r IS APPROXIMATE
TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FORANINCIDENT WAVE WITHATWOSECOND
PERIOD)[6]
,,
MaxBeam Weight CT cost/ft Construction
Breakwater (feet) (lb/ft) (Approx.) (year) Material Comments
A frame 28.17 ---- .4 $230(1965) Steel frame with Some problemswith
Ludd, B.C. wooden planking connectionsnot pre-
venting damage from
banging of modules
Alaska type 21 2006 .4 $425(1972) Open-wellmade of Constructiontechnique
lightweightreinforced dictatedto a certain
concrete over foam extent by transportation
core. requirements.
Friday Harbor 25 1965 .25 $320(1972) Plastic flotation con- Problems with plastic
tainers supporting container failure.
continous wooden deck.
Holmes Harbor 29
---- --
$197(1973) Made of foam-filled Cheap construction is
aluminum drainage pipe. coming apart.
Embarcadero 14
----
.3 $275-350 Regular weight rein- Problems encountered
(1973) forced concrete over with original connec-
foam core. tions.
Port Orchard 12 1535 .3 $175(1974) Rectangular cross
section with light-
weight reinforced
concrete over foam core.
Scrap Tire 30
----
.4 $100(est.) Scrap tires held to- Problems have been en-
gether in bundles. counteredin the
material used to hold
tires together
Tethered Float --
----
.35 $175(est.) Plastic floating spheres
(San Diego Bay) anchored to a submerged
frame.
qx(x,t) 7R(X,t)
q+x,t )
INCIDENT WAVE REFLECTED WAVE
TRANSMITTED WAVE
~~
by H%VE
k.;
ROLL
%fl &
. . ___ __
e x:k-%7-
BOD~CONTOUR
/A.- /
s
/i&iL.LINETENsOfIJ \
FIG, 1 - A TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLOATING BREAKWATER,
FIG, 2 - FLOATING BREAKWATER AND MARINA, PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON.
A EXPERIt!ENTfIL KW3.JREMENTS [LRRDERklWESLOPE1
0 EXPERItKNTflL MERWREtlENTS (StlfiLL )WE SLOPE)
ElTW3RETICRL PREDICTION
.1 .2 .3 .4 .7 .6
BEflM/&ELENGT;
.s 1.0
bIG, 3 - THEORETICALLY PREDICTED AND EXPERIMENTALLY
MEASURED TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR FIXED ALASKA
TYPE BREAKWATER MODEL,
A
c1
cl
EXPERIMENTAL MERSL!REFIENTS (SNRLLW+IESMPE)
THEORETICAL PREDICTION (2TINESHYORODYNFUIIC DFIIWINGI
THEORETIC9LP REDACTION
o
0 .2 .4 a 1.0
t
1.2
BERM/WR:ELENGTH
1.4 1.6
FIG. 4 - THEORETICALLY PREDICTED AND EXPERIMENTALLY
MEASURED TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT FOR ALASKA-TYPE
BREAKWATER MODEL,
FIELD
/
kUIASUREMENT
.1 .$! .?.
8
.8 .7
FRE4UNCY (:21
J4 .!3
FIG, 5 - PREDICTED AND MEASURED TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT,
FRIDAY HARBOR, WASHINGTON (2 x DAMPING, Fti7-8),
I
.1 .2 a .4 .7 .8 .9 14
FREQIJE& (HZ:
FIG, 6 - MOORING FORCE ON SEAWARD MOORING LINE, TENAKEE,
ALASKA
FIG, 7 - DAMAGED REINFORCED CONCRETE FLOATS,
-..!
, L
--1
A
..----.. ... .
~----.=
--. . . . . .. .. . . . .
. ..~..z=.
. . .-. -a
F%&+==== ---r-.--=
FIG, 8 - PLASTIC FLOTATION CONTAINER USED IN
FRIDAY HARBOR, WASHINGTON FLOATING BREAKWATER,
FIG, 9 - MODULE CONNECTION, SITKA, ALASKA FLOATING BREAKWATER,
07 f
CONNECTOR
FIG, 10 - SCHEIATIC DRAWING OF MODULE CONNECTION,
PORT ORCHARD, kASHINGTON FLOATING BREAKWATER,