Hydraulic stability of Cubipod armour units in Breaking conditions Lien Vanhoutte

Promotor: Prof. Josep Medina (UPV Valencia) Co-Promotor: . Prof. dr. ir. Julien De Rouck Masterthesis to obtain the degree: Master of Science in Civil Engineering

Laboratory of Ports and Coasts, Polytechnic University of Valencia Departement of Civil Engineering, Ghent University Academic year 2008-1009

i

Preface
I would like to thank my tutor of this project Prof. Medina for giving me the great 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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Damage criteria . . . . . . . . A Short History . . 12 Heterogeneous packing . . . . 12 2. . . . . . . 16 v .2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . .1 Formula to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . ii ix xiii 1 4 4 5 9 9 Heterogeneous packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . Analysis of the stability of a mound breakwater . .3. . . . 12 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. . .2. . . . . . . . . .3 2.1 2. . . .4. . .Contents Extended abstract List of Figures List of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Stability of Mound Breakwaters 2. . . . . . . 14 Quantization of the stability . . . . . . . . . . .2 General stability of a mound breakwater . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Introduction . . . . .2. . .

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

.3. . . . . . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Analysis of the damage progression . . . . 70 6 Results 6.4. . . . . 85 6. 77 Calibration of the wave ume . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . .4. . . .2. .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . . . . . . . .3 The reection coecient in function of kh . . . . . . .2. . . 88 . . . .1 Wave reection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Comparing with the reection coecient in deepwater . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . .4 Separating the incident and reected waves: LASA V . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . 64 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Interpretation of the theories calculating the maximum wave height .1.4.1. . . . . . .4. . . .4. . . . . . . .2 Realized experiments . . . . . 54 5. 80 Hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .4. . . . . . . . . . . 66 Analysis of the waves: LPCLAB 1. . 50 Construction of the physical model .2. . . . . . . . .2 5. . . .4. . .2 6. . . .4. . . . . .0. . . .4. . . . . .5 Preparation . . . . . . . . . 64 Experimental procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . .4. . . 67 Analysis of the reection coecient .4. . . . .4. . . . .4. . .4. . . . .4 77 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . .3.3 6. . . . . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . .1 5. .1. . . . . . . 61 Placement of the sensors . . . . . . . .1 6. .4. . . . . . .1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . 63 5. 56 Construction of the model .2 6. . 85 The reection coecient in function of Ir . . .4. . . 59 Reconstruction of the model . .1 5. . . . . . . . . .Contents 5. .4. . . . 85 6. . . . . . . . . .4. .4 Procedure to analyse the data . . .2 vii Physical characteristics of the studied model . . 65 5. . . . . 66 5. . . . 54 Control of the material characteristics .

. . . . . . . . . .1 6. . . .3 Introduction . .2 viii Damage analysis on the armour layer .2. . .2 6.4. . . . .2.Contents 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Qualitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 93 Quantitative analysis . . . . .4. . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . 93 6. . . .

.1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The casting system designed by SATO and the tongs for movement and manufacture . . . 19 A selection of the existing concrete armour units . The classical view vs. . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Distribution of the wave heights by breaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . concerning that all the broken wave heights will have the breaking wave height in the surng zone . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ix . . . . . . . . . . 37 4. . . .3 Distribution of the breaking wave heights over the distribution of the unbroken waves (Goda [46]) . . . . . . 32 4. . . . . . . . . . the heterogeneous packing view . . 28 Drop test results of Cubipods compared with cubes showing the lost weight . .6 3. .List of Figures 2. . . . . . . . . . 30 The separating eect of the protuberances avoiding the face-to-face arrangement 31 Example of placement in a depository of Cubipods . . . 10 The two most important failure modes by mound breakwaters: extraction of armour elements and heterogeneous packing. . . .5 3.2 3. . . . . . .1 4. . . .2 Types of breaking waves . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . .2 Mound Breakwater failure modes dened by Bruun . .7 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Penetration of the Cubipods in the armour layer . . . 23 A new armour element: the Cubipod . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Face to face tting by cubes reducing the friction with the lter layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. . . . .

. . . . . . . 57 5. . . . . . 74 5. . . . . . . . . . 52 5. . . . . . . . . Under: foto without the real net and the pasted virtual net in Photoshop (end of the tests with h=38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Draw the cross section of the mound breakwater on the wall of the canal . . 73 5. . 46 5. . . . . . . . . . . .11 Construction of the model: the core and the lter . . . . . . . . . 1 layer of Cubipods (C1). . . . . . . . . . 62 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . . .18 Above: foto with the real net and the designed net in Photoshop (start of the tests with h=38). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Virtual net to measure the equivalent damage analysis and counting the units in AutoCAD for damage calculation . . . . 55 Grading curve for the core material . 53 5. .10 Grading curve for the lter material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . . . . . .5 Wave energy dissipation system in the LPC wave ume . . . . . . . . .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 . . . . . . .2 x Longitudinal section of the 2D wave-ume . . . . . . 1 layer of cubes covered by one layer of Cubipods (CB) . . . . . . . 55 The concrete grout to provide a rough surface for the model . . .6 Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods with toe berm (C2B). . . . . . . .19 Damage levels in the armour layer . . . . 63 5. . . . . . 68 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Example of the separation of incident and reected wave trains by LASA V . .8 5. . . . 1 layer of Cubipods with toe berm (C1B) . . .16 Parameter window of the LPCLab software . 49 Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods (C2). . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. . . 69 5. . . . . . . . 59 5. .List of Figures 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Parameter window of the LASA-V software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5. . .1 5. . . . . .12 Construction proses of the armour layer . . . . . . 44 Wave generation system in the LPC wave ume and setup of active wave absorption system .3 Wave gauges for wave measurement and Step-Gauge Run-up Measurement System (S-GRMS) constructed by University of Ghent . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. . .

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

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

. . . . . .List of Tables 2. . . . . placement and stability factor.5 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3.1 5. . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Hydraulic stability criteria for the armour layer of a mound breakwater as cited in[1] . . . . . 51 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Classication of armour units by placement method and structural strength (Mijlemans. . 61 Position of the wave gauges and distance between them in the canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2006) . .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . 35 Calculating the theoretic equivalent cube size and the theoretic volume of the Cubipods . . 64 Incident wave heights producing the levels of damage: IDa and IIDa . . . . . . . . 94 xiii .1 Type of breaking in function of the number of Iribarren . . . . . . 51 Grading characteristics of the core material . . . . . . . . .1 Theoretic characteristics of the used materials . . . . .7 6. . . . . . . . .3 9 Classication of breakwater armour units by shape [34] . 24 Classication of armour units by shape. 3. . . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 The real initial porosity in the dierent models [%] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Grading characteristics of the lter material . . 58 Theoretical and measured characteristics of the Cubipods . . . . . 27 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

shows that wave conditions are not stationary.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 5 is placed above the crest of the mound breakwater to avoid overtopping and improve the conditions during construction. the angle of the slope. In this chapter. showing dierent formulae to predict damage in the armour layer due to wave attack. many studies about mound breakwater stability were developed. a brief historical background concerning the most important evolutions in the studies of mound breakwaters is given. armour slope. core permeability. water density. The majority of those formulae assume a constant incident wave and initial damage zero. This makes clear why during many years authors proposed dierent formulae to estimate damage on the armour layer due to wave attack. Further a study of the analysis of their stability is described. including the description of a new failure mode called heterogeneous packing. etc. Many formulae. storm duration. followed by the way to quantify the stability of an armour layer.C. the weight of the armour elements. 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. The reality. In 1938. however. 2.2 A Short History Breakwater design depends on many variables as there are: wave height. Iribarren [2] developed a theoretical model for the stability of armour units on a slope under wave attack.1. Until 1933 there didn't exist any method to calculate mound breakwaters. Castro (1933) [1] published the rst formula to calculate the weight of rock materials of a mound breakwater. Since his work. similar to the formula of Iribarren. They were constructed based on experiences giving us qualitative criteria about the inuence of the waveheight. An overview of the most important formulae can be found in table 2. That's why new methods should be developed applying to no stationary processes. . armour density. wave grouping. using a modication in the wave-height. Tyrrel (1949). etc. were developed (F. Two years later Larras (1952) [4] presented another formula taking into account the depth and the length of the wave. wave period.

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

using results of eld tests. that the security margin between initiation of damage and destruction of the armour layer is very low. Magoon and Baird (1977) [11] accentuated the importance of the movements of the armour elements due to wave attack when the armour elements break. Lorenzo and Losada (1984) show. observing a big deviation in the results. Losada and Giménez-Curto (1979. Those results can be generalized for slender elements showing interlocking.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. The cumulative eects of previous storms however were not included. introducing for the rst time the concept "fragility" of the slope. 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. 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. Vidal et al. because of their structural weakness. 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. (1995) [17] introduced a new wave height parameter Hn (The average of the n highest waves . Van der Meer (1988) [16] proposed formulae including wave period. laboratory tests and numerical modelling. especially by the most slender elements with the highest interlocking development. In 1982 Losada and Giménez-Curto [14] present a hypothesis to calculate the stability of quarrystone mound breakwaters with non-perpendicular incident wave.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 7 The occured damages in the breakwaters in Bilbao (1976). resistance of the elements). Sines (1978) and San Siprian (1979) showed the importance of the calculation of a mound breakwater and of the methods to calculate the incident waves. Whillock and Price (1976) [10] showed by interlocking elements. the fragility of the slopes with dolosse with big size. permeability and storm duration.

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

75sinθ)2 (γr /γw −1)3 0. in the rst place.1. Lack of compactness in the underlying layers. 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 General stability of a mound breakwater To understand the structural stability of mound breakwaters. causing excessive transmission of energy to the interior of the breakwater. 5.3 Analysis of the stability of a mound breakwater 2. Sliding of the armour layer due to a lack of friction with the layers below. 4. Rocking of the armour units. Loss of armour units (increasing porosity). 2. and thus the dierent failure modes have to be dened. this might lift the breakwater cap and the interior layers. 1.Stability of Mound Breakwaters Castro Iribarren Tyrrel Matthews Rodolf Larras Hedar: climbing waves Hedar: descending waves Hudson Table 2.1: 9 1933 1938 1949 1951 1951 1952 1953 1953 1959 W = W = W = W = W = W = W = W = W = 0. the dierent reasons for loss of stability should be understood. 3.704 √ (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. breaking is due to fatigue.0149 H 3 γr (µcotθ−0. Bruun (1979) [25] specied eleven dierent principal failure modes demonstrated in gure 2.

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

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

due to slamming between each other. This is important when the structural stability can be the origin of additional tensions on the elements. will be studied. they observed that this failure mode tends to increase the packing density below the still water level. In tests.3. decreasing their weight. This new failure mode is dened by Gómez-Martín and Medina [24] and is called 'Heterogeneous Packing' also shown in gure 2. which is balanced by a corresponding reduction in packing density above and .2.2. 2. Their structural stability. but only by moving them within the armour layer. II: Displacement by extraction out of 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. Those are robust armour elements which means that in the rst place the hydraulic stability. the capacity of the elements to resist against movement due to wave attack supposing that they don't break. 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. however.2. The monolithic and robust elements probably won't reach such a tensional situation able to break them. may not be forgotten. III: Packing of the elements as a result of small unit movements and frequent face-to-face arrangements. An element in the armour layer can move in three dierent ways: I: Pitching in their position in the armour layer.3. and thus decreasing their structural stability.2).2 Heterogeneous packing 2. without extracting armour units.1 Introduction This project works with armour layers consisting of cubes or Cubipod elements. but the elements can break partially.3. 2.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 12 2.

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

it is considered as seriously damaged.3.2: The two most important failure modes by mound breakwaters: extraction of armour elements and heterogeneous packing. Iribarren (1965) [31] proposed a clear damage denition for mound breakwaters. causing damage. the heterogeneous packing view increase the capacity of the armour layer in some places. This classic denition. because wave action can damage the second armour layer.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 14 Figure 2. but can also lead to important disintegrations. 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. however. doesn't allow generalizing the result. The classical view vs. because damage depends on the size of the armour layer.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. 2. A better denition was given by Van de Kreeke [29] and Oullet [30]. This denition consists in comparing the displaced elements with the initial number of elements in a determined zone of the breakwater slope near the mean water level. and the underlayer will be in danger as well and total destruction of the breakwater is impending. 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.2. .

4. two dierent systems exist to quantify the damage: ˆ Quantitative criteria's: the number or percentage of displaced armour units is compared to the initial ones. In general. in each zone of the armour layer. ˆ Qualitative criteria's: important changes in the morphology of the armour layer are concerned. Those are explained further in 6. but has a principal disadvantage to be subjective. Initiation of destruccion and Destruccion.2. is necessary. An equivalent dimensionless damage measurement is used to take into account the dierence in porosity.2.3. it is important to observe whether concentrations of block removal occur. which consequently aect the basic idea of a two-layer armour cover and eventually even lead to exposure of the second layer and core. 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. compared to their initial porosity. Gómez-Martín and Medina (2006) [24] present a new method for damage estimation: the Virtual Net Method. they proposed a damage classication in function of the percentage of displaced blocks and the eect of such removal on the armour layer. taking into account the number of displaced elements and the changes in porosity of the armour layer by Heterogeneous Packing. a new method for damage estimation. It is obvious that such a classication is subjective. This method is explained in 6. With appreciable damage. Initiation of Iribarren damage.4. A disadvantage of quantitative citeria's is that they don't give information about Heterogeneous Packing.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 15 In 1980 Paape and Ligteringen [32] mentioned that measuring the number or percentage of blocks removed and displaced to the toe of the structure. is only valid for small damages which is evenly distributed over the slope. . Concerning this facts. Therefore.2. The second method provides qualitative information about the damage level.

respective to the horizontal.Stability of Mound Breakwaters 16 2. during the years. in N γr is the unit weight of the armour elements. in m Sr is the specic gravity of the armour units. 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 (2.4 Quantization of the stability 2. ∆Dn50 W γr (2. relative to the water at the structure α is the angle of the structure slope.4. based on the works of Hudson (1959) [5]. The Shore Protection Manual (1984) [6].1) Hs = (KD cotα)1/3 . many formulae to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater have been developed. in meter Ns the hydraulic stability coecient KD is the hydraulic stability coecient. in degrees H is the design wave height at the structure.1 Formula to calculate the stability of a mound breakwater As described in the short history.2) W the weight of on individual element of the armour layer. depending on many characteristics: ˆ Form of the element of the armour layer ˆ Number of layers of the armour layer ˆ Way of collocating the elements ˆ Roughness of the elements ˆ Interlocking between the elements ˆ Water depth near the structure (breaking or non-breaking) . in N/m3 H is the incident wave-height.

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

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.

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

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

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

A rst way to classifying armour units is by their shape as shown in table 3. Hexaleg. armour units can be classied according their shape.2. Cob. Tripod 2D: Accropod. the risk of progressive failure. N-shaped block. In case of slender armour units.Armour Units 24 3. 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. their structural strength and the way they resist wave action.3 Classication of armour units As there are over a hundred dierent armour units. All the mentioned armour units can be seen in the table 3.1. Gassho. and Klabbers (2004) [34]. Core-Loc 3D: Hexapod. Each of those classicationsystems are described. the number of layers. This classication was made by Muttray.1: Armour blocks Cube. Modied cube. Toskane Tetrapod. Tethrahedron. Seabee Classication of breakwater armour units by shape [34] The placement pattern of armour elements can be uniform or randomly. A-Jack Bipod Tribar. 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. their placement pattern. a manner to classify them is needed. Shape Cubical Double anchor Thetraeder Combined bars L-shaped blocks Slab type (various shapes) Others Table 3. the stability is mainly due to interlocking and the average . Trilong. In case of robust elements. Akmon. armour units can be classied in slender blocks and compact blocks. Grabbelar. Concerning the risk of progressive failure. the construction is much easier then in case of uniform placement. Reedijk. Hollow square Stabit. Antifer cube. There are many criteria. Shed Dolos.

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

interlocking and higher friction with the inner layer. Akmon. The robust units have a massive form that provides a high structural strength.2: Classication of armour units by shape. placement and stability factor. Tripod Stabit. Tribar. 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. Armour units can increase their hydraulic stability by increasing their own weight. Shed complex Uniform single layer simple complex Table 3. Hollow Cube. Dolos A-Jack Random single layer simple Cube Accropode Core-Loc accropode Seabee. Interlocking and a higher friction usually mean a signicant reduction in structural strength. Elements can be subdivided in three groups: robust units that dispose of a very high structural strength. Diahitis Cob. A classication by structural strength of the units is done by Mijlemans in 2006 [36]. the stability coecient.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. KD increases from the massive to the slender category. A common problem in the design of armour units is the need to choose between higher hydraulic stability and higher structural strength. As a general rule. The large and . however this means a decrease of the structural strength. fragile armour units with low structural resistance and an intermediate group that provides a reasonably high structural stability.3.

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

Medina and M. store and put into place.Armour Units 28 3. which permit a reduction in the concrete armour unit weight. furthermore there is a low risk to progressive failure.2 Idea Numerous armour units have shown high hydraulic stability such as Tetrapods. Esther Gómez-Martín. Core-locs. Nevertheless. manufacture. Randomly placed massive units with a simple shape like cubes or parallellepipedics are widely used because of their numerous advantages: structurally robust. . etc. 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. patented in 2005 by the Laboratory of Ports and Coasts of the UPV (Patent number: P200501750) and licensed by SATO. X-blocks. however they have a low structural strength.4 A new armour unit: The Cubipod 3. Dolos. these units do have certain drawbacks that must be taken into consideration. Figure 3.4.1 Introduction The Cubipod is a new armour unit for the protection of maritime structures invented by Josep R. Accropodes.4. cheap and easy to fabricate.3: A new armour element: the Cubipod 3.

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

Armour Units 30 Figure 3.4: Drop test results of Cubipods compared with cubes showing the lost weight Figure 3.5: Penetration of the Cubipods in the armour layer .

Armour Units 31 Figure 3. This means a reduction of the loss of elements above the upper parts and a lower run-up and overtopping. .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. 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.

7: Example of placement in a depository of Cubipods Figure 3. 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.7). using little space (Fig 3.8: The casting system designed by SATO and the tongs for movement and manufacture Easy casting. Thanks to this system the fabrication can be done easy and fast [?]. . Thanks to their form.Armour Units 32 Figure 3. the storage can be done eciently. 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 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

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

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

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

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.

3: Distribution of the breaking wave heights over the distribution of the unbroken waves (Goda [46]) .Wave height in breaking conditions 42 Figure 4.

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

2. 5. the bottom shows a gentle upward slope (4%.Experimental setup 44 Figure 5. In the centre of the wave ume. tanα = 1/25) over 6.2 Wave Generation System On one of the ends of the ume. without the limitation of wave breaking at the wavemaker that occurs in umes with a uniform oor. a wave generating system is constructed. hence the water depth near the model is 25 cm less than the water depth near the wavemaker. the translational movements of the water volumes would result in an elevation of the water level on one side of the canal. This movement is transmitted . On the raised oor the model is put. The model is placed at a distance of . 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 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. The slope and the foreshore are intended to stabilize the return ow during the tests and if not present. and thus attack the model with higher waves.2m x 1. A detailed plot of the total test setup within the wave ume is shown in Appendix B. m from the wave generator slab (measured at the toe of the breakwater) and is built on a scale of 1/50. This slope and platform assure the recirculation of the water in the ume.1: Longitudinal section of the 2D wave-ume 5.2.1 2D Wave Flume The 2D wave ume has a square cross-section of 1.2m and is 30 m long.15m. .

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

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

The electrodes of dierent length are placed one behind the other. without touching the Cubipods. 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. The measured results of the Steup-Gauge Run-up System are not used in this Masterthesis. The current is noticed by an electronic circuit providing an output voltage. 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. Wave Height The wave height is measured by wave gauges (Fig 5. They consist of two vertical parallel conductors that work as a dielectric. This output is proportional to the instantaneous depth of immersion. The current that ows between the wires is proportional to the depth of immersion. The measured data are sent to the computer which translates the signals in wave heights in relation to the average water level.Experimental setup 47 5.3 Wave Measurement The measuring system consists out of wave gauges. The gauges have to be calibrated every day before starting the experiments. The sending of the data happens at a sampling frequency of 20Hz.2. to intercept the changes in water level in the ume caused by leaks and the climatically changes being change in temperature or humidity. in this way they follow the prole of the breakwater. the second gives a voltage that corresponds to the number of electrodes that are wet.3). The conductors dip into the water. These changes can aect on the working of the gauges signicantly. The working of a step-gauge is very simple.3). run-up sensors and a measurement system for the erosion of the armour layer. the wave height in cm above the mean water level. The distance between the armour units and the gauge can be set to less than 2mm. To allow this calibration. . Run-up A Step-Gauge Run-up System constructed by the University of Ghent is used to measure the run-up (Fig 5. the gauges are connected with the electronic equipment. This type of gauges is very reliable in calibration and linear in the transformation of the data. Each electrode is connected to a circuit which detects if the electrode is dry or wet.

4.2.4 Energy dissipation system On the other side of the canal there is an energy dissipation system.4. visual support is given by a person and a camera next to the canal. Those pictures are used to measure the erosion of the armour layer as explained in 5. The rst of these two groups has many and thin bars.3: Wave gauges for wave measurement and Step-Gauge Run-up Measurement System (SGRMS) constructed by University of Ghent Above this Step-gauge System. A rst group of three frameworks with 70% porosity is followed by two groups with a porosity of 50%. pictures are made of the armour layer with a camera that is placed on a standard over the wave ume. After every test. and a plastic perforated plate. 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. 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. 5. with the highest porosity starting at the side where the wave approaches. The fourth and fth group have a porosity of 30% and again. the rst is ner . and thus the bars and voids are wider. 50% and 30%. This system consists of ve groups of three grooved metal frameworks. The metal frameworks have three dierent porosities: 70%.4. the second has the same porosity but less bars. Accomplishing every test.Experimental setup 48 Figure 5.

the correct data is inputted.5 Data Processing In the central computer situated in the oce area of the laboratory.4: Wave energy dissipation system in the LPC wave ume than the secons one. The voids between the three frameworks of this group have been lled with quarrystone.2. 5. Afterwards the measured data by the wave gauges and the Step-Gauge Run-up System. are sent to the same central computer to analyse these results. . This is explained more in detail in Appendix C.Experimental setup 49 Figure 5. This data is sent to the wave generator to generate the correct wave.

If the required conditions are not represented accurately. also made of resin. The mound breakwater consists of three parts.3 Calibration of the wave ume Before starting the experiments on the breakwater model. 5. The cubes. The proposed porosity of the armour layer is 41%. The calculation of the theoretic equivalent cube size and theoretic volume using the known dimensions of the Cubipods is shown in table 5. The armour units reach until the toe of the structure. Calibration experiments in the wave ume were carried out to examine these eects before starting the actual model experiments.Experimental setup 50 5.82cm. it is important to know if the wave generation in the laboratory is representative for those that really need to be generated. The Cubipods are made of resin and have a density of 2. To control the operation of wavemaker.00cm.4 Experimental Design 5. this will aect the results of the experiments.4. reference is made to prototype values. The core of ne gravel (type G2) forming the base of the mound breakwater. The factor that needs to be veried to calibrate and control these conditions is the wave generation.30t/m3 .2. The theoretical characteristics of all the used materials are shown in table 5. slightly bigger than the size of the Cubipods.2g each and have a cube size of 4. . which corresponds with real Cubipods of 16ton and standard Mediteranean dimensions. they weight 128g and have a theoretic equivalent cube size of 3. 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).1.1 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. weight 147. 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. A basic scale factor of 1:50 is considered.

3 2.666 55.30 2.70 2. will be considered (Fig 5.1: 51 4 0 64 0 64 4 3.90 147.70 weight [g] 128 16 0.00 1.70 Table 5. each with the same core.Experimental setup cubes Cubipods L cube [cm] h pyramid trunc [cm] V cube [cm3 ] V pyramid trunc [cm3 ] V total [cm3 ] D50 [cm] Table 5.2: Model of the Cubipods D50 [cm] 3. Only tests in breaking wave conditions were carried out: the breakwater is assumed to be in shallow water.82 1.819 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) 4.70 weight [g] Theoretic characteristics of the used materials The considered water depths vary between 30cm and 42cm near the model.691 1.2 16 0.and lterconstruction.6): ˆ double layer of Cubipods: C2 ˆ single layer of Cubipods: C1 ˆ single layer of cubes covered by a single layer of Cubipods: CB ˆ double layer of Cubipods with toe berm: C2B ˆ single layer of Cubipods with toe berm: C1B .5 and Fig 5.686 3.70 2. The crest is supposed to be high enough so that overtopping is not considered.894 45.575 0. Five dierent models.80 0.70 density [t/m3 ] 2.80 0.90 density [t/m3 ] 2.

1 layer of Cubipods (C1). 1 layer of cubes covered by one layer of Cubipods (CB) .Experimental setup 52 Figure 5.5: Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods (C2).

1 layer of Cubipods with toe berm (C1B) .Experimental setup 53 Figure 5.6: Cross section of the studied models: 2 layers of Cubipods with toe berm (C2B).

Also the cubes are painted in two dierent colors: white and blue. indicated by a small gap.7). which provides a rough surface for the model (Fig 5.4. To realize the tests CB. Afterwards the tests C2B and C1B with a toe were executed.Experimental setup 54 First the tests C2 will be considered.4. while the upper layer is painted in dierently coloured strips. and the double layer of Cubipods is placed. the section C2B is removed and a new layer with Cubipods is placed. Waves will be lanced to stabilize this layer before collocating the second layer of Cubipods.8). The models C2B and C1B with toe berm however. The toe berm is placed to sustain the bottom rows without making this too rigid. To execute those two series of experiments (C2B and C1B). 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.1 Preparation First the wave ume is cleaned and its interior is repainted with anti-oxidant paint. which can cause fast erosion of the lower part of the breakwater. and thus not the rst layer of the former experiments. Signicant points. Afterwards. in the beginning only the layer of cubes will be placed. are more realistic sections. are marked correctly to the ume wall and the cross section can be drawn correctly (Fig 5. all the elements are removed of the model. the second layer is removed and the rst layer of C2 will be used to execute the experiments C1. Placing a toe berm is therefore common. The real cross section of the model breakwater is plotted and is attached to the inner side of the wave ume. For the experiments with a single layer of Cubipods. The cross section is also painted at the other side of the wave ume by perpendicular projection. the toe berm is constructed. The lower layer is completely white. 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'. 5. In breaking conditions a lot of turbulence near the bottom takes place.2.2 Construction of the physical model 5. as done in the tests without toe berm. The armour units in the model setup are painted in dierent colours to easily recognize unit movements during the experiments. .

Experimental setup 55 Figure 5.7: Draw the cross section of the mound breakwater on the wall of the canal Figure 5.8: The concrete grout to provide a rough surface for the model .

Obtaining the results in table 5.2. a part of the Cubipods (5%) are weighted to know their real average weight and the standard deviation. D50 and D85 are the corresponding diameters of the sieves where respectively 15%. The core (G2) The proposed particle size of the core material for the mound breakwater is D50 =7mm and D85 /D15 =2.3 and in gure 5. the granulometric distribution is controlled and the material is washed. To verify this.5.10. The lter layer (G1) The proposed particle size of the core material for the mound breakwater is D50 =17mm and D85 /D15 =1. the granulometric distribution is also controlled and the materials of the lter layer are also washed. Also the Cubipods need to have the correct theoretical weight and density.4 and in gure 5. After the sieving. For a part of the Cubipods the practical values are measured and controlled with the theoretical ones.Experimental setup 5. to afterwards be able to make right conclusions concerning the stability of those elements. . After sieving. There can be concluded that the theoretic and the real values of the lter material dier very little. The used terms D15 . The armour layer (G0) The Cubipod model units are fabricated by a private enterprise.4.2 Control of the material characteristics 56 The received materials for the core and the lter layer show a great dispersion of particle size. which means that the theoretic values are accepted. The results can be seen in table 5. The results can be seen in table 5. 50% or 85% of the materials can pass.5 . There can be concluded that the theoretic and the real values dier very little. which means that the theoretic values are accepted. the proposed theoretical values are considered satisfactory and thus accepted.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.

5 8.69 0.50 1.68 2.83 0.00 5.25 7.64 1.45 3001.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 5.20 1.75 5.55 6.9: Grading curve for the core material .14 0.93 0.3: 3000 9.38 Grading characteristics of the core material Figure 5.

10: Grading curve for the lter material .00 17.35 23.55 15.00 1.50 25.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 5.82 15.55 Grading characteristics of the lter material Figure 5.4: 3000 21.41 3001 20.00 7.24 1.00 14.27 9.50 14.59 17.

being 3. the core material is put in place according to the indicated lines on the ume walls.67cm only on the outer slope.29 0.36 5% 2. For this reason.65 55.84 Theoretical and measured characteristics of the Cubipods Figure 5. making sure that the slope is constant over the whole width of the breakwater.37 129.11). Finally the armour units are collocated.82 3. In collocation tests with a crane.29 0. A perfect placement of the core is very important because it has to support the other layers: the lter and the armour layer. Afterwards.011 5% 55.11: Construction of the model: the core and the lter 5. the lter is constructed with a thickness of 6.44 3. . The number of collocated units depends on the proposed theoretical porosity.008 2. On the inner slope no lter material is placed (Fig 5.4.82cm. The theoretic thickness of the layer is the equivalent cube size of the Cubipod.2.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 5.823 3. they have seen that the porosity of Cubipods placed in a 'blind' way can vary between 36% and 50%.30 2.5: 128 128 2.3 Construction of the model First.2 2.86 56.

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

As the lter was only constructed on the outer slope.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. a change is executed in the construction of the core and lter structure.4. the way of construction is the same. C1B and CB. 5. This change can be seen in gure 5. For the combined layer CB. the core and the lter are destroyed partially. to sustain the Cubipods placed over there.2. rst some waves are lanced to stabilize this cube layer. 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. on the top of the breakwater. a little crest with lter material is built on the inner side of the mound breakwater. To guarantee their stability. now also a lter layer is placed on the inner slope to guarantee a higher stability.4 Reconstruction of the model After the rst experiments however.5 and 5. but with a little change to guarantee the stability in the following experiments.Experimental setup Color white cyan yellow red grey blue green magenta yellow cyan Table 5. before collocating the Cubipods.6. For the further experiments. . which means that the experiments are not done with the real section of 'The ports of the State'. Further. this construction is always used.13 and in the sections in gure 5.

12: Construction proses of the armour layer .Experimental setup 62 Figure 5.

They propose three wave gauges per group and recommend the following distances. the measured values will be used to calculate the stability of the mound breakwater.2. Those nine wave gauges will permit us to obtain the incident and reected wave in the canal.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 other group near the wavemaker is rather to know if the wave generation is representative for those that really need to be generated. based on the used wave periods and lengths. The distance between the wave gauges of the same group are determined according to the criteria proposed by Mansard and Funke. Furthermore.4.13: 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. The most important group of wave gauges is the one near the model. one group of four wave gauges near the wave generator and another group of four wave gauges near the model. relative to the used wave length: ˆ d1 ≈ ˆ L 6 L 10 L 3 < d1 + d2 < L 5 3L 10 ˆ d1 + d2 = ˆ d1 + d2 = . a ninth wave gauge is place on the breakwater model to measure the run-up.Experimental setup 63 Figure 5.

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. and the gauges can be kept xed for all wave periods to avoid loss of time. This results in the distances between the wave gauges shown in Table 5.3 Experiments 5.28s. Anyhow.85s. h=35 cm. the wave in every experiment is characterized by his wave height and period. T(s)=1. The eventually lack of one of the equations. regular and irregular wave tests are considered.4. a series of increasing periods (T(s)=0. 5. before they experienced that irregular waves do not damage more than regular waves. while for every period. in this project only the regular waves will be studied because. however.13s. In regular wave tests.1 Realized experiments To study the hydraulic stability of the Cubipod armour units.4. both. T(s)=2. T(s)=2.7: 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.70s. is not a big problem because we have four wave gauges in every group. h=40 cm).55s) is considered. h=38 cm. a series waves with increasing design wave height (step of . The representative wave height is the average wave height (Hm ). For each of those water depths. However.3. the wave gauges are placed in a way that all occurring waves and wave lengths can be registered accurately. to keep the gauge registering away from being inuenced by a change in water depth. 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.7. T(s)=1. Increasing water depths are considered (h=30cm.

Those are used afterwards to analyse the damage progression using the virtual net method. Having the correct water level. During each test. One with and one without the virtual framework. 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.Experimental setup 1cm) is lanced. In practice wave trains of 100 waves were executed. If one of the sensors doesn't work correctly.3. to make sure that all inuence of earlier introduced waves was excluded and could not inuence. the breakwater slope is guarded by a camera so the damage progression can be looked after. a photograph is taken with a xed camera perpendicular to the slope. calibration of this sensor has to be repeated. 65 Starting with wave heights that don't produce damage. 5. This is done by opening the measured data in an Excel le and plotting them. before starting the experiments. .4. 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. is started with a wave height that for sure will not produce any damage to the armour layer. After the calibration. The loss of water had to be compensated and during the tests. the heights are increased until the waves break (this is the maximum wave height compatible with the water depth) in the model. Before starting a new test. the water in the canal has to be still. 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. the manual calibration of the wave gauges can be done. After every test. Every test set with a certain water depth. Before starting the tests. a photograph of the armour layer is taken.2 Experimental procedure Every day. rst the water level is controlled.

This method is an optimization of the 'LASA local wave model' method developed by Medina [54]. a short resume can be found in Appendix D. This software generates a report that represents all the requested and useful information about the waves. The pictures made by the camera. The optimized model that is used in . This programme separates incident and reected wave trains. the separation of the waves is done using the LASA-V method.4 Procedure to analyse the data 5. After the complete test set of the ve dierent periods. To obtain the water surface elevation corresponding to the incident and reected wave trains at any point of the record. In this project. 5. Afterwards those results are examined by the software LPCLAB. the results of the optimization in each time window overlap. 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. proposed by Figueres and Medina [55]. Various methods for wave separation have been developed.1 Separating the incident and reected waves: LASA V The response of maritime structures depends on the incident wave eld.4.4. Then.4. The registered data by the wave gauges are rst analysed by the software LASA-V. the wave height is increased by one centimeter until breaking of the waves occurs. however in laboratory model tests as well as in prototype only the incident wave added to its reection can be measured. are loaded in Photoshop to draw a virtual framework on it. Afterwards this photograph is loaded in AutoCAD to indicate the Cubipod by points and to calculate the damage progression using the Virtual Net Method. Some (two or three) waves with higher wave height are lanced to be sure that the maximum wave height will be reached.Experimental setup 66 After every test. the water depth is changed. 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.

4.4. This software analyses the wave data in time. These results are referred to the central sensors (here S3 and S7).14: Parameter window of the LASA-V software this Masterthesis uses an approximate Stokes-V wave model.2 Analysis of the waves: LPCLAB 1. initial control parameter. initial solution. developed by the laboratory of Ports and Coasts in Valencia. generating a report in Excel . generation mechanism. The program LASA-V is applied to the four sensors near the model and near the slab. After separating the incident and reected waves by LASA-V. 5.14).0. LPCLAB 1. The seven parameters controlling the simulated annealing process are: cost function. as in intermediate depth conditions. reduction of control parameter.0.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.Experimental setup 67 Figure 5. length of markov chains and stop criterion. Those have to be implemented in the program. also the number of linear wave components. the waves are analysed by a sofware. 5. This model is able to analyse experiments with highly nonlinear waves.

The second graphic shows the calculated incident and reected waves separated. At the end.0. The most important parameters for further research are the wave reection coecient. Further. the slap can't stop immediately.16. For a correct analysis of the breakwater behaviour. There are four graphics generated. we select the central part of the register. as well as some graphics. depending on various parameters like the wave generation. We will use the average wave heights Hm and H1/10 for further calculations. From the slab without movement to movement you need time to generate the correct height. . To analyse the dates with LPCLab 1. Two concerning the measurements near the slab. The rst always shows the measured wave together with the sum of the calculated separated waves.15: Example of the separation of incident and reected wave trains by LASA V with all the relevant wave parameters.Experimental setup 68 Figure 5. Those real wave characteristics dier from the theoretic values. there are two more graphics showing the wave spectrum. In the beginning the register of the sensors is not regular due to transition. it is critical that the real wave characteristics are taken into account correctly. propagation and reection. the Iribarren number and the measured wave heights. An example of such a report is represented in Appendix ??. the same phenomenon occurs. and the two others concerning the measurements near the model. ignoring the transitions in the beginning and at the end as shown in gure 5.

0. and is calculated by the program LPCLAB 1.3 Analysis of the reection coecient The reection coecient is the ratio of the reected wave height to the incident wave height. This value indicates how much energy is dissipated by the mound breakwater and how much energy is reected. total by counting up the incident and the reected wave: Hrt Hrt should x with Ht to consider that the separation was done correctly.4.Experimental setup 69 Figure 5.16: Parameter window of the LPCLab software After utilizing the programs LASA-V and LPCLAB 1.0. 5. we know the next wave heights: ˆ Htotal registered in the sensors: Ht ˆ Hreected by separating the wave: Hr ˆ Hincident by separating the wave: Hi ˆ Hregenerated . .4.

The reection coecient depends on the characteristics of the wave (wave length.4.1). Therefore.5) The reection coecient mainly depends on the wave length. describes a certain type of wave breaking (Table 4. To show the inuence of those wave characteristics. 5. the reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth and in function of the number of Iribarren. wave period. it is natural to try to relate the reection coecient to Ir. water depth) and on the type of construction. Hi (5. Because of this. The number of Iribarren however. The relative amount of wave energy that can be reected o a slope depends intimately on the breaking processes .4 Analysis of the damage progression In all the executed tests.3) The wave height used to establish this reection coecient is the average wave height in regular wave tests (Hm ). also called the breaker parameter.Experimental setup 70 CR = Hr . the damage progression of the breakwater armour layer was analysed both quantitatively with the Virtual Net Method and qualitatively through visual analysis .4) kh = 2π d L (5. and thus seems not ideal to represent the reection coecient results. 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. 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. knowing that this parameter only shows the inuence of the wave lengths. Both representations.4. will be accomplished for the executed tests. The number of Iribarren shows the inuence of both wave height en wave length. a good way to show the results will be in function of the dimensionless relative water depth.

Important to mention is that this analysis is done after seperating incident and reected wave. When Heterogeneous Packing takes place. each of which is n times the width of the equivalent cube Dn50 (Fig 5. 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. and thus calculating with only the incident wave height. The dimensionless damage in each strip can be calculated using the equation: Di = n 1 − φi φ0i =n 1− 1 − pi 1 − p0 (5. therefore.Experimental setup 71 of photos after each test.6) S= A Dn50 2 (5. as there is the visual counting method considers only the extraction of armour units assuming constant porosity to measure damage of the armour layer.8) . Quantitative analysis Conventional analysis of mound breakwater takes into account only the armour unit extraction failure mode. This method involves projecting a virtual net over the armour layer dividing it into nine strips. Dn50 is the equivalent cube size or nominal diameter.7) In which Ne is the number of eroded armour units. 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. traditional methods. 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. the porosity of the armour layer changes over time.17). GómezMartín and Medina (2006) described the Virtual Net Method to measure the equivalent dimensionless armour damage.

an equal virtual net is drawn with the graphical . being n times the equivalent cube size. using the following equation: pi = 1 − Ni Dn50 2 = 1 − φi ab (5. Only the rst and last photo of the day could be taken with this real metal net. the equivalent damage De can be obtained using the following equation: De = Di (5.9) Ni is the number of armour units in strip i (upper layer). The extreme parts are not taken into account to avoid calculating with parts inuenced by of the ume wall. the dimensions of each strip are the strip height 'a'. Counting up the armour damages in each strip over the slope. Only the positive values of the calculated damages in the dierent strips are counted up to receive the total damage. caused by Heterogeneous Packing or unit extraction.Experimental setup 72 In which p0 and φ0i are the initial porosity and packing density coecient. wave-height and period. which means higher stability and thus not considered as damage. Therefore. respectively. means loss of packing density (higher porosity).10) where only the damages higher than zero are taken into account. Every photo corresponds with a certain water depth. pi and φi are the porosity and packing density coecient after the wave attack. 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. The most important advantage is that this method takes into account the change of porosity in the armour 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. A negative value of the damage stands for a higher packing density. Not the whole width of the mound breakwater is considered. A damage higher than zero. a photograph perpendicular on the mound breakwater is taken using a camera that is placed on a standard over the wave ume. but only the central part. After every test. here 75cm. and the strip width 'b'.

Experimental setup 73 computer program 'Photoshop' on the photos without the real net. As we are interested in the behaviour of the mound breakwater after a series of waves. h=42cm). With this result. to make sure that this virtual net is placed equal as the real net (Fig 5. h=38cm. Figure 5. the Cubipods in every layer can be counted easily. and not after every wave. the dimensionless damage will be measured.18). With the command PRICAPAXYZ.17: Virtual net to measure the equivalent damage analysis and counting the units in AutoCAD for damage calculation . It's important that the camera doesn't move.17). Using the technical drawing program AutoCAD. the porosity of every strip and thus the damage can be calculated with the former equations. developed by LPC. h=35cm. every Cubipod is marked with a point. 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. using dierent layers for the dierent strips of the armour layer (Fig 5. h=40cm.

Under: foto without the real net and the pasted virtual net in Photoshop (end of the tests with h=38) .Experimental setup 74 Figure 5.18: Above: foto with the real net and the designed net in Photoshop (start of the tests with h=38).

To dene this level. Initiation of Destruction (IDe) A small number of units. Destruction (De) Pieces of the secondary layer are removed. 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. The wave height corresponding to the initiation of damage will be used to calculate a rst estimation of the hydraulic stability factor KD . and Destruction (De). it's necessary to dene a method to validate the level of damage.19. A representation of the four damage levels is given in gure 5. in the lower armour layer are forced out and the waves work directly on pieces of the secondary layer. another stage of damage is included by Vidal et al.Experimental setup 75 Qualitative analysis To verify qualitatively the failure modes.(1991) [28] called Initiation of Destruction (IDe). . They are dened through a visual analysis of photos after every test. Initiation of Iribarren Damage (IIDa). 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. In order to me more precise. there are dierent classications: Losada et al. two or three. Those four damage levels were dened based on experimental information and provide an internationally known basis for comparison with other results. 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. (1986) [27] proposed the following three damage levels: Initiation of Damage (IDa). Holes larger than average porous size are clearly appreciable. In this research we adopted for this number a value of 2% of the displaced units required to achieve Iribarren's damage. IIDa and IDe) is obtained out of the visual qualitative analysis and in each case the corresponding dimensionless armour damage will be calculated. The wave height corresponding to the three signicant damage levels (IDa.

Experimental setup 76 Figure 5.19: Damage levels in the armour layer .

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

we can decide that the wavemaker realizes the waves with the asked characteristics. 1. Those results are represented graphically in gure 6. Concerning those graphics. Larger the wave height and smaller the period. We see that the real average wave height near the wavemaker is less than the theoretical value. 2s. In the graphic of the period can be seen that the real period and the theoretical period correspond very well. This energy loss increases with increasing wave height and decreasing period. before starting the experiments.2 Calibration of the wave ume As mentioned in Chapter 5. . 2. 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. This calibration has been carried out with the following characteristics: ˆ The generated wave is irregular with a JONSWAP spectrum (γ = 3.Results 78 6. larger the loss of energy. 50cm and 55cm (near the wavemaker) ˆ Wave periods of 1s. and is measured by a sampling frequency of 20Hz To control the operation of wavemaker. 3) ˆ The considered water depths are 40cm. being sensor 3.1. the calibration of the wavemaker is executed. 45cm.5s and 3s are used ˆ Wave heights between 2cm and 30cm are lanced ˆ The energy dissipation system that will be used during the model experiments has been put in place ˆ The AWACS active energy absorption system in the wavemaker is put in place to guarantee a constant wave generation ˆ The measurement of the generated wave height is registered simultaneously. a dierence that increases with increasing wave height and decreasing period. and larger the dierence between theoretical and measured value.5s. This dierence is due to the loss of energy in the wave ume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

single cubipod layer. For kh > 1. The results in the dierent sections are explained. dierent waves with increasing wave height were lanced.1 Wave reection As mentioned in 5. and thus large wave lengths and small wave periods. we see that the executed tests can be divided in groups with a constant value of dimensionless relative water depth. coincide with higher .1 The reection coecient in function of kh In the three cases (double cubipod layer. First of all. For a certain water depth and period. Small numbers of kh. while for smaller kh values the reection coecient increases. 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.Results 85 6. the reection coecient will be represented in function of the dimensionless relative water depth rst. the obtained results are compared with the results in deepwater conditions [36]. Here we don't make a dierence between the models with or without toe berm. This wave height. rising more steeply for kh approximately 0.2) 6. kh = 2π d L (6. 5 the reection coecient is rather small.4.4. and further. We conclude that there is a correlation between the wave reection and the parameter kh.4. so does not inuence on kh. Further can be seen that the wave length and wave period will play an important role.50.4 Hydraulic stability of the mound breakwater 6. which explains the separated groups of points in the graphics.4. 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 6.1. does not inuence on the wave length.5).3. however.1) Ir = tan (α) H L (6. and secondly in function of the number of Iribarren. because this has no inuence on the reection coecient.

thus a higher reection coecient will occur. Double Cubipod layer . Two layers of armour elements decrease the access to the core and less energy will be dissipated. The crest does not break on the slope but only runs up and down on it. The dierence in the coecient of reection is negligible for small kh. which explains less reection in case of a double layered armour layer compared with a single layer.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. which leaves room for signicant reection. This dierence for high values of kh is due to the higher porosity in case of one armour layer. Few energy is being dissipated. however. Further increasing of the wave lengths. A double armour layer can dissipate more energy than a single one. means less inuence of the number of armour layers on the reection coecient as can be seen in the graphics. The results are very similar but for high values of kh. (Fig 6.Results 86 reection coecients. For kh approximately one.7. Double Cubipod layer .25%) than for a single layer (7% .6). a double layered mound breakwater of Cubipods reects a little less energy than in case of the combined cube-cubipod layer. the double layer reaches values of 10% . This dierence however decreases when kh decreases. the situation is opposite. there can be easily seen that for high values of kh. This is due to the fact that cube elements tend to re-organize its units to an almost solid .Single Cubipod layer Comparing the reection coecient in case of two layers of Cubipods with a single layered mound breakwater.15%). 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. the reection coecient is clearly higher for a double layer of Cubipods (15% . For small values of kh the dierence can be supposed as nil. for both sections. Waves with small wave lengths will dissipate more energy on a one layered mound breakwater than in case of a double layer. 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. and thus easier access to the core to dissipate a lot of energy.20% while the single layer reaches higher values from 15% to 25%. Decreasing kh. the CR varies between 30% and 50%.

For high values of kh. the reection coecient of the one layered cubipod armour layer becomes a little higher then in the combined case. causes a lower reection of energy. 5 < Ir < 2. The reason is the same as explained above in the comparison between the single and double layer with only Cubipods. because those Cubipods tend to re-organize to an almost solid plate with a very low porosity.8).4. Experiments with small Iribarren numbers. the dierence is bigger. less energy can be dissipated and more reection occurs.Results 87 plate where all the cubes have the same orientation and with a very low porosity. Decreasing the kh coecient. where short wave lengths and thus small periods occur. 5) and collapsing (2. this re-organization will only take place partially. Small numbers of Iribarren coincide with little reection. Thus. As the wave length increases. 5 < Ir < 3).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. The higher porosity in case of one armour layer compared to two armour layers. the dierence in reection coecient decreases and the importance of the type of armour layer seems less important. A lot of energy is dissipated which means little reection.Combined layer Also the comparison of a combined cubecubipod layer is made with a single cubipod layer (Fig 6. a mound breakwater with one layer of Cubipods dissipates more energy than in case of the combined layer. As the double layered armour layer now also has a cube layer. which means that less energy can be dissipated. however.7). Single Cubipod layer . A clear dierence can be seen between the reection coecient for waves with Ir > 3 and Ir < 3. .1. coincide with plunging breaking (0. while waves with high numbers of Iribarren have a high reection coecient. Therefore. which means that the porosity in the upper layer will be similar in both cases. 6. for waves with small wave lengths. 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. As this cube layer is covered by a cubipod layer.

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

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

Results 90 Figure 6.6: The reection coecient in function of the dimensionless relative water depth (kh): comparing single and double layers of Cubipods .

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.

1. using the Hudson [5] formula proposed by SPM[6]. 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. 6. Initiation of damage of Iribarren (IIDa) and Initiation of destruction (IDe) using the denitions explained in 5.4. to receive more exact results. Here can be mentioned that during the experiments could be seen clearly that heterogeneous packing took place before extraction of armour units. Concerning the denitions of the damage levels.4.1 Introduction To make a rst estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient for the considered breakwater sections in breaking conditions. A more correct result is obtained.4. They dier a little between the dierent types of armour layers but the average values can be given as: De =1.4. Those values of incident wave height will be used later on to estimate the hydraulic stability coecient. The aim is to obtain the value of the incident wave height corresponding with Initiation of damage (IDa).2. Further. based on the photos made after every experiment. damage analysis is executed using the qualitative method. the damage is analysed qualitatively. As the tests were always stopped before IDe. The results can be seen in 6.4. the Virtual Net Method described by Gómez-Martín & Medina [24].2 Damage analysis on the armour layer 6. taking into account the heterogeneous packing.2 for IDa and De =3 for IIDa. using the photos made after every experiment. The corresponding incident wave height producing those levels of damage. the damage progression is studied using a quantitative method.4 and to compare those results for the dierent breakwater sections.2 Qualitative analysis To make a rst estimation of the hydraulic stability coecient. thus only one level is obtained. The dimensionless damage corresponding to those two damage levels is calculated. there is no dierence between IDa and IIDa. only the rst two levels will be considered here.Results 93 6. . for a single layer of Cubipods.2.

For the combined section CB. For the single armour layer.6 2. no explicit conclusion can be made concerning the hydraulic stability in comparison with the other sections.96 H1/10 [cm] 23. The wave height corresponding with IDa for the double layered breakwater with toe berm C2B is higher than for the single layered. proposed by SPM. has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a toe berm.9 3. which indicates a higher hydraulic stability of the section C2B than of the section C1B.32 1. to calculate the number of stability Ns is used to .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 6.7 18. The elements move more downwards if there is no toe berm.20 1.6 De 2. The reason therefore.1: 94 IAI H1/10 [cm] 16. 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.4 1.10 1. which means that they can resist a higher wave height before reaching a damage level. thus damage will occur earlier.8 19. The dierence for the higher wave height in case of a single layer B1 compared with the double layered breakwater B2. The formula of Hudson. can be explained in the same way.26 1.37 Incident wave heights producing the levels of damage: IDa and IIDa For the double armour layer.4 16. the situation seems to be opposite. The executed tests on the section without toe berm are formed by the rst layer of B2. taking o the coloured elements of the upper layer. the breakwater section with toe berm can resist a higher wave height until IDa or IIDa occurs than in the situation without toe berm. however.5 19.15 23.97 23. More tests are necessary to exclude the right solution.

4) The incident wave height is dened as the signicant wave height H1/10 causing IDa. because this results in a lower value of stability than when it should be calculated with the lower cubipod dimensions. Important to mention is the high value of hydraulic stability coecient of Cubipods. the received results here probably will be more exact than those received by the traditional methods.30t/m3 ) and the wave height producing IDa. More experiments need to be carried out to optimize this parameter. as proposed by SPM [6].5). those can be seen in table ??. KD =43 was found for double layer of Cubipods. KD =35 for a single layer of Cubipods and KD =23 for a combined armour layer with cubes and Cubipods. the dimensions of the armour units (Dn =3. Important to know is that those values are valid for shallow water (breaking conditions). Those values.Results estimate the hydraulic stability coecient and is dened as: 95 NS = H1/10 1 = (KD cotα) 3 ∆Dn NS 3 KD = cotα (6.00cm for cubes). the value of KD can be calculated.82cm for Cubipods and Dn =4. the calculation is done with the dimensions of the cubes. Knowing that this failure mode occurs almost always before extracting of armour units. their density (2. . are just a rst estimation. in the structure head of a mound breakwater and random collocation of the Cubipods. compared with other armour units. Knowing the breakwater slope (1:1. however. knowing that this lower value is also due to the calculation with the cube dimensions. For the combined layer CB.3) (6. the maximum signicant incident wave height of all the earlier tests is taken as corresponding wave height. 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. Some of them are published in SPM (1984) [6]. Also here.

D∗ = D0. With this conversion.5) After every series of tests with a constant water depth. [47]. the dimensionless damage De is calculated. and this for the dierent studied models. however. the comparison with the former results can be done eectively. To obtain a more correct restult. 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]. Using the Hudson formula.4.5). Thus. a quantitative analysis is necessary.3 Quantitative analysis 96 The qualitative analysis gave us a rst estimation of the stability of the dierent armour breakwaters. The quantitative analysis of the damage is done using the Virtual Net Method. as explained in section 5. the linearized dimensionless damage of the wave tests are presented with respect to a dimensionless wave height: H1/10 /HD=0. the maximum measured incident average wave height Hm during the series of tests with the concerned water depth is taken.2 (Eq. The results are also compared with the equation proposed by Medina et al. but KD of a regular cube. that compares the porosity in every zone of the armour layer to the initial porosity and results in the equivalent dimensionless damage. a general equation for each type of armour unit can be deduced.2. If the linearized dimensionless damage D* values are represented simply as a function of the corresponding scaled wave heights. As corresponding wave height. where Hm is the average incident wave height: . especially because low density concrete is used. 6.4. Based on this equation.03 cm. In a graphical presentation this ultimate value provides a clearly understandable image. this results in HD=0 (KD =6)=10. This can be transformed to the linearized dimensionless damage by elevating it to the power 0.Results 6. Here. 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. based on the test results for quarrystone in SPM [6]. the same remark as in the qualitative analysis about the wave height can be made.4.KD =6 .4. it is rather dicult to interpret them and to compare them with other test results.2 (6.

2 = 1. there is no damage at the bottom near the toe berm. 60. The mound breakwater without toe berm seems to have a higher hydraulic stability. In the experiments with toe berm. In the graphics (Fig 6.Results 97 H1/10 = HD=0 D∗ = D0. taking o the elements of the upper layer. . The executed tests on the section without toe berm is formed by the rst layer of B2. and thus increase of porosity will only occur at the top of the breakwater. thus higher damage occurs in the beginning. The elements were already stabilized during the tests on the double layered section and thus have a higher friction with the lter layer.6) 1/3 Hm HD=0 (6. show the opposite. In case of a toe berm the armour elements at the bottom of the mound breakwater can't remove. and thus due to the absence of a toe berm. 6 4 KD 0. the removed elements are collected at the bottom and form a massive entity. but the damage is only due to removing units at the top of the breakwater. however. little damage takes place. 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.2 (6. working like a toe berm. In the results of the section without toe berm can be seen that at the top of the breakwater. the majority of the damage is due to the layers at the bottom. the porosity decreases because the elements from above push them down. The graphics showing the results of the single armour layer. In this case.9) showing the results of the double armour layer is it clear that the hydraulic stability is lower if there is no toe berm. When this toe berm is not present. After a series of experiments. has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a toe berm. After a series of experiments however can be seen that this dierence becomes nil.2 D 1. which explains the small dierence at the end. The reason therefore. however. however. For the elements near the bottom. an explicit conclusion can't be made.7) First. the elements near the bottom can remove and also here the porosity will increase.

Changing KD by a certain hydraulic stability coecient in the equation 6. there can be seen that the results in breaking conditions are less stable than in non-breaking conditions. This is normal because in breaking conditions. while the combined layer of cubes and Cubipods gives the lowest results.7. The graphics with the calculated dimensionless damage results (the isolated points in Fig 6. 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. the equivalent line for every armour unit can be drawn in the graphic showing D* in function of Hm /HD=0 . waves with higher energy reach the breakwater. which means that the damage will initiate earlier than in deepwater conditions. corresponding with the double Cubipod layer. using the qualitative calculated stability coefcient predict. the results of the dimensionless damage (the isolated points) seem to be higher than the equations. The double layer gives more stable results than the single layer of Cubipods.10) show a dierence between the three breakwater sections. the single Cubipod layer and the combined layer of Cubipods and cubes. KD =35 and KD =23. to receive a certain level of dimensionless damage. Also the lines indicating IDa and IIDa are drawn. For the dierent breakwater sections. in non-breaking conditions a higher incident wave height is needed than in breaking conditions. which means that the qualitative manner to calculate KD overestimates the stability coecient. This is shown in the second graphic of gure 6. the further hydraulic stability analysis will only be executed with this types of breakwater. . Further.Results 98 As mound breakwaters with toe berm are the common built breakwaters in breaking conditions. Better adjustment would be obtained with the line KD =28 for double layer of Cubipods. in the graphics.10. On the other hand. The result can be seen above in the gure 6.10. 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. We can draw the lines with KD =43. comparing the results with the executed tests in deepwater for a double layered breakwater.

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

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

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

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

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

ˆ Further.g. VB01_3216 or VB04_5117. is this number always 0. ˆ The next number (W) refers to the wave type. 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 ˆ The number 'Y' stands for the water depth in the model. The following values are considered:  1: hmodel = 20 cm 104 . The terminology of the experiments is the following: ˆ 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). As we only consider regular waves.Appendix A Terminology of the experiments Every experiment has a code: VBWX_YZAC. e.

a wave height of 12 cm in model results in 'AC'=12.28 s  3: T = 1.13 s  5: T = 2. .70 s  4: T = 2.55 s ˆ The last two numbers describe the wave height in model.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 ˆ The next value represents the period of the lanced wave in model being: 105  1: T = 0. A wave height of 6 cm in model.85 s  2: T = 1. results in 'AC'=06.

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

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

using whatever number of measuring gauges. Figueres and Medina [55] optimized the 'LASA local wave model' method. The method can directly be applied to regular and irregular two-dimensional waves without excessive steepness. . The LASA method (Local Approximation using Simulated Annealing) developed by Medina [54] for the analysis of incident and reected waves in the time-domain. considering the fact that up till this time. 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. This implies a huge advantage for the use in both prototype and laboratory model tests with irregular and nonstationary waves.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. 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 model is able to analyse experiments with highly nonlinear waves as in intermediate depth conditions. One of their main disadvantages is the inconsistency produced by the fact that future measured data are needed to estimate earlier analysed data. The method can be used for nonstationary and nonlinear waves. no other methods were available to analyse adequately the wave separation of this very common and necessary experiment type. the results of the optimization in each time window overlap. and a simulated annealing algorithm to optimize the parameters of the wave model in each small local timesegment of the measured record. based on linear and Stokes-II nonlinear components to the 'LASA-V wave model' using an approximate Stokes-V wave model. is based on a local approximation model considering linear and Stokes-II nonlinear components.

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

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 . The reports of all the executed tests can be found on the included cd-rom.

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

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

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times