Wave Overtopping Over Crown Walls and Run-up on

Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Kolos Armour

under Random Waves

A.Arunjith
1
, S.A.Sannasiraj
2
, and V.Sundar
3

1 Coastal Engineer, WorleyParsons Sea India Pvt. Ltd, Regus, Olympia Technology Park, Guindy,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600032, India, E-mail: mail2arunjith@gmail.com
2 Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, 600036, INDIA, E-mail: sasraj@iitm.ac.in
3 Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, 600036, INDIA, E-mail: vsundar@iitm.ac.in


Abstract: The design of rubble mound structures like breakwaters and
seawalls are influenced by the wave run-up and overtopping over them. The
above phenomena largely depend on the type of the armour units as they
directly interact with the incident waves. The hydrodynamic characteristics of
various concrete armour units have been established by several researchers. A
new armour block, Kolos, a modified version of Dolos, is considered in this
study for a detailed investigation. An attempt is made to establish empirical
relationships for the estimation of wave overtopping discharges over crown
wall and run-up on Kolos armoured slope exposed to random wave from the
results of a comprehensive experimental program. Further, the results are
compared with that of a tested section with natural rocks as armour layer and
with that of other investigators.

Keywords: random waves; run-up; overtopping; armour blocks; Kolos

1. INTRODUCTION
The interaction of ocean waves with rubble mound structures results in a variety of wave
transformations including wave breaking, run-up, overtopping etc. The understanding of the
behavior of such transformations is vital for the design of coastal structures like breakwaters
and seawalls. Two of these phenomenon, wave run-up and overtopping, have considerable
significance in the design of rubble mound structures. The estimation of wave run-up and
mean overtopping discharge rate over the breakwater trunk is necessary to design the
breakwater height and crest level (Shankar and Jayaratne, 2003). The acceptable rate of
overtopping discharge over the crest depends on the stability of the lee-side armour, ability of
the crest to withstand high-velocity flows over the crest (CIRIA, 2007) and most importantly
the level of tranquility required for the harbour. Overtopping discharges can be reduced either
by increasing the crest level beyond the maximum run-up height or by the construction of
concrete crown wall on the crest.

The stochastic behavior of the incident waves yield to different levels of run-up and
overtopping, based on the wave characteristics and the type of armour blocks of the
breakwater. The complex and non-deterministic behavior of these phenomena have forced
researchers to rely on laboratory tests. Several empirical relations for the prediction of wave
Wave Overtopping Over Crown Walls and Run-Up on
Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Kolos Armour under Random Waves
2
run-up and overtopping over the breakwater slopes armoured with rocks, tetrapods, Dolos
etc., have been proposed through experimental investigations. Similar approach has been
made for breakwaters armoured with a newly developed armour unit known as Kolos, the
isometric view of which is shown in Figure1. The details of Kolos as well as its
hydrodynamic stability have been discussed by Sundar et al., (2007) and Chandramohan et
al., (2012).


Figure 1. View of a Kolos unit

2. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Wave run-up and overtopping
The wave interaction with coastal structures and subsequent energy dissipation results in in
wave run-up. With a better understanding of wave run-up, it is possible to predict the
individual overtopping volumes corresponding to each wave that reaches the crest and cause
overtopping (Bruce et al., 2009). The phenomenon of run-up and overtopping are influenced
by the geometric parameters like slope of the armour, hydraulic parameters like wave height
and period and most importantly by the structural parameters of the armour unit used for the
breakwater construction (Shankar and Jayaratne, 2003).

Battjes (1974) introduced the surf similarity parameter,
op
(
op
=tan/(H
s
/L
op
)
0.5
, where
is the breakwater front slope angle, L
op
is the deep water wave length corresponding to the
peak period, T
p
) to describe run-up and applied the same to the case of flat slopes.

The significant wave height, H
s
is defined as H
1/3
for time domain analysis or H
m0
for
frequency domain analysis. The application of surf similarity parameter to describe run-up on
rough and permeable slopes was verified by Ahrens and McCartney (1975).

The Hunt formula was modified by Battjes (1974) for the 2% runup level (R
u2%
), including
the surf similarity parameter corresponding to mean wave period, T
m
. Assuming that the ratio
T
p
/T
m
is about 1.1-1.2, the equation can be modified as,


(1)


Breakwaters adopted for the formation of harbours are often constructed as non-overtopping
structures. Minimal overtopping would be allowed during extreme wave climates, but not
under normal operating conditions. The estimation of overtopping discharges over crown
u2%
p
s
R
C
H
=
A. Arunjith, S.A. Sannasiraj and V. Sundar
3
walls on the crest of rubble mound breakwaters is a specific area of study and Pedersen
(1996) had conducted a comprehensive study with crown walls under random wave incidence.
Breakwaters with rocks, cubes and Dolos as armour layers were tested. The crown wall
configuration is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The crown wall configuration

For general assessment of wave overtopping, EurOtop (2007) explains about new techniques
to predict overtopping over coastal engineering structures like seawalls, breakwaters and other
shoreline structures. It proposes overtopping formulae based on deterministic design as well
as probabilistic design.

3. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND PROCEDURE
3.1 Description of the physical model
A model scale of 21.7 has been chosen for the present work to suit the precast Kolos model
units corresponding to the prototype weight of 5 tonnes. The slope of the armour layer is 1 in
2. A natural rubble armoured breakwater for similar wave and environmental conditions has
been tested to facilitate direct comparison of results. With the flume bed elevation as
reference at 0.0m, the high water level and low water level are at +0.65m and +0.50m,
respectively. The breakwater models laid in the flume, armoured with Kolos and natural
rubble are shown in the Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), respectively

3.2 Instrumentation
The experimental investigations were carried out in a 72.5m long, 2m wide and 2.5m deep
wave flume in the Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
India. A wave maker is installed at one end of the flume and a rubble mound beach to
dissipate the wave energy is constructed at 68m from the wave maker. For the present study,
wave generator in the piston mode that can generate regular and random waves through a
servo actuator with computer control system was used. Two wave probe method of Goda and
Suzuki (1976) was used to decompose the measured composite time history of wave elevation
into incident and reflected components. A wave gauge placed over the armour slope
registered the wave run-up over the armour layer. A tray on the leeside of the base slab was
fixed for collecting the water that overtops the structure. The experimental set-up in the wave
flume is shown in Figure 4. The breakwater cross sections armoured with Kolos and rubble
stones, considered for the laboratory investigations are shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)
respectively.

Crown wall
Wave direction
B
Ac
Rc
Wc
Wave Overtopping Over Crown Walls and Run-Up on
Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Kolos Armour under Random Waves
4


Figure 3(a). Breakwater with Kolos Figure 3(b). Breakwater with rubble as armour



Figure 4. The experimental setup in the flume


3.3 Testing procedure
The tests with Kolos and natural rubble armoured breakwaters were carried out in four water
depths, d of 50cm, 55cm, 60cm and 65 cm with the freeboards (R
c
) as 34.5cm, 29.5cm,
24.5cm and 19.5cm respectively. The tests covered a range of wave period between 1 and 2
sec at an interval of 0.2 sec. For each of the peak wave periods (T
p
), a minimum of 6 wave
heights (H
s
) ranging between 0.05m and 0.30m were employed for the tests, thus covering a
range of wave steepness, H
s
/L
p
from 0.02 to 0.08. The run-up (R
u2%
) and overtopping
discharge (q) were measured throughout the experimental program.



37 m
Wave Paddle
Wave Gauge
1
Wave gauges
2 &3
7 m
7 m
model
Wave direction
Run-up gauge
Tray to collect
overtopping
A. Arunjith, S.A. Sannasiraj and V. Sundar

5

Figure 5(a). Cross section of the Kolos armoured breakwater for the experiments




Figure 5(b). Cross section of the rubble armoured breakwater for the experiments
424.1
37.0
12.5
10.3
22.2
4.6
11.8
5.6
8.3
4.1
11.1
3.2
3.5
11.8
Armour layer (Harbour side)
80g to 160g stones in two layers
Under layer
10g to 20g stones in two layers
Armour layer
490g KOLOS in two layers
Toe Berm
50g to 90g stones
Underlayer
20g to 50g stones
Core Material
1g TO 20g Stones
10g to 20g Stones (Bedding Layer)
Mix-graded filter stone
1 to 5g stones
NOTE:
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN 'cm'
2
1
2
1
Crown wall
+0.73 m
+0.80 m
+0.845m
0.00
Tray to collect overtopping
Wave direction
Tray to collect overtopping
Wave direction
436.3
37.0
12.5
10.3
22.2
4.6
12.7
6.1
8.3
4.1
11.1
3.2
3.5
11.8
Armour layer (Harbour side)
80g to 160g stones in two layers
Under layer
10g to 20g stones in two layers
Armour layer
700g - 1000g Rubble stones in two layers
Toe Berm
80g to 160g stones
Underlayer
30g to 80g stones
Core Material
1g TO 30g Stones
15g to 30g Stones (Bedding Layer)
Mix-graded filter stone
1 to 5g stones
NOTE:
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN 'cm'
2
1
2
1
Crown wall
+0.73 m
+0.80 m
+0.845m
0.00
Wave Overtopping Over Crown Walls and Run-Up on
Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Kolos Armour under Random Waves
6
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Run-up
The variation of the relative run-up levels (R
u2%
/H
s
) with the surf similarity parameter
considering deep water peak period,
op
, obtained for Kolos is shown in Figure 6. The R
u2%
/H
s

show a steep increase with an increase in
op
. Furthermore, as
op
exceeds a value 3.1, R
u2%
/H
s

asymptotically reach a value of an order of 1.37. The empirical relations for the estimation of
wave run-up over the Kolos slope are obtained as:

for
op
<3.1 (2)

for
op
>3.1 (3)


Figure 6. Wave run-up for armour layer with Kolos under random waves
The roughness of the armour layer as well as the permeability of the core layer significantly
influences the run-up over the armoured slopes (EurOtop, 2007). The roughness factor (
f
) of
Kolos is not yet quantified and a comparison of run-up over other armour layers shall benefit
in understanding the same. The empirical relations for wave run-up over natural rubble (CEM,
2006) and Core-Loc (Melito and Melby, 2002) has been evaluated and superposed with the
present measurements in Figure7. The run-up on Kolos is significantly lower than for natural
rock and marginally higher than for Core-Loc. The variations also indicate that Kolos armour
layers exhibit greater roughness to that of natural rubble/rocks and has comparable roughness
to that of Dolos.

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
R
u
2
%
/
H
s

op
0.56 u 2%
op
s
R
0.72
H
=
u 2%
s
R
1.37
H
=
A. Arunjith, S.A. Sannasiraj and V. Sundar
7


Figure 7. Comparison of wave run-up of Kolos with different armour units

4.2 Overtopping
The variation of relative overtopping, q/

with R
c
/H
s
obtained for Kolos is projected in
Figure 8(a). The variation of q/

under random waves, without considering U

r
shows a
reduced scatter whereas, incorporating the U
r
increases the scatter as can be seen in Figure
8(b).


(a) (b)
Figure 8. Mean normalised overtopping discharge on Kolos armoured slope under
random waves
The empirical relation for the estimation of wave overtopping over the Kolos under random
waves is thus obtained as:

(4)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
R
u
,
2
%
/
H
s

op
KOLOS
ROCK slopes (Van der Meer 1998)
CORE-LOC (Melito& Melby 2002)
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
0 1 2 3 4
q
/
(
g
H
s
3
)
0
.
5
R
c
/H
s
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
0 1 2 3 4
q
/
U
r
(
g
H
s
3
)
0
.
5
R
c
/H
s
2.65
3
1
245
c
s
R
H
q
e
gH

=
Wave Overtopping Over Crown Walls and Run-Up on
Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Kolos Armour under Random Waves
8
The overtopping performance of Kolos armoured slope has been compared with that of rubble
armoured slope. The percentage difference in mean overtopping discharge rates between
Kolos and rubble, q* is plotted against the relative freeboard in Figure 9. The q* is observed
to be ranging from 7% to about 45%, proving that Kolos has a better performance.


Figure 9. Comparison of mean overtopping discharge between Kolos and rubble
armoured slope

The validity of the proposed equations is bound within the parameter range as illustrated in
Table 1.

Table 1. Parameter ranges for the empirical equations

Parameter Range
1.5 4.8
H/A
c
0.45 1.8
R
c
/A
c
1.15 1.3
A
c
/B 1.2 2.4
Cot 2.0

5. CONCLUSIONS
A physical model study was carried out to investigate the wave runup and overtopping
characteristics of Kolos under random waves. The wave run-up over Kolos is in general
found to be less than that of rubble stones and marginally higher than Core-Loc. Prediction
equations are derived from the measured data, following an existing method (Battjes , 1974)
to allow computation of run-up levels for Kolos. The results on wave overtopping showed
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
q
*
R
c
/H
s
A. Arunjith, S.A. Sannasiraj and V. Sundar
9
some scatter by including the Ursell parameter. The overtopping characteristics of Kolos
revealed a close relation with the relative freeboard. Further, Kolos is found to perform better
against overtopping compared with rubble stones.

6. REFERENCES
Ahrens, J.P., and McCartney B. L. (1975) Wave Period Effect on the Stability of Riprap.
Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Oceans/III, ASCE, pp. 1019-1034.

Battjes, J. A. (1974) Surf Similarity. Proceedings of the 14
th
International Coastal Engineering
Conference, ASCE, Vol. 1, pp 466-479.

Bruce, T., Van Der Meer, J., Franco, L., and Pearson, J.M. (2009) Overtopping performance
of different armor units for rubble mound breakwaters, J. of Coastal Engineering, 56(2),
pp. 166-179.

Chandramohan, P.V, Sundar, V., Sannasiraj, S.A. and Arunjith, A. (2012) Development of
Kolos armour block and its hydrodynamic performance, Proc.8
th
Intl. Conf. on Coastal
and Port Engineering in Developing Countries (PIANC-COPEDEC VIII), Chennai, India,
February, pp 1344-1354.

CEM, (2006) Coastal Engineering Manual, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Centre
(Part VI).

EurOtop, (2007) Wave overtopping of sea defences and related structures, Environment
Agency (UK) Expertise Netwerk Waterkeren (NL), Kuratoriumfr Forschung im
Ksteningenieurwesen (DE), www.overtopping-manual.com.

Goda, Y., and Suzuki, Y. (1976) Estimation of incident and reflected waves in random wave
experiments. Proceedings of 15
th
Coastal Engineering Conference, pp.828 845.

Melito, I and Melby, J.A. (2002) Wave runup, transmission and reflection for structures
armored with CORE-LOC. Coastal Engineering, 45(1), pp.33-52.

Pedersen, J. (1996) Wave forces and overtopping on crown walls of rubble mound
breakwaters. Series paper 12/Hydraulic & Coastal Engineering Laboratory, Dept. Of Civil
Engineering, University of Aalborg, Denmark.

Shankar, N.J. and Jayaratne, M.P.R. (2003) Wave run-up and overtopping on smooth and
rough slopes of coastal structures. Ocean Engineering, 30(2), pp.221-238.

Sundar, V, Murali, K., Nasar, T., Chandramohan, P.V. and Ansari, M.A.R. (2007) Stability of
Kolos armoured rubble mound breakwater Proc.4
th
Natl. Conf. on Harbour & Ocean
Engg., India, Vol.2, pp.579-586.

Wave Overtopping Over Crown Walls and Run-Up on
Rubble Mound Breakwaters with Kolos Armour under Random Waves
10
Van der Meer, J.W. and Stam, C.J.M. (1992) Wave run-up on smooth and rock slopes of
coastal structures Journal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering Vol. 118(5).
ASCE Reston. VA., pp.534 550.