Wave Transmission on Submerged Rubble Mound Breakwater Using L-Blocks

Dayat Indri Yuliastuti

PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 31750 Tronoh
Perak, MALAYSIA
Email: dayat.indri@gmail.com

Ahmad Mustafa Hashim
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 31750 Tronoh
Perak, MALAYSIA
Email: mustafa_hashim@petronas.com.my


AbstractLaboratory tests on a permeable submerged rubble
mound breakwater (SRMB) constructed using L-Blocks
armour unit with 40 tests for wave transmission were analyzed
and the available empirical equations for wave transmission
coefficient (K
t
) were evaluated. The ranges of variation were
0.23< d
s
/d<0.38, 0.001< H
i
/(gT
2
) <0.022, 0.011< H
i
/L<0.139,
and 0.769<B/d<0.625 where B is the top width of the
breakwater and L is the incident wave length. The design
parameters varied systemically to investigate the impact of
incident wave height (H
i
), wave period (T), water depth (d),
and submergence depth (d
s
) on the values of K
t
. The tests were
performed in a wave flume 23 m long and 2 m wide. The
armor units were L-Block artificial armour unit with the
relative density of 2.4. The results showed that for various
relative submergence depth, d
s
/d, (i) little correlation was
found when K
t
correlate with B/d. (ii) K
t
correlates well with
wave steepness H
i
/L and with H
i
/(gT
2
). Four commonly used
predictors of K
t
have been assessed against the new data among
which the one is regarded to fit the data better.
Keywords-Submerged Rubble Mound Breakwater; Wave
Transmission Coefficient; L-Block Armor Unit; Coastal
Engineering
I. INTRODUCTION
Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) is the most common
breakwater used for shore protection. It consists of several
armor layers with different densities. The armor unit can be
random placed, uniform placed, selective placed or special
placed adjusting with the design [1]. RMB is conventionally
designed with the top part emerged from water as shown in
Fig. 1, referred to emerged rubble mound breakwater
(ERMB) here. Only minor overtopping degree is permitted,
therefore this structure must be massive to withstand the
impact force of breaking waves. However, even though calm
condition in the leeside (breakwater shoreward) can be
achieved, several major issues like degradation of water
quality, concerns for natural habits partly enclosed inside the
bay, and aesthetic considerations can be regarded as
downsides of this type of breakwater. Limited water
circulation and high concentration of water pollution from
moored ship inside the marina could intensify some of the
above-mentioned problems.
To overcome some problems associated with ERMB,
engineers have designed submerged rubble mound
breakwater (SRMB). As indicated by the name, this
structure is constructed below a specified water design level
as shown in Fig. 2. This structure permits the passage of
some wave energies and, in turn, allows some water
circulation to replace the reduction of protection level. The
objective of this experimental study is to investigate wave
transmission through SRMB.
The L-Block, a new interlocking concrete armor unit has
been developed at University of Malaya in 2006. Originally,
the L-Block had been designed to protect slopes and banks
against erosion, but for the first practical experience after
applying slight changes to optimize the design of the
modified L-Block has been introduced as an armor unit to a
rubble mound breakwater. Construction of the first Modified
L-Block breakwater on the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia
was successfully completed in July 2008 [2].
Sea Side
Lee Side

Crest
Seabed

Figure 1. Typical Emerged Rubble Mound Breakwater (ERMB)

Mean Water Level
Incident Wave
d
B
hs
Core Layer
Hi
T
ds
Seabed
T
Ht
Transmitted Wave
H
V

Figure 2. Typical Submerged Rubble Mound Breakwater (SRMB)

II. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
The wave transmission coefficient (K
t
) is defined as the
ratio of the transmitted wave height (H
t
) at the leeside to the
incident wave height (H
i
) at the breakwater seaward.

i
t
t
H
H
K =
(1)
V1-243
2011 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology
IPCBEE vol.6 (2011) (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore
The value of K
t
indicates the effectiveness of a SRMB to
attenuate waves. It varies as 0<K
t
<1. Value of zero implies
that there is no transmission such in the case of high or
impermeable breakwaters. Value of 1 means no reduction in
wave height as if there is no barrier in front of the wave.
Transmission of wave energy through breakwaters has
been studied by several researchers in different ways (Abdul
Khader and Rai [3], Allsop [4], Van der Meer and Daemen
[5], among others). Most investigations suggested that
submergence depth and structure geometry are the most
significant parameters affecting the wave transmission.
Wave characteristics (H
i
, T) and permeability of the
breakwater were also found to influence the wave
transmission.
The studies of Dick and Brebner [6] on solid and
permeable submerged breakwaters indicated that these
breakwaters with near zero submergence were capable of
reducing the incident wave energy by 50%. Raman et al. [7]
investigated the damping action of rectangular and rigid
vertical submerged barriers and expressed K
t
in terms of the
transmitted energy to the total power of the incident wave. It
was stated that in the case of rectangular submerged barrier,
top width of the barrier played an important role in
controlling K
t
. The test on wave transmission and reflection
characteristics of model breakwater conducted by Seelig [8]
indicated that both d
s
and B were important in determining
the performance of the breakwater and it was suggested that
near zero submergence of submerged breakwater was
efficient in reducing the transmission.
Kobayashi and Wurjanto [9] presented a numerical
approach based on finite amplitude shallow water equation
for determination of wave transmission through submerged
breakwater. Design equations for wave transmission over a
submerged breakwater with mild slope were detailed by
Rojanakamthorn et al. [10]. The results suggested that when
the height of submerged breakwater was 50% of the water
depth, K
t
varied between 0.4 and 0.7. Carevic et al. [11]
studied transmission of irregular waves through submerged
breakwater as employed in the computer software, MIKE21-
BW-1D. The results were compared with laboratory
measurements in physical model tests as reported by Johnson
[12]. The wave breaking was calculated with modified
breaking angle parameters of surface roller concept.
Transmission coefficients obtained from the numerical
model showed good agreement with measured data.
Several empirical equations have been obtained from
laboratory tests on SRMB. In what follows the formulae
suggested for K
t
by four independent investigations are
given.
Seabrook and Hall [13] introduced equation in which F
is the freeboard (m) as denoted by d
s
in Fig. 2.

=
50 50
067 . 0 047 . 0 09 . 1 65 . 0 exp 1
BD
F H
LD
BF
B
H
H
F
K
i i
i
t
(2)
DAngremond [14] came up with two relations for K
t
depending on the ratio of top width to the wave height as in
(3) and (4). is the self-similarity parameter.

( )
5 . 0
31 . 0
1 64 . 0 4 . 0

+ = e
H
B
H
F
K
i i
t
if B/H
i
8 (3)

( )
41 . 0
65 . 0
1 51 . 0 35 . 0

+ = e
H
B
H
F
K
i i
t
if B/H
i
12 (4)
For 8<B/H
i
<12, linear interpolation can be used.

Based on the value of F/H
i
, Buccino [15] suggested that
K
t
can be obtained from equation (5) and (6).

L H
B
F
H
F
H
K
i
i i
t
5 . 1 12 . 0
33 . 0 18 . 1
1

=
if 2>(F/H
i
)>0.83 (5)

( )
2
17 . 0
; 2 . 2 min 25 . 0 62 . 0 ; 74 . 0 min

=
L H
B
K
i
t

if F=0 (6)
Linear interpolation can be applied for 0.8>F/H
i
>0.

Friebel et al , 1999 [16] suggested the following
equation:
0905 . 1 1359 . 0 log 0696 . 0 4257 . 0 0292 . 0 4969 . 0 +

+ =
B
F
L
B
d
d
d
B
H
F
K
s
i
t

(7)

In the present paper, experimental data are compared
versus the above-mentioned empirical equations.

III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE
The selection of breakwater material was based on the
necessity of breakwater armor unit to withstand numerous
wave conditions. A model breakwater was constructed in a
wave flume with 1.8 m depth, 23 m length and 2 m width in
Coastal Laboratory of Civil Engineering Department in
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), Malaysia. The
armor units were L-Blocks artificial armor with the relative
density of 2.3, average mass of 840 g, and D
n
of 0.0629 m.
Fig. 3 shows sections of the breakwater when submerged in
the flume. Fig. 4 presents views from the flume and the
SRMB as built. Fig. 5 shows isometric view of the L-Block
and Fig. 6 shows characteristic dimension of L-Block unit.
Important parameters affecting the design and operation
of SRMB varied systematically as listed in Table 1.
Placement of the armor units followed the real life practice.
The core was placed by shovel, trowelled and washed in
place to naturally compact. Each armor unit was placed
individually and properly by hand. An armor unit was
ensured to be in contact with armor next to it without being
pushed into core layer material.
V1-244


Figure 3. SRMB Model





a. Core Layer b. Armor Layer


c. Coastal Laboratory d. SRMB Model with d =0.65m

Figure 4. The Model Construction and Equipment Installation



Figure 5. Isometric view of the Modified L-Block

Figure 6. Characteristic dimensions of L-Block unit

All tests were performed with regular waves of various
height and period. Wave heights at both sides of the
breakwater were measured using wave probes and the values
were double checked by video clips played in pause mode or
slow motion. Sixth wave probes were used, three at each
side placed at 1-m distance from each other, the first one
near the toe of the breakwater. The average of the
transmitted wave heights as captured by the first two probes
downstream of the breakwater was taken as H
t
.

Table 1. Breakwater Structure Configuration
Series
Code
Submergence
Depth, d
s
(m)
Crest Width,
B (m)
Cot
A1 0.15 0.5 1.5
B1 0.20 0.5 1.5
C1 0.30 0.5 1.5

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 7a shows the wave data with 650 mm water depth,
wave height of 10 cm and T of 1.5 s. The following data
from the figure are noteworthy: H
i,max
=0.11 m, H
i,min
=0.09 m,
H
i
=0.10 m, H
t,max
=0.10 m, H
t,min
=0.08 m, and H
t
=0.09 m.
The incident and transmitted waves for 650 mm water depth,
wave height of 11 cm and T of 2 s are shown in Fig. 7b from
which the following data are noted: H
i,max
=0.12 m and
H
i,min
=0.10 m, H
i
=0.11 m and H
t,max
=0.11 m, H
t,min
=0.09 m,
H
t
=0.10 m. The pattern of the fluctuations is fairly regular
showing the data and measurement methods were reliable.
Under water depth of 800 mm, the breakwater performed
better with T=2.0 s compared to T=1.0 s as K
t
=0.73<K
t
=0.86.
Additionally, with water depth of 650 mm and T=2.0 s, the
performance of the breakwater was better than that for
T=2.0 s and d=700 mm, as K
t
=0.70< K
t
=0.73.
V1-245


a.Wave Data, Hi =10cm, T=1.5s b.Wave Data, Hi =11cm, T=2s
Figure 7. Wave Data d=0.65m with different Hi and T

Figure 8. Variation of Kt with Hi /gT
2


Figure 9. Variation of K
t
with H
i
/L

Variation of K
t
versus H
i
/(gT
2
) and H
i
/L for different
values of relative submergence, d
s
/d, are shown in Fig. 8 and
9, respectively. The horizontal axes are the indication of the
wave steepness, the second being the actual wave steepness
and the first is a representative of the steepness. For example,
in deepwater conditions, L=1.56T
2
. The plots show that
when submergence is greater than 40%, the breakwater does
not attenuate the waves significantly. The performance with
low submergence is further improved as the wave steepness
increases. For near zero submergence, a transmission
coefficient of K
t
=0.70 will result that is fairly independent of
the wave steepness.


Figure 10. Influence of relative crest height on transmission
(variable wave height, T=2 s)

Fig. 10 is a plot of transmission coefficient versus the
relative submergence for five wave heights. As expected,
the attenuation decreases with increase of submergence. The
interesting observation is that the curves show a fairly linear
variation. Within the limits of the experimental data, the
following linear regression equation will result.

+ =
d
d
K
s
t
53 . 1 7 . 0
(8)


Figure 11. Effect of crest width on wave transmission

In a numerical prediction of performance of SRMB,
Rambabu and Mani [17] compared their numerical solution
with the experimental data of Hall and Seabrook [13] in a
graph showing the variation of K
t
versus h
s
/d. The data
relate to a permeable SRMB with porosity of 0.3. The plot
contains 7 data points in the range of 0.25<h
s
/d<0.56 to
which a linear fit is applied here as

) ( 81 . 0 85 . 0
d
h
K
s
t
=
(9)
Noting h
s
=d-d
s
, the relation can be converted to
V1-246

+ =
d
d
K
s
t
81 . 0 04 . 0
(10)

However, the present form (8) is comparable with the
experimental data presented by Abdul Khader and Rai [3] for
impermeable SRMB. The best fit line to their experimental
data is

+ =
d
d
K
s
t
75 . 0 17 . 0
(11)
In the later stages of this ongoing investigation, this
equation will be improved to involve the effect of other
influencing parameters such as the breakwater top width B,
breakwater height h
s
, breakwater slope and permeability.
Fig. 11 illustrates a plot of the transmission coefficient,
K
t
against the dimensionless parameter B/d. As expected, a
strong correlation cannot be observed because other
influencing properties such as submergence and wave
characteristics are not captured in the variable B/d. Regular
patterns in the graphs presented by some authors (see
Rambabu and Mani [17] or Sidek and Abdul Wahab [18])
should be interpreted with care. In the former, H
i
/(gT
2
)
involves the wave characteristics and the latter dealt only
with a single submergence depth. However, within the range
of the present data, the following linear fit can show the
overall pattern.

+ =
d
B
K
t
5 . 0 82 . 0
(12)
A comparison was made between the present data and
those predicted by several design equations in the literature.
They are those of DAngremond, Seabrook and Hall,
Friebel-Harris, and Buccino. Fig. 12 is a graphic
representation of the comparison with four empirical
formulas. The formulas by Friebel-Harris and Buccino show
a better performance.


Figure 12. Comparison between Measured Kt and Empirical Equation.

V. CONCLUSIONS
Laboratory experiments have been conducted in a wave
flume to study the transmission of regular waves through
submerged rubble mound breakwater, SRMB. Four design
parameters were varied systematically: wave height, wave
period, water depth and submergence depth. The model
SRMB was 0.50 m high with top width of 0.5 m and side
slope of 1V:1.5H with L-Block armor of 0.0629 m D
n
. The
waves were measured using both wave probes and
videographic method. Forty (40) tests were achieved and the
results were analyzed.
1. The wave attenuation decreases fairly linearly with
increase of submergence. With submergence greater
than 40%, the breakwater does not attenuate the waves
significantly. The performance for low submergence is
further improved as the wave steepness increases. For
near zero submergence, a transmission coefficient of
K
t
=0.70 will result that is fairly independent of the wave
steepness.
2. Within the range of the present experiments, K
t
shows a
meaningful correlation with the ratio of submergence
depth to the water depth. A fitted line was suggested.
3. In plotting the transmission coefficient versus the ratio of
top width to water depth (B/d), little correlation was
found. This has to be expected because other influencing
properties such as submergence and wave characteristics
are not captured in B/d. However, within the range of
the present data, a linear fit representing an overall
pattern was introduced.
4. The measured transmission coefficients were compared
with those predicted by several empirical equations in
the literature. Formulas with better performance were
introduced.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS for providing the research facilities and grant to
undertake the research.
REFERENCES
[1] USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2010, Coastal Engineering
Manual, CEM: Overview and Coastal Hydrodynamics, Engineer
Manual EM 1110-21100.
[2] Kamali, B., Hashim, R., 2009, Development of Modified L-Block
Breakwater Armor Unit for Moderate Wave-energy Climate,
International Seminar on Sustainable Infrastructure and Built
Environment, Bandung, Indonesia.
[3] Abdul Khader, M.H., Rai, S.P., 1980, A Study of Submerged
Breakwaters, Journal of Hydraulic Research, pp. 113121.
[4] Allsop, N. W. H., 1983, Low-crest Breakwaters, Studies in Random
Waves, Proceeding of coastal structure 1983, ASCE, New York, N.Y.
[5] Van der Meer, J.W., and Daemen, I. F. R., 1994, Stability and Wave
Transmission at Low-crested Rubble Mound Structures, ASCE,
Journal of Waterways, Ports, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol.
120, Jan/Feb, pp. 1-19.
[6] Dick, T.M., Brebner, A., 1968, Solid and Permeable Submerged
Breakwaters, Proceedings of the 11
th
International Conference on
Coastal Engineering, pp. 11411158.
[7] Raman, H., Shankar, J., Dattatri, J., 1977, Submerged Breakwaters.
Central Board of Irrigation and Power Journal 34, pp. 205212
V1-247
[8] Seelig, W.N., 1980, Two-dimensional Tests of Wave Transmission
and Reflection Characteristics of Laboratory Breakwaters, Tech. Rept.
No. 80-1, US Army Coast. Engrg. Res. Ctr., Fort Belvoir, VA
[9] Kobayashi, N., Wurjanto, A., 1989, Wave Transmission Over
Submerged Breakwaters. Journal of Waterway, Port Coastal and
Ocean Engineering 115, pp. 662680
[10] Rojanakamthorn, S., Isobe, M., Watanabe, A., 1989, Design Equation
for Transmission at Submerged Rubblemound Breakwaters. Coastal
Engineering in Japan 32, pp. 209234.
[11] Carevic.D., Marko, P., Ocvirk, E., 2009, Modeling of wave
Interaction with Submerged Breakwater using Mike 21 BW,
International Symposium on Water Management and Hydraulic
Engineering, Ohrid/Macedonia.
[12] Johnson, H. K., 2006, Wave Modeling in The Vicinity of Submerged
Breakwaters, Journal of Coastal engineering 53, pp.39-48.
[13] Seabrook, S.R., Hall, K.R., 1998, Wave Transmission at Submerged
Rubble Mound Breakwaters, Proceedings of the 26th International
Conference Coastastal Engineering, pp. 2000 2013. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
[14] DAngremond, K., Van der Meer, J.W., De Jong, R.J., 1996, Wave
Transmission at Low-crested Structures, Proceedings of the 25th Int.
Conf. Coast.Engineering, pp. 24182427.
[15] Buccino, M., Calabrese, M., 2007, Conceptual Approach for
Prediction of Wave Transmission at Low-crested Breakwater, Journal
of waterway, port, coastal, and ocean engineering , ASCE.
[16] Friebel, H. C., Harris, L. E., 1999, Re-evaluation of Wave
Transmission Coeffcient Formulae from Submerged Breakwater
Physical Model, Florida.
[17] Rambambu, A. C., Mani, J. S., 2005, Numerical Prediction of
Performance of Submerged Breakwaters, Journal of Ocean
Engineering 32 (2005) 1235-1246.
[18] Sidek, F. J., Abdul Wahab., 2007, The Effect of Submerged
Breakwater Structures on Non- Breaking Wave Transformations,
Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 19 (1): 17-25.
V1-248