Revetment Systems Against Wave Attack: A Design Manual

Revetment systems against wave attack
A design manual
Kirsty McConnell
Supervising Editor, William Allsop
ThomasTelford
Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.
URL: http://www.t-telford.co.uk
Distributors for Thomas Telford books are

USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191 -4400
Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3-10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103
Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria
First published 1998
Cover picture courtesy of MMG Civil Engineering Systems
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 0 7277 2706 0
© K. McConnell and Thomas Telford, 1998
All rights, including translation, reserved. Except for fair copying, no part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Books
Publisher, Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.
This book is published on the understanding that the author is solely responsible for the
statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply
that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers and the
funders. Every effort has been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions
expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide; however, no liability or
responsibility of any kind can be accepted in this respect by the publishers, the funders or the
author.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire

Preface
A wide range of revetment systems may be used to provide protection against wave
attack to flood embankments, reclamations or cliff bases in coastal locations, banks
on inland lakes and banks, and to embankment dams in reservoirs. As well as
protection, a revetment system may also be required to reduce wave run-up /
overtopping, and/or wave reflections. Many different materials may be used in the
construction of revetments, whether naturally-occurring local or imported rock, or
proprietary systems developed for the purpose.
The need for this manual arises from the multiplicity of different design methods,
and lack of unified methods, which have historically made it very difficult to
compare alternative systems. This new manual brings together guidance for a range
of different material types, thus allowing comparison of alternative solutions during
the design process. It guides the engineer through the stages of design / analysis
while allowing the consideration of a range of material types for the generation of
alternative solutions to the problem.
Much of information in the manual has been drawn from sources specific to
design processes or to specific material types, in order to provide a more generic
guide that is independent of the construction material chosen. Where appropriate,
the manual gives references to sources of further reading on specific design aspects.
Worked examples have been included to demonstrate the use of the design
methods, as well as a summary of each of the design methods with a step-by-step
guide to their use.
The result is intended for use by engineers with relatively little detailed
experience of the shoreline environment or of design of revetments. For such readers
the manual provides background information on revetments and will allow initial
estimates of wave conditions and of outline design calculations. The information in
the manual will give an understanding of the design process that should be
supplemented by the expertise of the suppliers of the revetment system. The manual
can also be used by more experienced designers as an aide memoir during design /
checking.
The manual has been prepared by HR Wallingford, assisted by industrial partners,
under a research project supported by the Department of Environment, Transport &
the Regions.
in
REVETMENT SYSTEMS AGAINST WAVE ATTACK
Kirsty McConnell studied at Universita di Firenze and Strathclyde University, and graduated in
1994 when she won the Tarmac, Black and Veatch award for Civil Engineering with European
Studies. She then joined HR Wallingford where she has worked on a wide range of consultancy
and research studies in coastal and harbour engineering. These included studies to develop low-
reflection seawalls for Hong Hong Harbour, a paper on which won Kirsty the PIANC British
Section Gustave Willems award in 1996. She has also conducted new research on wave force on
vertical and composite walls, under a major EU research project, PROVERBS.
William Allsop has worked at HR Wallingford for nearly 25 years where he is responsible for
research and consultancy studies on coastal / harbour / shoreline structures, and related
research initiatives. William Allsop is Professor (associate) at University of Sheffield supporting
research initiatives in coastal engineering, and teaching on BEng / MEng. He is also a Visiting
Professor at Queen's University of Belfast. Professor Allsop has presented research results in
research reports, text books and conference papers published by ICE and ASCE, and in many
specialist seminars, and has led the Hydro-dynamics task within PROVERBS.
IV
Acknowledgements
The project under which this manual was written was funded by the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions Construction Sponsorship Directorate
(contract number CI 39/5/98).
A steering group was formed as part of the project. The steering group comprised
representatives from a number of revetment system suppliers:
M. Hawkswood (Proserve Ltd)
C. Booth and G Baker (MMG Civil Engineering Systems Ltd)
B. Howden and D. Ballinger (Grass Concrete Ltd)
C. Cridge (Ruthin Precast Concrete Ltd)
N. Leguit and R. Smith (Hesselberg Hydro)
The steering group made valuable contributions to the project and the contents of
the manual. These contributions included participation in progress review meetings,
derivation and checking of example calculations and specifications, and illustrative
material. Perhaps most importantly the steering group shared the benefit of their
years of experience in revetment design and construction by giving technical advice
which helped in bridging the gap between theoretical design methods and standard
construction practice. All the contributions of the steering committee are very
grateful acknowledged.
Acknowledgement is also due to colleagues at HR Wallingford, in particular
William Allsop, Jonathan Simm, Ian Meadowcroft and Manuela Escarameia for
technical guidance, June Clarkson for valuable assistance in typing the manuscript
and Neal Reed for the preparation of many of the illustrations in the manual. Thanks
are also due to J. Hunt (Huesker Synthetics) for guidance on geotextile design.
HR Wallingford is an independent specialist research, consultancy, software and
training organisation that has been serving the water and civil engineering industries
for over 50 years in more than 60 countries. HR Wallingford aims to provide
appropriate solutions for engineers and managers working in:
• water resources
• irrigation
• groundwater
• urban drainage
• rivers
• tidal waters
• ports and harbours

• coastal waters
• offshore.
Address: Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon, OXIO 78BA, UK
Internet: http://www.hrwallingfordxo.uk
VI
Glossary
Armour Outer protective layer of the revetment, also termed the

cover layer
Core Material beneath the revetment which is being protected by
the structure
Cover layer Outer protective layer of the revetment, also termed armour
Design event Combination of wave condition and water level of a selected
return period, which the structure is designed to resist
Design life Length of time which the structure and its components are
intended to serve their given purpose
Embankment Earth structure, often built for flood protection, which may in
turn be protected by a revetment
Encounter probability Probability of exceedance of a design event of a certain
return period during the structure life
Fetch Length of water over which wind can act to generate waves
Filter Layer of structure which provides drainage and prevents
build up of hydrostatic pressure beneath the armour and
prevents migration of fines
Flexible Term used to describe revetment with some allowable degree
of movement which does not cause failure
Freeboard Distance between water level and crest of structure
Formation Level(s) or plane of under-lying material or structure upon
which the revetment will be placed
Geotextile Bonded, woven or non-woven fabric used as filter or for
separation of granular layers
Grading Distribution of different grain sizes within a granular
material
Outflanking Erosion at ends of structure which causes cutting back of the
shoreline behind the structure
Overtopping Process where water passes over the crest of the structure as
a result of wave action
Permeability Ability of a material to allow water to pass though its
structure
Porosity Ratio of voids of a material to its total volume
Random waves Waves having different wave heights and periods
Vll
Regular waves Waves having same wave height and period (as previously
used in laboratory tests)
Regulating layer Granular layer placed on formation which is used to even out
the formation level and provide a smoother layer on which to
place the revetment
Return period Reciprocal of expected annual probability of an event
occurring
Revetment system The combination of an appropriate cover or armour layer,
filter and toe and crest protection, designed to provide
protection against erosion
Rigid Term used to describe revetment with no allowable degree of
movement
Rip-rap Widely graded rock armour
Run-up Vertical rise of water level above mean water level due to
wave action
Run-down Vertical fall of water level below mean water level due to
wave action
Scour Erosion of bed / beach material close to structure toe due to
wave action
Significant wave heightThe average of the highest third of wave heights in a random
wave sea state
Stochastic Term to describe parameters or processes which are
randomly varying with time
Sub-soil Natural occurring ground material at structure location
Toe Seaward / lowest extent of structure, often built into or
beneath beach or sea bed level
Under-layer Granular layer beneath armour layer which may serve as a
filter and / or as a regulating layer
vm
Notation
A Slope coefficient for overtopping

Ae Erosion area on cross-section
As Area of slab /block
B Slope coefficient for overtopping
b Block width
bi Width over which impact pressure acts
C Coefficient for cover layer thickness
Cpi\ Csuf Modified stability coefficients in Van der Meer's equations
Cw Mat coefficient for concrete mattresses
c Modulus of subgrade reaction
c parameter for calculation of uplift pressure in Van der Veer formula
Dfi5 15% sieve value for filter material
Dn Nominal particle diameter, defined (M/p r ) 1 / 3 for rock and (M/p c ) 1 / 3
for concrete armour
Dn50 Nominal particle diameter calculated from the median particle mass
M50
Dg5, D 5 0 , D15 Particle diameters at 85%, 5 0 % and 15% non-exceedance levels
ds Scour depth
F Fetch length over open water
Ff Friction force
Fn Force between armour and filter, normal to slope
Fs Factor of safety
f Coefficient of friction
g Gravitational acceleration
H Wave height, from trough to crest
HD Design wave height
Hi Wave height for band of wave height distribution.
Himax Maximum significant wave height under normal conditions
Hmax Maximum wave height
Hs Significant wave height, average of highest one-third of wave
heights
Hsb Breaking (significant) wave height
HSi Inshore significant wave height
H 2 o/ O Wave height at 2% exceedance level
IX
h Water depth
hs Water depth at toe of structure
L Wavelength
1 Block length
KD Empirical stability coefficient used in Hudson equation
Kd Diffraction coefficient
Ks Shoaling coefficient
KR Reflection coefficient
KRR Stability coefficient used in Hudson's equation for rip-rap armour
k Wave number = 2TT/L
kA Layer thickness coefficient used in Shore Protection Manual
kf Filter layer permeability
kg Permeability of geotextile
ks Permeability of underlying material
k' Cover / armour layer permeability
k* Parameter relating permeability and thickness of cover and filter
layers
M Mass of armour unit
M50 Median mass of armour unit derived from the mass distribution
curve
N Number of waves; design life
Ns Stability number defined Hs/ADn5o
Ndo/ O Number of units displaced, expressed as % of units in area of armour
considered
ns Number of times extreme event occurs during a storm
ni Number of times Hj occurs during a storm
nv Volumetric porosity
O90 Pore size of geotextile
P Notional permeability factor, used in calculation of armour stability
Pi Pressure caused by Hj
Pimax Maximum wave impact force
Ps Wave pressure caused by extreme event
p Encounter probability
pmax Maximum pressure
pu Uplift pressure potential
Q* Dimensionless overtopping discharge
q Mean overtopping discharge
qi Factor for calculation of wave impacts, dependent on revetment
slope
Re Characteristic strength
Re Crest freeboard, level of crest less static water level
Rf Run-up factor
R* Dimensionless run-up
r Roughness coefficient for wave run-up and overtopping
S Stiffness modulus
Sa Altitude factor in wind speed calculation
NOTATION
Sb Coefficient in Klein Breteler & Bezuijen's method for blockwork

stability
Sc Coefficient in Yarde et a l ' s method for slabbing / blockwork stability
SD Design loading
Sd D a m a g e number for (rock) armoured slopes = A e /D n 5o 2 ; also used as
a general load or surcharge on the system in reliability analysis
Sd Directional factor
LfLVVUilVOJ KJ X 111VU11 VVUYV l/Vl 1UU ^ - / VX X§/ C^ X Jfl
^m
Smo Offshore mean wave steepness
sP Probability factor
sp Steepness of peak wave period = 2nHs/gTpVz
sf Duration factor
Over water speed-up factor.
T Wave period of regular wave
Tm Mean wave period
TP Peak wave period
TR Return period
ta Armour / cover layer thickness
tf Filter layer thickness
U Coefficient of uniformity = D60/D10
uD Design wind speed
v Basic hourly wind speed
wb Width of gap between slabs / blocks
a Structure front slope angle to horizontal; also used as a coefficient;

or a distribution parameter
p Angle of wave attack to structure / bed contour alignment
po Wave direction in deep water
A Reduced relative density, eg. (p r /p w )-l
As Altitude of site
(|> Angle of internal friction of sub-soil
9 Angle of friction between revetment and sub-soil
Ybr Breaker index
p M a s s density, usually of fresh water
pw M a s s density of sea water
pr? pc? Pa M a s s density of rock, concrete, armour units
pa M a s s density of asphalt
o"b Asphalt stress at failure
awo M a x i m u m uplift water pressure
u Poisson's ratio
Q Void ratio
£m Iribarren number tan a/s m 0 5 , calculated in terms of mean wave
steepness
£,mcr Critical Iribarren number, distinguishing between plunging and
surging waves for van der M e e r ' s rock armour formulae
XI
Iribarren number tan a/sp05, calculated in terms of peak wave

steepness
Xll
Contents
PREFACE III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
GLOSSARY VII
NOTATION IX
CONTENTS XIII
ILLUSTRATIONS XVII
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Structure of the manual, 3
1.2. Terms of reference, 4
1.3. Purpose of the manual, 4
1.4. Definitions, 4
2. REVETMENT FUNCTION AND PERFORMANCE 7
2.1. Revetment functions & types, 9
2.2. Design life / performance, 9
3. REVETMENT COMPONENTS 13
3.1. Cover layer, 15
3.2. Filter layer, 16
3.2.1. Granular filters, 16
3.2.2. Geotextile filters, 16
3.3. Other layers, 17
3.4. Toe protection, 18
3.5. Crest protection, 18
3.6. Landward face of embankments, 18
4. MATERIALS FOR REVETMENT CONSTRUCTION 19

4.1. Rock, 21
4.2. Concrete blocks and slabbing, 23
Xlll
4.3. Concrete mattresses, 30

4.4 Asphalt, 32
4.4.1. Asphaltic concrete, 33
4.4.2. Mastic & grouting mortars, 34
4.4.3. Dense Stone Asphalt, 35
4.4.4. Open Stone Asphalt, 35
4.4.5. Lean Sand Asphalt, 36
4.5. Gabions, 38
5. IDENTIFICATION OF LIKELY FAILURE MODES 39

5.1. Uplift pressures, 41
5.2. Sliding, 42
5.3. . Wave impacts, 42
5.4. Scour, 42
5.5. Overtopping, 43
5.6. Geotechnical failure, 43
6. DESIGN PROCESS 45
6.1. Methodology, 47
6.2. Information required for design, 50
6.2.1. Hydraulic conditions, 50
6.2.2. Geotechnical conditions, 50
6.2.3. Geometry, 51
6.2.4. Structure performance, 52
6.2.5. Constraints, 52
7. HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 53

7.1. Water levels, 55
7.1.1. Mean water level, 55
7.1.2. Tides, 55
7.1.3. Storm surge, 56
7.1.4. Water level prediction, 56
7.2. Prediction of waves in coastal locations, 58
7.2.1. Deep water wave conditions, 58
7.2.2. Wave prediction methods, 59
7.2.3. Shallow water waves, 60
7.3. Prediction of waves on inland waters, 63
7.3.1. Derivation of wind speed, 63
7.3.2. Derivation of fetch length, 65
7.3.3. Wave prediction, 65
8. GEOTECHNICAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 67

8.1. General considerations, 69
8.2. Grain size distribution, 69
8.3. Angle of internal friction, 70
8.4. Permeability, 71
xiv
NOTATION
9. DESIGN OF INITIAL CROSS-SECTION 73

9.1. Slope, 75
9.2. Crest elevation, 76
9.3. Cover layer thickness, 78
9.4. Filter, 78
9.5. Permeability, 79
10. DESIGN METHODS 81

10.1. Overtopping, 83
10.2. Scour, 85
10.3. Rock and rip-rap armour, 87
10.3.1. Thin armour layers, 90
10.3.2. Influence of armour grading, 91
10.4. Concrete blockwork, 91
10.4.1. General design method, 91
10.4.2. Slabs, 92
10.4.3. Cellular blockwork, 94
10.4.4. Gravel blinding, 95
10.4.5. Sliding, 96
10.5. Concrete mattresses, 98
10.6. Asphalt, 100
10.6.1. Impermeable asphaltic revetments - uplift & sliding, 100
10.6.2. Calculation of layer thickness for Open Stone Asphalt, 102
10.6.3. Wave impact pressures for all asphaltic revetment types, 103
10.6.4. Grouting of rock armour layers, 106
10.7. Safety factors, 107
11. DETAILED DESIGN 109

11.1. Filter, 111
11.1.1. Granular filter design, 112
11.1.2. Geotextile filter design, 113
11.2. Toe protection, 114
11.3. Crest protection, 116
11.4. Termination details, 118
11.5. Landward face protection, 119
12. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 121

12.1. Construction aspects, 123
12.2. Specifications, 124
12.3. Preparation of slope, 124
12.4. Typical tolerances, 126
13. INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 127
xv
Appendix 1 Typical specifications, 131

Appendix 2 Example design calculations, 141
Appendix 3 Summary of design methods, 151
References 159
xvi
Illustrations
Tables
Table 7.1 Direction factor, Sd 64
Table 7.2 Probability factor Sp 64
Table 7.3 Duration factor, Sf 64
Table 7.4 Over-water speed-up factor, Sw 65
Table 8.1 Typical values of internal friction angle, (j) 70
Table 8.2 Typical permeabilities of sub-soil materials 71
Table 9.1 Maximum slopes for different materials 75
Table 9.2 Design wave heights, HD 76
Table 9.3 Coefficient for cover layer thickness 78
Table 10.1Roughness coefficient 84
Table 10.2Owen parameters A, B for different slopes 85
Table 10.3Coefficient Sb for different revetment constructions 92
Table 10.4Values of 95% confidence factors 93
Table 10.5Validity ranges of individual parameters 93
Table 10.6Values of x for calculation of uplift pressure head 101
Table 10.7Values of q\ factor 103
Table 10.8Stress and strain values for various asphaltic materials (after
Rijkwaterstaat (1985)) 104
Table 10.9 Modulus of subgrade reaction for various soil types (after
Rijkwaterstaat (1985)) 105
Table 10.10 Values of E nj/ns (Pi/Ps)5 for three Dutch locations for a design life of
1 year (after Rijkwaterstaat (1985)) 106
Table 11.1 Grading of Type B material 113
Table 11.2 Criteria for selection of geotextile 114
Table 12.1 Grading of sub-base type 1 125
Table 12.2 Grading of Class 6F1 material 125
Figures
Figure 1.1 Revetment system 5
Figure 2.1 Classification of revetments 10
Figure 2.2 Relationship between return period, design life and encounter
probability (after BS6349 Part 7) 12
Figure 4.1 Rock armour revetment 22
xvn
Figure 4.2 Cross-section of rock armour revetment 22

Figure 4.3 Cross-section of blockwork revetment 23
Figure 4.4 Blockwork revetment 24
Figure 4.5 Blockwork revetment 24
Figure 4.6 Interlocking blockwork revetment 25
Figure 4.7 Construction of interlocking blockwork revetment 26
Figure 4.8 Cable-tied blockwork revetment under construction 26
Figure 4.9 Cable-tied blockwork revetment 27
Figure 4.10 Placement of cable-tied blockwork 28
Figure 4.11 Gravel blinding of blockwork 29
Figure 4.12 In-situ cellular reinforced paving 29
Figure 4.13 Filter point concrete mattress 30
Figure 4.14 Details of filter point mattress 31
Figure 4.15 Ball and socket joint 31
Figure 4.16 Cross-section of concrete mattress revetment 33
Figure 4.17 Types of asphaltic construction 34
Figure 4.18 Pattern grouting, Megget reservoir 35
Figure 4.19 Construction of OSA revetment 36
Figure 4.20 Open Stone Asphalt, freshwater environment, Arlington Reservoir 37
Figure 4.21 Open Stone Asphalt revetment, coastal location, Southport 37
Figure 6.1 Flowchart of design process 49
Figure 7.1 50 year surge residuals for UK, Flather (1987) 57
Figure 7.2 JONSWAP prediction curves for wave height 59
Figure 7.3 JONSWAP prediction curves for wave period 60
Figure 7.4 Breaker index, after Owen (1980) 62
Figure 8.1 Typical grading curves for underlying / embankment material 70
Figure 9.1 Run-up factor 77
Figure 10.1 Acceptable overtopping limits 83
Figure 10.2 Prediction graphs for scour depth, after Powell (1989) 86
Figure 10.3 Van der Meer permeability factor 89
Figure 10.4 Test results for cellular blockwork 94
Figure 10.5 Re-presentation of cellular blockwork test results related to Hs 95
Figure 10.6 Wave processes causing sliding 96
Figure 10.7 Performance of concrete mattresses 100
Figure 10.8 Definition of parameters for calculation of uplift pressure 101
Figure 10.9 Number of loading cycles, ns as function of Hs 103
Figure 11.1 Failed revetment due to incorrect filter design 111
Figure 11.2 Typical toe details 115
Figure 11.2 continued 116
Figure 11.3 Typical crest details 117
Figure 11.4 Erosion at end of concrete mattress revetment 118
xvin
Introduction
-, * i.
a^^Mifei^f5^'--^"^-;^-*-^
7. Introduction
Revetments are used to provide protection against erosion of fine material or fill
materials by waves and currents on the coast, in river channels and in reservoirs.
They may also serve other purposes such as limiting wave overtopping or wave
reflections. This manual is intended to address the design of revetments exposed to
wave attack. This includes revetments for reservoir dams and those in coastal and
estuarial locations. Another manual has been developed which addresses the design
of river and channel revetments exposed to high current flows, see Escarameia
(1998).
1.1. STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL

Chapter 1 of the manual gives the terms of reference for the project and describes
the purpose of the manual and its intended readership and gives definitions of
common terminology used in the manual. Chapter 2 discusses the various functions
of revetments and aspects of structural performance. Chapter 3 identifies and
describes the various elements of a revetment system. The revetment armour is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 which addresses the range of different
construction materials used for revetments. Failure modes to be considered are
discussed in Chapter 5.
The design process is discussed in Chapter 6, which also identifies the
information needed for safe and appropriate structural design. Derivation of
hydraulic boundary conditions is discussed in Chapter 7 and the information
required on geotechnical boundary conditions is discussed in Chapter 8. Chapter 9
gives some rules of thumb for initial dimensioning of the structure, which then leads
on to the more complex design methods in Chapter 10. Detailing of the final
structure is discussed in Chapter 11. Finally Chapter 12 discusses some of the
practical aspects of the design and construction and Chapter 13 discusses
requirements for monitoring and maintenance of the structure during its design life.
Extracts from example specifications are given in Appendix 1. Appendix 2 gives
example calculations and Appendix 3 provides a summary of design methods for
easy reference.
1.2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

This manual arises from a research project intended to
• Develop a reliable basis for the design / specification of revetment systems
against waves.
• Identify key hydraulic, structural and material requirements for revetment
systems.
The project brings together the guidance and research reported in other studies to
produce a manual which gives a generic design approach for a range of revetment
types.
The manual has been completed with co-operation of industrial partners, who
have given the benefit of their extensive experience in revetment design and
construction. Their advice and input has assisted the author in providing the design
guidance given in the manual. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy of the information contained within the manual, the possibility of errors
cannot be ruled out. As a result, the author and contributors to the manual cannot be
held liable for any loss or damage that may occur as a result of using this manual.
1.3. PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL

The manual is intended for use by suitably qualified and / or experienced personnel
with access to information / data required for the design of revetment systems in
locations exposed to waves.
The manual should allow selection of an appropriate revetment material and
design of the revetment components. It is intended to highlight the various
considerations that should be made during the design process and assist in selection
and design of a stable, appropriate and economic revetment system. For many
proprietary systems, further guidance on design may be given by the manufacturer /
supplier.
1.4. DEFINITIONS
A revetment is a form of cladding or protection placed on a sloping surface or
structure to stabilise and protect against erosion as a result of waves or currents.
The term revetment refers to the complete revetment system consisting of an
armour layer, a filter layer and possible other sub-layers, Figure 1.1.
The armour or cover layer of the revetment may be either rigid or flexible
depending on the material used for construction. A flexible revetment will allow for
some limited degree of movement or deformation of the structure due to settlement
of the underlying material, while maintaining contact with the underlying formation.
A rigid revetment will not allow for such movements except by settlement of
complete rigid elements.
INTRODUCTION
Existing coastline or embankment rear face
Figure 1.1 Revetment system
The choice of construction material may result in a permeable or impermeable

revetment. A permeable revetment allows the flow of water through the cover layer.
The degree of permeability indicates the rate at which water will flow through the
cover layer. A permeable cover layer will have a certain volumetric porosity, nv, the
volume of voids as a proportion of the total volume of the cover layer, which is
related to the permeability.
An impermeable revetment will have a cover layer through which water cannot
pass. The choice will generally depend on the under-lying fill material or core upon
which the revetment will be placed. Generally a permeable revetment is constructed
on a permeable core, with the permeability increasing from the core to the cover
layer. Impermeable revetments will generally be constructed on (practically)
impermeable materials, but can also be constructed on permeable formations. In
such cases a drainage layer or air vents must be included in the construction.
The filter layer, sometimes called the under-layer, of a revetment lies beneath the
cover layer and ensures drainage of the system, avoiding the build-up of excess
hydraulic pressures beneath the armour, and prevents the migration of fines. This
may be a granular filter\ a geotextile, or both or a bound asphaltic-type filter.
Other layers may be used to regulate the surface or formation of the under-lying
material or structure, and in some uses may also serve as a filter layer.
Crest details such as crown walls, wave walls or return walls may be used to limit
overtopping of the structure by wave run-up or surge action.
Toe details such as a toe beam, piling, a toe trench or wooden stakes may form a
part of the revetment where there is a need for toe stabilisation or protection from
possible scour of the beach / foreshore in front of the structure.
Revetment function and
performance
2. Revetment function and performance
2.1. REVETMENT FUNCTIONS & TYPES

Revetments may be constructed to provide protection against erosion of a natural
feature or man-made structure and / or to reduce wave overtopping or wave
reflections. These purposes may carry different levels of importance depending upon
the particular site. An example classification based on one derived by Halcrow / HR
is shown in Figure 2.1. The three main categories relate to:
• narrow clay embankments - man-made coastal defences / flood embankments
• wide sand / shingle ridges - likely to be natural features, but may also be man-
made
• cliff / reclamation protection - formed from imported material or regraded in-situ
material
The revetment may serve some amenity function, for example, to provide access
to the shore or body of water for fishing, recreation or for berthing of boats. The
need for access over the revetment will influence the final design of the structure.
A revetment may also serve to enhance or change the immediate environment, by
maintaining the existing line of defence or by providing protection to habitats.
Revetments are not normally built to have a retaining wall function so will not
normally experience significant geotechnical loads. For all revetments, the
underlying material / structure should be structurally stable at the time of
construction.
2.2. DESIGN LIFE / PERFORMANCE

Most revetment systems will have been designed and constructed for a specific
design life depending on the function of the revetment. Temporary works will have
a relatively short design life and will normally be a fairly simple design. Such
systems may be removed or demolished when no longer required. A more
permanent structure such as a revetment for a flood embankment is likely to have a
longer design life, typically 50 to 100 years.
Narrow Embankment Wide Defence Cliff or Reclamation

(Clay core) (Sand/shingle core) Protection
1.1 Unprotected embankment 2.1 Sand dune or shingle ridge 3.1 Cliff base or reclamation
1.2 Reveted embankment 2.2 Revetment to dune / ridge 3.2 Revetment to clif/base
1.3 Reveted embankment and crest wall 2.3 Revetment and crest wall 3.3 Revetment with crest wall
1.4 Reveted embankment and protected crest 2.4 Revetment and paved apron 3.4 Revetment with promenade
1.5 Reveted embankment, protected crest and crest wall 2.5 Revetment, paved apron and crest wall 3.5 Revetment, promenade and crest wall
Figure 2.1 Classification of revetments
The design life will also be selected based on economic factors, such as the cost
of replacement. The elements of the revetment should have adequate durability to
last the design life of the structure.
Any structure will be designed to withstand a design event which, for the scope of
this manual, will probably be a combination of a wave condition and water level.
This event will have a selected return period, TR, which indicates the annual
likelihood of the design event being exceeded. For example, a wave height with a
return period of 50 years has an annual likelihood of occurring or being exceeded of
0.02. The return period should be significantly longer than the design life. It is
important to point out here that due to the stochastic nature of wave conditions and
water levels there is still a risk that this event will be exceeded during the design
life. For example, in the case of a structure designed to withstand an event with a
return period equal to the design life, there is a 63% probability that the design event
will be exceeded during the design life.
This likelihood of exceedance of the design event during the design life of the
structure is termed the encounter probability. As the return period of the design
event increases, the encounter probability decreases.
10
REVETMENT FUNCTION AND PERFORMANCE
Guidance is given in BS6349 Part 1, BSI (1984), on determining the encounter

probability of an event of duration TR. The encounter probability, p, of an event of a
return period, TR, during the design life, N, can be calculated:
p=l-(l-l/T R ) N (2.1)
This function is plotted in BS6349 Part 7, BSI (1991), and is reproduced here in
Figure 2.2.
It is normally not economical or even feasible to design a structure to provide
complete protection, so the designer should identify a suitable level of risk of
exceedance and design the structure for an event with the corresponding return
period. For example, for a design life of 50 years, the 1000 year event has a 5%
probability of exceedance.
Definition of design conditions becomes more complicated when two or more
variables (e.g. wave height and water level) need to be considered. In this case, the
return period represents the likelihood that both (or all) variables are exceeded at the
same time. Specialist studies may be required to establish this joint probability,
particularly for water levels and wave conditions at structures that serve coastal sea
defence functions.
The required revetment performance and definition of structural integrity will
depend on the structure type. For a rigid revetment, minimal distortion or damage
will be permissible. For a flexible revetment, a greater degree of movement may be
allowed, with structural integrity being maintained.
For rock armour structures, some degree of movement of rocks is allowed. This is
termed damage, often denoted by the parameter Sd, and damage levels up to 5% may
be permitted, without the structure being considered as having failed. Rock
armoured structures can be 'self-healing' with displaced armour elements settling
into voids in the armour layer, and helping to maintain stability. This effect reduces
for structures with steeper slopes.
Other types of revetment protection may fail in a more brittle fashion, and so much
less movement (or even incipient movement) may be permitted.
If the structure is required to limit overtopping, then an acceptable degree of

overtopping will be determined, based on guidelines given in the CIRIA/CUR Rock
Manual (1991). The chosen limit will depend on the land use immediately behind
the revetment, and the consequences of overtopping occurring.
11
/
2000
Ay
/
/ y
/• i
°-
y
1000
/ y /
500 AA y
y
en
°"
Ay A / 63
200
/
y A
CD
y
A y
A/
Q.
/ y.
1 100
50 y /
/ y/
20
A A
10
/
// T
1
/ /
5
A/
2
10 20 50 100 200
Design life, N years
NOTE. T is return period of a particular extreme wave condition in years.

p is the probability of a particular extreme wave condition occuring during design life N years.
Figure 2.2 Relationship between return period, design life and encounter probability (after BS6349
Part 7)
12
Revetment components
i. •{:,,,
L;t:C
s > w
3. Revetment components
3.1. COVER LAYER

The cover or armour layer of a revetment can take several forms. A range of
different materials (discussed further in Section 4) can be summarised:
• rip-rap and rock armour
• concrete blocks and slabbing
• concrete mattresses
• asphalt
• pitching
• gabions
A revetment cover layer may be permeable or impermeable, flexible or rigid. The
choice of revetment type will be dependent on the type of material on which it is
being placed and the hydraulic conditions to which it will be exposed. Generally,
impermeable revetments are only appropriate for impermeable ground where there
is likely to be no movement of water or build-up of pressure behind the revetment.
This build-up of excess pressure is one of the most important failure modes for
revetments. Permeable revetments allow the dissipation of such pressure as water
can flow out of the cover layer. The cover layer permeability should be greater than
that of the filter layer, which should in turn be greater than of the under-lying
material. If the porosity of the cover layer is high, loss of fine material from a
granular filter layer or from the under-lying material may cause the eventual failure
of the revetment. In such cases a geotextile should be placed between the cover layer
and the under-lying material.
Rigid revetments should only be used where it is certain that no differential
settlement of the underlying material will occur or where individual rigid elements
can allow for settlement by sliding along expansion joints. Any settlement beneath a
rigid revetment may result in voids beneath the cover layer, causing points of
weakness which may lead to failure. A flexible revetment should be adopted where
there is the possibility of some (small) degree of settlement of the underlying
material. A flexible revetment should not however be seen as a solution to poorly
compacted or unstable underlying material. The structure / ground to be protected
15
should be suitably prepared before construction, and should be essentially stable

against static conditions without the revetment.
3.2. FILTER LAYER

Filter layers serve a number of purposes:
• prevent washing out of fine material from the formation
® provide drainage beneath the cover layer
• protect the formation from erosion due to flows over its surface
• regulate an uneven formation layer, providing a suitable surface for construction /
placement of the cover layer.
The filter layer may be of granular material, a geotextile or both, or alternatively a
bound material. For some proprietary concrete mattress products, the fabric forming
the mattress can act as the filter.
3.2.1.1 Granular filters

Examples of granular filters are crushed rock, slag or gravel which is used loose,
sand asphalt which is bonded or packed stones which form a filter mattress. Loose
granular filters have several advantages: the elements are very durable and due to
the high self-weight the filter can contribute to the self-weight of the revetment to
provide stability. Good contact is provided with the layers above and below the filter
and repairs can be made easily. Granular filter layers can also provide damping of
wave impacts. Construction can prove difficult under water with segregation of the
material occurring during placing. There should be as little free-fall through the
water column as possible during placement to avoid this. There can be a variation in
the composition and thickness of the filter layer due to placing techniques.
Granular filter layers may also act as a regulating layer. They have a relatively
large construction height, often at least 150 to 200 mm thick, or twice the largest
grain diameter.
It is important to consider the geotechnical properties of a granular filter material
in revetment design. The internal angle of friction of the filter material should
always exceed the slope angle upon which it is to be placed.
Bound (sand asphalt) filter layers, minimum thickness, 100mm, will fill all voids
when hot but will be durable enough when cooled to withstand moderate wave
attack over the short term.
Both granular and bound layers are three-dimensional and so will reduce the risk
of piping underneath the construction.
3.2.2. Geotextile filters

Geotextile filters are used to replace one or more layers of a conventional graded
granular filter beneath the primary armour of a revetment system. Being produced
from synthetic polymers and buried away from the long-term destructive effect of
UV light, these materials ensure a long-term, economical construction.
16
REVETMENT COMPONENTS
Geotextiles are manufactured by a variety of methods. Those used for revetment

filters fall into two categories - woven and non-woven.
Woven geotextiles are usually manufactured from continuous filament synthetic
yarns orientated along the length and across the width of the fabric. Such materials
tend to be reasonably 'stiff, with low extension under maximum load (say 15 -
20%), quite thin (< 2mm) and have a high robustness / weight ratio. However, it is
important to bear in mind that the woven construction needs to be capable of
withstanding stress without distortion, i.e. stable under loading, which can lead to a
change in its pore size, therefore affecting the filtration efficiency.
Non-woven geotextiles made from randomly laid synthetic fibres have
significantly different properties. Needle-punched non-wovens offer an extension
under load of 100% or more, but change of pore size and permeability under
extension may substantially change their hydraulic performance. Heavy weight non-
wovens, say > 800g/m2, are capable of withstanding considerable mechanical stress
and conform better to the granular materials between which they are placed. Being
up to 10mm thickness, these materials are three-dimensional and can provide filters
of a smaller pore size.
The choice of geotextile type will be dependent on the conditions surrounding the
revetment construction.
To be fully effective, the geotextile filter must be robust enough to withstand the
rigours during installation and throughout the life of the structure as well as provide
the required hydraulic properties. It is important to note that the geotextile should be
firmly held within the revetment structure to avoid any flexing stress which may
break down the synthetic material.
Placement of stone onto the geotextile filter needs consideration of the stone type,
drop height and the surface nature of the material on which the geotextile is placed.
The review of the hydraulic properties needs to take into consideration the type
and grading of the soil being protected as well as the permeability of the geotextile
filter. These aspects need to be adequately investigated and tested to assure the long-
term performance of the geotextile filter.
3.3. OTHER LAYERS

Other sub-layers may be required in some cases. A granular cushion layer may be
placed between the cover layer and a geotextile filter layer to protect the filter fabric.
This also contributes to the damping of wave impacts.
The thickness of the cushion layer will generally be between 100 and 500 mm,
and the material should have a high unit weight and internal friction. Angular
material is generally used.
A base layer may also be placed below the filter layer, to regulate the formation
surface on which the revetment is placed, by filling any voids or irregularities on the
surface. The base layer can also provide protection for a geotextile filter by
preventing damage from any sharp elements within the subsoil. Ideally for a
impermeable revetment the base layer should have a permeability close to that of the
17
subsoil, but for a permeable structure, the permeability of each layer should increase
from the subsoil or core outwards to the cover layer.
3.4. TOE PROTECTION

Toe protection for revetments serves two purposes; it provides support for the
revetment face and core material to prevent sliding failure and protects against scour
and erosion at the toe of the structure. Toe protection can be provided in a number of
ways such as sheet piling, wooden stakes or use of a toe beam or toe trench. This
transition must be adequately tied in to the revetment cover layer to prevent washing
out of material, In-situ concrete or rock armour protection may be provided, either
alone or in addition to the above.
3.5. CREST PROTECTION

Protection may need to be provided to the crest (and landward face) of an
embankment to prevent damage as a result of overtopping. Without mass concrete
crest protection water may penetrate behind the cover layer, washing out material
from the sub-layers, leading to instability or deformation of the structure. To help
prevent failure in this way, the structure should be geotechnically sound. Use of a
suitable geotextile filter will help prevent loss of subsoil material.
3.6. LANDWARD FACE OF EMBANKMENTS

The revetment materials discussed in this manual may be used for slope protection
of embankments exposed to severe wave attack and overtopping. Rear slope
protection is important to ensure the prevention of onset of failure due to erosion
and washing out of material from the rear of the embankment.
18
Materials for revetment
construction
4. Materials for revetment construction
A number of different materials may be used in the construction of revetments. The

main attributes and characteristics of the various materials are summarised here for:
(i) rock - rip-rap, rock armour or pitching
(ii) concrete blocks and slabbing
(iii) concrete mattresses
(iv) asphalt
(v) gabions
4.1. ROCK
Rock may be used in the construction of revetments, either as rip-rap, carefully
selected rock armour or stone pitching, Figures 4.1, 4.2.
Rip-rap is widely graded rock, Dgs/Dis ~ 2 - 2.5, which is placed in bulk to give
an armour layer about 2 to 3 stones thick. Rock armour is more carefully selected
rock of a narrow size range, Dg5/Di5 ~ 1.25 - 1.75, which is carefully placed in
layers, usually about 2 rocks thick, to form an open construction. A rock armour
revetment will generally have a porosity, nv = 35-40%. Porosity of rip-rap is likely
to be slightly lower, perhaps nv = 30 -35%.
Rubble, which is usually rock or stone fragments, but may sometimes include
broken concrete, brick or asphalt, can be dumped to provide protection. The end
result is not aesthetically pleasing, but can provide some measure of emergency
protection.
Placement of rock armour, and its shape, size, and grading are seldom entirely
regular. In many ways regular close placement of rock armour may indeed be
undesirable as this leads to a "paved" surface, with reduced energy dissipation,
increased run-up levels and/or overtopping, and increased reflections.
Pitched stone revetments are common in some places where the increased
stability afforded to relatively small rock by close packing has allowed the use of
local stone, e.g. Kentish ragstone. Preparation and placement of the closely packed
stone can be labour intensive. This will normally only be adopted in reasonably
sheltered locations as removal of a single block can lead to rapid failure of the whole
revetment. Nowadays, prefabricated concrete blocks of various forms, as discussed
in Section 4.2, tend to be used instead.
21
, 5 ,
Figure 4.1 Rock armour revetment
MSL
Existing beach
Figure 4.2 Cross-section of rock armour revetment
Construction of rock revetments is relatively simple, generally requiring standard

plant and a small work force. Minor damage to rock or rip-rap armour can be easily
repaired, provided the under-layers are not exposed. Design methods for rock
22
MATERIALS FOR REVETMENT CONSTRUCTION
armour and rip-rap are discussed in detail by Simm (1991), and summarised in
Chapter 10 of this manual.
4.2. CONCRETE BLOCKS AND SLABBING

Concrete blocks may be placed to form an armour layer for revetment construction,
Figure 4.3. The blocks may be free, interlocking or integrated by means of cables or
wires. Concrete blocks on coastal or estuarine revetments are often used to form
permeable revetments. In order to ensure stability, the filter layer should have a
lower permeability than the armour elements.
Simple blocks can be placed freely on the slope, relying on unit mass, friction
with the under-layer and inter-block friction to provide stability. Restraints will be
required at crest, toe, and side boundaries to prevent loss of blocks and failure.
Examples of different types of concrete blockwork revetments are shown in Figures
4.4 and 4.5, and many practical examples on dam faces are discussed by Herbert et
al(1995).
For some blocks, gravel may be placed in the joints to increase friction and help
transfer loads over a wider area. Closely placed blocks may give a cover layer with
low permeability which can be undesirable on a more permeable, sub-layer as
excess hydraulic pressures may build up beneath the cover layer.
Concrete crest wall
Figure 4.3 Cross-section of blockwork revetment
23
Figure 4.4 Blockwork revetment (courtesy Ruthin Precast Concrete Ltd)
Figure 4.5 Blockwork revetment (courtesy Ruthin Precast Concrete Ltd)
24
Interlocking blocks can provide greater stability than simple blocks. These can be
cast with voids, Figures 4.6 & 4.7, which help to provide a permeable cover layer
and help prevent the build-up of uplift pressures on the underside of the blocks. In
such cases a geotextile filter should be used to avoid washing out of sub-soil / filter
material through the block cells. There are a variety of proprietary pre-cast
interlocking concrete blocks which can be used. Depending on the nature of the
interlock, blocks of this type can have greater stability than simple blocks, even
when individual blocks are removed.
Blocks can also be connected by cables to form mats, Figures 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.
The cables may run in one or more directions. Durability of the cables should be
considered when selecting a material to be used. The stability of the revetment is
still achieved by the self-weight of the blocks, but the cables can help to prevent
localised failure. Cables should not however be relied on to resist uplift forces on the
underside of cover layer elements.
The use of cables can facilitate and speed up construction by allowing whole mats
to be placed at one time rather than requiring placement of individual blocks, Figure
4.10.
Experience has shown that blinding of blockwork with a suitably specified gravel
material can enhance stability of interlocking and cable-tied systems by increasing
inter-block friction and providing a means of load transfer over a greater area of the
revetment which can help prevent failure. Use of gravel blinding with an
interlocking system is shown in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.6 Interlocking blockwork revetment (courtesy MMG Civil Engineering Systems)
25
Figure 4.7 Construction of interlocking blockwork revetment (courtesy Grass Concrete Ltd)
'• . . ^ _ _ _ # • . , . . _ ' , _ _ '
Figure 4.8 Cable-tied blockwork revetment under construction (courtesy Grass Concrete Ltd)
26
Figure 4.9 Cable-tied blockwork revetment (courtesy MMG Civil Engineering Systems)
Pre-cast or in-situ concrete slabs (generally of plan area 2m x 2m or larger) may

also be used to form an armour layer. Slabbing is designed to resist uplift pressures
in much the same manner as blockwork, by the self-weight of the unit. Uplift
pressures have a limited spatial extent. Slabs, covering a larger area per unit than
blocks, will extend substantially outside the region of localised uplift pressures.
Therefore slab elements covering larger areas can have a smaller thickness than
blocks, as it is unlikely that the whole slab will be subjected to uplift pressures at
any one time. It is worth noting that due to the larger cross-sectional area of
slabbing, this can often result in a cover layer of lower permeability.
An alternative to in-situ slabs is the use of in-situ cellular reinforced concrete
paving, Figure 4.12. Sacrificial plastic formers are placed on the slope into which
concrete is then poured once mesh reinforcement has been positioned. Once the
concrete is cured, former tops are removed and the cells in the slab are filled with
top soil which will then be seeded. Such systems provide the advantages of an in-
situ slab of large area, while providing a cover layer of high porosity, up to 45%,
and hence higher permeability which helps in the relief of hydraulic pressures
beneath the slab.
27
WgiUi§»'&:
•i
Figure 4.10 Placement of cable-tied blockwork (courtesy Mike Griggsfor Transmanche-Link,

copyright)
28
V:,,:J..:/-^,^.*t#
S ^le^KSsBW&miM
Figure 4.11 Gravel blinding of blockwork (courtesy MMG Civil Engineering Systems)
Figure 4.12 In-situ cellular reinforced paving (Courtesy Grass Concrete Ltd)
29
4.3. CONCRETE MATTRESSES

Concrete mattresses are formed from two layers of geotextile material, with micro
concrete pumped between the geotextile layers. The two layers of high strength
synthetic fabric can be woven together at intervals to form filter points, as shown in
Figures 4.13 and 4.14.
Filter point mattresses have been used for some 20-35 years and are manufactured
by most mattress manufacturers. Thicknesses typically range from 75mm to 225mm.
There are also other forms of mattress manufactured, as well as the filter point
mattress, but their period of use has been more limited and their long term
performance remains to be demonstrated. Mattresses are particularly suitable for
locations where accessibility is limited, such as under piled jetties.
Concrete mattresses form a rigid slab protection layer, which should only be used
over inert and consolidated soils that will not be subject to settlement. Settlement
situations may cause disruption of the concrete mattress or voids underneath the
rigid construction. The formation of voids can allow free movement of water
beneath the mattress, which can result in greatly increased uplift pressures during
wave run-down. The effective size of individual mattress slabs can be reduced to
lm2 as a precaution if slight settlement is expected. This is achieved by the ball and
socket type shear joint used in mattress construction, as shown in Figure 4.15, and
by 50% sewn induced crack lines.
Figure 4.13 Filter point concrete mattress (Courtesy Proserve Ltd)
30
Average thickness
Filter
Top View
Ground water
passing out through
filters
Cross-Section AA
Figure 4.14 Details of filter point mattress
Sewn connection
Figure 4.15 Ball and socket joint
For optimum use of concrete mattresses, in terms of optimum thickness, the

mattress permeability should be greater than that of the under-lying material. This
ensures that significant uplift pressures do not develop during wave run-down. Filter
point mattresses are manufactured with permeabilities typically in the range 10"2 to
10~4 m/s. These can be placed on soils such as sand, silt and clay. The mattress is
normally laid directly on to the natural soil type without any granular filter layers.
Where the mattress is laid over open granular material, such as gravel or open stone,
the lower relative permeability of the filter-point mattress can result in significant
31
hydraulic uplift pressures during wave run-down. The mattress thickness would
need to be significantly increased to ensure stability. This is normally uneconomic in
comparison with other solutions, unless the wave height is very low, say Hs<0.5m.
The permeability function of the filter points is vitally important and advice on
this should be obtained from the mattress manufacturer. The performance of the
filter points can be impaired due to clogging with fines during service. During the
structure lifetime it may be expected that the permeability of the filter points of a
mattress on sand might reduce by a factor of up to 5. For a mattress on silt or clay,
permeability of the filter points may reduce by a factor of up to 25. These factors are
based on inspection of fabric mattresses during their service life and are for
guidance only.
If the mattress is exposed to UV light or wave attack, there may be deterioration
or mechanical damage of the fabric in the filter points. In such situations, a filter
fabric should be placed under the mattress to prevent loss of under-lying material
through the filter points. In some cases the third layer may be included in the
mattress at the manufacturing stage.
The micro concrete used in mattress construction is a readily pumpable mix of
sand and cement (typically 2:1 proportions). The waterxement ratio is typically
about 0.7 to allow flow and ease of filling of the mattress. A well graded washed
river or sea sand within BS882 Zone F is usually used. The mattress fabric allows
surplus mixing water to bleed out of the mattress, and reduces the waterxement
ratio typically to 0.4. This produces a durable micro concrete of strength in the
region of 30-35N/mm2.
Concrete mattresses are readily laid on dry revetment slopes, and underwater by
divers. Rolls of mattress are normally prefabricated into mat sizes of 50-100 square
metres using 'ball and socket' joints. Adjacent mattresses are normally zipped
together, also in the form of ball and socket joints. Care should be taken during
filling not to block filter points with the micro concrete as this will affect the
permeability.
Mattresses may be terminated by burying the end of the mattress in a trench
which is back-filled with beach material or rubble. This may be at the toe of the
structure, as shown in Figure 4.16, or there may be a (near) horizontal section of
mattress on the bed before the mattress is buried in the trench.
4.4 ASPHALT
A range of asphalt mixes can be used in revetment construction. These mixes
contain varying proportions of bitumen binder and sand or coarser aggregate, and
can be described as being under-filled, over-filled or having intermediate filling
depending on the ratio of bitumen to the voids in the aggregate skeleton see Figure
4.17. Under-filled mixes contain enough bitumen to coat the aggregate and provide
some bind, in intermediate mixes nearly all the voids are filled with bitumen. In
over-filled mixes, the quantity of bitumen exceeds the voids.
32
Filter point mattress
HHT
Filter fabric to area subject

to sunlight or wave action
Figure 4.16 Cross-section of concrete mattress revetment
Bitumen is defined in terms of the depth of penetration at 25°C in units of 0.1m

(pen). Typically 100 pen bitumen will be used for revetment applications.
The main types of asphaltic mix used in revetment construction are:
• Asphaltic concrete
• Mastic
• Grouting mortars
• Dense stone asphalt
• Open stone asphalt
• Lean sand asphalt
4.4.1. Asphaltic concrete

Asphaltic concrete is a mix of crushed stones or gravel, sand and filler. Typical mix
composition is:
crushed stone (16-5mm) 47%
quarry fines (5mm-dust) 25%
natural sand 9%
filler 12%
bitumen 100 pen 7%
Pores are practically completely filled with bitumen binder, giving a voids ratio of
3 to 6%. Permeability of asphaltic concrete is of the order of 10"11 m/s.
When used in revetment construction, asphaltic concrete will generally be placed
above the water line to form an impermeable revetment. Compaction is generally
required and it is therefore unsuitable for placement under water. It is usually placed
in layers of 100-250 mm thick.
33
A - Under-filled mix B - Intermediate filled mix C - Over-filled mix
Bitumen Aggregate 1 1 Voids

Voi-
Figure 4.17 Types ofasphaltic construction
4.4.2. Mastic & grouting mortars

Mastic is a mixture of sand, filler and bitumen. The mix composition is generally:
sand 60%
filler 20%
bitumen 100 pen 20%
The amount of bitumen is greater than required to fill voids, resulting in a dense
mix which does not require compaction. It can be poured at working temperatures to
form slabs and slope protection above and below water. Cold mastic forms a viscous
quasi-static mass.
Mastic can be used as a grouting mortar either alone or mixed with gravel. Mix
proportions can vary, typically:
mastic 60-90%
stone (10mm) 10-40%
The gravel serves to reduce the quantity of mastic needed, to prevent sagging of
the mortar, or occasionally to limit the grouted depth. Grouting mortars can be used
to completely grout a rip-rap cover layer, or to pattern grout, leaving areas of
ungrouted riprap to allow the relief of uplift pressures in the sublayers.
Surface grouting will usually penetrate the top 1/3 of the cover layer over the
complete area. Full grouting will penetrate the full depth of the cover layer over the
whole area. Pattern grouting will usually penetrate the full depth of the cover layer,
with only 50-70% of the area being covered, Figure 4.18.
Mastic is an impermeable material and the resulting permeability of the revetment
is dependent on the degree of grouting. A fully grouted revetment will be practically
impermeable and a pattern grouted revetment will be very permeable.
34
Figure 4.18 Pattern grouting, Megget reservoir (courtesy Hesselberg Hydro)
When pattern grouting it is important to ensure that the grout penetrates through
the full depth of the cover layer. If the grout does not penetrate the full depth, then
the ungrouted lower section of the cover layer may act as a highly permeable filter
layer and cause high uplift pressures. The penetration of the grout can be hindered if
there is a high fines content in the cover layer, which can result in voids within the
grout.
Grouting of rip-rap is particularly useful where the size of rock required for
stability and the rock quality cannot be guaranteed.
4.4.3. Dense Stone Asphalt

This is a gap-graded mix of stone, sand, filler and bitumen. The mixture is slightly
over-filled and is therefore impermeable. It is used as a form of slope protection and
also in toe construction.
4.4.4. Open Stone Asphalt

Open Stone Asphalt (OSA) is formed from relatively small narrow-graded stone
precoated with an asphaltic mastic. The composition is normally:
mastic 20%
aggregate (20-40mm) 80%
35
This results in an under-filled mix, which gives a permeable construction. The

ratio of binder to aggregate may be modified to change the properties of the OSA.
OSA can be placed in-situ above water, Figure 4.19. Underwater placement
should only be in the form of prefabricated mattresses. It is cheap to construct and
the permeable nature of the material means that uplift pressures are kept to a
minimum. The resulting revetment should have a porosity which is almost equal to
that of uncoated stone. The permeability of OSA is of the order of 10"2m/s.
Examples of OSA revetments are shown in Figures 4.20 and 4.21.
4.4.5. Lean Sand Asphalt

Lean Sand Asphalt (LSA) is a mix of sand and bitumen. Mix composition is
typically:
sand 96%
bitumen lOOpen 4%
Lean Sand Asphalt is generally used to form 3-dimensional filter layers or for
regulating the formation layer. The permeability of LSA when placed is generally
similar to that of the sand. The voids content is approximately 40%. The
permeability of LSA is of the order of 10"4m/s.
Placement is possible both above and below water. Typical layer thicknesses
range from 100mm to the thickness of the armour layer.
Figure 4.19 Construction of OSA revetment (courtesy Hesselberg Hydro)
36
Figure 4.20 Open Stone Asphalt, freshwater environment, Arlington Reservoir (courtesy Hesselberg
Hydro)
Figure 4.21 Open Stone Asphalt revetment, coastal location, Southport (courtesy Hesselberg
Hydro)
37
4.5. GABIONS
Gabions are wire containers filled with rocks which are stacked to form protection.
The gabions are designed such that the self weight is adequate to provide stability.
The wire used should not experience any corrosion and in a marine environment
should be plastic coated or galvanised. As the units are flexible, they can conform to
small changes in the ground surface. They can also be easily placed underwater.
Gabions can also be produced in the form of mattresses, where the thickness
compared to width and length is relatively small. Wave action is however likely to
move the rock within the mattress and this may cause abrasion of the wire cages.
Reno mattresses are also not particularly stable on steep slopes, unless sufficient
anchorage is provided.
Gabions and reno mattresses as a form of revetment system are seldom suitable
for direct wave exposure of any significance, and will not be covered further in this
manual.
38
Identification of likely
failure modes
5. Identification of likely failure modes
The definition of failure is important in the design of any structure. Failure may be
catastrophic failure of the structure or reduction in the performance of the structure
may be classed as failure depending on the level of service required from the
structure.
Important failure modes which should be considered when assessing the stability
of a revetment are:
(i) uplift pressures
(ii) sliding
(iii) wave impacts
(iv) scour
(v) overtopping
(vi) geotechnical failure
The likely failure modes of a revetment system will be dependent on the
construction material used. Often these failure modes are inter-dependent, with the
occurrence of one leading to the onset of one or more of the others.
5.1. UPLIFT PRESSURES

Hydraulic uplift pressures can be caused by quasi-static or dynamic conditions. The
quasi-static condition that arises due to the lag in the ground water level dropping
during a tidal cycle can cause uplift pressures. This is most severe following a storm
surge.
Dynamic uplift pressures can occur as a result of wind or vessel generated waves
causing a change in water level at the revetment. These uplift pressures are likely to
be highest at the point of maximum wave run-down. As a wave runs up a permeable
revetment there is infiltration of water through the cover layer into the revetment.
The amount of water flowing in will depend on the permeability of the cover layer
and the filter layer beneath. Following this, as the wave runs down, water will flow
out through the cover layer. As the length over which wave run-up takes place is
greater than that for wave run-down, water flows out over a shorter length than that
over which it flows in. This attenuates the flow and causes an increase in the
phreatic level under the cover layer. The resulting head difference causes uplift
pressures on the underside of the cover layer which may cause elements to be forced
41
out and lead to eventual failure of the revetment. This effect will be reduced for soils
of low permeability.
5.2. SLIDING
Sliding of a revetment may occur when the driving force, the component of the
weight of the revetment parallel to the slope, exceeds the friction force between the
revetment and the slope, or when inadequate toe support is provided. The likelihood
of sliding can be increased by the occurrence of uplift pressures on the underside of
the revetment, reducing friction between the cover layer and the filter layer.
For blockwork, Pilarczyk et al (1995) show that just before the wave hits the
structure there is an increase in piezometric head close to the water line. It can be
assumed that this increase effectively acts over a height of the revetment equivalent
to the wave height. This piezometric head indicates the occurrence of uplift
pressures and as a result the loss of frictional resistance between the blocks and the
slope. As a result the driving force of blocks in this zone will contribute fully to
sliding with no resisting force.
Depending on the form of the blockwork revetment, this force will be resisted in
one of two ways. If the blocks are free then the blocks below the zone of wave
attack will provide a stabilising force. If on the other hand, the blocks are cable-tied,
then the driving force will be transferred along the cables and the friction provided
by the blocks above the zone of wave attack will provide resistance.
For concrete mattresses, as the uplift pressures are very localised and the mattress
is rigid, the friction between the rest of the mattress and the underlying material
should be adequate to prevent sliding.
5.3. WAVE IMPACTS

The most severe wave loading occurs when plunging breakers break on the
structure, causing very high impact pressures of short duration. These impact
pressures are very localised, normally at or below the Still Water Level.
Wave impacts can cause brittle failure of rigid revetments. In the case of flexible
revetments, where brittle failure is unlikely to occur, impacts over a number of
cycles can cause fatigue and deformation of the revetment.
5.4. SCOUR
The presence of a hard structure can increase wave and current velocities in its
vicinity, which in turn causes increased movement of bed material. This can
manifest itself as local scour at the structure toe.
Scour at the toe of the revetment can lead to failure of the toe construction,
resulting in undermining of the structure and lead to the onset of sliding failure. Toe
protection should be provided to an adequate depth to prevent this.
42
IDENTIFICATION OF LIKELY FAILURE MODES
5.5. OVERTOPPING
Wave overtopping can cause structural damage to embankments and revetments and
may result in hazardous conditions on top or behind the structure, limiting human
and vehicular access. A crest height for the revetment should ensure that wave
overtopping of the structure is kept to an acceptable level. Overtopping will be less
for structures with greater roughness or permeability, causing greater energy
dissipation.
5.6. GEOTECHNICAL FAILURE

Geotechnical failure of the under-lying material can cause failure of the revetment
system. Geotechnical failure can occur in a number of ways:
• Excess settlement - if the material is not properly compacted, then the
additional load of the revetment system may cause it to settle. The revetment
may allow for some settlement, however if the settlement is differential over
the protected area, then failure of the structure is likely occur.
• Sliding failure - failure planes within the sub-soil may develop, causing
sliding failure of the slope.
• Liquefaction or fluidisation - excess pore water pressures in the soil may
lead to liquefaction or fluidisation of the soil, resulting in a total collapse of
the soil structure.
• Piping - steep hydraulic gradients within the sub-soil may cause piping - the
migration of material through internal channels or 'pipes'.
Geotechnical failure modes are not addressed in the design methods in this
manual. It is assumed that the under-lying material will be stable in the design and
construction of the revetment system. The reader is referred to BS8002, BSI (1994),
Hemphill and Bramley (1989) and the Specification for Highway Works,
Department of Transport (1991) for more information on geotechnical aspects of
design.
43
Design Process
6. Design Process
6.1. METHODOLOGY
Design methods are based on comparing the strength of a system, R, with the
loading, S, which it experiences. The strength of a system, and the loading to which
it is subject, are functions of many variables, most of which are stochastic in nature.
To ensure a safe design, the strength of the structure should exceed the loading. It
does not make economic sense, nor is it feasible to design a structure which will
always resist the most extreme loads that may be expected. In practice, an
acceptable annual frequency of exceedance will be adopted. The reciprocal of this
frequency is the return period of the design event.
Design methods may be either deterministic or probabilistic. These methods vary
in the way in which safety is provided for in the design.
Traditionally deterministic methods have been adopted for most design. An
accepted level of loading, termed the Limit State condition, will be determined for
the structure. This limit state will correspond to a certain strength of the structure.
This may be the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) or the Ultimate Limit State (ULS).
Exceedance of the SLS indicates that the structure is not meeting the required
performance. Exceedance of the ULS may result in damage to, or failure of, the
structure. This limit state will correspond to a certain characteristic strength of the
structure, often denoted as Re.
In probabilistic design, acceptable levels of risk are used, possibly by balancing
the likelihood and consequences of failure. Consequences are usually quantified in
monetary terms. Some assessment may also be made of less tangible consequences
on which it is difficult to place a monetary value, such as loss of human life or
natural habitats.
Once the return period of the design event has been determined the design
loading, SD, can be derived from a statistical analysis. Uncertainties in the loading
and strength are accounted for by a safety factor, Fs, which should always be greater
than 1:
Fs = Rc/SD (6.1)
47
The loading and strength are functions of a number of variables. These variables
are often stochastic in nature. It is important to note that deterministic methods can
be described as being partially probabilistic and risk-based as they are based on
design loading at a selected return period, TR, where the return period is a statistical
entity.
A limitation of deterministic methods is that no account is made of loading on the
structure other than at the design level, SD- Other loading cases will have an effect
on the structure. Events exceeding SD will obviously affect the structure, but loading
below the limit state can have a cumulative effect on the structure, contributing to
structural failure over time.
An alternative to the use of deterministic methods is to use probabilistic methods.
These extend the deterministic approach by using statistical methods to describe the
stochastic nature of strength and load instead of applying a safety factor. There are
various different types of probabilistic methods each with varying degrees of
complexity.
The basic principle of full probabilistic methods is that the distributions of
strength and loading are considered instead of single design values. This method
avoids unnecessary conservatism and can lead to savings in comparison with
designs based on deterministic methods.
Generally the methods used in this manual are strongly deterministic, as
interactions between elements and failure modes are important but not quantified,
and there are very little statistical data available on the uncertainties.
The design approach suggested in this manual comprises a number of stages that
the designer should follow:
• Data collection
• Assessment of revetment construction materials and generation of alternative
solutions
• Preliminary design and dimensioning of cross-section
• Detailed design of cover layer
• Assessment of failure modes
• Selection of final option
• Detailed design of filter
• Design of toe, crest and termination details
This design process is also shown in the flowchart in Figure 6.1 and is discussed
in more detail below, where relevant Sections of the Manual which discuss each step
are indicated.
At the start of the design process, all relevant information should be gathered.
This should address the function of the revetment and the required level of service,
as discussed in Chapter 2. Information on the boundary conditions, both hydraulic
and geotechnical should be determined, discussed further in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2
and Chapters 7 and 8. Methods for determination of hydraulic boundary conditions
are given in Chapter 7. Any constraints on the design and construction methodology
should be identified, whether economic, environmental or physical. These are
discussed further in Section 6.2.5.
48
DESIGN PROCESS
Gather information required for

Revetment function
design
Revetment performance
Assess wave
lf d a t a
Hydraulic conditiions f- ^J conditions &
unavailable*"
water levels
Geotechnical conditiions
I
I Derivation of water levels
Geometry
ZZYIZZ I Prediction of waves at
Assessment of revetment Constraints I coastal locations / on
1
material options inland waters
"I "l
Generation of Crest
alternative designs Design of initial cross-section >J Slope elevation h o o v e r layer thickness j
J Material specific design i

Design Overtopping & scour
I i
methods I
Optimisation & selection of

final option
_L I I l
Detailed design Filter Toe protection Crest protection I
I i I I I
I Preparation of slope, I
Construction aspects
I tolerances, specifications [
Inspection, maintenance &

repair
Figure 6.1 Flowchart of design process
The various revetment construction materials as discussed in Chapter 4 should be

considered. One or a number of these may be selected for the generation of
alternative design solutions, to be compared at a later stage.
In the preliminary design phase, an initial cross-section will be dimensioned
based on simple guidelines and 'rules of thumb', discussed in Chapter 9. This initial
cross-section may vary depending on the cover layer construction material.
The preliminary design(s) will be refined using design methods based on the
construction material being considered. The structure should also be designed to
ensure adequate overtopping performance and stability against local scour. The
detailed design methods, based on failure modes and revetment material type are
presented in Chapter 10. Example calculations are given in Appendix 2, and
summaries of design methods for quick reference are given in Appendix 3.
Following this optimisation, alternative solutions will be compared, most likely
by means of a benefit-cost analysis, and a final design selected. Once the most
49
appropriate solution has been selected, detailed design of the structure can be
completed as discussed in Chapter 11.
At each main stage in the design process, consideration should be given to
practical aspects such as constructability of the generated solution, environmental
aspects and maintenance requirements.
6.2. INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR DESIGN

The designer will need a range of information in order to produce an appropriate
design. This information will include:
• hydraulic parameters for which the revetment has to be designed
• geotechnical conditions
• geometry of the structure
• the required design life and design return period of the structure
• any constraints on the design.
6.2.1. Hydraulic conditions

The designer should be provided where possible with information on hydraulic
conditions at the structure. Where information is not available, guidelines for
prediction / derivation are given in Chapter 7. Typically, the following information
will be required for design:
• Water level including tide + surge range for the selected return period.
• Wave conditions - significant wave height, Hs, and peak or mean wave period, Tm
or Tp, for a selected return period, as discussed in Chapter 2.
• It is likely that the wave conditions and water levels for design will be selected
based on the joint probability of both occurring, see Chapter 2.
• Predominant wind direction and wind speed when information on wave
conditions is not available and has to be derived.
• Currents [Note: this manual does not address the design of revetments exposed to
currents. The reader is referred to Escarameia (1998).]
6.2.2. Geotechnical conditions

Information on the geotechnical properties of the under-lying material, which
includes the sub-soil and any fill or regulating material, is required to ensure an
appropriate solution is designed. Generally, a site investigation with either boreholes
or trial pits should be made to determine the characteristics of the under-lying
material. Geotechnical boundary conditions are discussed in more detail in Chapter
8. Typical information should include:
• Permeability - The permeability of the under-lying material will influence what
type of cover layer can be used. Typical permeabilities are given in Table 8.2.
As discussed in Section 9.5, generally the permeability of the structure should
50
DESIGN PROCESS
increase from the under-lying material, through the filter to the cover layer,
while ensuring compliance with the filter rules given in Section 11.1.
• Angle of internal friction, <j) - This will influence the maximum angle at which
the revetment can be constructed. Adopting a structure slope greater than the
angle of internal friction of the under-lying material is likely to result in
instability of the structure, with slumping of the under-lying material. Typical §-
values are given in Table 8.1. It is important to identify whether immersion will
significantly alter § for the soil. Low values of § for an immersed soil may well
prevent its use other than at very shallow slopes.
• Variability - The degree of variability of soil conditions over the length to be
protected is important as this may affect the performance of the structure along
the length it protects.
6.2.3. Geometry
There may be certain requirements or limitations on the geometry that can be
adopted. Typical information required will be:
• Slope angle - This may be pre-determined by the properties of the under-lying
material, the need for access, or aesthetic reasons such as maintaining
consistency with adjoining structures. Limiting structure slopes for different
material types are given in Table 9.1.
• Crest elevation - This should ideally be determined to limit wave overtopping to
an acceptable level. It may be pre-determined by the client, possibly for
aesthetic reasons, to be consistent with existing adjacent structures or to allow
access. In such situations there may be the need for some form of superstructure
such as a crest wall to ensure overtopping is at an acceptable level.
• Structure footprint - There may be a limit to the width of land which the
revetment can cover due to developments immediately behind the structure, or a
narrow foreshore.
• Land-side details - The landward geometry of the embankment being protected
should be considered, particularly where there is a risk of overtopping which
may cause erosion of the back face. This may cause rapid deterioration of the
structure if the rear face of the embankment is in poor repair. In particular, rabbit
or other animal burrows in the rear face can lead to geotechnical failure if
significant flow through the holes can occur. In such cases, there may be a need
for protection of the landward face.
• Length of protection - It is important to note that if there are no adjoining
structures, then erosion at the ends of the structure may be significant. There
may be a need to extend the structure beyond the length requiring protection to
ensure that outflanking of the structure does not occur. Appropriate termination
details should be adopted.
• Beach profile - The elevation and slope of the beach at the toe and seaward of
proposed structure should be known. Data on the evolution of the beach can also
be useful in identifying whether there will be erosion or local scour at the
structure. If the beach level is likely to change this will affect the water depth at
51
the structure and hence the depth limited wave height which can reach the
structure.
• Existing structures - Information on the condition of the existing structure or
landform to be protected should be known. This will give an indication of the
work required to regulate and prepare the formation before construction can
commence. Information on the performance of adjacent structures is also useful
in determining the form of protection to be provided for the new structure.
6.2.4. Structure performance

• Design life - The design life of the structure will be most likely determined on
an economic basis. The individual elements of the revetment which serve a
function in the performance of the revetment should be of sufficient durability to
last for the design life.
• Level of service — The required level of service of the revetment should be
determined. This may be in terms of an acceptable overtopping limit and / or
risk of any damage.
• Design event - A design event of a certain return period should be selected. This
will generally be longer than the design life of the structure as discussed in
Chapter 2. An appropriate level of risk of exceedance of the design event should
be determined and the return period of the event determined accordingly.
6.2.5. Constraints
A number of constraints may influence the selection of a final design for the
revetment. These constraints can be divided into a number of categories:
• local / environmental - Accessibility of the site for plant, delivery of materials
and construction may influence the selected design.
• Any constraints on the choice of structure / material due to environmental
factors (or other) should be identified, for example location, exposure / aspect,
frost susceptibility, contact with waste / potable water.
• economic / contractual - The designer should be informed of budget constraints
on the project and the tender period, as these may influence the length of time
within which a design can be produced.
• owner preferences - The owner may have a preference for particular materials,
perhaps due to local availability or for aesthetic reasons.
52
Hydraulic boundary
conditions
7. Hydraulic boundary conditions
Methods are given in this chapter for the derivation of design water levels and wave
conditions. Many of these methods are simplified and it is important that the
designer recognises that for complex situations or where limited data are available
there may be a requirement for more sophisticated studies or hydraulic modelling to
derive conditions that will ensure a safe, economical design.
7.1. WATER LEVELS

Water levels at coastal locations are the result of a number of components. The main
component is the astronomical tide level, which can be fairly well predicted, around
the UK. There are a number of other meteorological components, or 'residuals'
which may further raise water levels, such as storm surges, wind set-up, wave set-up
and seiches. The meteorological components are less easily predicted, perhaps only
a few days in advance, and even then, the uncertainty of the predictions is high. In
some regions of the world, there may also be risks of rare seismic effects, such as
tsunamis which can affect the water level. In estuaries extreme fresh water flows
may affect water levels, although the volumes of water involved will not normally
affect high water levels but may result in higher low water levels.
7.1.1. Mean water level

For coastal waters, reasonably open to the sea, the Mean Water Level can often be
assumed to be a site-specific constant. It is related to the Mean Sea Level (MSL) of
the oceans. The Ordnance Datum in the UK is approximately equal to MSL. Chart
Datum as used by the British Admiralty represents the Lowest Astronomical Tide
(LAT), which can vary significantly from one site to another.
7.1.2. Tides
Tides are driven by astronomical forces due to the relative rotation of both the sun
and the moon around the earth each day. Despite being smaller, the moon has a
greater influence on tides than the sun, as it is much closer to the earth. The timing
of the tides is associated with the relative position of the moon and advances about
48 minutes a day. Due to the moon's orbit round the earth, the influences of the sun
and moon on the tides are constantly moving in and out of phase. Near full moon
55
and new moon, they are in phase and give larger tide levels, called Spring tides.
Smaller Neap tides are produced at around the first and third quarter moons when
the sun and moon are out of phase.
The dominant tidal components have periods of approximately half a day (semi-
diurnal tides) and a day (diurnal tides). The influence of each of these components
varies at different locations. The UK is subject to semi-diurnal tides, meaning that
two tides will occur each day. In other locations, for example the Gulf of Mexico,
tides are diurnal (once a day). There may also be locations where both components
have an influence.
Due to the astronomical nature of tides, they can be accurately predicted.
Astronomical Tide Tables are published by the British Admiralty, normally a year in
advance. These give high water (HW) and low water (LW) levels and times for
major ports in the UK and for other countries.
7.1.3. Storm surge

Wind stress on the surface of the sea or changes in atmospheric pressure can cause
storm surge. The combined effects can cause an increase in tidal level, termed
positive surge, or a decrease in tidal level, termed negative surge. If positive surge
coincides with high Spring tides, then this can result in very extreme water levels
which can be catastrophic for low-lying coastal areas. On the other hand, negative
surge may cause exceptionally low tides, which may cause navigation problems in
shallow seas. Surge residuals for the UK given by Flather (1987), shown in
Figure 7.1. Surges can be particularly significant where concentrated by land
masses, such as in the Southern North Sea, the west approach to the English
Channel and the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary.
7.1.4. Water level prediction

Still water level is defined as the average sea surface elevation over an area,
excluding any local variations due to waves or set-up, but including tidal elevations
and surges. Tide Tables can be used to determine normal water levels for a
particular location and estimates of extreme water level are available for most major
ports. Where data are not available for a specific location, extreme water levels can
be determined from data for a nearby port by assuming that the ratio given in
Equation 7.1 is the same for both sites:
(EWL - MHWS) (7.1)

(MHWS-MLWS)
where EWL = extreme water level

MHWS = Mean High Water Spring level
MLWS = Mean Low Water Spring level
In order to predict extreme water levels of a selected return period, the available
data should be fitted to a known distribution. There are unlikely to be data available
for low frequency (long return period) conditions, so there may be need for
extrapolation.
56
HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
12°W
62°N
60°N "
58°N -
56°N
54°N
52°N
50°N
48°N -
Figure 7.1 50 year surge residuals for UK, Flather (1987)
Surge levels can be predicted using Figure 7.1, but the probability of occurrence
of extreme tide level and storm surge at the same time should be assessed.
Wind and wave set-up may also affect water levels. It is likely however that wind
set-up effects will be included in surge levels. As still water level does not include
the effects of waves, there is no need to consider wave set-up in water level
derivations. This will implicitly be included in calculations for wave run-up and
overtopping.
57
7.2. PREDICTION OF WAVES IN COASTAL LOCATIONS

The generation of waves, wave transformation processes and methods for wave
prediction and modelling are discussed by Simm et al (1995) in the CIRIA Beach
Manual. Where wave data for a site are not available, wave prediction and
transformation studies can be carried out using numerical models. Guidance is given
here on simple empirical techniques for estimation of design wave conditions. For
large or very exposed schemes or where the consequences of failure are high, it may
be necessary to make wave data measurements or to complete more sophisticated
hydraulic modelling studies.
7.2.1 Deep water wave conditions

In water depths of 20m or more, waves will generally be unaffected by the water
depth and may be treated as deep water waves. Moving into shallower water, a
number of wave transformation processes take place including shoaling, refraction
and breaking.
In any calculations or modelling, waves can be represented by a number of
methods:
• regular waves — each wave is identical to the others and waves repeat indefinitely.
Waves are described by the wave height, H, from crest to trough, the wave period,
T, wavelength, L, measured from peak to peak and direction of propagation, 9.
• long-crested random waves - waves have a range of wave heights and periods
and are uni-directional. Waves are described by the significant wave height, Hs,
equal to the mean of the highest third of the waves, the mean wave period, Tm or
peak period, Tp, and direction of propagation, 0.
• short-crested random waves - waves have a range of wave heights and periods
and are multi-directional. Waves are described by the significant wave height, Hs,
which is approximately equal to the mean of the highest third of the waves, the
mean wave period, Tm, direction of propagation, and the standard deviation of the
wave propagation direction, or some other form of spreading function.
Short-crested random waves mostly closely represent waves as they occur in
nature, but long-crested random waves generally represent waves in shallow water.
For derivation of design conditions for the design of revetments, it is appropriate
to consider a small number of design (extreme) conditions covering only a small
number of return periods and (the most exposed) wave directions.
Waves can fall into the categories of wind waves or swell waves. Wind waves are
generated within a limited area of up to 100km radius. These waves will have been
generated fairly recently, within the last 48 hours or so, and can be predicted
reasonably accurately from wind data. Swell waves will have travelled much further
from the area of generation. Prediction of swell waves is generally not possible from
wind data.
Around the UK, wind waves generally have larger wave heights than swell waves
and swell waves tend to have longer wave periods. Swell tends to arrive from
directions where fetches are very long. Severe wind sea, generated over shorter fetch
lengths, may come from a greater range of directions.
58
It would appear that the greater wave heights of wind waves, or storm waves,
would be more critical in design. There are however cases where it may be
necessary also to consider longer period swell conditions, as these can sometimes
cause greater overtopping or armour movement.
7.2.2. Wave prediction methods

Design curves are available for determination of wave conditions in deep water,
using the JONSWAP method. These curves are based on an effective fetch, wind
speed and wind duration and allow a significant wave height and wave period to be
determined. The wave height is limited either by the fetch when the wind duration is
long, or by the wind duration when the fetch is long. For any given wind speed,
there is also a limiting sea state beyond which no further growth occurs.
The ratio of the mean wave period, Tm, to the peak wave period, Tp, varies from
about 0.65 to 0.9, depending on location, wave direction and the particular storm.
For the ideal case of fully developed waves in open sea it would take the theoretical
value of 0.78. Various sources suggest values of Tm = 0.82 T p or Tm = 0.87 Tp. In
practice and in the absence of site specific data it is suggested that the following
relationship is used.
T m =0.82T p (7.2)
12hrs
3 hrs
i
2hrs
: J
2I 1
Ihr
r» co en -=
f// 7f7
100
7 j
\ Ifxx>x
wu
\ \ N
80 /
x X X
\ x
K s XN PJ°J
\/
60
N 'X/ 2 5.vs
/ "ix AX ^<
50
45
\
X
\
/
v
X I x'
\
\
V
XXX /^ v / X
K /
y
r
l\
40 X Xs X X / ^wX7x/V /x/
-£ 35 X. / N 30 h r s
'</
o 30 \ \ 1 /\ X <
\ i / 1T
%
25
26 N
j
k/ <
xX j "7^
m 22
fr
F~ \/
/
\
x/
/ V. ^- 7
/
X ~r i ,*> r^L
°20
i-__^ 1 ¥
X T '
—-^ \,..,. i,
- 15
•f
/ T~fef—^~11 r /
13 \ / X
-h1 *> / i
1 'i
\ I 7 /p ' I f f y
* !?
* 10
\
\ /
/ ' 1 /X /
1
/
( Z I^L1 / :
IS
I 1 \7 •
n 9
X / J f j T 7 / ! 1 T~Z
\ 1 1
0 X VI 1 * i i.y
1 f IX
7
x^X / / FULLY
DEVELOPE o •
6
/
' iV{ 1 1 I SEA
/
/
16 7
Ye 1 '/
rV I n AP
1 I
1 2 4 s 8 9 10 f 2 3C) 4C ) 60 7080 100 200 300 400 500 1000

FETCH LENGTH (
-SIGNIFICANT HEIGHT (m)
-MIN OURATION ( h r s )
Figure 7.2 JONSWAP prediction curves for wave height
59
ia n
12 hrs
8 hrs
7 hrs
1/
C hrs
6 hrs
3 hrs
5 hrs
2hrs
1 ft
o ss
80 \ \
\ \
\
\
h / TV /\ 'ft / // / /
V
%
\
(
7/ \
\ \ / /V/ V V / ' /
60
50 %. \
\
\
/ \
\
\\ ) / / /v
V
/ /./ \\ ')
\ /
\f
1 25 h
45 \ \ / V A. ^ / ^11 /
^ 40 v \ \ K / \ \ j V / / A7 /
/
\
7 \ i ^ /V // i\l
§ 35
\ \
y.s / \
A. Vv,j1\ A'7
f /
30 h
/> 30
\
\ \ \ 1/ \ \ i
NV; /\ // JL
A l • i / •j \f K ^ I\7
) "f\ 7 A^// / /
T5 28
\ \ h J s \ h J j 3$ h r s
\ \ \ I I ! t 1
v / / / • i y
22 \ i
IT
If \ / / / /
' 7A- / y. i \ /. 1 1 / i
\ V \
r 20 i
%\ "7 / / V V / 1 I •H-?
— V/ '-*s jj 'I 7 T
P 1
I 15
14
\
\
\ A /y !h M
» /
VJ /. y i \j
i
1
» 13
' I \ • *
X 1 / / v / V\J / j IJA
, ,2
\ / ' / \ / ^ \ / 7\"J v
\ / \ '. \ / '•/ I T / / ' / yA
* 11 / / \ I/N 7 / /
* 10 ' \ / y / /
y\/ / y
j X
9 ' • • / /
/
0 As J A7
/ 1 7 Is FULLY
7
\ • \ /
V ! \ /
j j
DEVELOPS 0
/ \ V i ,\ / X / SEA
/N/ A y 1
6
}
5
2 2 6 7 8 9. 10 I 20 3C) 40 50 60 70 80 100 200 300 400 500 100C

FETCH LENGTH ( k i l o m e t r e s )
MIN pURATION ( hrs ) |

PERIOO AT W H I C H P E A K 1 O C C U R S
IN J O N S W A P SPECTRUM (sec;
Figure 7.3 JONSWAP prediction curves for wave period
Once the wave conditions in deep water have been determined, there will be a
need to assess whether wave conditions at the structure will be different due to
shallow water effects.
7.2.3. Shallow water waves

In shallow water a number of processes can modify wave conditions:
Shoaling
Wave shoaling is often considered in conjunction with wave refraction as both are
caused by changing water depth. As waves travel into shallower water, they slow
down. If there is no energy dissipation then an increase in wave height will occur as
the wave energy flux must remain constant. Wave shoaling can be expressed by the
shoaling coefficient:
Ks = 1 / {[l+(2kh/sinh(2kh))] tanh (kh)}05 (7.3)
where k = wave number = 2n/L
h = water depth
60
L = wavelength in depth L = gT2/2n
Refraction
The process of refraction is the change in direction of wave propagation. Waves will
tend to slow down as the water depth decreases. This causes the wave crests to
realign parallel to the bed contours. This also results in a change of wave height, due
to the redistribution of wave energy along the wave crests. This can be expressed by
the refraction coefficient, KR.*
KR = V{cosp 0 /cosp} (7.4)
where po = wave direction in deep water
p = angle between wave direction and beach normal
The local wave direction P at water depth h can be found from:
P - -lsin (sin(Po) tanh (kh)} (7.5)

Diffraction
Waves can be significantly altered by interference with structures, causing a change
in wave height and direction in the lee of the structure. The change of wave height
relative to the undisturbed wave can be expressed by the diffraction coefficient, K<j.
Diffraction analysis will normally be carried out using numerical models. Advice on
simple diffraction calculations is given by Simm (1991) and BS 6349 Ptl.
Breaking
As the water depth decreases wave breaking can occur. Where there is not enough
water for generation of the wave height, the wave will become unstable and break
resulting in a smaller, broken wave height. This can usually be checked by a useful
parameter called the breaker index, ybr, which is the maximum allowable wave
height to depth ratio:
H/h<[H/h] m a x = ybr (7.6)
For regular waves, y^ has a theoretical maximum value of 0.78. The parameter is
not a constant, and for random waves on shallow bed slopes it will generally be in
the range 0.5 < y^ < 0.6. Influencing factors are the bed slope, bed roughness and
wave period. A simplified method developed from work by Owen (1980) gives
curves of y^ relative to wave period for a range of bed slopes, Figure 7.4. Higher
values of y^ occur for steeper beach slopes and longer wave periods.
The breaking wave height, HSb, can be calculated by multiplying the water depth
(7.7)
61
In order to determine the inshore significant wave height, HSj, with respect to
depth limiting, the following should be adopted:
ifH s b <H s thenH s i = Hsb

otherwise if HSb > Hs then HSi = H (7.8)
where Hs is the significant wave height in deep water.

The prediction of depth-limited wave heights can be uncertain. Where the design
conditionis limited by depth it may be appropriate to use more reliable methods such
as the method by Goda (1975) or those recommended by Allsop et al (1998).
Other effects
Waves in shallow water can also be modified by other processes. Reflections from
structures can sometimes modify incoming waves. Reflections are most severe from
smooth, impermeable vertical or near vertical structures. In such cases, reflections
may cause severe damage in the form of scour if there is a beach at the toe of the
structure. Reflections are significantly less for sloping structures, particularly if
permeable or with a high roughness, which provides significant energy dissipation.
Waves can also be modified by currents. Generally, a following current will
'stretch' the waves, reducing height and increasing wave length. Conversely, an
opposing current will increase wave height and cause a reduction in wave length. A
change of current speed normal to the direction of wave propagation can cause
reflection. The effects of currents usually balance out over a tidal cycle.
1.6
1:10
1.4
1.2 "^ 1:14
1 --
-1:20^,
• — — ^
-1:30^^
-1:50-
0.6 i-im ^
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Figure 7.4 Breaker index, after Owen (1980)
62
7.3. PREDICTION OF WAVES ON INLAND WATERS

A simple method to predict waves on inland waters is given by Yarde et al (1996).
Firstly wind speeds are derived. For small projects this may be done using advice in
BS 6399, BSI (1995), but for larger projects it is recommended that more accurate
information is obtained from the Meteorological Office. Then the fetch length over
which the wind acts to generate waves must be determined. This information is then
used to calculate the design wave height and period.
7.3.1. Derivation of wind speed

Basic hourly wind speeds for the UK can be obtained from BS 6399, BSI (1995)
who recommend that a number of factors are applied to this to account for altitude,
direction, seasonality and return period of the design wind speed required. Yarde et
al (1996) give a simple map of basic wind speeds, and recommend that further
factors be applied, to account for the reduced duration and also the acceleration of
wind speed over water due to the reduction in friction. They also advise that the
seasonality factor need not be considered as this is used mainly for the design of
temporary works during summer months. This gives a wind speed formula:
UD = Vb.Sa.Sd.Sp.Sf.Sw (7.9)
where UD = design wind speed (m/s)

Vb — basic hourly wind speed (m/s)
Sa = altitude factor
Sd = directional factor
Sp = probability factor
Sf = duration factor
Sw = over water speed-up factor.
The various factors are derived as follows:
So, altitude factor
S a =l+0.001A s (7.10)
where As = altitude of site above mean sea level (m)
S& directional factor - This adjusts the basic wind speed, depending on the
prevailing wind direction, to give a basic wind speed with the same probability of
occurrence. At 240 °, Sd = 1.0 and at 60 °, Sd=0.73, indicating that the winds from
the South-West are generally rather higher than those from the North-East. Values
of Sd are given in Table 7.1.
63
Table 7.1 Direction factor, Sd
Direction °N Direction
factor, Sd
0 North 0.78
30 0.73
60 0.73
90 East 0.74
210 0.73
150 0.80
180 South 0.85
210 0.93
240 1.00
270 West 0.99
300 0.91
330 0.82
Sp, probability factor - The probability factor adjusts the basic wind speed, which
is for a 50 year return period to the speed for the required design return period.
Values are given in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Probability factor Sp
Return Wind speed ratio, Sp

period, TR (relative to 50 year return
(years) period)
1 0.67
5 • 0.83
10 0.88
20 0.93
50 1.00
100 1.05
200 1.10
Sf, duration factor - The duration factor converts the hourly wind speed to a more
appropriate duration. For typical UK reservoirs, a duration of 10-20 minutes is
generally appropriate, indicating that a factor of 1.05 should be used. Values of Sf
are given in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Duration factor, Sf
Wind duration Duration factor, Sf

3 sec 1.51
15 min 1.05
30min 1.03
1 hour 1.00
3 hour 0.96
6 hour 0.93
12 hour 0.87
64
Sw, over-water speed-up factor - The over-water speed-up factor accounts for the
effect of reduced friction over water. The value of Sw is dependent on the fetch
length. Values are given in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4 Over-water speed-up factor, Sw
Fetch Over-water speed-up

(km) factor, Sw
0.5 1.06
1.0 ]L.09
2.0 ]1.16
4.0 ]L.24
6.0 ]L.28
8.0 L.30
10.0 ]1.31
7.3.2. Derivation of fetch length

The fetch length is normally derived graphically, with straight lines being drawn at,
say 10 degree, intervals from the point of interest to the opposite banks. At some
sites promontories from the banks can interrupt these fetch lengths. Rather than
reducing the fetch length however, the wave may be diffracted and as a result still
reach the revetment face. Yarde et al (1996) suggest that rather than shortening the
fetch length, there will be diffraction of the waves round such a promontory,
actually causing an increase in fetch length. Guidance is also given by Yarde et al
(1996), for the prediction of waves on bent or 'banana-shaped' reservoirs. Provided
that the valley sides are steep, it can be expected that the wind will be redirected and
fetch lengths will be longer than indicated by the simple geometric approach. This
method was purely based on engineering judgement and as of yet is not supported
by scientific data.
7.3.3. Wave prediction

Yarde et al (1996) recommend the use of the Donelan / JONS WAP method for the
prediction of wave conditions. A simplified method is recommended which has been
shown to produce negligible errors. This simplification assumes that the highest
waves occur along the longest fetch length. The wave height is given by:
Hs = 0.00178 UD VF / Vg (7.11)
where Hs is the significant wave height (m)

UD is the design wind speed (m/s)
F is the fetch length (m)
g is acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
The peak wave period is given by:
Tp = 0.07118 F 03 U D 04 (7.12)
65
The relationship between the mean wave period Tm and Tp may be assumed as
being:
Tm = 0.82Tp (7.13)
It has been indicated that this method produces a slight over-estimation of wave
height, resulting in a generally conservative design. It is however also noted that this
method tends to give rather short wave periods. Given that some responses,
particularly wave overtopping, are more sensitive to longer wave periods, the reader
is cautioned to explore the sensitivity of any responses to wave periods slightly
longer than calculated by eqns. 7.12 and 7.13.
The wave conditions derived using this method should be checked for shoaling
and wave breaking using the methods discussed in Section 7.2.3.
66
Geotechnical boundary
conditions
8. Geotechnical boundary conditions
8.1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Information on the geotechnical properties of the under-lying material are required
to ensure a safe and appropriate design. This material may fall into one of a number
of categories:
• naturally occurring subsoil
• compacted earthworks
• imported fill material
The material may be cohesive or non-cohesive.
It is important that the under-lying material is stable before construction of the
revetment commences. Some of the important geotechnical parameters that should
be known are detailed below. Methods for assessing these parameters are given in
the Specification for Highway Works Part 2, Department of Transport (1991).
Assessment of the stability of the embankment is outside the scope of this manual.
The reader is referred to BS8002 (1994), Section 2.2.2 and Hemphill & Bramley
(1989) for more detailed guidance on the geotechnical aspects of design.
8.2. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

The grain size distribution of the sub-soil / under-lying material should be known.
This will indicate whether the soil is likely to be cohesive or non-cohesive and help
determine its permeability. It is necessary to know the grain size distribution for
geotextile design and to identify whether a separation layer is also needed. Typical
grain size distributions are given in Figure 8.1.
69
Log Settling Velocity — cm./sec. B.S. Sieves

q o o o p o §
<o LO TT cri c\i T-' co
1 1 ! 1 I I i *~ T i • i T V i i "i i "i
100
90
80 ...Z / j
CD
O)
2
c
70
1/ 7L
/ I
CD
60 (21
0
OL /
c
50
/
o
"5 40
E
E 30
*
\y
13
CO
20 — -< "71 7
10
^
—e = •
...-^
0
00001 0001 001 0-1 10 100
Particle size — millimetres
1 Heavy clay (CH) 2 Silty clay (Cl) 3 Sandy clay (CL - SF)
4 Clay bound sand (SC) 5 Clean sand (SU) 6 Sand - gravel (GP)
Clay Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Gravel

silt silt silt sand sand sand
Figure 8.1 Typical grading curves for underlying /embankment material
8.3. ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION

The slope of the revetment system should not exceed the angle of internal friction,
(|>, of the under-lying material. Typical ^-values are given in Table 8.1 as simple
guidelines only. A number of factors can significantly affect the angle of friction. In
particular, there may be different fractions within the material covering a range of
particle sizes. The properties of gravel with a significant fines content will be
different from clean gravel. The presence of fines will reduce the angle of internal
friction.
Table 8.1 Typical values of internal friction angle, (j)
Gravel 32-35
Silty or clayey gravel 25-30
Sand 30-33
Clayey or silty sand 24-31
Silts 23-29
Clay 18-21
Note: values for drained conditions
70
GEOTECHNICAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
8.4. PERMEABILITY
Typical permeabilities for a range of sub-soil types are suggested by Simm (1991) in
the CIRIA/CUR Rock Manual and reproduced in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Typical permeabilities ofsub-soil materials
Particle type Range of Order of permeability,

diameters Ks,(m/s)
(mm)
Large stone 2500-850 1.00 (turbulent)
One-man stone 300-100 0.30 (turbulent)
Gravel 80-10 0.10 (turbulent)
Very coarse sand 3-1 0.01
Coarse sand 2-0.5 0.001
Medium sand 0.5-0.25 0.001
Sand and gravel 10-0.05 0.0001 (more than 10% sand)
Fine sand 0.25-0.05 0.00001
Silty sand 2-0.005 0.000001
Sandy clay 1-0.001 0,0000001
71
Design of Initial
Cross-Section
9. Design of Initial Cross-Section
Having determined the wave conditions (Chapter 7) and selected an appropriate

revetment material (or a number of options to be compared) an initial cross-section
can be designed.
It is important to note that the rules of thumb given in this Chapter are for
preliminary guidance only. They are of assistance in helping to determine an initial
cross-section to be refined at a later stage. These rules of thumb do help in giving an
indication of the orders of magnitude of the elements being considered in the
revetment design. The structure dimensions can then be refined by consideration of
the physical processes at the structure. These physical processes and the critical
failure modes are addressed by the more rigorous design methods given in Chapter
10. It is also important to ensure that the detailed design in Chapter 11 is completed
to ensure that the system as a whole - cover layer, filter and appropriate details - is
adequately designed to meet performance requirements.
9.1 SLOPE
A preliminary estimate of structure slope can be made from the slope of the
structure / feature being protected. If the slope of the ground is not uniform, then the
slope of neighbouring structures may be adopted. This will of course depend on the
material used to construct the revetment and the geotechnical properties of the
underlying material. The slope of the structure should not exceed the angle of
internal friction of the under-lying material to avoid slumping beneath the
revetment. As well as ensuring stability of the under-lying material, it should also be
ensured that the revetment cover layer material is stable at the chosen slope. Typical
slopes for different revetment materials are given in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Maximum slopes for different materials
Structure Optimum slope Maximum slope

Rip-rap 1:5 to 1:2'
Rock armour 1:3 1:1.5
Concrete blocks 1:2
Concrete mattresses 1:1.5
Asphalt - OSA on LSA filter layer 1:2
- OSA on geotextile anchored at top 1:3 1:1.5
- mastic grout 1:1.5
Notes: ] For slopes steeper than 1:3, rip rap may lose self-healing properties
75
In some cases, structures have been constructed at slopes steeper than those given
in Table 9.1, but in such situations the revetment is likely to have an earth-retaining
function. In particular concrete mattresses, which form a rigid cover layer, have
been used successfully in this manner.
It is sometimes appropriate to construct slopes with more than a single inclination
angle, for example the lower part of the structure may be constructed at a shallow
slope of say 1:10 with the upper part being constructed at a much steeper slope,
perhaps 1:4 or 1:3.
The slope angle of the structure may sometimes be influenced by safety aspects.
This is particularly important where the structure is adjacent to an area of water used
for sport or leisure activities. Both the slope angle and the armour type may be
selected to ensure a safe route of escape if need be. A smooth faced revetment
should have a slope which does not exceed 1:3 for access by pedestrians, but rough
faced revetments may still allow access, where the elements provide some form of
foot and hand holds, even up to 1:1.5, depending on soil properties.
9.2. CREST ELEVATION

If there are existing structures in the vicinity of the proposed structure, then the same
crest elevation may be adopted as a preliminary estimate. It should of course be
remembered that different structure types will have different responses and that this
value may have to be refined.
As a preliminary estimate of crest elevation, the wave run-up can be calculated.
Run-up levels are defined relative to the Still Water Level and vary in a random sea
state. The statistical probability distribution of run-up levels is generally well
established as a Rayleigh distribution. This allows derivation of run-up levels for
specific non-exceedance levels.
In order to determine a design crest level, a factor has to be applied to the design
wave height. This factor indicates the extent to which water is allowed to go over
the structure and is dependent on the type of embankment and the degree of damage
any overtopping water would cause. Run-up factors for a range of revetment
constructions can be obtained from Figure 9.1. Design wave heights for a range of
revetment types are given in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2 Design wave heights, HD
Revetment type Crest Design wave

configuration height, HD, (m)
Concrete / masonry - 0.75H s
Rockfill Surfaced road 1.0H8
Earthfill with reinforced downstream Surfaced road 1.1HS
face
Earthfill with grass downstream face Surfaced road 1.2HS
Earthfill with grass downstream face Grass crest 1.3HS
All embankment types - no still water 1.67HS
or wave surcharge carryover permitted
76
DESIGN OF INITIAL CROSS-SECTION
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

2.6
2.4 - — — —
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
J
or
Run-up factor
1.4
L-—•—'
// <
1.2
Typica vertical
1.0 •••4 f a c e i i deep —
water (note 4)
/ y^
0.8
/ /
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 i
1:10 1:5 1:4 1:3 1:2t 1:2
Dam slope (V : H)
Figure 9.1 Run-up factor
The design wave height is then used with the run-up factor to determine the wave
surcharge in metres:
wave surcharge = Rf HD (9.1)
The designer should ensure that the revetment freeboard, R^ is greater than or
equal to this value:
Re > wave surcharge (9.2)
The crest elevation may be refined at a later stage in the design when the
permissible overtopping rate is considered.
77
9.3. COVER LAYER THICKNESS

An initial estimate of cover layer thickness can be made based on material type. For
simple concrete blocks the thickness should be at least one sixth of the wave height.
This should ensure that the blocks resist the uplift pressures generated by a breaking
wave by immersed self-weight alone.
For proprietary systems, such as concrete blocks or fabric-formed concrete
mattresses, one of the standard available thicknesses should be selected for the
preliminary design based on the rule of thumb given. Manufacturers may give
additional guidance on selection of an appropriate thickness based on wave
conditions at the structure location.
Kemps & Barber (1991) and Herbert (1993) recommend that for Open Stone
Asphalt the thickness of the cover layer is dependent on the filter layer. On a Lean
Sand Asphalt filter, the cover layer thickness should be 1/10 of the wave height,
whereas a thickness of 1/6 of the wave height is required for OS A on a geotextile
filter cloth.
For concrete mattresses, experience from a number of sites has indicated that
mattress thickness should be approximately one tenth of the wave height, providing
that the mattress permeability is greater than the soil permeability.
In summary, initial estimates of armour layer thickness, can be determined from:
(9.3)
where C is a coefficient dependent on revetment material, given in Table 9.3.

ta is the armour thickness (m).
Table 9.3 Coefficient for cover layer thickness
Revetment type Coefficient, c

Blockwork 1?6
OSA - lean sand asphalt filter 1/10
OSA - geotextile filter 1/6
Concrete mattress 1/10
For rock, the cover layer thickness will usually be approximately twice the
nominal median rock diameter, Dnso. The rock diameter can be calculated using the
design methods given in Section 10.3.
9.4. FILTER
The filter layer may be granular or a geotextile or a combination of both. In the case
of asphaltic revetments, a Lean Sand Asphalt filter may be used. Detailed design of
the filter layer will be discussed in Chapter 11.
The filter thickness for a granular filter layer will always be at least twice the
nominal stone diameter, D n , and often up to 150 to 200 mm. For Lean Sand Asphalt
filters, the thickness will be at least 100mm, up to the thickness of the armour layer.
78
DESIGN OF INITIAL CROSS-SECTION
Thicknesses of geotextiles are significantly smaller, about 2mm for woven

geotextiles and up to 10mm for non-wovens.
9.5. PERMEABILITY
The permeabilities of the various layers of the revetment construction should
increase moving outwards from the under-lying material to the cover layer. A cover
layer which is less permeable than the under-lying material may require some form
of relief holes to prevent build up of hydrostatic pressure beneath the cover layer.
79
Design Methods
: ' ! '' ''

* \
0
:
1
10. Design Methods
10.1. OVERTOPPING
Wave overtopping can cause structural damage to embankments and revetments and
may result in hazardous conditions on top or behind the structure, limiting human
and vehicular access. The crest height of the revetment should ensure that wave
overtopping of the structure is kept to an acceptable level. Guidelines for safe
overtopping discharges are given in the CIRIA / CUR Rock Manual (1991), and
reproduced in Figure 10.1. These give safe thresholds of overtopping based on
different access requirements and land uses immediately behind the structure.
1000
Damage even
for paved
promenade
200
Xv.Horizontai:::-:
composite wall
;!v! dangerous;///
-0.03
-0.004
0.0001
Figure 10.1 Acceptable overtopping limits
83
A method for predicting overtopping of sloping structures was developed by

Owen (1980). This can be used for the determination of the crest elevation of the
revetment, bearing in mind the safe overtopping discharges.
The Owen method is an empirical method derived from model tests carried out
for a range of sloping seawall designs and wave climates. The method uses
dimensionless parameters for freeboard, crest height and discharge.
The design wave height, as predicted by the methods discussed in Chapter 7,
should be the depth limited wave height at the structure. This design wave height
can then be used to determine the overtopping discharge.
The dimensionless freeboard, R*, is determined from:
R* = Rc/(Tm(gHs)05) (10.1)
where Re = structure freeboard relative to design water level (m)

Tm = mean wave period (s)
Owen's prediction method determines a dimensionless discharge Q* from:
Q* = A exp (-BR*/r) (10.2)
where r is a roughness coefficient, based on the wave run-up on a wall relative to

that on a smooth wall, given in Table 10.1
A and B are coefficients dependent on the revetment slope, given in Table 10.2
The mean overtopping discharge q, in m3/s.m may then be determined from :
Q* = q/TmgHs (10.3)
Table 10.1 Roughness coefficient
Embankment construction Roughness

coefficient, r
Smooth, impermeable 1.0
Stone blocks, pitched or mortared 0.95
Concrete blocks 0.9
Stone blocks, granite sets 0.85-0.9
Turf 0.85 - 0.9
Rough concrete 0.85
One layer of stone rubble on impermeable base 0.8
Stones set in cement, ragstone etc 0.75-0.8
Two or more layers of open rock armour 0.5 - 0.6
Open Stone Asphalt 0.8
Fully grouted stone 0.6-0.8
Partial grouted stone 0.6 - 0.7
84
DESIGN METHODS
Table 10.2 Owen parameters A,B for different slopes
Structure slope A B
1:1.5 0.0102 20.12
1:2 0.0125 22.06
1:2.5 0.0145 26.1
1:3 0.0163 31.9
1:3.5 0.0178 38.9
1:4 0.0192 46.96
1:4.5 0.0215 55.7
1:5 0.0250 65.2
For the case with a wave return wall, Owen & Steele (1991) give modifications to
this method. Other advice on overtopping prediction methods is given by van der
Meer(1998).
If overtopping exceeds the allowable limit, a number of modifications to the
structure can be made. Any two (or indeed all three) of the slope length, crest
elevation and slope gradient can be modified. Selection of an alternative (rougher)
material would reduce the run-up, as would increasing the permeability of the cover
layer. In doing the latter, however, the design should ensure that permeability is not
increased to such a degree that washing out of filter material will occur.
10.2. SCOUR
Local scour at the toe of a revetment can cause undermining and failure of the
revetment. Toe protection should be provided to a depth greater than the predicted
scour depth.
For sand beaches, the Shore Protection Manual (CERC, 1984) suggests that the
depth of scour, ds, may equal the maximum unbroken wave height:
ds = H max (10.4)
where H m a x = 1 . 8 H s (10.5)
Powell (1987) has noted that orbital velocities in a scour hole of this depth can
still be significant, and as a result this could under-predict the scour depth. It has
been found from a range of studies that, for wave steepnesses in the range 0.02 < smo
< 0.04, the scour depth is approximately equal to the incident unbroken wave height,
for steeply sloping or near vertical structures. Maximum scour occurs when the
structure is at the plunge point of breaking waves.
The depth of scour is related to the reflection coefficient of the structure. For
smooth impermeable structures, reflections can be minimised by adopting shallow
slopes, typically flatter than 1 in 3. For permeable rock armoured structures with two
or more layers of rock, steeper slopes can be adopted.
For shingle beaches, Powell (1989) gives dimensionless design graphs for
calculation of scour depth. These relate the dimensionless scour depth, ds/Hs to the
85
mean wave steepness, smo, and the local water depth hs/Hs. An example is given in
Figure 10.2 for a vertical wall and a storm duration of 3000 waves.
Some further guidance for the calculation of scour at the toe of sloping structures
is given by Powell (1989) based on results of model tests.
• For impermeable sloping structures of 1:1.5 to 1:2 there is no significant
reduction in scour depth compared to that at a vertical wall.
• Reducing the slope of an impermeable structure to 1:3 can reduce local scour
typically by 25% but up to a maximum of 50% compared to a vertical wall.
• Rock revetments generally show no susceptibility to local scour and may even
cause accretion.
Toe details should ensure that protection is provided to a depth below that of the
predicted scour to prevent undermining of the structure.
If scour appears to be a significant problem then modifications to the structure to
reduce scour may be necessary, such as adopting a shallower slope angle.
•a
t
0
Q
1 h- Sea Steepness (Hy )

I
"53
Figure 10.2 Prediction graphs for scour depth, after Powell (1989)
86
DESIGN METHODS
10.3. ROCK AND RIP-RAP ARMOUR

Under waves approaching design levels, rock armour may adjust position, often
settling slightly and increasing its resistance to wave action. A few elements may be
displaced, perhaps those that were originally placed loosely. This displacement of
armour, termed "damage", should be relatively small for waves up to and including
the design condition. A level of damage of up to Ndo/o=5% at the design wave
condition has been accepted for many structures and, where design wave conditions
are correctly determined, this has allowed the successful construction and use of
many such structures.
Where the consequences of any damage are severe, or the wave conditions less
certain, more conservative design criteria may be applied perhaps restricting armour
movement to Ndo/O=l%. This will increase the armour size, and often the structure
volume and cost. It is however seldom realistic to design rock armour for no armour
movement at all, hence the wide acceptance of "no damage" giving Nd<>/0 = 1 to 5%.
Design methods for rock armour focus principally on calculation of the median
armour mass, M5o, or the nominal median diameter, Dn5o, defined in terms of M 50
and the rock density, p r :
Dn5O = (M5o/pr)1/3 (10.6)
The two most common methods are the Hudson formula, as used by CERC(1984)
in the Shore Protection Manual (SPM) or the method of van der Meer (1988).
i Hudson developed a simple expression for the minimum armour weight to resist a
regular wave height which may now be written in terms of the median armour unit
mass, M50, relevant mass densities, and wave height, Hs:
M50 = p r Hs3 / KD cotoc A3 (10.7)
where p r = mass density of rock armour (kg/m3)

A = buoyant density of rock, = (pr/pw)-1
p w = density of sea water (kg/m3)
a = slope angle of the structure face;
KD = stability coefficient to take account of other variables.
For wide-graded rock termed rip-rap, values of a coefficient KRR were substituted
for KD. Values of KD or KRR were derived from model tests using regular waves
with permeable cross-sections subject to no overtopping. The armour stability was
studied under a range of wave heights / periods, and the design value of KD chosen
was that for the wave height giving lowest stability. Some rearrangement of the
armour was expected, and values of KD tabled for design correspond to a "no
damage" condition where up to 5% of the armour may be displaced. Values of KD
distinguish between breaking and non-breaking wave conditions at the structure, and
rough or smooth stones.
87
Non-breaking Breaking waves

Rough stone KD = 4.0 KD = 2.0
Smooth stone KD = 2.4 KD = 1.2
It is often convenient to re-arrange the Hudson equation in terms of a stability

number N s = Hs/ADn5o:
H/ADnso = (K D cota) 1/3 (10.8)
The Hudson equation was derived around 1958/59 and uses relatively few
parameters. It is simple to apply, and by virtue of its simplicity has been
disseminated and applied widely. This equation was however derived only for
regular waves, and was also limited to rock armour on permeable mounds and to a
few concrete armour units. In later use (1970s) it was often assumed that the wave
height H in the Hudson equation could be taken as equivalent to the significant wave
height, Hs. In the 1984 edition of the Shore Protection Manual a more severe
equivalence of ENHyio was suggested, although this was later identified as
representing an over-conservative approach.
In 1988 van der Meer derived formulae for armour layers of thickness ta=2.2Dn5o
which include the effects of random waves, a wide range of core / underlayer
permeabilities, and distinguish between plunging and surging wave conditions. The
formulae relate the incident wave conditions, and the level of damage that may be
allowed, to the dimensionless stability number, Hs/ADn5o. For plunging waves:
Hs/ADn50 = 6.2 P 0 1 8 (S d //N) a 2 U"°'5 (10.9)
and for surging waves:
H s /AD n50 = 1.0 P- 013 ( S d / / N ) 0 2 / c o t a ^ m p " (10.10)
where parameters not previously defined are:

P notional permeability factor, see Figure 10.3
Sd damage number = Ae/Dn5o2, and Ae is the erosion area
N number of waves
£,m Iribarren number = tana/s m 1/2 and sm = 27iHs/gTm2
Tm mean wave period (s);
The transition from plunging to surging waves is calculated using a critical value
OI Sm ~~ Smcr-
U r = (6-2 P 0 3 1 (tana) 05 ) 1/(p+05) (10.11)
where £,m < £,mcr for plunging waves

£m > 4mcr for surging waves.
88
DESIGN METHODS
No filter
Dn50A/Dn50C=3.2
No core
= nominal diameter of armour stone

= nominal diameter of filter material
=
nominal diameter of core
Figure 10.3 Van der Meer permeability factor
In practice, these formulae can give a range of armour sizes depending on the
choices made in the damage level, Sd, or the number of waves chosen. For most
cases, design damage is set at Sd=2 as equivalent to the old "no damage" limit. For
slopes shallower than 1:2.5, damage may be permitted to rise to say Sd=3-4 without
increasing the risk of overall failure. More guidance on the selection of design
damage level is given by Simm (1991) in the CIRIA / CUR rock manual.
The selection of the number of waves to use in these calculations has caused some
difficulties. The tests used by van der Meer were limited to 7000 waves, and it is
generally accepted that 5000 waves constitute a reasonable upper limit to the use of
these formulae. In conditions of significant tidal movement, particularly around the
UK, incident wave conditions may be strongly affected by water level. It is therefore
very rare for a design wave height to persist for longer than about 3 hours,
89
equivalent to 1000-2000 waves although longer durations may be required for long
storms and minimal tide excursions.
It is particularly important to note the dramatic influence of the notional
permeability factor P on armour size / damage, see Figure 10.3. The original Hudson
tests had used a very open structure, with core and underlayer of relatively large
permeability to wave action. Tests used by van der Meer included an impermeable
layer beneath the underlayer, simulating the permeability of an embankment dam
formed by clay or similarly low permeability material.
The emphasis in the selection of an appropriate value of P must always be on the
permeability of the construction to wave-induced flows, i.e. those typically
occurring over time cycles of 3-10 seconds. Only if the construction is genuinely
open to such flows should values of P>0.1 be used.
10.3.1. Thin armour layers

Since the development of van der Meer's equations, further studies explored their
application to other armour specifications or structure configurations. Tests at
Wallingford showed that placement of armour in thinner layers, say ta=1.5-1.7Dn5o,
gave more damage than predicted by van der Meer's equations for ta^2.2Dn5o. A
simple adjustment of van der Meer's equations gave for plunging waves:
Hs/ADn50 = 6.2 P 018 (S d //N) a25 ^ m 0 5 (10.12)
and for surging waves:
Hs/ADn50 = 1.0 P-°13 (S d //N) 025 /cota ^mp (10.13)
The influence of rock shape on stability may be described using five shape
classifications:
Fresh Representative of most rock armour used in Europe;
Equant As near cubic as practical, typical of cubic material in
Europe;
Semi-round Rounded slightly to simulate abrasion wear;
Very round Rounded more significantly to simulate severe abrasion;
Tabular Flat or elongate material, shapes often rejected for armour.
Very round rock may suffer more damage than other shapes, the effect of which is
that very round rock requires to be 30% heavier than equant rock for the same
stability.. Stability of fresh and equant rock are similar, but tabular rock exhibites
higher stability. Revised stability coefficients to replace 6.2 and 1.0 in the plunging
and surging formulae (Eqns 10.11 and 10.12) are summarised:
Rock shape Plunging Surging
Van der Meer 6.2 1.0
Fresh 6.3 0.8
Equant 6.2 1.1
Semi-round 6.0 1.0
Very round 5.9 0.8
Tabular 6.7 1.3
90
DESIGN METHODS
10.3.2. Influence of armour grading

Most armour in common use falls into one of two classes:
Rock armour, narrow-graded Dgs/Dis < 1.5
Rip-rap, or wide-graded D8s/Di5<2.25
Each type of armour require some selection, which may be expensive where the
sizes are not easily produced in the quarry. There may be strong economic
attractions in reducing the level of selection, possibly using "all-in" material. Tests
reported by Allsop (1990) compared damage to two specifications of "very wide
graded" armour with D85/Di5 = 4.0, against conventional material of Dgs/Dis = 1.25.
Damage to the narrow graded armour performed as predicted, but very wide graded
armour showed more damage than predicted by van der Meer, and with much
greater scatter. These tests clearly illustrated that very wide-graded material is
difficult to control rigorously, that M5o will vary significantly, even over a quite
short length, and so will the onset of damage over a structure of any significant
length.
It is therefore recommended that rip-rap gradings wider than Dgs/Dis = 4.0 should
not be used without specialist studies. It is also suggested that rip-rap of
2.25 should not be used at slopes steeper than 1:2.
10.4. CONCRETE BLOCKWORK
10.4.1. General design method

A design method for simple concrete blockwork was developed by Klein Breteler &
Bezuijen (1991). This was based on tests of loose blocks on a granular filter under
regular wave attack, but the general approach has been extended to design
blockwork armour systems for random wave attack.
In comparing results from regular and random wave studies, it was assumed that
the largest waves cause failure due to instability, and that the number of waves is not
as important as (for example) for rock armour. The assumption was therefore made
that the regular wave height, H, corresponds to a random wave with a low
exceedance level, say 2%. The structure can then be designed in terms of H s , for
which data are usually available, related to H2%by..
1.4 (10.14)
A complex method for design was derived by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen (1991).
This method requires a number of parameters describing the physical phenomena
which are difficult to define, so the method was then simplified to:
Hs/Ata = S b V°- 67 (10.15)
where ta = armour layer thickness (m)
Sb = empirically derived coefficient, see Table 10.3
^ p = Iribarren number = tan a/s p 0 5 where sp is the peak sea steepness,
determined from the peak wave period Tp and Hs
91
Table 10.3 Coefficient Shfor different revetment constructions

~ Description Sbmin Sb~
Loose blocks on granular filter, low stability 2.6 5.6
Loose blocks on granular filter, normal stability 3.7 8.0
Loose blocks on geotextile on sand 3.7 8.0
Loose blocks on clay 5.1 11.0
Linked blocks on granular filter, low stability 3.0 6.5
Linked blocks on granular filter, normal stability 3.7 8.0
Linked blocks on geotextile on sand 5.1 11.0
As shown in Table 10.3, the parameter Sb is heavily dependent on the type of
construction, particularly including the materials beneath the armour. This can be
characterised by the relative permeabilities and thicknesses of the cover and filter
layers, described in a single parameter, k*:
k* = (k7kf).(ta/tf) (10.16)
where k' = cover layer permeability (m/s)
kf = filter permeability (m/s)
tf = filter thickness (m)
Revetments with low stability generally show k* less than 0.05 or 0.1 and normal
stability is given by 0.1 < k* < 1. In practice, conditions for high stability are
difficult to achieve so the simplified design method only considers low and normal
stability. Example parameter limits for low stability may be summarised:
• thick filter layer, b/D > 0.5
• coarse filter material Dns > 4mm
• closed cover layer:
• solid blocks with small joints, Q < 2%
• blocks with holes with a spacing less than 0.3m, Q < 5%
• blocks with holes with a spacing wider than 0.3m, Q < 10%
There are limitations of this method. The maximum values of Sb given in Table
10.3 indicate the threshold beyond which there will be failure of the structure. The
minimum values of Sb indicate the threshold below which the structure will be
stable. There is no guidance on what happens between these two values, so the
designer will tend to adopt the more conservative value to ensure stability.
10.4.2. Slabs
Large concrete slabs, characterised by unit surface areas that are much larger than
the blocks discussed above, generally use in-situ concrete in smaller thicknesses. On
most reservoirs, a slab of 3m x 3m or larger will cover a much greater area than is
influenced by the peak up-lift pressures. The effect of those pressures is therefore
concentrated over a relatively small proportion of the slab, thus allowing the weight
/ thickness of concrete to resist the overall uplift force to be reduced.
In studies completed on blockwork, Herbert et al (1995) speculated that a large
slab (3m x 3m or greater) might need to be only about half the thickness of blocks
(of say 0.3m x 0.6m face) to provide the same stability. Herbert et al estimated that
92
DESIGN METHODS
this can be achieved by using a value of Sb = 4.3 in equation 10.16 instead of

S b =2.6.
Later studies by Yarde et al (1996) suggested a (revised) design method which
went further in quantifying increased stability against up-lift afforded by large slabs.
The general form of the K-B & B formula was used, but the stability coefficient, and
the factor giving the power of the Iribarren number were both changed:
Hs/Ata = S c / ^ p (10.17)
The coefficient Sb has been replaced by a coefficient Sc and the power of £ has
changed from -0.67 to - 1 .
The new coefficient Sc was related to the slab size given by the representative
length VA S , underlayer permeability and storage given by filter size Dn 5 and filter
layer thickness tf, and the joint widths given by w, by an empirical formula:
Sc = 3.3 In ((VAs/tf) ( w / D n 5 ) ° ! ) + 4.0 (10.18)
2
where A s = area of slab / block (m )
tf = filter layer thickness (m)
w = width of gap between slabs / blocks (mm)
Dfis = 15% sieve value for filter material (mm)
As this value was derived empirically, there are some uncertainties in the values
derived. Yarde et al (1996) suggest some confidence factors which give a 95%
certainty that the value obtained is safe for design, Table 10.4.
Table 10.4 Values of 95% confidence factors
Parameter Notation 95% confidence factor

Slab depth ta 1.3
Revetment slope tan a 0.77
Slab density Pc 1.3
Filter depth tf 0.63
Vslab area VAS 1.6
Gap width w 4.1
Filter grading Dfl5 0.24
This method is only validated for the parameter ranges considered in the model
testing from which it was derived, summarised in Table 10.5.
Table 10.5 Validity ranges of individual parameters
Revetment geometry Notation Minimum Maximum

slab area (mz) A^ " O07 9X)
sjab depth (m) ta 0.01 0.4
gap width (mm) w 0.2 60
Filter D fl5 (mm) D fl5 0.5 100
Filter depth (m) tf 0.03 0.8
Wave conditions
Significant wave height (m) Hs 0.1 4.0
Peak wave period (s) Tp 1.0 10.0
Surf similarity parameter (-) £P 1.7 4.0
93
In practice, there are some situations that fall outside of these ranges, particularly
for very steep waves and shallow slope angles. The new prediction methods can
however probably be extrapolated safely if done so with care. Both methods for
slabs and blocks show that the stable armour thickness will decrease if the Iribarren
number reduces, equivalent to increased wave steepness or shorter wave periods, for
the same structure slope. Any uncertainty in wave period can therefore be
accommodated by using the longest likely period (lowest wave steepness).
Similarly, the assumption of the steepest likely construction slope will also give a
more conservative estimate of the required slab thickness.
10 A3. Cellular blockwork

The design method by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen (1991) includes cellular blocks
with high void ratio (Q > 10%) in the normal stability category, implying values of
Sb between 3.7 and 8.
This general approach is somewhat at variance with a specific set of test results
by Lindenberg (1983) who tested the stability of a type of cellular blocks in a large
wave flume. Tests were completed with regular waves (T = 3, 4 and 6 seconds) and
random waves (Tp = 3.75s) using steps of increasing wave heights (H or Hs).
Conditions for damage / failure were noted and are shown in Figure 10.4.
Curiously, the test results using regular waves appear to show that these cellular
blocks were more stable for longer period waves, i.e. they resisted higher wave
heights for long period waves than they did for short period waves. This contradicts
the general trend that has been well-established by studies using regular and random
waves by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen, Herbert et al, and Yarde et al, so it is difficult
to recommend that the design curves suggested by Lindenberg be adopted as
generic.
These results also illustrate a problem with data originally gathered using regular
wave model studies. Lindenberg originally plotted his regular wave results directly
on the same axes as his random wave results, implicitly suggesting the equivalence,
12
• Regular wave results (T indicated)
: \ - - Klein Breteler & Bezuijen, normal stability Sb = 3.7
Klein Breteler & Bezuijen, normal stability Sb = 8
•• \
• 6s
\
•V4s
\
- _
_ _ |
~ - -
Figure 10.4 Test results for cellular blockwork
94
DESIGN METHODS
H = Hs. Later studies by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen, and at Wallingford used
assumptions that a regular wave height causing failure was likely to be more closely
equivalent to a maximum or extreme wave height, perhaps given by H « 1.8 Hs, or
perhaps H « H2% = 1.4 Hs. Results of the tests with cellular blocks have been re-
presented here in Figure 10.5, using the equivalence H « H2% = 1.4 Hs, and these
results agree more reasonably with the general curves by Klein Breteler & Bezuijen.
10.4.4. Gravel blinding

For many types of open, articulated of similar concrete blocks, test and site
experience suggest that significant increases in stability may be produced by
blinding the blocks with suitable gravel. Provided that the joints between adjacent
blocks are tapered (downwards), this material becomes jammed in the joints, thus
substantially increasing the inter-block forces so that an area of blocks behaves
much more as a large slab. As shown earlier, this ability to share load around
adjacent blocks substantially increases their resistance to wave forces, thus allowing
thinner layers to be used. A further advantage of this configuration over a simple
slab however is that the cover layer retains a relatively high permeability due to its
high porosity, reducing the occurrence of high uplift pressures. Tests completed on
gravel blinded cellular blocks showed no failure for wave heights exceeding those
for which failure occurred for the non-blinded mats. The gravel blinded mats were
not however tested to failure, so it is difficult to quantify reliably the increase in
performance.
It should be noted that such increases in stability are functions of time, wave
exposure, durability of blocks and gravel, and of under-layer / core integrity. Any
loss of material from the joints may allow some blocks to work loose, in turn giving
the possibility of progressive loss of the increased inter-block forces, and thus
reducing the stability improvement. It is therefore recommended that this
improvement be ignored in performing ultimate stability calculations.
12 -
• Regular wave results (T indicated)- relative to Hs
: \ - - Klein Breteler & Bezuijen, normal stability Sb = 3.7
Klein Breteler & Bezuijen, normal stability Sb = 8
A Rjindom wave r(JSUltS
• \
\ • 6s
3.75s ^
• 3s*4s
^ — - - - _
• - - - •
• - - - -
Figure 10.5 Re-presentation of cellular blockwork test results related to Hs
95
Where cellular blocks are placed on a geotextile, the gravel blinding will help
reduce flow through the blockwork and also provide protection form exposure to
UV light which may cause deterioration of the geotextile.
It is important to note that careful selection of the granular material for blinding
of the blockwork is of vital importance. The material should be angular and durable
with high crushing resistance to ensure good interlock between the gravel and the
blocks.
10.4.5.Sliding
Design of blockwork revetments should ensure that failure will not occur due to
sliding. To ensure this, the driving force, the component of the weight of the
revetment parallel to the slope, should not exceed the friction force on the slope.
Friction will be reduced due to uplift pressures acting on the underside of the cover
layer elements, increasing the risk of sliding. Bezuijen et al (1990) suggest that it
can be assumed that this loss of friction occurs in the area of wave attack over a
vertical height equal to the wave height, Area I in Figure 10.6.
This force will be resisted by a stabilising force provided by the blocks below the
zone of wave attack, shown as Area II in Figure 10.6. If the blocks are cable-tied an
additional restraining force might also be provided. The driving force may be
transferred along the cables and the friction of the blocks above the zone of wave
attack will provide resistance, shown as Area III in Figure 10.6. In many projects, it
may be unwise to rely on the cables to provide the restraining force, but in practice
they can help to prevent loss of individual blocks.
Piezometric head on revetment by wave attack
Difference in piezometric head, over cover layer
Arbitrary units
\\
Figure 10.6 Wave processes causing sliding
96
DESIGN METHODS
The maximum friction force, Ff, is calculated using the following equation:
Ff=Fn.f (10.21)
where F n = the normal force between the block and filter layer (N)
f = the friction coefficient, assumed to be tan (2/3 <|>f)-
(|)f = friction angle of the filter layer (degrees)
For a single block below the water line, the normal force can be calculated:
F n - l.b.ta.(pc.pw) g cos a (10.22)

where 1 = length of block
b = width of block
ta = thickness of block
Pc = density of concrete
Pw = density of water
a = slope angle
As the blocks are submerged, the buoyant density pc-pw? should be used to
calculate the force. Therefore the stabilising force provided by all the blocks below
the water line in Area II can be calculated for a single column of blocks:
F n = lii.b.ta.(pc-pw)g cos a (10.23)
In the case of cable-tied blocks, the additional restraining force normal to the slope
provided by Area III above the water line can therefore be calculated by:
F n - liii.b.ta.pcg cos a (10.24)
where lm is the slope length of Area III which provides the additional stabilising
force.
It should be noted that Bezuijen et al (1990) suggest that the friction coefficient
should be calculated using the angle of friction between the blocks and the filter
layer. In practice, the friction angle of the filter material is easier to establish and
hence 2/3(j)f is a good practical estimate for use in calculations.
Assuming sliding of the blocks just before occurrence of the wave front, the
driving force acting on a single block in the wave attack zone will be:
F a = l.b.ta p c g sin a (10.25)
This can be extended over the zone of wave attack where there is no friction force
acting, to calculate the total driving force acting over single column of blocks:
F a = li.b.ta p c g sin a (10.26)
where li = the slope length over which the uplift pressure acts, assumed to be
equivalent to a vertical height of Hs, so li = Hs / sin a.
97
In order to ensure stability against sliding the following criterion for the factor of
safety, Fs, against sliding should be met:
Fs = F f / F a > l (10.27)
The factor of safety due to the stabilising force provided by the blocks beneath the
zone of wave attack can be calculated:
F s = [ln.b.ta.(pc-pw)g f cos a ] / [li.b.ta p c g sin a ] (10.28)
For cable-tied blocks, if the value is less than 1, than an estimate of the factor of
safety provided by the cables can be made:
F s = [lm.pcb.ta g f cos a ] / [li.b.ta p c g sin a] (10.29)
It is recommended that Equation 10.26 is used in design for both loose and cable-
tied blocks, however, if this gives marginal values of Fs, say Fs = 0.95 to 1.0, then
Eqn 10.29 should be checked for the further stability provided by the cables in the
case that the lower blocks fail.
10.5. CONCRETE MATTRESSES

Concrete mattresses can be used to provide slope protection on material of relatively
low permeability. The mattresses have permeabilities in the range of 10"2 to 10"4 m/s.
The under-lying material should ideally have a lower permeability. For cases where
the under-lying material is more permeable, concrete mattresses may still be used,
but the increased thickness required to resist uplift pressures in the more permeable
under-layer is likely to mean that the use of mattresses may be uneconomical in
comparison to other systems. For higher permeability under-layers, it is seldom
practical or economical to use fabric mattresses for cases where Hs > 0.5m.
Sprague & Koutsourais (1992) have considered work by Hudson, published by
CERC (1984) in the Shore Protection Manual in conjunction with data from model
tests of gabion mattresses and other forms of slope protection: free and interlocking,
articulating concrete blockwork and free and grouted concrete prisms. A
conservative design method for fabric-formed concrete mattresses has been derived
from this data based on a number of assumptions. Filter point mattresses are
assumed to have a performance that is as good as grouted prisms provided that the
fabric has not deteriorated. For the case where the fabric form has degraded, then the
performance cannot be worse than concrete blocks of 254 mm x 254 mm or gabion
mattresses. The formula can be written:
ta = 0.833 CWHS / A (cot a) 1 / 3 (10.28)
where C w is a mattress coefficient. Cw = 1.3 for short term design and C w = 3.7 for
long term design.
There is some concern about application of this method. The authors do not give a
definition of long term and short term. Analysis using the method has suggested that
the long term case may refer to the situation where the filter points have completely
deteriorated which may lead to loss of under-lying material. It is recommended that
98
DESIGN METHODS
an additional layer of geotextile is laid beneath the mattress to prevent loss of

material through damaged filter points. If this practice is adopted, then the short
term design can be used.
Care should be taken in the application of this method as it provides limited
information on the effect of wave conditions. The method given in Equation 10,28
only includes the significant wave height, Hs, and does not include any effect of
wave period. As was illustrated in the blockwork design methods (Section 10.4),
wave period and therefore wave steepness can have a significant effect on stability.
Some further guidance is given by Pilarczyk et al (1998) who extend the method
for blockwork of Klein Breteler and Bezuijen (1991) discussed in Section 10.4, to
the design of concrete mattresses. This methods suggests the use of Equation 10.16,
reproduced here for convenience:
(10.29)
Pilarczyk et al (1998) give values for Sb for concrete mattresses:
Sb = 2 - 3 for low-permeability mattresses
Sb = 3 - 4 for high permeability mattresses
It can be assumed that a filter point mattress will have a relatively high
permeability. It should be noted however, that this may reduce over the lifetime of
the structure due to accretion and silting-up of the filter points. Permeability
reduction factors for filter point mattresses have been suggested by manufacturers
based on inspection of mattresses at a number of locations. For mattresses on sand,
the permeability may reduce by up to a factor of 5. For mattresses on silt or clay, the
permeability may reduce by up to a factor of 50.
Due to the assumptions on mattress behaviour made in both design methods, the
authors of both methods state that the results given for mattress thickness are
conservative values.
Examples of sites where fabric mattresses have been installed have been assessed.
Although wave data is not available for these sites, wave predictions were made in
order to attempt to quantify performance. Predicted Hs and mattress thickness are
shown for three sites in Figure 10.7.
In all three cases the permeability of the mattress was significantly higher than
that of the under-lying material, indicating a high stability of the structure with
regard to uplift pressures. The thicknesses of the mattresses are significantly lower
than would be predicted by the design methods, but the structures have performed
successfully for service lives of 25-30 years. This guidance reinforces the belief that
the design methods are conservative, and may allow for a modification in the design
coefficients. Any such refinement of the design coefficients should be based on
analysis of the performance of previous structures. Where such data is available, the
designer should be certain that the permeability of the cover layer will be
significantly higher than that of the under-lying material and will remain so
throughout the structure life to prevent failure of a thinner cover layer due to uplift
pressures.
99
1.5!
0.5 -
50 100 150
Average thickness (mm)
Figure 10.7 Performance of concrete mattresses
10.6. ASPHALT
The design considerations for asphaltic revetments will depend on the type of
asphaltic material being used and whether the cover layer is permeable or
impermeable.
10.6.1. Impermeable asphaltic revetments - uplift & sliding

There are two main failure mechanisms that occur for impermeable asphaltic
revetments - uplift and sliding. Failure due to uplift occurs when the hydraulic
pressures beneath the cover layer exceed the weight component of the revetment
normal to the slope, causing lifting of the cover layer. Underlying material may fill
the cavity that forms beneath the cover layer, preventing the revetment from
returning to its original profile and causing deformation of the cover layer. Due to
the viscous nature of the cover layer this will lead to permanent deformation.
Repetition over a number of loading cycles can cause the material to yield.
Calculation of uplift pressures is based on a method by van der Veer as discussed
by Rijkwaterstaat (1985). The pressure head pu in metres of water, is a function of
the height, v, of the phreatic surface above the water level, the length of the
revetment cover beneath the water level, a, and the slope angle of the revetment, see
Figure 10.8.
Pressure head, pu in m, can be calculated using the following equation:
pu = v . V[l-v/(a+v)f (10.30)
where x is dependent on the revetment slope, see Table 10.6.
v is the vertical distance between water level and phreatic surface, see Figure
10.8
a is the vertical distance from toe of revetment to water level, see Figure
10.8
100
DESIGN METHODS
ihreatic line
(a) general case
ihreatic line
...••••
(b) sheet piling at toe (c) toe protection
Figure 10.8 Definition ofparameters for calculation of uplift pressure
Table 10.6 Values ofx for calculation of uplift pressure head
Slope X
1:2 1.17
1:3 1.12
1:4 1.08
1:5 1.07
1:6 1.01
For tidal locations, a preliminary estimate of v can be taken as 50% of the

difference between maximum and mean external water level. For long term
difference in water levels, such as in reservoirs, values of v should be taken as 100%
of the difference.
It should be noted that for cases where toe piling or alternative toe protection is
provided, then the length, a, should be determined as shown in Figure 10.8.
Extended revetment protection beneath the water level or toe protection or sheet
piling can result in higher uplift pressures due to restriction of flow out from beneath
the revetment.
The method presented assumes a constant supply of water over the time period
being considered. Under tidal cycles and wave attack on structures with significant
potential storage this assumption should be appropriate. A method is given by
Rijkwaterstaat (1985) for the case where there is no constant supply of water.
This method, and particularly the simple estimates of v, was developed for the
tidal range of the Netherlands (2-4m). The method may need some adjustment for
tidal ranges greater than about 4m, or for reservoirs that may experience large water
level changes.
A number of assumptions are made in calculating the uplift pressure in this way:
• the subsoil is homogeneous,
• flows are only 2-dimensional
101
• maximum uplift pressure occurs at the external water level - only valid if
more than 20% of the length of revetment below the phreatic line is below
the external water level.
Maximum uplift water pressure, ciwo, can then be derived from the potential p u , by:
GwO = Pwg (Pu + ta COS a ) (10.31)
To check the revetment for stability against uplift the following criteria should be
met:
(10.32)
where p a = asphalt bulk density (kg/m3)
This should be checked for conditions which rarely occur, such as storm surges.
Sliding occurs if the weight component of the revetment down the slope is greater
than the frictional resistance between the revetment system and the subsoil or the
asphalt and the filter. The frictional resistance can decrease due to the occurrence of
uplift pressures below the cover layer, normally around the external water level.
The revetment will tend to hang from those areas where friction is still sufficient and
this will induce strain of the cover layer. As for uplift, the effects of the failure
mechanism can build up over several loading cycles, causing significant
deformation of the cover layer. To check the revetment for stability against sliding
the following criteria should be met:
ta > f.awo / p a g (fcos a - sin a ) (10.33)
where f = coefficient of friction = tan ty' if §r > 9, else f = tan 0
ty' = angle of internal friction of sub-soil
0 : - angle of friction between revetment and subsoil
This should be checked for frequently occurring conditions such as spring tides.
10.6.2. Calculation of layer thickness for Open Stone Asphalt

A simple method for calculation of cover layer thickness of Open Stone Asphalt was
given in Chapter 9. This was derived from data from physical model tests completed
by Delft Hydraulics and Delft Soil Mechanics. The thickness, ta, of the cover layer
can be calculated from the equation:
ta = C H s (10.34)
where C is a coefficient dependent on the stability of the sub-base. For a sand
asphalt sub-base C = 1/10 and for OSA on a filter cloth, C = 1/6.
It is recommended that Open Stone Asphalt designs are also checked for
performance under wave impact loading conditions, using the method developed by
the Rijkwaterstaat (1985) and discussed in Section 10.6.3.
102
DESIGN METHODS
10.6.3. Wave impact pressures for all asphaltic revetment types

For both permeable and impermeable asphaltic revetments, the design should be
checked for stability against wave impact loading. A method is given by
Rijkwaterstaat (1985) for design against impacts. The maximum wave impact force,
x, in N/m, is calculated by:
biPmax-bjqi pwgHs (10.35)
where p = maximum pressure(kN/m2)
= width over which pmax acts = 0.4 Hs
= factor dependent on revetment slope, see Table 10.7
Table 10.7 Values of qj factor

Slope Qi
1:2 2.3
1:3 2.7
1:4 2.3
1:6 2.0
The equation given for calculation of cover layer thickness, ta, can be written as:
ta > 0.75 ^ / l e ) ^ ! ^ ! ^ 2 ) ) . ^ ^ ^ ) ^ ) ) 0 - 2 (10.36)
where (Tb = asphalt stress at failure (N/m2), from Table 10.8
S = stiffness modulus of asphalt (N/m2) from Table 10.8
u = Poisson ratio for asphalt = 0.35
c = modulus of subgrade reaction (N/m3) from Table 10.9
0.75 = reduction factor.
The number of loading cycles, ns, is related to the design wave height and can be
determined from Figure 10.9.
15000
a 10000
^ —
— - — , 1
~— —' —
5000
•
n
0 3
H s (m)
Figure 10.9 Number of loading cycles, ns as function ofHs
103
JO
m
m
m
C/)
Table 10.8 Stress and strain values for various asphaltic materials (after Rijkwaterstaat (1985)) m
CO
3 6 2 >
Initial strain at failure (10 ) Initial stress at failure a b (10 N/m ) CD
Stiffness
Mix type modulus
Number of loading cycles, ns Number of loading cycles, ns >
N/m2 z:
1 100 1000 10000 100000 1 100 1000 10000 100000
Asphaltic concrete 7.109 1.2 0.52 0.34 0.25 0.16 8.4 3.6 2.4 1.8 1.1
m
9
Asphaltic mastic 1.10 8.6 3.4 2.2 1.4 0.86 8.6 3.4 2.2 1.4 8.6
Dense stone asphalt 4.5.109 2.3 0.92 0.58 0.37 0.23 10 4.1 2.6 1.6 1
3
o
Open stone asphalt 7.108 3.4 1.3 0.79 0.48 0.3 2.4 0.91 0.55 0.34 0.21
Lean sand asphalt 1.109 1.1 0.42 0.26 0.17 0.11 1 0.42 0.26 0.17 0.1
DESIGN METHODS
Table 10.9 Modulus ofsubgrade reaction for various soil types (after Rijkwaterstaat (1985))
Soil type Modulus of

subgrade reaction, c
(N/m3)
Sand - medium compacted (relative Proctor density 87-95) lxlO'-lxlO6
- well compacted (relative Proctor density 95-100) lxl08-3xl08
Sand + clay 3xl07-8xl07
Sand + silt 2xl07-5xl07
Clay - low compressibility 3xl07-5xl07
- high compressibility <4x 107
Peat <5xlO 7
Gravel >7xlO 7
Lean sand asphalt > 5 x 108
The above methodology is for the calculation of cover layer thickness under one
particular impact load. In practice, a revetment will be subject to a number of
different loads, which may or may not be impacts, each of which can happen a
number of times. This repeated loading can cause fatigue of the structure. In order to
account for repeated loading, the thickness of the cover layer, ta, as determined in
Equation 10.41 should be multiplied by a fatigue factor, ff5. Rijkwaterstaat (1985)
give a complex method for calculating fatigue as a result of wave loading over a
range of water levels. This method requires substantial wave data in order to be
applied. In the absence of detailed wave data, a simplified method is given below.
Firstly, it is necessary to determine what loads the structure (or section of the
structure) being designed will be exposed to. There are three main cases:
1. The revetment under normal conditions is very exposed to wave attack and
under extreme conditions will be exposed to the design wave conditions. In
this case asphaltic fatigue may occur and the fatigue factor, ff can be
determined from:
ff=[Zni/ns(Pi^s)5+l]4>25 (10.37)
where ns = number of times extreme event occurs during a storm
P s = wave force caused by extreme event (N/m)
nj = number of times Hi occurs during a storm
Pi = wave force caused by Hi (N/m)
Hj = wave height from wave height distribution which is divided into
bands of Hi.(m)
2. If the area under consideration is only exposed to waves during normal
conditions and is not exposed to the design condition during extreme
conditions, then the fatigue factor is given by:
ff=[Zni/n s (Pi/P s ) 5 ] 4/25 (10.38)
3. If the structure is not exposed to waves under normal conditions, but may be
attacked under extreme conditions, then the fatigue factor ff=l.
Values of the term Z nj/ns (Pi/Ps)5 are given for a number of locations on the Dutch
coast in Table 10.10. In the absence of detailed data, these values can be assumed.
105
Table 10.10 Values ofZn/ns (P/Pffor three Dutch locations for a design life of 1 year (after
Rijkwaterstaat (1985))
Zni/n.(Pi/PB)5
imax s
0.75 Hs 0.5H,
Hs(m) Terschellingerbank
2 28.2 3.4 0.13
4 1.72 0.42 0.039
6 0.42 0.067 0.007
8 0.045 0.017 0.002
Hs(m) Texel
2 39 5 0.18
4 1.76 0.5 0.05
6 0.026 0.063 0.011
8 0.022 0.017 0.002
Hs(m) Goeree
2 51 6 0.20
4 2.43 0.76 0.07
6 0.28 0.08 0.016
8 0.10 0.018 0.003
The data from Goeree gives the most severe fatigue factors and hence will give the
most conservative design.
In order to use the values in Table 10.10 it is necessary to know Himax, the
maximum significant wave height under normal conditions, and H s. The table gives
values for Hi max = Hs, Himax= 0.5Hs andHimax = 0.75Hs. If Himax is not known then it is
generally taken as 0.5Hs or 0.75Hs.
The value obtained from Table 10.10 should be multiplied by the design life, N,
in years. It should also be multiplied by a factor of 0.1 for the following reasons:
• The water level during a design storm (36 hours) is taken as constant.
• Only a small percentage of waves will cause impacts, and not all impacts will
occur at the same place.
The fatigue factor is therefore given by:
ff = [0.1 N { I ni/n.(Pi/Ps)5}Tabie 10.10 + if25 (10.39)
for Case 1 and
ff = [0.1 N {ZnJns(?JPs)5}TMel0A0f25 (10.40)
for Case 2.
The final revetment thickness is then given by:

ta > ff 0.75 ((27/16).(l/(l-u 2 )).(Pi/a b ) 4 (S/c)) 02 (10.41)
10.6.4. Grouting of rock armour layers

Rijkwaterstaat (1985) discuss a method for the design of surface or pattern-grouted
rock armour based on the empirical Hudson formula as discussed in Section 10.1.
106
DESIGN METHODS
The Hudson formula is given in Equation 10.7 and is reproduced here for
convenience:
M50 = pr Hs3 / KD cot a A3 (10.42)
Factors are given for modifying KD to account for the increased stability given by
the grout. For surface grouted stone, if about 30% of the voids are covered, then KD
can be multiplied by 1 to 1.5. For pattern grouting, if about 60% of the total surface
is filled, then KD can be multiplied by a factor of 5 to 7.
It should be ensured that for pattern grouting the grout penetrates the full depth of
the cover layer and voids do not develop in the grout. It should also be ensured that
the grout does not penetrate into the filter layer.
It is important to note that as grouted cover layers do not consist of individual
elements, in principle the Hudson formula is not applicable. In practice, however,
Rijkwaterstaat argue that this method has given good results.
10.7. SAFETY FACTORS

The design methods included in this Chapter do not give explicit guidance on the
selection of appropriate safety factors to adopt, other than Yarde et al's method for
determination of slab thickness, which suggests probability factors to be applied to
the results.
In many of the design methods, it is probable that there is some conservatism
inherent in the prediction method / equations or in the factors / coefficients
suggested. Where a single value of a coefficient is required in an empirical method,
it may be necessary to apply factors of safety to account for uncertainties in the
prediction method itself, and in the input variables. For design methods of well-
established reliability, the factor of safety applied to layer thickness might be 1.1-
1.3. For prediction methods or data that are less certain, factors of 1.5 or greater
might be justified. This spread is illustrated by the range of coefficients in the
method of Klein-Breteler & Bezuijen (Section 10.4.1).
Where a prediction method requires the selection of a coefficient from a given
range, it is recommended that the more conservative value is adopted in all initial
calculations unless more detailed guidance is available. It is probably not then
necessary to apply any further safety coefficient.
107
Detailed Design
11. Detailed Design
11.1. FILTER
Design of an appropriate filter is vital to ensure a stable revetment system. If the
filter is not properly designed, then this may result in severe failure if the structure,
Figure 11.1.
Figure 11.1 Failed revetment due to incorrectfilterdesign (courtesy Ruthin Precast Concrete
Ltd)
111
Filter design for both granular filters and geotextiles is discussed by Pilarczyk
(1984). A summary of the important considerations for filter design is given here.
In order to design an appropriate filter for the structure, information on the
geotechnical properties of the under-lying material, as discussed in Chapter 8, is
required. Information on the grain size distribution is necessary. Often this
information is not available and in such situations it is necessary to make an
assessment of the grain size distribution of the under-lying material from a generic
description. Typical grading curves for a range of under-lying materials are shown
in Figure 8.1.
The permeability of the under-lying material will also affect the filter design. A
filter should be more permeable than the underlying material, but less permeable
than the revetment cover layer.
Some guidance can be given on the use of filters with different cover layer
materials:
Rock armour or rip-rap may be laid on a granular under-layer which may include a
geotextile. The depth and sizes of the filter layer are considered in the notional
permeability parameter given in van der Meer's design method for rock armour,
Equations 10.9 - 10.11, and detailed specifications are given in the CIRIA/CUR
Rock Manual by Simm (1991).
For concrete blockwork on a permeable non-cohesive formation, a typical
construction may consist of:
• a geotextile filter laid on a graded formation.
• angular granular drainage layer ( dependent on degree of wave action)
• woven geotextile filter of high permeability beneath blockwork armour
For concrete blockwork on an cohesive formation, comparatively impermeable to
wave-induced flows, a 'tight' geotextile, perhaps O9o<100|um, would be used on the
clay and covered with the revetment blocks.
Concrete mattresses will normally be laid on a geotextile filter which is in turn
placed on the regulated formation.
Asphaltic revetments will either be placed on a geotextile filter or on a Lean Sand
Asphalt filter (LSA) layer. The LSA filter layer thickness is determined as follows:
100mm < t f < t a (11.1)
where tf is filter layer thickness (mm)
ta is armour layer thickness (mm)
It is important to note that following filter design, the armour layer calculations
should be rechecked to ensure stability.
11.11. Granularfilterdesign
The permeability of a revetment should increase from the subsoil material to the
cover layer, whilst preventing washing out of fine material from layers beneath.
These properties are dependent on the grain size distribution of the subsoil material
and of available filter materials. A number of filter criteria should be satisfied:
112
DETAILED DESIGN
D15filter< 5 Dgsbase Stability or piping criterion (H.2)

D15 filter > 5 D15 baSe Permeability criterion (11.3)
D50 niter < 25 D 5 0 base Uniformity criterion (11 -4)
The stability or piping criterion governs the fine particle sizes in the filter and
ensures that the layer below the filter will not be washed out through the filter.
The permeability criterion ensures that there is adequate drainage and a negligible
hydraulic gradient through the filter.
The uniformity criterion is rarely pre-eminent. It implies that the grading curves
of each layer should be approximately parallel and not too far apart to prevent
migration of material.
A selected granular filter material should have an internal angle of friction that is
greater than the revetment slope to avoid the possibility of slumping of the structure.
A suitable material for the granular drainage layer may be angular crushed rock
which meets Type B as defined in Table 5/5 of the Spec, for Highway Works,
Department of Transport (1991), reproduced here in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1 Grading of Type B material

BS Sieve Size Percentage by mass passing
63 mm 100
37.5 mm 85-100
20 mm 0-25
10 mm 0-5
11.1.2.Geotextile filter design

In order to ensure effective filter performance, two basic criteria must be met by a
geotextile.
• Pores (generally given by O90) should be small enough to prevent excessive loss
of fines;
• The geotextile should be permeable enough to prevent build-up of excessive
hydraulic pressure within the under-lying material.
The geotextile filter should be resistant to:
• Mechanical stress during the construction phase and in service from the armour
layer;
• Chemical properties of water passing through the filter;
• Short-term exposure to ultra-violet light weather during construction;
• Possible penetration by roots in the zone offluctuatingwater levels and above.
A geotextile should be selected to meet the requirements given in Table 11.2 for
different soil types to ensure minimal loss of fines.
To meet the permeability criteria, the geotextile should satisfy the following
minimum criteria:
k g >5k s (11.5)
113
Table 11.2 Criteria for selection ofgeotextile

Soil
Cohesive O 9 0 <10D 5 0 O 9 0 <D 9 0
Uniform non-cohesive (U<5) O90 < 2.5D50 O90 < D 90
Well graded non-cohesive (U<5) O 9 0 <10D 5 0 O90 < D 90
Little or no cohesion and >50% by weight O90 < 2b0jim
of silt
U = coefficient of uniformity D60/D1(
where kg is the permeability of the geotextile (m/s)

ks is the permeability of the underlying material (m/s). Typical values of the
order of permeability are given in Table 8.2 for a range of materials.
It is advisable that where possible a geotextile should have a permeability of 10
times the underlying material to allow for some in-service clogging of the filter over
the lifetime of the structure. Experience has shown that woven geotextiles are less
likely to clog in comparison with non-woven or needle-punched filters.
Geotextiles are often used as a separation layer between fine under-lying
materials and a granular filter layer. This prevents punching of granular material into
the sub-soil.
11.2. TOE PROTECTION

Toe protection will provide some sliding resistance to the armour layer and help to
prevent failure of the structure from scour. The depth of toe protection required to
prevent scour will be determined from the scour depth calculations in Section 10.2.
Typical forms of toe protection are:
• buried toe - the revetment cover layer is extended beneath the bed level to
beyond the predicted scour depth. Granular material will be placed over the toe
e.g. beach sand / shingle or imported granular material. Alternatively the toe of
the revetment may be buried in a trench which is then back-filled with rock.
Evidence has indicated that the use of rock in this manner may assist the
accretion of bed material;
• sheet piling - this may be used alone or with a concrete toe beam;
• wooden stakes — these will be used in a similar way to sheet piling, with planks
connected between them;
• toe beam - an in-situ concrete beam is cast at the toe to provide stability against
sliding and protection against scour;
• extension of cover layer along bed - t h e cover layer may be extended along the
bed in front of the structure. If scour occurs, then this extra length of revetment
will drop into the scour hole providing protection. This should not be used
where severe scour may occur as some undermining or loss of sub-layer material
may occur.
Examples of typical toe details for different materials are given in Figure 11.2.
114
DETAILED DESIGN
Rock armour
Rock armour
Rock armour
Original dutch toe
Primary armour
Timber planking bolted to stakes
Timber stakes
Pnrosry srmour
Figure 11.2 Typical toe details
115
Filter point mattress Filter point mattress
Geotextile filter
Open stone asphalt

Open stone asphalt
~0.5m or >ds
~0.5m or >ds
Possible Extension^
Open stone asphalt Open stone asphalt
Figure 11.2 continued
11.3. CREST PROTECTION

Crest protection may involve simply extending the revetment cover to provide
erosion protection over the crest if some overtopping is expected. If the cover layer
is permeable, then a geotextile may need to be provided to prevent washing out of
fines due to penetration of water down behind the armour layer. If overtopping is
expected to be severe, then some measures to limit the overtopping may be taken. A
crest wall or wave return wall may be added to the structure. Guidelines are given
by Owen & Steele (1991) for the design of wave return walls.
Typical crest details for different material types are given in Figure 11.3.
116
DETAILED DESIGN
Insitu concrete fillet Primary armour

Radial transition
Granular drainage layer
Primary armour
Geotextile filter/separator
Graded formation
Graded formation
Primary armour
Radial transition
Graded formation
Insitu concrete
crest beam
Mastic seal
(~2.5kg/m)
• Dpen stone asphalt

Geotextile filter
V/////A Graded formation
i LSA Key
Geotextile 'anchored1 in
Open stone asphalt Open stone asphalt

Lean sand asphalt filter
Graded formation
Figure 11.3 Typical crest details
117
11.4. TERMINATION DETAILS

Appropriate termination details should be adopted at the ends of the structure to
prevent undermining at the end of the structure. Figure 11.4 shows erosion at the
end of a concrete mattress revetment which does not have an appropriate
termination detail. Similar methods to those used for crest and toe details may be
adopted for termination, but such details are usually strongly site-specific. Generally
end details may involve a gradual transition into the adjoining materials. At a joint
into a solid structure, perhaps a vertical wall, the revetment should be strengthened
over perhaps 1 or more metres.
On any soft shoreline, the revetment should generally be tied well back into the
existing / made ground by curving back in plan, or by wing walls. These details may
however cause increased local erosion unless well sheltered against wave / current
forces.
Figure 11.4 Erosion at end of concrete mattress revetment (courtesy Proserve Ltd)
118
DETAILED DESIGN
11.5. LANDWARD FACE PROTECTION

When overtopping or overflow of the structure is severe, there may be the risk of
damage to the landward face of embankments. This can lead to erosion and
geotechnical failure of the embankment, particularly if the material is fissured or is
weakened by rabbit holes or similar. If there is a possibility of significant
overtopping, then appropriate protection measures should be taken. There may be a
need to provide armouring to the back face.
119
Other Considerations
12. Other Considerations
12.1. CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS

There are a number of risks inherent in any construction process. This is particularly
the case when working in the marine environment. Simm et al (1997) provide a
protocol to follow for the limitation of risk for coastal construction projects.
To ensure that an easily constructable design is developed a number of factors
related to the construction must be considered throughout the design process.
Accessibility to the site for construction can either be from land or water. The
choice for construction will depend very much on the nature of the site. If
approaching from land, there may be need to construct temporary access roads,
which can increase construction costs. These temporary works may have high
maintenance costs. The working area may still be some distance from the
construction site, due to the difficulty of access and, particularly in coastal locations,
the need to keep equipment out of areas exposed to waves, tides and storm
conditions.
Construction from the sea can also pose problems of accessibility. This may result
in floating plant having to work in shallow water depths. Working time may be
restricted due to tides and seasonally. Shallow slopes and water depths can mean
that plant may be some distance from the shore.
Techniques used in the construction of the revetment will depend on construction
material. This may be dumping of rock or loose material or placement of single
elements, prefabricated structures or mats. Modern methods usually mean that
prefabricated units will be cast off site, with only placement and jointing of the
revetment face being completed on site. In many cases the placement of large
prefabricated units may be easier from the water, due to the hydrostatic lift which
eases lifting.
Plant required will typically be excavators and bulldozers for initial earthworks
and dumping of rock, and cranes and floating plant for placement of pre-cast units.
Barges may be used for the dumping of rock from water, depending on the water
depth at the structure.
Due to the time restrictions that can result, particularly in coastal locations, the
plant used should have a high rate of productivity. Cranes should have long reach to
123
ensure ease of access to the revetment face and all plant should have heavy load
capabilities.
The construction process can be influenced by the impact it will have on the
environment. In particular, in locations used for recreational purposes, the timing of
works may have to be carefully planned to ensure the minimum impact possible.
Noise and pollution must also be considered when assessing the environmental
impact of the construction of a scheme.
12.2. SPECIFICATIONS
Specifications for materials and construction methods are important to ensure that
the structure is constructed as designed. The following points should be addressed in
specifications:
• Materials - quality and properties
• In the design process, weight of the stone and permeability characteristics of
geotextiles require to be known. On site the required mix of concrete or asphalt
mastics must be specified, as well as the type of stone and tolerances within
which the stone will be acceptable.
• Methods - construction methods to ensure appropriate execution
• Required performance - of completed structure independent of material
properties
• Control - safety, quality
• Measurement - quantification of completed works
• Maintenance - material, methods, tools etc. to perform maintenance, also timing
of maintenance works.
Examples of typical specifications are given in Appendix 1.
It is important to make the Contractor and Resident Engineer aware of the
technical reasoning behind the final design and materials /products selected. Often
the Contractor has the opportunity to substitute materials with other more
competitively priced products. This is permitted under the 'or similar approved'
contract clause. However, it may be that an alternative material has slightly different
characteristics which can affect the performance of the integrated revetment system.
In particular, slight differences in the permeabilities of products can significantly
change revetment performance.
It is suggested that a checklist of compliance is written for use by the contractor to
avoid substitution of inappropriate materials. This would clearly detail technical
aspects of the material / product selection and would serve to ensure that substitute
materials meet the required performance.
12.3. PREPARATION OF SLOPE

Where substantial volumes of fill are required in order to achieve the required
embankment profile, locally available or site-won non-cohesive materials may be
124
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
used. The use of large rock or demolition rubble is usually not advisable as this can
cause concentrations of high permeability within the core and the build-up of excess
pore pressures which can cause failure of the cover layer.
Filling of embankments to the required profile can be better achieved by benching
in and compacting a Type 1 sub-base material as defined in the Specification for
Highway Works: Part 3: Department of Transport (1991). This states that:
• Type 1 granular material shall be crushed rock, crushed slag, crushed concrete or
well burnt non-plastic shale.
• The material shall be well graded and lie within the grading envelope defined in
Table 12.1.
• The material passing the 425 jum BS sieve shall be non-plastic as defined by BS
1377, and tested in compliance herewith.
• The materials shall be transported, laid and compacted without drying out or
segregation.
• Materials shall have a 10% fines values of 50kN or more when tested in
compliance with BS812 except that samples shall be tested in a saturated and
surface dried condition.
Where only a nominal regulating of the embankment surface is required, a
suitable material is Class 6F1 as defined in the Spec, for Highway Works with the
grading as given in Table 12.2.
For the placement of concrete mattresses the preparation of an even formation

layer is less critical as the mattress can adapt to slight variations in formation level
on filling. The level of the formation is largely governed by aesthetic considerations
of the mattress surface appearance. If pockets of more permeable strata are
encountered, however, then these should be replaced with suitable compacted
material. It is however well accepted that a well-formed and even formation layer
will contribute.
Table 12.1 Grading of sub-base type 1

75 mm 100
37.5 mm 85-100
10 mm 40-70
5 mm 25-45
600 jLim 8-22
75 ^im 0-10
Table 12.2 Grading of Class 6F1 material

75 mm 100
37.5 mm 75-100
10 mm 40-95
5 mm 30-85
600 \im 10-50
63 \xm >15
125
12.4. TYPICAL TOLERANCES

In the specification of installation practice, acceptable tolerances ensure that the
revetment is constructed as detailed in the design. Acceptable tolerances are
particularly important where, for example, uneven block placement may occur. The
effect of varying gap widths between blocks can also be important as it can affect
the cover layer permeability.
Typical tolerances suggested for the placement of blockwork are:
• ± 10% of block thickness over a length of 3m for under-layer / filter beneath
armour layer
• ± 5% of block thickness between adjoining blocks
These are based on particular systems and it may be noted that some suppliers
may recommend other tolerances.
In the case of asphaltic revetments, due to the in-situ placement and the flexible
nature of the material, the tolerances for preparation of the formation are not so
critical. However, it is usually more cost effective to smooth the surface / fill voids
with an excavator than to fill them with the asphaltic material.
For fabric mattresses, the need for a smooth formation is also less critical, as the
fabric mattress will be laid and then filled with concrete, allowing it to adapt to the
shape of the formation. Typical tolerances may be up to ±150mm, but as the final
profile of the revetment is dependent on the profile of the formation, smaller
tolerances may be adopted for aesthetic reasons.
126
Inspection, Maintenance
and Repair
13. Inspection, Maintenance and Repair
Maintenance of revetments can be difficult, particularly as much of the structure is

often submerged. Any temporary works which were built for access during
construction are unlikely to be maintained. Typical repairs may involve the
placement of loose material which has settled and replacement of damaged
elements. In the case of large prefabricated elements, replacement may prove
difficult or expensive as special plant may be needed. In such cases alternative in-
situ repairs may be carried out instead.
A CIRIA study by Summers (1986) considered the maintenance of coastal
revetments. This identified a number of factors which affect maintenance: funding,
organisation and planning, accessibility, adaptability of existing revetment and the
need for proper design of repairs.
This study indicated that there are often limited funds available for maintenance
and that the majority of grant aid is awarded for capital works. Traditionally,
maintenance was carried out on a day-to-day basis as required, but this often proved
uneconomic and now a rolling maintenance programme is more often adopted. This
however requires that plant have ready access to the site.
It is important to bear in mind the accessibility of the site for completion of
maintenance works. Often the defences may have been constructed from the sea and
access from the land is not possible. The type of the foreshore can also cause a
problem for access, for example, it is easier to cross a sandy foreshore than
mudflats. Limitations of plant may also cause accessibility problems. Plant will
often operate from the crest of the embankment and may have insufficient reach to
repair damage further down the slope, requiring larger, more expensive plant to be
used.
For any revetment structure, periodic monitoring inspections (perhaps at 6
monthly intervals) should be carried out, to identify the need for maintenance.
Typically this will involve looking for any areas of undue settlement, localised
damage or perimeter scour. Additional inspections should be repeated after severe
storms.
Simple remedial works may include grouting of voids with concrete or asphaltic
grouts or breaking out and replacement of units that have failed.
129
Appendix 1 Typical specifications
This Annex provides examples of a number of typical statements to be used in

specifications, particularly for preparation of the formation for placement of the
revetment and installation procedures for the various revetment types. It should be
noted that much of the information typically given in a specification is inherent in
the design process as discussed in Chapters 10 and 11 of the manual. Typical
maintenance specifications are also given. Where further guidance is given in the
manual, the appropriate manual sections are indicated.
For guidance on specifications for rock construction, the reader is referred to the
CIRIA/CUR Rock Manual, Simm (1991) which provides comprehensive
information.
The information given in this Annex is for guidance only, the reader is advised to
seek specialist guidance from suppliers if unfamiliar with the materials to be used in
construction.
A l . l Preparation of formation (see Section 12.3, Section 12.4)

The formation layer should be graded to the required profile to within acceptable
tolerances (see 12.4), with any soft or unsuitable material being removed. The final
profile of the revetment will be dependent on the preparation of the formation.
Newly placed material should be built up in horizontal layers and compacted with a
vibrating roller in accordance with Dept. of Transport Specification for Highway
Works Table 8.1 (clause 802). Typical fill material is Type 1 sub-base as defined in
the Specification for Highway Works:
Type 1 sub-base: B.S. sieve size (mm) Percentage passing (%)

75 100
37.5 85-100 ~
10 40-70
5 25-45
0.6 8-22
0.075 0-10
131
For nominal regulating of embankments Class 6F1 material as specified in the

Specification for Highway Works may be used:
Class 6F1: B.S. sieve size (mm) Percentage passing (%

75 100
37.5 75-100
10 40-95
5 30-85
0.6 10-50
0.075 >15
A1.2 Filter / separation layers

Al.2.1 Granular drainage layer (Section 11.1.1)
Typical material for drainage layers should be Type B in accordance with Dept. of
Transport Specification for Highway Works Part 2 as follows:
TypeB: B.S. sieve size (mm) Percentage passing (%

63 100
37.5 85-100
20 0-25
10 0-5
The material shoiild be angular for improved stability. The material should be
placed as soon as possible after preparation of the formation layer.
•Al.2.2- Geotextiles (Section 11.1.2) :

Geotextiles should be designed in accordance with the given guidance. During
placement, at least 0.5m laps should be allowed between adjoining geotextiles.
A1.3 Materials • '.

Al.3.1 Concrete "blockwork
The concrete used for manufacture of the blocks shall typically have a density of
2300kg/m3, and a strength of 50N/mm2 at 28 days.
Al.3.2 Concrete mattresses

•' Micro concrete mix
The mix should have a water : cement ratio of 0.7:1 and a sand : cement ratio of 2:1.
The sand used in the micro concrete mix should be well-graded and within Zone F
as defined in BS 882, BSI (1992). Washed river or sea sand is preferable as it is
more rounded in nature. The sand should be in accordance with the following
grading:
Size Percentage passing (%)
5 mm 100
2.36 mm 80-100
1.18 mm 70-100
600|um 55-100
132
APPENDIX 1
300|Lim 5-70
150|um 0-15
75|um 0-1
Other materials shall typically be as follows:

Cement: OPC to BS 12, BSI (1996)
Water: Fresh, potable to BS 3148, BSI (1980)
The equipment for mixing and placing shall be a colloidal mixer and a low pressure
pumping system.
Al.3.3 Asphalt
® Asphaltic Grouting
The revetment to be grouted should be to a regular profile and free from foreign
matter e.g. vegetation, flotsam, soil etc.
Sand shall be medium fine natural sand and will comply with the following grading:
Size Percentage passing (%)
5 mm 90-100
2.36 mm 70-100
600 jim 30-100
212|um 0-50
75|iim 0-10
The crushed stone used in the grout should be a 10mm aggregate with the following
attributes:
® good natural affinity to bitumen
® frost/weather resistant
® hard, inert and resistant to abrasion
® angular in appearance and of approximately uniform shape.
® clean and free from dust and foreign matter.
Filler shall be limestone and will comply with Clause 4.4, BS 594: Part 1, BSI
(1992). When tested in accordance with the Van Der Baan method the result shall
lie between 26 and 36.
The mix proportions shall generally comply with the following limits:
Asphaltic mastic Material Percentage by mass (%

Min Max
Bitumen 17.5 20.5
Filler 18.0 25.0
Sand 54.5 65.0
133
Mastic grout: Material Percentage by mass (%)

Min Max
Stone (10mm) 10 20
Asphaltic mastic 80 90
For normal production working tolerances from the agreed design mix will be
permitted as follows:
Asphaltic mastic: Bitumen ± 1.0%
Filler ± 1 . 5 %
Sand ± 2.0%
• Open Stone Asphalt

The crushed stone for the Open Stone Asphalt should:
• have a good natural affinity to bitumen
• be frost / weather resistant
• show no signs of degradation as a result of cyclic wetting and drying caused
by sea water, tidal or wave action
• be hard, inert and resistant to abrasion
• be angular in appearance and of approximately uniform shape.
• have a flakiness index determined according to BS 812, Section 105.2, BSI
(1985) less than 30.
Delivered batches of 250 tonnes shall conform in their properties to the relevant
sample within ±5% of the determined sample parameters.
The stone shall comply with the results below, tests being carried out in accordance
with BS 812 (1985):
Test Unit Specification

Aggregate impact value % 25 maximum
Aggregate crushing value % 25 maximum
10% fines value kN 160 maximum
Aggregate abrasion value % 20 maximum
Water absorption % 2Vi maximum
Magnesium sulphate soundness % 12 maximum
Apparent relative density - 2.6 - 2.7
Filler used shall be limestone filler and will comply with Clause 4.4.1 of BS 594:
Part 1, BSI (1995). When tested in accordance with the Van Der Baan method the
result must lie between 26 and 36.
Bitumen used shall be straight run bitumen of nominal 100 pen complying with BS
3690: Part 1, BSI (1989) and BS 2000, Pts 49 and 58, BSI (1993).
134
APPENDIX 1
Asphaltic mastic will be a homogeneous mixture of sand, filler and bitumen. The
viscosity will be 30-80 Pa.s at 140°C. The mixing temperature will be 160°C to
170°C. The placing temperature will be between 110°C and 160°C.
The resulting Open Stone Asphalt will be a permeable homogeneous mixture of

asphaltic mastic and crushed stone.
The proportions of the materials will generally comply with the following limits:
Mastic: Material passing sieve(mm) Percentage by mass (%)

Min Max
2 58.5 65
0.063 18 22 •
100 pen bitumen 17.5 20.5
Material Percentage by mass (%)

Min Max
Stone 79 83
Sand mastic 17 21
For normal production working tolerances from the agreed design mix will be
permitted as follows:
Open Stone Asphalt Sand mastic ± 2.0%
Stone ±2.0%
A1.4 Placement of cover layer

Placement of the cover layer should take place as soon as possible after preparation
of the formation layer and placement of the granular filter layer and / or geotextile.
Al.4.1 Concrete blocks

Concrete blocks should be placed in accordance with manufacturer's guidance.
Individual blocks may be hand or mechanically placed. Care should be taken to
ensure that tolerances between individual blocks should be no greater than ±10 % of
the block thickness.
Cable-tied blocks may be placed in mats using cranes. Care should be taken to
ensure that cables of adequate strength are used. Cables should be tied into anchors
at the crest and toe of the slope.
Gaps in loose or cable-tied blocks should be filled with granular material to increase
interlock of the cover layer and prevent UV damage of under-lying geotextile.

Mattresses shall be placed and filled in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations by personnel having previous experience of carrying out similar
work to the approval of the Engineer.
135
In the case of underwater placement specialist divers should be appointed to carry

out the installation/Mattresses should be folded for easy deployment. They should
be lifted, and not dragged, when being handled.
Care should be taken to avoid spillage of concrete on top of the mattress during
filling as this may cause blockage of the filter points. The concrete should be an
easily pumpable mix which spreads fully within the mattress without segregation
and reaches a sub-strength at 28 days of 25N/m2.
The mattress should be laid bulked to allow for natural shrinkage of the form during
filling.
Concrete will be pumped through tubes to prevent spillage. The tubes should remain
submerged during filling and should have no rough edges that may cause damage to
the mattress fabric. Filling of the mattress should be paused at intervals to allow
some initial setting of the concrete and prevent overloading of the fabric.
Al.4.3 Open Stone Asphalt

Open Stone Asphalt shall be transported to the site in properly insulated and sheeted
trucks, such that cooling is kept to an absolute minimum. The body of the trucks
shall be clean and free from any foreign matter. Trucks shall only discharge their
loads when placing can commence or discharged into storage containers. Storage of
materials shall be kept to a minimum length of time and shall not exceed 3 hours.
The Open Stone Asphalt shall be placed with minimum passes to achieve the
required thickness. There shall be no moulding carried out on the slope. The
material shall be finished with the sharp edge of the bucket and lightly compacted
with the flat face of the excavator bucket.
The tolerance of the layer thickness will be within +15mm and -5mm.
The Open Stone Asphalt must not be laid in situ underwater or where water may
come into contact with it before it has cooled to a temperature of 100°C or less.
Where this condition cannot be met prefabricated mattresses of Open Stone Asphalt
shall be used (see below).
Joints should be heated with infra red heaters, provided that this will cause no
damage to filter fabric, or treated with a super penetration primer. The edge joint
shall be trimmed vertically against a shutter for a height of 150mm at the end of
each period of placing. Joints will only be allowed in the up-slope / down-slope
direction.
Al.4.4 Open Stone Asphalt Mattresses

Open Stone Asphalt Mattresses shall be made in formwork on a smooth foundation
using an excavator. Firstly the cables/tapes shall be laid out, then the filter fabric
laid on top smoothly and cut to the required length including overlaps. The Open
Stone Asphalt shall then be laid on top of the fabric. Reinforcing shall be built-in to
136
APPENDIX 1
take the tension forces that develop during transport and lifting operations.
Mattresses shorter than 7m may be picked up without additional reinforcing
providing the mattress is not caused any distress. The mattress shall be laid
smoothly on the subsoil and remain in that position. Care is essential during the
laying process.
The formation must be clean and smooth. Lifting and lowering must be done
carefully and slowly. During hoisting and placing, the mattress should not be
subjected to a radius of curvature less than 3.0m.
The mattress shall be hung from a special lifting frame suspended from a crane.
Smooth and light cables should be used to facilitate their removal from under the
mattress once it is in place.
A1.5 Protection of incomplete works

At the end of each working shift, exposed edges of uncompleted revetment should
be suitably protected to prevent damage of the under-layers.
During adverse weather conditions, particularly in the tidal zone, additional

protection for incomplete works may be necessary during construction.
A1.6 Quality control and testing

Trial mattresses should be installed and tested to the approval of the Engineer. Cores
should be taken from the mattresses at locations specified by the Engineer and tested
for compressive strength.
Al.6.2 Asphaltic materials

Sufficient trial mixes and testing of the design mix (grout or OSA) proposed by the
Contractor shall be carried out prior to the commencement of work to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Engineer the adequacy of the proposed mix. Samples of the
constituent materials with details of their source and character shall be submitted to
the Engineer for approval prior to delivery in bulk. The Engineer may wish to
inspect any source nominated by the Contractor. The agreed placing temperatures
and mix compositions will not be altered without the written approval of the
Engineer.
Regular control checks on produced materials will be established. During production

and placing, the Contractor will check for:
• layer thickness
• mix composition
• segregation
• temperatures
137
Asphaltic materials shall be sampled or tested in accordance with BS 598, Parts 100
and 101, B SI (1987) at appropriate frequencies. The Engineer will direct when and
where samples should be taken.
One sample shall be taken and tested from each delivery of bitumen to the batching
plant. The bitumen should be tested to check its penetration value at 25°C and its
softening point.
A1.7 Maintenance
It is recommended that the revetment be inspected annually, preferably immediately
following the winter period and additionally after severe storms. During inspection
careful attention should be given to the following, depending on the type of
revetment construction:
• deformation of the revetment due to settlement of the underlying formation
• damage to the revetment armour either due to impact or erosion of the
armour material
• movement of individual revetment elements
• loss of any joint fill material
Where local repairs are necessary, the following is recommended:

• Gaps in blockwork which exceed the mean grading of the granular filter
below should be cleaned and plugged with good quality concrete.
• Damage to individual blocks should be prepared by breaking out the

damaged units and replacing them with in-situ concrete. Where appropriate
this should be finished to maintain the overall appearance of the revetment,
e.g. by dressing with stone. If the system is cable-tied care should be taken
to avoid damage to the cables during this operation.
• Deformation of the revetment should be closely monitored and if this is

excessive, there may be a requirement to remove the revetment system,
investigate the formation material and take appropriate steps to re-establish
the original profile and prevent further deformation. This may require
excavation of soft material, to be replaced with a suitable compacted
material.
• On reinstatement of zones that have been repaired, any geotextiles should

have at least 0.5m lap joints.
References
British Standards Institution (1996) "Specification for Portland cement" BS 12,
London.
138
APPENDIX 1
British Standards Institution (1993) "Methods of test for petroleum and its products.
Determination of needle penetration of bituminous material" BS 2000:Part 49,
London.
British Standards Institution (1993) "Methods of test for petroleum and its products.
Determination of softening point of bitumen" BS 2000:Part 58, London.
British Standards Institution (1992) "Hot rolled asphalt for roads and other paved
areas. Specification for the transport, laying and compaction of rolled asphalt" BS
594:Part 2, London.
areas. Specification for constituent materials and asphalt mixtures" BS 594:Part 1,
London.
British Standards Institution (1992) "Specification for aggregates from natural

sources for concrete Specifies quality and grading requirements for aggregates
obtained by processing natural materials" BS 882, London.
areas. Specification for constituent materials and asphalt mixtures" BS 812:Part 1,
London.
British Standards Institution (1989) "Bitumens for building and civil engineering.
Specification for bitumens for roads and other paved areas" BS 3690:Part 1,
London.
British Standards Institution (1987) "Sampling and examination of bituminous

mixtures for roads and other paved areas. Methods for preparatory treatments of
samples for analysis" BS 598:Part 101, London.
British Standards Institution (1987) "Sampling and examination of bituminous

mixtures for roads and other paved areas. Methods for sampling for analysis" BS
598:Part 100, London.
British Standards Institution (1980) "Methods of test for water for making concrete
(including notes on the suitability of the water)" BS 3148, London.
139
Appendix 2 Example design
calculations
A2.1 Protection for earth embankment on inland reservoir - rock armour

Input information
No information on wave conditions. Wind data
available.
Wind speed, Vb=24 m/s
Wind direction = 240°
Fetch length = 6 km
Altitude = 200 m above mean sea level
Return period of design event: 50 years
Proposed structure slope : 1:3; cot a == 3

Design water level = 9 mAD
Toe level = 0 mAD
Crest level = 11 mAD
:.Rc = 2 m
Density of fresh water, p w = 1000 kg/m2

Density of rock for armour, p r = 2700 kg/m2
Revetment to be constructed with granular filter layer.
Determine design wave conditions (Section 7.3.1)

Design wind speed :
Eqn. 7.9 U D — VbS a SdS p SfS w UD = 38.7
m/s
Eqn. 7.10 S a = 1+O.OOlAs = 1 + 0.001 x 200 = 1.2
Eqn. 7.1 Sd = 1 as the primary wind direction = 240°
Eqn. 7.2 S p = 1 as we are using the 50 year design event
141
Table 7.3 Sf = 1.05 assuming wind duration of about 10-20

minutes.
Table 7.4 Sw= 1.28 for 6km fetch
Significant wave height:
Eqn 7.11 H s = 0.00178* UD*VF / Vg = 1.7m H s =1.7m
Peak wave period:
Eqn 7.12 T p =0.07118F 03 U D 04 = 4.18s Tp = 4.18s
Mean wave period:
Eqn 7.13 Tm=0.82Tp = 3.43s Tm = 3.43s
Detailed design overtopping performance (Section
10.1)
Eqn 10.1 R*=Rc/(Tm(gHs)U3) = 0.143
Eqn 10.2 Q*= A exp(-BR*/r)

Table 10.1 r=0.55
Table 10.2 A=0.0163;B=31.9
Eqn 10.3 Q* = q/(gT m H s )

q = Tm g Hs Q* = 2.4.104 m3/s.m = 0.24 1/s.m q=0.24 1/s.m
Figure Check with acceptable threshold. For embankment
10.1 seawalls, threshold for no damage »2 1/s.m
.•. overtopping performance acceptable, and the crest
level could even be reduced further if other parameters
allowed.
Note : This threshold of 2 1/s.m only applies to damage

to the embankment itself. More stringent thresholds
apply for operational safety on the crest of the revetment.
For example to ensure that vehicles can safely traffic, a
threshold of 0.001 1/s.m would apply.
Calculate rock armour size (Section 10.3)
Figure 10.3 Van der Meer permeability factor, P = 0.4
Damage level: Sd = 2 (the limit equivalent to 'no
damage')
Number of waves: N = 2000
sm= Hs/Lm; Lm= gTm2/27i sm = 0.09
Eqn 10.11 Ur=(6.2P 0 - 31 (tanaf 5 )'^ +0 - 5 > = 3 Smcr = 3

^m^m crforplunging waves .'. plunging
waves
Assuming rock armour 2.2Dn5o thick:
142
APPENDIX 2
Eqn 10.9 Hs/ADn50 = 6.2 PU1*(Sd / VN) U ^ m a >

. A = ( p r / p w ) - 1 = 1.7
.\D n 5 0 = 0.4m
.'• M50 = D n50 3 p r = 0.43 x 2.7 = 0.141 Dn5o = 0.371m
Note: The armour size is quite small, reflecting the M 50 = 0.14t
shallow slope of the structure. If other parameters allow,
the slope of the structure could be steepened, resulting in
an increase in armour size, but a shorter slope length and
hence a reduction in the volume of rock armour required.
Safety factors (Section 10.7)
Apply F s = 1.3 to mass (equivalent to F s = 1.1 to Dnso)
.\M5o = O.14x 1.3 = 0.18t M50 = 0.18t
Any under-estimation using this method will lead to
slightly increased damage a failure is not brittle. Van der
Meer's equations are well-supported by other studies, so
a factor of Fs = 1.1 on Dn50 or 1.3 on M50 seems
appropriate.
A2.2 Alternative design for concrete slabs

Input information
(As B.I)
Concrete slabs, so p c = 2350 kg/m3

A = ( p c / p w ) - 1 = 1.35
Wave conditions (Section 7.3.1)
(AsBl)
Overtopping performance (Section 10.1)
Eqn 10.1 R* = Rc/(Tm(gHs)u:>) = 0.143
Eqn 10.2 Q* - A exp(-BR*/r) = 5.2.10"8
Table 10.1 r=0.9
Table 10.2 A=0.0163;-B=31.9
Q*-1.03.10*
Eqn 10.3 Q* = q / T m g H s -
q = Tm g H S Q* = 5.89.10"3 m3/s.m = 5.9 1/s.m q = 5.9 1/s.m
Figure Check with acceptable threshold. For embankment
10.1 seawalls, threshold for no damage "«2 1/s.m
.'. overtopping performance not acceptable. If slabs were
to be used a higher crest level would be required.
Calculate slab thickness (Section 10.4.2)
Assume 3m x 3m slabs
Assume a filter thickness of tf- 0.2 m
D] 5 of filter layer, Dn 5 = 20 mm
Joint drainage gaps, w = 5 mm
143
Eqn 10.17 H s /At a = S c / 4 P

Eqn 10.18 Sc = 3.3 In ((VAS / tf) (w / D n 5 )°') + 4.0 = 12.48
^ p = tan a / Vsp = (1/3) / V0.06 = 1.36
sp = 2 n Hs / g Tp2 = 0.06
.-.ta= Hs \vl A Sc = 0.137m
Table 10.4 Apply 95% confidence factor - for slab depth use 1.3
.\t a = = 1.37x1.3 = 0.178 mm ta = 0.18m
A2.3 Coastal revetment - blockwork

Input information
Purpose: slope protection within harbour
Design life: 10 years
Toe level = -2mAD
Bed slope, shallow- say 1:100.
Design water level: 2mAD
Water depth at toe = 4m
Table 8.1 Geotechnical conditions: sandy sub-soil, § = 30°
p c = 2350kg/m 3
p w = 1025 kg/m3
Determine return period, T, of design event (Section
2.2):
Design life = 10 years
Revetment to provide protection from flooding to rural
area. Assume acceptable overall annual probability of
occurrence of design event,
p=10%.
Eqn. 2.1 .\T=l/l-(l-p/100)1/N T = 100
years
T = 95 years, say 100 year event.
No information is available on wave conditions. Design
wind speed is available, 1:100 year, UD = 20 m/s
Fetch length = 2 km
Determine hydraulic boundary conditions (Section
7.2.3):
Fetch length = 2km
100 year U D = 20m/s
Fig 7.2 Hs = 0.5m y
Fig 7.3 T p = 2.3s / Hs = 2.5m
Eqn 7.2 Tm = 0.82x2.3 = 1.89s T p = 5.8s
Tm = 4.77s
Check for shoaling:
Eqn 7.3 Ks = 1 / {[l+(2kh/sinh(2kh))] tanh (kh)} 05
144
APPENDIX 2
wave number, k = 2TC/L

L = gT2/27i = 9.81 x 2.3 2 / 2n.= 8.26m
k = 2 7i / 8.26 = 0.76
K, = 1 / {[l+(2 x 0.76 x 0.5/sinh(2 x 0.76 x 0.5))] Ks=1.2
tanh(0.76x0.5)} 0 5
= 1.2
Hsi = H s K s = 0.5x1.2 = 0.6m Hsi = 0.6m
after
shoaling
Check for wave breaking:
Fig 7.4 hs/gT2 = 0.5 / (9.81 x2.3 2 ) = 0.0096 .\y br = 0.58
Eqn 7.7 HSb = Ybr-hs = 0.58 x 4 = 2.32m
Eqn 7.8 Hs < HSb .'. no wave breaking, HSj = 0.6m Hsi = 0.6m
no breaking
Initial dimensioning of cross-section (Chapter 9)
Revetment slope = 1:3; cot a = 3
Eqn 9.3 Blockwork cover layer thickness ta = Hs/6 = 0. lm ta = 0.1m
Filter thickness, tf = 100mm (first
estimate)
Crest elevation: (Section 9.1)
Calculate run-up:
Fig 9.1 Smooth dam face .". design wave height, HQ = 0.75Hs =
0.45m
Eqn 9.1 Wave surcharge = Rf HD = 1.7 x 0.45 = 0.765m
Rc > wave surcharge = 0.8m
.\R c = 0.8m
.'. Crest elevation = design water level + Rc
= 2 + 0.8 = 2.8mAD Rc = 2.8m
Crest
elevation =
2.8mAD
(first
estimate)
Detailed design
Overtopping (Section 10.1):
Fig 10.1 Acceptable overtopping discharge, q = 50 1/s.m for
revetment seawalls
Calculate dimensionless freeboard:
Eqn 10.1 R* = R c /(T m (gH s ) 0 5 ) = 0.174
Calculate dimensionless discharge:
Eqn 10.2 Q* = A exp (-BR*/r)
Table 10.1 r = 0.9
Table 10.2 A = 0.0163; B = 31.9
145
Q* = 3.36-10"5
Eqn 10.3 Q* = q / T m g H s
q = Q* Tm g H s = 3.74.10"4 m3/s/m = 0.4 1/s.m
q<501/s.m .-.Rc = 0.8m
Crest elevation = 2 + 0.8 = 2.8mAD Final crest
elevation =
2.8 mAD
Note: The overtopping prediction is significantly lower
than the overtopping threshold so the crest level could be
reduced further.
Scour (Section 10.2):
Eqn 10.4 For sand beach scour depth at vertical wall, ds = Hmax =
1.8 H s = 1.08m
For 1:3 slopes, 25% reduction .\d s = 0.75 x 1.08 = ds = 0.81m
0.81m
.". Provide scour protection to depth of -2.9mAD
Blockwork stability (Section 10.4.1):
Eqn 10.15 Hs/Ata = S b V 0 - 6 7
Table 10.3 Sb = 3.7 as loose blocks on granular filter

sp = 27tHs/gT2 = 2n x 0.6 / 9.81 x 2.3 2 = 0.07 sp = 0.05
A = (p c / Pw) - 1 = (2350/1025) - 1 = 1.29

.\t a = 0.6 x 1.26067/1.29 x 3.7 = 0.147m .-. say 150mm ta= 150 mm
thick blocks
Say 150 x 250 x 250 mm blocks 150 x 250 x
250 mm
blocks
Blockwork sliding (Section 10.4.5):
Calculate sliding force:
F a = li b ta p c g sin a
Eqn 10.26 h = H s /sin a = 0.6/sin 18.4= 1.9m
F a = 1.9 x 0.25 x 0.15 x 2.35 x 9.81 x sin 18.4 = 0.518
kN
Calculate restraining friction force, Ff:
Eqn 10.21 Ff=Fnf
Stabilising force normal to slope provided by blocks
below zone of wave attack:
Eqn 10.23 Fn = l n b t a ( p c - p w ) g c o s a
In = d/sin a - h = 12.67 - 1.9 = 10.77 m
Fn = 10.77 x 0.25 x 0.15 x (2.35 - 1.025) x 9.81 x cos
18.4 = 4.98 kN
f = 0.67 tan <>| = 0.67 tan 30 = 0.39
146
APPENDIX 2
Ff =4.98x0.39= 1.94 kN
Eqn 10.27 F s = F f / Fa = 1.94 / 0.518 = 3.75 > 1 .\ structure very = 3.75
stable against sliding
The most conservative value of the coefficient S was
adopted so no further safety factor need be applied.
A2.4 Open Stone Asphalt revetment in coastal location

Input information
U = 20m/s
F = 2km
Fig 7.2 Hs = 0.5m Hs = 0.5m
Fig 7.3 Tp = 2.3s Tp = 2.3s
Eqn 7.2 Tm = 0.82x2.3 = 1.89s T m = 1.89s
Initial dimensioning of cross-section (Chapter 9)
Revetment slope = 1:2.5; cot a = 2.5
Cover laver thickness (Section 9.3"):
Eqn 9.3 ForOSA ta = Hs/6 = 0.11m
Crest elevation (Section 9.2):
Table 9.2 Smooth dam face .'. design wave height, Ho = 0.75Hs =
0.375m
Eqn 9.1, Wave surcharge = Rf HD = 1.70.375 = 0.6375m Rc = 0.65m
Fig 9.1 Crest
elevation =
3.65mAD
(first
estimate)
Eqn 9.2 Rc > wave surcharge = 0.65m
Crest elevation = design water level + Rc = 3.65mAD
Detailed design (Chapter 10)
Overtopping (Section 10.1):
Fig 10.1 Acceptable overtopping discharge, q = 50 1/s.m for
revetment seawalls
Calculate dimensionless freeboard:
Eqn 10.1 R* = R c /(T m (gH s ) 05 ) = 0.154
Calculate dimensionless discharge:
Eqn 10.2 Q* = A exp (-BR*/r)
Table 10.1 r = 0.8
Table 10.2 A = 0.0145; B = 26.1
Q* = 9.54-10"5
Eqn 10.3 Q* = q / T m g H s
q = Q* Tm g Hs = 8.9.10"4 m3/s/m = 0.9 1/s.m
147
q<501/s.m.\Rc = 3.3m
Crest elevation = 3 + 3.3 = 6.3mAD Crest
elevation =
6.3 mAD
Note: There is minimal overtopping relative to the
threshold, so the crest level could be reduced further if
other parameters allow.
Check for wave impacts (Section 10.6.3):
Eqn 10.41 ta= 0.75 ((27 /16).(1 / (l-o 2 )).(P imax / a b ) 4 (S / c))a2-ff
Table 10.8 asphalt stress at failure for OSA, a b = 0.34 x 106N/m2 (
for 10 000 loading cycles)
Poisson's ratio for asphalt, u = 0.35
Table 10.9 modulus of subgrade reaction, c = l x l O 7 - l x 10 8 N/m 3
Table 10.8 stiffness modulus of OSA, S = 7 x 108 N/m 2
Table 10.7 wave impact coefficient, qi = 2.5
Calculate wave impact pressure:
Eqn 10.35 Pimax = bj pmax = 0.4 Hs q{ p w g Hs
= 0.4 x 0.5 x 2.5 x 1025 x 9.81 x 0.55
= 2.51 kN/m
ta = 0.75 ((27/16) (l/(l-0.35 2 )) (2510/0.34x106)4
(7xl0 8 /lxl0 7 )) 02 f f
= 0.75 (1.6875 x 1.1396 x 2.97 x 10"9 x 70) 02 ff
= 0.04f f m.
To calculate fatigue factor, ff:
Identify loading case:
- revetment exposed to wave attack under normal
conditions and under extreme conditions:
ff=[0.1N{Zn i /n s (P i /P s ) 5 } + l] 4 / 2 5
Eqn 10.39 Determine Z ni/ns (Pi/Ps)5 for Goeree (most severe case):
Table If Hi = 0.5Hs, then I n/n s (Pi/Ps)5 = 0.2
10.10 If Hi = 0.75Hs, then I nj/ns (Pi/Ps)5 = 6.0
/. f f = [0.1-50-0.2 + l] 4 / 2 5 = 1.12
or f f = [0.1-50-6.0 + l] 4/25 = 1.73
.\t a = 0.04x1.73 = 0.0.069m Revised
thickness
ta= 0.07m
In the calculation of fatigue for the OSA, the most
conservative values from Table 10.10 are adopted. No
further safety factor need be applied.
148
APPENDIX 2
A2.5 Fabric mattress in sheltered location in marina

Input information
Purpose: Flood protection for buildings
Wave conditions: Hs = 0.5m
Tp = 3s
Water level: +3mAD
Geotechnical conditions: Sandy sub-soil, c|).= 35°
Structure geometry: Structure slope 1:2
Design life: 50 years
Clay embankment
Detailed design (Chapter 10)
Determine mattress thickness (Section 10.5):
Eqn 10.29 Hs/Ata = S b V°- 67
^p = tan a / V sp = (1 / 2) / Vo.04 = 2.5
sp = 2 TC Hs / gTp2 = 2-71-0.5 / 9.81-32 = 0.04
A = p c / p w - 1 = 2400/1025 - 1 = 1.34
Sb = 4
.•.ta = H s ^ p a 6 7 / A S b ta = 0.175m
= 0.5-2.5 a 6 7 /(1.34x4)
= 0.172m .'. 175mm mattress
This is not the most conservative possibility, a factor of
safety up to 1.5 on ta should be considered, which would
be equivalent to reducing Sb to 2.7. A lower Fs would
require more investigation on permeability and potential
blockages of the mattress filter points.
149
Appendix 3 Summary of design
methods
Selection of design event (see Section 2.2)

1. Select acceptable annual frequency of exceedance, p, of return period TR of
design event (see Figure 2.2).
2. Determine, TR:
p=l-(l-l/TR)N (2.1)
Notation
p annual frequency of occurrence
TR return period of design event (years)
N design life (years)
Wave prediction in coastal waters (see Section 7.2)
1. Determine offshore significant wave height, H s , from Figure 7.2.
2. Determine shoaling coefficient, Ks:

Ks = 1 / {[l+(2kh/sinh(2kh))] tanh (kh)} 0 5 (7.3)
3. Determine refraction coefficient, KR:

KR = V{cospo/cos p} (7.4)
P = sin'1 (sin(po)tanh(kh)} (7.5)
4. Determine wave breaker index, y^, from Figure 7.4.
Determine breaking wave height, Hst,:

H s b = Ybr ' h s (7.7)
5. Determine wave height at structure, Hsi:

if Hsb < Hs then Hsi = Hsb
ifH s b >H s thenH s i = Hs (7.8)
151
6. Determine peak wave period, Tp, from Figure 7.3.
7. Determine mean wave period, Tm:

Tm = 0.82 Tp (7.2)
Notation
Ks shoaling coefficient
KR refraction coefficient
Ybr wave breaker index
Hs significant wave height in deep water (m)
Hsi significant wave height at structure (m)
HSb significant breaking wave height (m)
k wave number = 2TI/L
h water depth (m)
L wavelength in water depth h (m)
Po wave direction in deep water (°)
P angle between wave direction and beach normal (°)
k 2TT/L
Wave prediction in inland waters (see Section 7.3)

1. Determine design wind speed, UD:
u D = Vb.Sa.Sd.Sp.Sf.Sw (7 •9)
2. Determine fetch length (see Section 7.3.2)
3. Determine significant wave height, Hs: Hs = 0.00178 UD VF / Vg (7 .11)
4. Determine peak wave period, Tp: Tp = 0.07118 F° 3 U D ° 4 (7 .12)
5. Determine mean wave period, Tm: Tm = 0.82 T p (7 .13)
Notation
vb basic hourly wind speed (m/s)
Sa altitude factor = 1+0.001 As
As altitude of site above mean sea level (m)
sd directional factor, from Table 7.1.
Sp probability factor, from Table 7.2.
Sf duration factor, from Table 7.3.
over water speed-up factor, from Table 7.4.
UD design wind speed (m/s)
F fetch length (m)
g acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
Hs significant wave height (m)
TP peak wave period (s)
Tm mean wave period (s)
152
APPENDIX 3
Overtopping (see Section 10.1)

1. Determine acceptable overtopping discharge from Figure 10.1.
2. Calculate dimensionless freeboard, R*:

R* = Rc/(T m (gH s ) 0 5 ) (10.1)
3. Calculate dimensionless discharge Q*:

Q* = A exp (-BR*/r) (10.2)
4. Determine mean overtopping discharge:

Q* = q/T m g H s (10.3)
/. q = T m g H s Q *
5. Compare q with acceptable overtopping threshold (note - care with m 3 and litres)
Notation
Q* dimensionless overtopping discharge
R* dimensionless freeboard
Rc structure freeboard (m)
Hs significant wave height at structure (m)
r roughness coefficient from Table 10.1
A, B coefficients from Table 10.2
q mean overtopping discharge (m 3 /s.m)
Scour (see Section 10.2)

l . F o r sand: ds = Hmax (10.4)
where Hmax = 1.8 Hs (10.5)
2. For shingle beaches determine ds from Figure 10.2 for vertical wall and storm
duration of 3000 waves.
3. If 1 .5 < cot a < 2, then no reduction can be applied to ds.

If cot a > 3, then ds = 0.5 to 0.75 ds obtained from Figure 10.2.
Rock and rip-rap armour design methods (see Section 10.3)

1. Determine rock armour size, Dn50:
Hudson: N s = Hs/ADn50 = (K D cota) 1/3 (10.8)
Van der Meer: .

for plunging waves: Hs/ADn50 = 6.2 P 0 1 8 (S d //N) 0 2 ^ m -° 5 (10.9)
for surging waves: Hs/ADn50 = 1.0 P"°13 (S d //N) 0 2 / c o t a ^ m p (10.10)
Transition from plunging to surging waves at %m = ^mcr:
153
Smcr = (6.2 P 0 3 1 (tana) 05 ) 1/(P+a5) (10.11)
where £,m < £mcr for plunging waves

£mcr for surging waves.
Notation
Pr mass density of rock armour (kg/m3)
A buoyant density of rock, = (pr/pw)-1
Pw density of sea water (kg/m3)
a slope angle of the structure face (°)
KD stability coefficient
P notional permeability factor from Figure 10.3
sd damage number = Ae/Dn5o2,
Ae erosion area (m2)
N number of waves
Iribarren number = tana/s m 1/2
mean sea steepness = 27iHs/gTm2
Blockwork design (Section 10.4.1)

1. Determine appropriate case from Table 10.3. Select St>.
2. Calculate armour layer thickness, ta:

t = Q t -0.67 (10.15)
Notation
ta armour layer thickness (m)
empirically derived coefficient, see Table 10.3
Iribarren number = tan a/s p ° 5
V peak sea steepness = 27iHs/gTp2
Slabs (See section 10.4.2)

1. Calculate slab thickness, ta:
(1.0. 17)
Sc = 3.3 In ((VAS/ tf) (w / Dns) a i ) + 4.0 (10. 18)
2. Apply confidence factors from Table 10.4.
3. Ensure parameters fall within range of Table 10.5.
154
APPENDIX*
Notation
As area of slab / block (m)
tf filter layer thickness (m)
w width of gap between slabs / blocks (mm)
Dfi5 15% sieve value for filter material (mm)
Sliding of blockwork (see Section 10.4.5)

1. Calculate sliding force, F a :
F a = li.b.ta p c g sin a (10.25)
2. Calculate restraining friction force, Ff:

F f = F n .f (10.21)
3. Calculate normal force between blocks and underlayer:
For cable-tied blocks: F n = lni.b.ta.pcg cos a (10.24)
For loose blocks: F n = lii.b.ta.(pc-Pw)g cos a (10.23)
4. Check factor of safety, F s :
Fs = F f / F a > l (10.27)
Notation
Ff Friction force between cover and filter layer (N)
Fn Normal force between the block and filter layer (N)
Fa Sliding force (N)
f friction coefficient, typically 0.67 tan §f
•f friction angle of filter layer (°)
llll slope length of Area III which provides stabilising force for loose
blocks (m)
= (d - Hs/2) / sin a, where d = the water depth or depth to revetment
toe if buried
III slope length of Area II which provides stabilising force for cable-tied
blocks (m)
= (Re) / sin a, where Rc = structure freeboard
h length over which uplift pressure acts = Hs/sin a. (m)
b width of block (m)
ta thickness of block (m)
Pc density of concrete (kg/m3)
a slope angle (°)
155
Concrete mattresses (see Section 10.5)

1. Determine mattress thickness:
= SbV°-67 (10.29)
where Sb = 2 - 3 for low-permeability mattresses

Sb = 3 - 4 for high permeability mattresses
Notation
ta mattress thickness (m)
A buoyant density of rock, = (pr/pw)-1
Impermeable asphaltic revetments — uplift & sliding (see Section 10.6.1)

1. Determine uplift head on underside of revetment cover layer, p u :
Pu = v V [ ( l - v / ( a + v ) ) f (10.30)
For tidal locations, a preliminary estimate of v can be taken as 50% of the difference
between maximum and mean external water level. For long term difference in water
levels, such as in reservoirs, values of v should be taken as 100% of the difference.
Calculate maximum uplift water pressure, GWO:

= Pwg (P + ta COS a ) (10.31)
Check stability against uplift:

ta > ciwo / p a g cos a (10.32)
Check for stability against sliding:

ta > f.dwo / p a g (fcos a - sin a ) (10.33)
Notation
f coefficient of friction = tan ty' if ty' > 0, else f = tan 0
(j)' angle of internal friction of sub-soil (°)
9 angle of friction between revetment and subsoil (°)
a vertical distance from revetment toe to external water level (m)
v vertical distance between external water level and internal phreatic
surface (m)
x coefficient dependent on structure slope, see Table 10.6
a slope angle (°)
pa asphalt bulk density (kg/m3)
Open Stone Asphalt thickness (see Section 10.6.2)

1. Determine thickness of cover layer, ta:
ta = C H s (10.34)
156
APPENDIX 3
Notation
C coefficient dependent on sub-base
ta asphalt thickness (m)
Asphalt - Wave impact pressures (see Section 10.6.3)

1. Calculate maximum wave impact:
bip m a x = b i q i p w g H s (10.35)
2. Calculate cover layer thickness, ta:

ta > 0.75 ((27/16).(l/(l-u 2 )).(Pi/a b ) 4 (S/c)) 02 (10.36)
3. Determine fatigue factor, ff, based on loading condition:

• revetment exposed to wave attack under normal conditions and under
extreme conditions will be exposed to the design wave conditions:
f f =[0.1N{En 1 /n s (P i /P s ) 5 } +1] 4 / 2 5 (10.39)
• revetment only exposed to waves during normal conditions:
ff=[0.1N{En i /n s (P i /P s ) 5 }] 4/25 (10.40)
• revetment not exposed to waves under normal conditions, but may be
attacked under extreme conditions, ff=l.
4. Determine E nj/ns (Pi/Ps)5 from Table 10.10. [NB - Goeree gives the most severe
fatigue factors and hence most conservative design.]
5. Calculate revetment thickness, ta:

t a >f f 0.75(27/16.(l/(l-D 2 )).(Pi/a b ) 4 (S/c)) 02 (10.41)
Notation
pmax maximum pressure (N/m 2 )
bj width over which p m a x acts = 0.4 H s (m)
qj factor dependent on revetment slope, see Table 10.7
Gb asphalt stress at failure (N/m 2 ), from Table 10.8
S stiffness modulus of asphalt (N/m 2 ) from Table 10.8
u Poisson ratio for asphalt = 0.35
c modulus of subgrade reaction (N/m 3 ) from Table 10.9
0.75 reduction factor.
ns number of times extreme event occurs during a storm
Ps wave force caused by extreme event (N/m)
n, number of times Hi occurs during a storm
Pj force caused by Hj (N/m)
Hi wave height from wave height distribution which is divided into
bands of Hi (m)
N design life (years)
157
10.6.4 Grouting of rock armour layers (Section 10.6.4)

Determine mass of rock armour, M50:
M 5 0 = p r H s 3 / K D cot a A3 (10.42)
where K D should be determined from Section 10.3 and multiplied by a factor to

account for added strength from grout. For surface grouted stone, if about 3 0 % of
the voids are covered, then KD can be multiplied by 1 to 1.5. For pattern grouting, if
about 6 0 % of the total surface is filled, then K D can be multiplied by a factor of 5 to
7.
Notation
M50 median mass of rock armour (kg)
pr rock density (kg/m 3 )
a slope angle
KD stability coefficient
A buoyant density of rock, = (p r /p w )-l
Filter design (see Section 11.1)

Granular filter (Section 11.1.1)
Check:
Dl5 filter < 5 D85base (11.2)
Dl5 filter > 5 Debase (11.3)
D50filter< 2 5 D50 base (11.4)
Geotextile filter (Section 11.1.2)

1. Design in accordance with filter criteria in Table 11.2
2. Check:
kg > 5ks (11.5).
Lean Sand Asphalt

Check:
100mm <tf<t a (11.1)
Notation
kg the permeability of the geotextile (m/s)
ks the permeability of the underlying material (m/s) see Table 8.2.
tf filter layer thickness (mm)
ta armour layer thickness (mm)
158
References
Allsop N.W.H. (1990) "Rock armouring for coastline and shoreline structures:
hydraulic model studies on the effects of armour grading" Report EX 1989, HR
Wallingford, UK.
Allsop N.W.H. (1995) "Stability of rock armour and rip-rap on coastal structures" in
River, Coastal and Shoreline Protection: Erosion Control Using Riprap and
Armourstone, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Allsop, N.W.H., Durand N & Hurdle, D.P. (1998) "Influence of steep seabed slopes
on breaking waves for structure design" Proc. Conf. 26th ICCE, Copnhagen, publn.
ASCE, New York.
Bradbury AP, Latham J-P, & Allsop NWH. (1990) "Rock armour stability formulae:
influence of stone shape and layer thickness" 22nd ICCE, Delft, July 1990, ASCE,
New York, (available as HR Published Paper 39)
Bezuijen A., & Klein Breteler M. (1996) "Design formulas for block revetments"
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 12, No.6, ASCE,
USA.
Bezuijen A., Klein Breteler M. & Burger A. M. (1990) "Placed block revetments"
Chapter 8, Coastal Protection, Ed. Pilarczyk K.W., Balkema, The Netherlands.
British Standards Institution (1984) "British Standard Code of practice for Maritime
structures, Part 1. General Criteria" BS 6349: Part 1: 1984, and Amendments 5488
and 5942, British Standards Institution, London.
British Standards Institution (1991) "British Standard Code of practice for Maritime
structures, Part 7. Guide to the design and construction of breakwaters" BS 6349:
Part 7: 1991, British Standards Institution, London.
British Standards Institution (1995) "Loadings for buildings: Code of practice for
wind loads" BS6399 Part 2, British Standards Institution, London, UK.
159
British Standards Institution (1994) "Code of practice for earth retaining structures"
BS8002 Part 2, British Standards Institution, London.
CERC (1984) "Shore Protection Manual"2 Vols, US Army Corps of Engineers, US

Govt. Publishing, Washington, USA.
Department of Energy (1985) "Environmental parameters on the United Kingdom

Continental shelf Offshore technology report prepared by Noble Denton and
Associates Limited, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Transport (1991) "Specification for highway works", HMSO,

London, UK.
Escarameia M. (1998) "River and channel revetments - a design manual" Report

SR518, HR Wallingford, Publn. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Flather R. A. (1987). "Estimates of extreme conditions of tide and surge using a

numerical model of the Northwest European continental shelf Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science, 24, 69-93.
Goda Y. (1975) "Irregular wave determination in the surf zone" Coastal

Engineering in Japan, Vol 18, pp 13-26, JSCE, Tokyo.
Hemphill R.W. & Bramley M.E. (1989) "Protection of river and canal banks: a
guide to selection and design", CIRIA Water engineering report, Butterworths,
London, UK.
Herbert D.M. (1993) "Performance of asphaltic revetments" Report SR 340, HR

Wallingford, U.K.
Herbert D,M, Lovenbury H.T., Allsop N.W.H. & Reader R.A. (1995) "Performance
of blockwork and slabbing protection for dam faces" Report SR 345, HR
Wallingford in association with CIRIA, Wallingford.
Kemps B. & Barber P. (1991) "The use of bituminous materials with open structures
in coastal engineering", Proc. ICE Conference on Coastal Structures and
Breakwaters, Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Klein Breteler M. & Bezuijen A. (1991) "Simplified design method for block
revetments" Proceedings ICE Conference on Coastal Structures and Breakwaters,
Thomas Telford, London, U.K.
Lindenberg J. (1983) "Stability of Armorflex block slope protection mats under

wave attack" Report Ml910, Delft Hydraulics, The Netherlands.
160
REFERENCES
Owen M.W. (1980) "Design of seawalls allowing for wave overtopping" Report
EX924, HR Wallingford, UK.
Owen M. W. & Steele A. A. J. (1991) "Effectiveness of recurved wave return walls"

Report SR261, HR Wallingford, UK.
PIANC (1992) "Guidelines for the design and construction of flexible revetments
incorporating geotextiles in marine environment" Report of Working Group no. 21
of the Permanent Technical Committee II, Supplement to Bulletins No.'s 78/79,
Brussels, Belgium.
Pilarczyk K. W. (1984) "Filters" Chapter 2.4.13, Closure of Tidal Basins, Delft

University Press, The Netherlands.
Pilarczyk K.W. (1998) "Stability criteria for geosystems - an overview"

Proceedings of 6th International Geosynthetics Conference, Atlanta, USA.
Pilarczyk K.W. (1990) "Design of seawalls and dikes - including overview of

revetments" Chapter 7, Coastal Protection, ed. Pilarczyk K.W., Balkema, The
Netherlands.
Pilarczyk K.W., Klein Breteler M. & Bezuijen A. (1995) "Wave forces and
structural response of placed block revetments on inclined structures" Chapter 3 in
Wave Forces on Inclined and Vertical Wall Structures, ASCE, USA.
Powell K.A. (1987) "Toe scour at sea wall subject to wave action - a literature
review , Report SR 119, HR Wallingford, UK.
Powell K.A. (1989) "The scouring of coarse sediments at the toe of seawalls" Proc.
Seminar on seawall design, HR Wallingford, UK.
Rijkswaterstaat (1985) "The Use of Asphalt in Hydraulic Engineering" Technical

Advisory Committee on Water Defences, Communication no. 37, The Hague, The
Netherlands.
Simm J.D. (1997) "Construction risk in coastal engineering" HR Wallingford,

Publn. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
Simm J D., Brampton A H., Beech N W & Brooke J S. (1995) "Beach management
manual" Report 153, CIRIA London, UK.
Simm J.D. (Ed.) (1991) "Manual for the use of rock in coastal engineering" CIRIA
Special Publication 83 / CUR Report 154, CIRIA, London, UK.
161
Sprague CJ. & Koutsourais M.M. (1992) "Fabric formed concrete revetment
systems." Chapter from Koerner R.M. Geosynthetics in filtration, drainage and
erosion control. Elsevier Advanced Technology.
Summers L. (1986) "Maintenance of revetments" Technical Note 124, CIRIA,

London, UK.
Technical Advisory Committee on Water Defences (1985) "The use of asphalt in

hydraulic engineering" Rijks water staat Communications, The Hague, The
Netherlands.
van der Meer J.W. (1988) "Rock slopes and gravel beaches under wave attack" PhD
thesis, Delft Hydraulics, the Netherlands.
van der Meer J. W. (1996) "Influence of rock shape and grading on stability of low-
crested structures" Proc.25th Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Orlando, publn ASCE, New
York, USA.
van der Meer J. W. (1998) "A code for dike height design and examination" Proc.
ICE Conf. On Coastlines, Structures and Breakwaters. Thomas Telford, London,
UK.
Yarde A.J, Banyard L.S. & Allsop N.W.H. (1996) "Reservoir dams: wave
conditions, wave overtopping and slab protection" Report SR 459, HR Wallingford,
UK.
162

Revetment Systems Against Wave Attack: A Design Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revetment Systems Against Wave Attack: A Design Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revetment systems against wave attack

Supervising Editor, William Allsop

Distributors for Thomas Telford books are

First published 1998

Cover picture courtesy of MMG Civil Engineering Systems

ISBN: 0 7277 2706 0

© K. McConnell and Thomas Telford, 1998

Printed and bound in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire

• ports and harbours

Armour Outer protective layer of the revetment, also termed the

A Slope coefficient for overtopping

Sb Coefficient in Klein Breteler & Bezuijen's method for blockwork

a Structure front slope angle to horizontal; also used as a coefficient;

Iribarren number tan a/sp05, calculated in terms of peak wave

4. MATERIALS FOR REVETMENT CONSTRUCTION 19

4.3. Concrete mattresses, 30

5. IDENTIFICATION OF LIKELY FAILURE MODES 39

7. HYDRAULIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 53

8. GEOTECHNICAL BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 67

9. DESIGN OF INITIAL CROSS-SECTION 73

10. DESIGN METHODS 81

11. DETAILED DESIGN 109

12. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 121

13. INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 127

Appendix 1 Typical specifications, 131

Figure 4.2 Cross-section of rock armour revetment 22

1.1. STRUCTURE OF THE MANUAL

1.2. TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.3. PURPOSE OF THE MANUAL

Existing coastline or embankment rear face

Figure 1.1 Revetment system

The choice of construction material may result in a permeable or impermeable

2.1. REVETMENT FUNCTIONS & TYPES

2.2. DESIGN LIFE / PERFORMANCE

Narrow Embankment Wide Defence Cliff or Reclamation

Figure 2.1 Classification of revetments

Guidance is given in BS6349 Part 1, BSI (1984), on determining the encounter

If the structure is required to limit overtopping, then an acceptable degree of

Design life, N years

NOTE. T is return period of a particular extreme wave condition in years.

3.1. COVER LAYER

should be suitably prepared before construction, and should be essentially stable

3.2. FILTER LAYER

3.2.1.1 Granular filters

3.2.2. Geotextile filters

Geotextiles are manufactured by a variety of methods. Those used for revetment

3.3. OTHER LAYERS

3.4. TOE PROTECTION

3.5. CREST PROTECTION

3.6. LANDWARD FACE OF EMBANKMENTS

A number of different materials may be used in the construction of revetments. The

Figure 4.1 Rock armour revetment

Figure 4.2 Cross-section of rock armour revetment

Construction of rock revetments is relatively simple, generally requiring standard

4.2. CONCRETE BLOCKS AND SLABBING

Concrete crest wall

Figure 4.3 Cross-section of blockwork revetment

Figure 4.4 Blockwork revetment (courtesy Ruthin Precast Concrete Ltd)

Figure 4.5 Blockwork revetment (courtesy Ruthin Precast Concrete Ltd)

'• . . ^ _ _ _ # • . , . . _ ' , _ _ '

Pre-cast or in-situ concrete slabs (generally of plan area 2m x 2m or larger) may

Figure 4.10 Placement of cable-tied blockwork (courtesy Mike Griggsfor Transmanche-Link,

4.3. CONCRETE MATTRESSES