5, 6. COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Design of rubble mound structures breakwaters by Hans F. Burcharth, Dept. of Civil Eng., Aalborg University, Denmark Types of structures Choice of type of structure as function of 2.1 Functional criteria 2.2 Environmental conditions Cross section design as function of 3.1 Allowable overtopping 3.2 Structure stability 3.3 Construction method Roundhead design Optimum safety levels Strength of concrete armour units Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) http://users.coastal.ufl.edu/~sheppard/eoc6430/Coastal_Engineering Manual.htm Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Types of structures CONVENTIONAL MULTI LAYER RUBBLE-MOUND BREAKWATER (OOK OACOnRETE BLOCKS. = a = SN al 7a, A ~wosn sven 9008 ‘S- SHAPED FRONT Beat ARMOUR LAYER ROCK OR CONCRETE BLOCKS) Wave Wall sopmsrecrune Non 7 ee ee = om cA ronment RARE, - TESS conenere 00s) q CROC OH CNET 1.0K ren aen cy 30Vam [5-30 min ete. form of ~ yachs overtopping tow | and wave Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 16Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES. Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Table VI-5-7. Models for average discharge overtopping formula. Authors Strictores Overtopying | Dimensionioss | Dimensionless ec AUsckorge Q | osboand Oven Impermeable smoath|Q = @exp(-#R) 13801982) rough, straight and] oHTon sermee sopee Brady ane Rook arored im |Q- 0 8 Allen (1988) permasbie slopes with frown wale Amin ad Rock, cuba, and fo=a n> Franco (1988) Terapod double lyr semor on rather | Dereable slopes with | row wall, (eine esate) | Abrane and 7 aifrent o=aes(om)| eo Hcimbaugh (1985) | acawal/sevtment de-| Vai na" sins | | cs a, Pedersen and Rock armored rother|Q= 2 ie He Borcharth (1002) limspermesbie slopes Bn a with ern malls van dee Meer and | nmpermesble a= cem(-6a) | [arssen (1995) |ameath rough trait and bermed slopes t Bt joie a fred? | forkyp >? Franco oa. (1934). | Versa wall besa |Q = eean(-bA)| Ba Franco "and Prneo|ter with ad witha a Bs asi) pti ost Pein i906) |Rockarmond oun permeable slopes with [rove wale Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 19COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Box VI-5-4. Overtopping formula, van der Moor and Janssen (1995) ee Straight and bermed impermeable slopes including influence of surface roughness, cbellow foreshore, oblique and shart crested waves, Fig. VI-5-Lda and b. fy <2 (vEs18) a (eee oie Vins = 0080 (-8 i | application range: 0.3 < #2 Ver __L | opplicat ” 08 rr aE Uncertainty: Standard deviation of factor 5.2 is o = 0.55, of. Fig. VE-S-16, kop > 2 | ag =0re(- volt (vE5.17) Uncertainty: Standard deviation of factor 2.6 is @ = 0.85, of. Fig, VI-5-16. | ‘The reduction factors references are > Table VI5-3 eq VESS me eq VIS-10 Short crested waves a= 1~ 0.00888 Long crested waves (swell) (vt; 10 for <6 < 10" w= 4 o0s%(5— 10°) for 10" < 6. 50° 06 for > 50° ‘The minimum value of any combination of the >-factors is 0.5. Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Uncertainty: Van der Meer overtopping formula oq(w-5-24)/ ae Bw ee Wa, 21 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Box VI Overtopping formula. Pedersen and Burcharth (1992), Pedersen, (1996). Rock armored permeable slopes with a berm in front of a erown wall, ef. Fig. VIS-14e. Irregular, head-on waves. (vEs19) | Notational permeability P = 0.4 resreo noveLs Portree f= at0-a1em t Tomar tas aeatt-a 15-22 Some conservative bias of eq (VI-5-27) for small values of gis observed. ISSSESEEESESEETnnsnnnsnstsnPO==0 ris ausesnnsssssSsRSAGsSRORSSpNINSSEInNNERESSINES| Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 22COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Optimization by model tests to meet the design criteria and to get acceptable spatial distribution of the overtopping water behind the structure Genova Voltri, Italy Design overtopping q Hy, Tp return period (itre/ms) (m) (s) 1 year 0.10 4.50 13.0 25 year 1.00 8.50 14.4 50.7 t parallellepipedes +0.0 -10.0 0% 1% 4% 95% | +7.6 +23 50.7 t parallellepipedes 23 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com65m COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES La Coruna, Spain H,(m)__T, (s) 15.2 20.0 Design criteria: 150 t cubes 24 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Spatial Distribution of Overtopping Formula by Lykke Andersen & Burcharth, 2006 Ratio of overtopping passing travel distance x at splash down level h,,,.): max(x /cos(B)- 2.7 Hyevei “Sop 7 a) L passing x _ 1.05 —m = exp| -1.1-s9,"- total Op where f is the angle of incidence x(hiever=0) ge x(hiew=H) Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 25COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Example of structure with low maximum crest levels at +8.5m and +9.5m Agaete, Grand Canaria Design overtopping q H, T, return period (litre/ms) (m) (s) 1 month 0.01 4.50 15.0 1 year 0.10 5.06 16.0 25 year 1.00 6.71 18.0 1414 4 24 ig 9 a4 44 m4 9 % % 16% 65% Large wave forces on wall 0% 19% 16% 65% .. are 60.8 t cubes 14 24 1% 16% 26% 57% we eee Foot protection Blocks 28.71 48.5 60.8 t cubes +0.0 -18 26 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Overtopping Reduction Efficiency of Tandem Structures Illustrated by Example Return period 1 month Design criteria: Average overtopping q [sim] 1 year 25 years 224 years Crest level of wave wall +9.5 m corresponding to freeboard, Re = 6.80 m at design water level. Outer structure freeboard, Re = 5.80 m. How. s27 27 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Comparison with other Rubble Mound Structures Designed for the same Overtopping Discharge Reference structure Bermed structure (CLASH overtopping NN estimate) (CLASH overtopping NN estimate) al Relative costs 100% Mild slope structure Actual tandem structure (CLASH overtopping NN estimate) (model test results) Ln. nvm dg |Ran ay irs IRe= 5am a = — ee ue i Relative costs 121% ee Relative costs 103% fea In place unit prices: Core: 20 €/m? - 3 Armour: 80 € /m 28 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Comparison of Costs for Identical Overtopping Discharge 0.90 0.80 135 0.60 —— Mild slope structures 0.50 Cost ea gs 8 Costret 1.60: 29 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Dependence of Wave Induced Wave Wall Forces on Width of Reservoir i‘: Narrow Reservoir Wide Reservoir m 30m Splash down on wall Splash down on armour pl oN a Hs = 6.22 m Tp= 180s q= 0.09 m/s ea a Bs Se £3 m £9 197 <§ 0 63 12 8a 183 2 N 3 £3 | 1% 58 os Ba @ 2 ra a @ po are 38 } 38 §§ a3 23 £8 7) 5 $ $e - & fae 419392 308 553 76 BS OB 717108 127 Max horizontal force: Fy = 1611 kN/m Max horizontal force: Fy, = 703 kKN/m Max moment around heal: M = 14519 kNm/m Max moment around heal: M = 5664 kNm/m 30 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES, Dependence of Reservoir Armour Stability on Width of Reservoir Narrow Reservoir Wide Reservoir 16 -20 m 30m Splash down on wall Splash down on armour cee mie 4.4 t parallelepipeds randomly placed in 10.3 t parallelepipeds pattern placed in one 2% layers: layer: Not stable for H, = 4.4m ,T,= 15s Not stable for H, = 6.1-6.7m,T, =18 25.7 t Japanese type foot protection blocks 10.3 t parallelepipeds in one layer: pattern placed in one layer Some disp. for H, = 7.39m, 1, =17.4s Stable for H, = 6.8 m but 1% displaced forH, = 8.85m,T,=18s 11 t parallelepipeds in one layer Ss — ES mal Stable for H, = 7.56m,T,= 17.55 9 ia ue J Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES 3t parallelepipeds 6.3 meTp =18's Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 32COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Cross section design Structure stability Main armour Toe Rear slope Berm breakwaters Crown wall superstructure 33 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Overtopping oh presse, sliding, titing Erosion, breakage of armor. of capping wall t ZA, Erosion of armor SSS Ca =a Papin EL Foning \ Sip failure Berm erosion on settlement Sea bed scour oS Fiterinstabilty // and toe erosion oe 7’ Subsoil settlement ss oO ~S.__ Siip faiture cS Overview of failure modes for rubble-mound breakwaters 34 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES TYPES OF ARMOUR UNITS MASSIVE BULKY SLENDER MULTI - HOLE TETRAPOD SHED eee GROOVED CUBE WITH HOLE, ACCROPOD @® — CORELOC ® CUBE GROOVED CUBE SEABEE @ntifer type) 35 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES | Retina of unit during up- and dowrerush ) Rotation and subsaquent down-slope ispiacement of unt during dows VI-5-18: Typical armor layer failure modes (Burcharth, 1993). 36 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES _ Assuming that at the stage of instability drag and lift foree dominates the inertia force qualitative stability ratio can be formulated as the drag plus the lift foree divided by gravity force po Div? ¥ i Oe ve Fes= ra) DR ~ GRD, (re) (armor unit volume)" is the equivalent cube length, ps and py are the mass densities of armor units and water, respectively, and v i a char- fcteristic Row elocity. By inserting v ~ Vr Hy, for a reaking wave height of 4 in Eqn (Vh5-90) is obsained the stability parameter H (Vis) ADy \ i N= Non-execedence of instability, or a certain degree of damage, can then be ex pressed in the general form H Ke re < z (VL-5-41} Ne = ap S MERE KS ¢ ) where the factors depend on all the other parameters Simple geometrical considerations of the balance of the forces acting on an armor stone have been used to explore the right hend side of Eqn (VI-S-41) Bxamples are whe = Koosa Sve (1962) aig = Klcota) Hrodson (1958 & 1959) wb; = K(tandcose — sina) Tribarren (1908 & 1954) where ¢ is the angle of repose of the armor. ‘The confficiont K takes care of ‘the damage level as well as all other influencing parameters not given in the formulae. Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Influence of interlocking and friction on armour stability ‘Complex inteocking types ‘Buty yes of armor uns ‘farmer unt ite Dalae Ike bes and query rook a au 4 eg ae aaa ane ts ee = Ye peas ae gravity: gray oe Peseta Epes 38 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ‘Table VI-5-80. Rock, two-layer armoured aun-evertopped slopes (yan der ‘Meer 1988) BS 7 Plunging waves: fu ma (VI-E-46) BDnao im = tana Emo = (62° tanads) TH) where H, significant wave height infront of breakwater Das Equivalent cube length of medium rock Mass density of rocks Pe Mass density of water 4 (esi) —1 s relative erodod area P ‘notional permeability; ef, Table VI-5-11 Nz number of waves « slope angle Sm wave steepness, fy = He/ Lom Lom deep water wave length corresponding ta mean wave petlod vai 1) iquations (VI-5-45) and (V7-5-46) ate valid for nox-depth Iimited waves, For depti-limited waves Hi, is replaced by Hard 2) For cote 2 40 only Ean (VE5-A5) should be used 3) N. $7,800 ater which number equilbeium damage ir more or lese reached, 4 OEP SOG , 0.005 < 5m S008 , 20¢/m < p< 3.1t/m? | Uncertainty of the formula: ‘The eneficient of variation on the factor 6.2 in Eqa(Vi-5-15) and on the factor 1.0 in Eqn (VI-5-10) ate estimated ta be 6.5% and 8%, respectively “Test program: Seo Table VI-5-4 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 39COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ‘Table VES-36, Concrete cubes, two-layer armored non-overtopped slope. ‘van der Neer (1988) i Neo = (0:7 NO#/NOS 41.0) ap (v1552) Inhore Hy slglfcant wave height in font of breakwater ‘se dent of emcee | aw density of ater (c/o0) —1 cake Length “, number ef nts dsplaed out of the aor ger within wip width fone eube lene Ds umber of sm WHE SONS a= Hom Valid for: Non-dept limited waw conditions Irregular head-on waves "Two layer cubes randomly placed on slope 11.5, 3 20% Probability of failure 1% | 58% | 10% | 90% | | ee 275 | 309| 326 | 359 | ‘ADn Kp (Hudson eq.) 166 | 22 | 26 | 35 | Mass ratio 1 07 | 06 | 04s | SOGREAH recommende K = 14, (Ng = 2.65), as design value for | _ breaking wave conditions. ‘This corresponds to P; , probability of failure < 0.5 % | ! -asssEnEnEnSsAnAnSEEESInES? I AnOSSSSSSSISONEE OEREEEEEEES J Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 47COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES. Low crested structures Sections prone to damage (Kramer 2003) Table A.4. Sections prone to damage, Filled black areas indicate exposed stones. Freeboard Damage to trunk Re>0 Hs Hs2 Slightly emergent crest Re<0 submerged crest Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Low crested structures Design diagram for initiation of damage (Kramer et al. 2003) = — Naveed Bide head ——Leovard head + Me -Trunkecoward slope + aye» Trnkerest + 9+ = Trunkleeward slope Least stable section given by Bq (A.27) 3 a + ° Nomalized freeboard Re-Dase [= =a = Vidal otal, 1996, crest section = Vidal etal, 1985, leeward head section Burger 1996, crost section Famer et al. 2003, east stable section ‘Staity number Hs ADja, 3 Normalized freeboard Rely Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Low crested structures Stability formula for initiation of damage for most exposed part of low crested structures (Kramer 2003) 2 Hs = 00H Re } -0.23-Re +1.36, for = 3< Re /Dpso(2 ADnso n50 nso Safe rule for depth limited waves=> H, <0.6h Dpsy = 0.33 max. (H ,|h) 50 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Toe stability Deeper water High toe berm water > depth over berm important Shallow water/depth limited waves Toe (main armour) on the sea bed * if rock surface > make a trench * if sand > provide scour protection 51 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ‘Table VI-5-44. Stability of toe berm formed of ayer rocks or parallelepiped concrete blocks (Burchaeth of al. 1995) |" onmule Vi-5-01 ie modified so thai i can be applied to the toe berm formed of rocke with other ‘usties oF parallelepiped concrete blocs: 4, 1 HE ome (vem) (04 gle 18) M8 or Results ofthe stability tests with a toe berm made of 16.5 t perallellepiped conerete blocks sre shown below. The nogative influence of high relleting wave wall euperstructure on the toe stability is demonstrated. Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Rear slope armour exposed to overtopping Splash- down distance unportrit - Smeoth” surdace but perboratect preferable Avoid settlement +A 53 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Photos of wave overtopping Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 54COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES cere estes Poets Ho Fell amepapeahe? / PEL ae sete tcl | sap ontig atom rte TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF EXTENDED BERM Mold structare. 55 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Berm breakwaters Movements of stone starts when N, =7=$—#1.5-2 Statical stability when Ns < 2.7 for trunks. For roundheads Ns < 2.7 and Ho To < 70 (Ho = Ns) Longshore transport due to oblique waves starts when H, To > 105. Dynamic stability of trunks in head-on waves when Ns > 2.7 if there is material enough to avoid total crest erosion. PIANC MARCOM Report of WG 40, 2003. Economical optimization (Burcharth 2007) shows that optimum is to design for Ns=1.8 and 100-years return period waves. 56 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Berm recession The most important parameter describing the stability and reshaping of a reshaping berm breakwater is the recession of the berm. Typically failure is taken as Rec > B Initial profile Reshaped profile 57 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Berm recession formula by Lykke Andersen (2006) based on more than 1000 model tests Dn,50 Geometrical considerations e,=1.2 — fg =cos(8) 0.05 - HoTo + 10.5 fro {ihe an 8505 for Ty > Te 19.8-erp(—Fp8).s5,0° 10.5 * Fig )’Som T= 0.05: Fo ue = Ho = xligo— T= Dag TO = (N/3000)-2-945-#0+9:3 for Hy <5 "= 9 (N/3000)0.07 for Hy > 5 fskew = exp(1.5 - 6?) for To < Ty BES, = fin, | mere. fay fig: fiz0- Fonew* Sgraa+ “ASE” . (hy —h) Geometrical considerations 1 for fy < 1.5 Forad = §0.43- fg +0.355 forl.5< fy < 25 1.43 for fy > 2.5 2 hy hy ee ee (-1.64- fa) for fo > 0.4 hy 1 for gt < 0.1 hs =0.65+ Hmo + 90° + fr fg 58 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Examples of Profiles — Small Stones after Lykke Andersen (2006) Test No.50 9 =0.0086 sm +0.25.my — Measured pro Dp "0.0198 m X Present Formuta so Van der Mesr (1982) Test No.115 0.00081 ism eae oe =0.078 m an SWL_ “Measured profile D gq 70.0188 m X Present Formula ks Ven der Meer (1982) 4 =0.082 sm Hg 0.129 m padi Measured profilo D, gy =0.0198 m % Present Formula ts Van der toes (1982) 59 7H Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comExamples of Profiles — Small Stones after Lykke Andersen (2006) Test No.256 0.25 m, Hg 20.087 m 9 =8.3e-0065 lism fed a oe 1 si4s avi Nessured profile D, gp 70.0188 m Present Formula - Van éer Meer (1982) = Test No.636 % Present Formula p2.25m) Measured profile \Van der Meer (1982) 9 =0.024 Vs. =e 130m one D oq 70.0198 m 60 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Examples of Profiles - Medium Stones after Lykke Andersen (2006) Test No.548 0.25 m q=0.012 sm en SM ‘Measured profile Dj gp 20-0828 m X Present Formula fas Van der Meer (1982) Test No.575 0.25 m, 9 =0.00004 lism ein a Measured profile YD j5q =0.0323 m Present Forma Van der Meer (1982) Test No.592 025m, q=0.0017 t'sm Hy 20111 m T, =1428 D, gp 70.0828 m Van dee Moor (1992) 61 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES, Examples of Profiles — Large Stones after Lykke Andersen (2006) Test No.321-324 025m 0007 Wen 925m, Hg =0.136 m eet Ty sss om Measured profile X Present Formula Van der Meer (1982), Test No.351-356 025m, 9 =0.066 usm. oe Moasured profie x Present Formule Van der Meer (1992) 62 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 63COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Longshore Transport Model 5,2 Mamber of moving stones por wave longshere.. a rormal. armour recke shape ah # #Burcharth 15° 0 oBurcharth 30" + +V. der Meer 25° xxv. der Meer 50" — 24. (1) ° 80 160240 320-400 HoTop Sx [stonesivave] Mobility index: HoTop = xB To 5 Longshore transport model: Cvegjtng eb ol: ) Sq = 85+ 10-8(H Top — 105)? 64 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES MOVEMENT OF STONES IN BERM BREAKWATERS, (Frigaard, Hald, Burcharth, Sigurdarson, 1996) TART TE: is : oe Travelled distance por wave \4wave direction Mean distance travelled in direction x per wave ass density 2.25 4.310 Dygo(Ho Top - 105) sin (2 0) mass density 2.254 Total mean distance travelled per wave og WWls= Jeng * Saino _Number of stones travelled x Total number of stones moved in x direction x Burcharth, 15° © Burcharth, 30° 0.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 65 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Typical crown wali configurations a) High wall b) Medium high wall c) Low wall d) High berm (sheltered wall) Ae ee, 66 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Typical sequences in crownwall design Select design criteria (example) Overtopping discharge (average): q’ es" = 104 m3/ms. g®? vears = 2-103 q 00 years no damage to rear slope Safety levels and resistance parameters: Deterministic design - Def. of design sea state (e.g. H,' ve") - Selection of overall safety factors (e.g. for monolithic failures SF=1.2 against sliding, and SF= 1.4 against overturning) - Selection of friction coefficeint (e.g. f = 0.6) and friction angle for rubble stones (e.g. = 40°) Probabilistic design - Def. of structure lifetime (e.g. L = 50 years) - Selection of probability of damage/failure within L (e.g. 2% probability of sliding) - Selection of mean values and standard deviations (e.g. of and f) 67 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comDesign sequences (continued) 2. Geometrical contraints “Width of access road «Lowest level of slab base (due to constructability if landbased equipment is used) Max. level of road (access to moorings) «Max. level of crest (in case visual impact is of importance) *Space for installations 3. Propose a geometry and identify failure modes 4. Check overtoppinng Use formula and adjust if necessary 5. Check stability of superstructure Calculate wave forces and armour load by the use of formulae *Check sliding resistance using the limit state equation (f, - F,)f > SF-Fy *Check foundation bearing capacity by the use of limit state equations for several slip failure configurations *Check stability of protecting armour and rear slope +Check stresses in concrete superstructure 6. Adjust geometry if necessary Recalculate (Steps 4 and 5) 68 7. Perform model tests and adjustCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Breakage failure modes and Monolithic failure modes a) Breakage of wall b) Breakage of base plate ¢) Sliding on foundation Tan 4) Backward sliding/tilting duo to elip lellure in foundation or rear slope erosion Eafe sip tature/ => Brosien @) Forward tilt due to undermining by erosion of front armour Load distribution must be known for evaluation of breakage failures ”Only’” resultant force must be known for evaluation of monolithic failures 69 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Wave genereted pressure, Dy Weight, Fe Armour load. on wall, DB ne ¢ a) ») ° 70 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 71COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ortzontal wave load. Fy(/em) Sen fad’ ek athe) 1 Peemure ab bave of front wal Pte!) Te ° 72 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ‘Table VI-5-47. Horizontal wave force, uplift wave prasure and turning moment on conetsie caps (Pedersen 1990). = 02125 (sonar + A®2H) vrs99) = eX Foam = O88 + yerrlFhoas. (tsa) Pyaaw = 100A Pm (vt8.98) vwhire Foam Horta mero por runing mer the wll crrenondng 00.15% sence ty Maw so orrsted tring mont pa runing meta ofthe wall conespondng e016 mars Ware up presate cxrerpeading to O1% excendosce reba Dom” Deny water are length crrapening to mens wave Pio B [Bem idth ef amr hrf Bom of he al Pe pam pualPazin— Ae) Resse ‘Wow rotapsorepenting to 01% cesar robber Aan - {ihe STE G = tse/VE lim . Sop nl sa rer ‘Le Ware ites tcwo ML ad th rt fh aor ame a ‘Avner oe te ge estar 2.13) # eight of th mall prota yt arr ger ts ip othe ral ot pote by he emer eee THEE To] ce 050 om as ‘Uncortaiaty ofthe formulae “estes ange: Soe Tale VES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Sliding between crown wall and rubble underlayer (1) Siding is she rest of sippage on the sand/rubbe material along the apne foes the edge ofthe foc to the rar endo the crown wal. The crow wall ‘dag plane le shown la Figus 38 “ Fy t bs Seek minineusns of the failure Furi a sate GCE -AMEH~USF I, = {25 ome state <8 dae oundation failure along the slip tine AB (2) ‘he Iinematcal admis rope sip sone is shown in Figure 3.10, This supturofilure mode is eppliabls Winn th epaastion angle ame Hhan the Tele etetive etion tale Seek tor alt cambinations of F, , & avet the walue of O otich gies minim volut, of the taiture Faction “Foundation failure inthe rubble mound (8) ‘The considered fllure mode i shown ia Fgue 3.2. 74 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES, Sing flare of he row wal wth extended ago the ced ae) {83g ct af pg ee ae sing poe ‘eth ig the fa foe cad ote ore lt Ta coe al ‘Sag se shows gee 317 SF D.|: ‘oundetin flare Inthe rin mound wit an extended leg on cho cowwrd ce “Toes atin nonsense apa hunt opal angi # ots elude ‘oundatin re in he role mound on the sarard de (6) "To nr mode sown Higue 3:21, 75 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Design of crown walls Identification of the most dangerous instant loading with respect to slip failure Minimum of limit state function G(0) = (work of stabilizing forces) — (work of wave forces) te GO) = (P~p,) 8 AW, +(F, —F,) Oy ~S Fy + Fy) Oy Minimum of G@) | =0 Limit : >0 Safe for 0 sos Horizontal and vertical displacement @, and @, are function of the effective friction angle g, of core material 77 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Design of crownwalls Time series of wave force on the wall containing the maximum FY (kN/m) t(s) Ca Test series 9-1 tie 5) @ Instant where horizontal Hs=15.2m, Tp=20s Pressure distribution is drawn ‘eo Sampling at 250 Hz in model oon U « 20 28 Hz.in prototype 78 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Critical rupture angle for slip failure Correlated wave forces on the wall \\ \ \ By l25 : E x t state function G (kN/m) 0 2 4 6 8 1012 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 Rupture angle (degree) 79 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Strongest tool: Model tests + probabilistic analysis Example: Limit state function for failure probability calculation of hydraulic stability of main armour layer, toe-berm and rear slope Based on failure functions determined by model tests Safe Hs(m) Main armour EDI% ofD}% ‘Toe berm Failure function D(Hs) determined by model test La Coruna new breakwater Rear slope E[DI% ofD]% E[DI% ofD]% <0 Failure g=D,-D(Hs;) 4=0 Limit >0 Critical damage levels De Structure part Damage Failure initiation Der Det Main armour 5% 15% Toe-berm 5% 30% Rear slope 2% 5% 0.025 a9 150 2.83 4B 1B on 0.047 0.087 043 on 0.50 0.03 as 06 113 223 3.33 5.60 83 0.03, 050 0.60 oat 0.80 1.04 074 80 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 81COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 82COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Example: Selection of core material Outer breakwater, Zeebrugge, Belgium Basic design core material: 2-300kg quarry run, max Hs = 1.2m Adjusted design core materials: Addition of 1-3t quarry rock, max Hs = 2.5 — 3.0m for bad weather construction Direct cost reduction for core 8%. 16% saved in time Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Design for construction Example: Determination of maximum crest level for core materials +14.00 New port of Garachico, rf 45.50 Canary Islands 43.00 +0.00 2 -8.60 Core material -10.0 Fl 50-400kg, Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Design for construction Internal water table Example: Run-up wedge Determination of level and exposure of construction road for land based equipment. Beirut Airport breakwater Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F, Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 86COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 87COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ENHANCED WAVE ACTION BY SHOALING, REFRACTION AND DIFFRACTION More pronounced in 3-D waves. Very limited lateral support of armour units No healing effect Brittle failure Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ROUNDHEAD ARMOUR STABILITY VARIATES SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE CONE SURFACE MOST EXPOSED SECTOR DIRECTION OF WAVE PROPAGATION Armour stability depends on: Sea state: e.g. Hs, Tp, spreading, direction, water level, water depth Main geometry: Slope, crest level, radius at crest Armour: Size, type, mass density, placement No design formula available, only simple rules for weight ratios of roundhead armour to trunk armour 89 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 90COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ROUNDHEAD ARMOUR STABILITY Examples of simple design rules Researcher Armour unit Wyoundhead’WVtrunk Jensen (1984) Tetrapods 2.3 Vidal et a. (1991) Cubes 1.3-3.8 Madrigal (1992) Parallelepipeds 2.0-2.5 Accropods 2.5-4.0 Burcharth et al. (1995) Dolos 13-16 Berenguet (1999) Holowed cubes 13-26 Antifier Average app. 2.3 Crane capacity more then doubled Change in block size (Transition zone problems) 91 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ROUNDHEAD ARMOUR STABILITY Normal density, random placement, waves from NW, water level +4.5m 92 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES. Comparison of trunk and roundhead armour stability Normal density, 154 t cubes. Water level + 4.5 m 6% D based on 180° sector 1811 cubes oe IK D based on trunk section tests D based on 90° sector 905 cubes ROUNDHEAD, Relative number of displaced cubes, D% x 8 ze e 6 a 8 9 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 Hs [m] The Hudson formula stability factor Ky for the roundhead is app. 50 % of that for the trunk if the relative number of displaced cubes, D, are related to a 90 deg. sector 93, Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comNumber of displaced cubes COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Comparison of armour stability for random placement and regular placement Normal density cubes , 154t Water level +4.5, Waves from NW Random placement 9.2 cubes/100 m? ABO mek ae cen ae ec wl eee ec 94 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Use of high-density armour units in roundheads to improve armour stability Researcher ‘Armour Weight of roundhead armour Weight of trunk armour Jensen ‘Tetrapods 23 (1984) Vidal et al Cubes 13-38 (1991) Madrigal Parallelepipeds 20-25 (1992) Accropods 25-40 Burcharth et al Dolos 13-16 (1995) Berenguer Holowed cubes, ede (1999) Antifer 200 1 10% 450 Normal density cubes p=2.40t/m?, W= 150t High density cubes p72.80t/m?, W= 180t Number of displaced cubes in 180° sector 3 8 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Significant wave height Hs [m] 95 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 96COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES New stability formula for cube armoured roundheads (Macifieira and Burcharth 2004) He A-D, n = 0.57-0007 Rom « cot gar Dy? SO" +2.08- S84 - 0.17 Ram = radius at SWL in numbers of D, Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 97COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Optimum safety levels for rubble mound breakwaters Background When the type of breakwater has been selected for further investigations one has to select a safety level for the design. Most national standards and recommendations introduce overall safety factord on resistance to a specific return period sea state. No safety levels are given in terms of acceptable probability of a certain damage within service life of the structure. The exception is the Spanish Recommendation for Maritime Structures, in which the given safety levels depend on the functional and economic importance of the breakwater. These safety levels must be regarded as tentative as they are not based on more systematic investigations. 98 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES p, Encounter probability, = re p= 1-(1-3] Return period, R Structural lifetime, T 0 20 40 60 80 100 Years Significant wave height Hs oO 50 100 150 200 250 300 © © © - Examples of 20 years structural lifetime Encounter probability, i.e. the probability p that the R-year return period event will be exceeding during a 7-year structural life. 99 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Safety levels based on economical optimization Objective To identify the safety level which gives the minimum total costs during the service lifetime of the breakwater Total costs during lifetime (present value) ~~ Total costs \ ; ‘— Construction costs —— Maintenenance, repair and economic loss due to downtime etc. Capitalized costs (present value) Optimum safety level Safety of breakwater Questions: How much does the economical loss due to down-time etc. influence the optimum safety level of breakwaters? When is it relevant to consider economical loss? 100 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES ISO prescription. Constraints of format for safety implementation The ISO-Standard 2394 on Reliability of Structures demands a safety-classification based on the importance of the structure and the consequences in case of malfunction. Also, for design both a serviceability limit state (SLS) and an ultimate limit state (ULS) must be considered, and damage criteria assigned to these limit states. Moreover, uncertainties on all parameters and models must be taken into account. Studied influences on optimum safety levels + Real interest rate, inflation included + Service lifetime of the breakwater * Downtime costs due to malfunction * Damage accumulation ten Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Performance (damage) criteria related to limit states Besides SLS and ULS is introduced Repairable Limit State (RLS) defined as the maximum damage level which allows foreseen maintenance and repair methods to be used. Functional classification Tentative performance criteria Wave transmission SLS: H, -=0.5- 1.8m ‘Outer basin Damage to main armour SLS: D=5 %, RLS:D=15% ULS: D = 30% Sliding distance of caissons SLS: 0.2 m, ULS: 2m 102 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Procedure in numerical simulation for identification of minimum cost safety levels * Select type of breakwater, water depth and long-term wave statistics. * Extract design values of significant wave height H." and wave steepness corresponding to a number of return periods, T=5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 400 years. * Select service lifetime for the structure, e.g. T, = 25, 50 and 100 years. * Design by conventional deterministic methods the structure geometries corresponding to the chosen H," -values. * Calculate construction costs for each structure. 103 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES * Define repair policy and related cost of repair. * Specify downtime costs related to damage levels. * Define a model for damage accumulation. * For each structure geometry use stochastic models for wave climate and structure response (damage) in Monte Carlo simulation of occurrence of damage within service lifetime. * Calculate for each structure geometry the total capitalized lifetime costs for each simulation. Calculate the mean value and the related safety levels corresponding to defined design limit states. + Identify the structure safety level corresponding to the minimum total costs. 104 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES, Cross sections of outer rubble mound breakwaters Shallow water an Paes eet 2Dn Sus 12 3m Deep water 1 3Da > 2Da-+—44 Dn relates to main armour Only rock and concrete cube armour considered. Crest level determined from criteria of max. transmitted Hs = 0.50 m by overtopping of sea state with return period equal to service ; 105 life. Soe : : Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Repair policy and cost of repair and downtime Damage levels S (rock) N,acubes) Estimated D Repair policy Initial 2% no repair Serviceability (minor damage, only to armour) 5% repair of armour Repairable (major damage, armour + filter 1) repair of armour + filter 1 Ultimate (failure) repair of armour + filter 1 and 2 106 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES In costs of repair is taken into account higher unit costs of repairs and mobilization costs. Repairs are initiated shortly after exceedence of the defined damage limits. Downtime costs related to 1 km of breakwater is set to 18,000,000 Euro when the damage to the armour exceeds 15 % displaced blocks. 107 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Formulation of cost functions All costs are discounted back to the time when the breakwater is built. ty min C7)=C,(7)+% {C,, (TYP, (O) + Cx, 1) Pa, O+ Ce (1) Pe olf uy where T return period used for deterministic design TL design life time CT) initial costs (building costs) Cp,(T) cost of repair for minor damage Pri (t) probability of minor damage in year t CRAT) cost of repair for major damage P2(t) probability of major damage in year t C,(T) cost of failure including downtime costs P,(t) probability of failure t r real rate of interest 108 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comieee STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES. Case studies Case study data Armour Waves Stability Built-in unit prices density — formula core/filter 1/ filter 2/ Orgin Distribution ae 100y 400y [EURO/m'] Hg Hg, Follonica Weibull van der Meer (1988) | 10/ 16/20/40 5.64m 6.20 m Cube Follonica Weibull van der Meer (1988) | 10/ 16/20/40 2.40 tim? modified to slope 1:2 5.64m 6.20 m Sines Weibull van der Meer (1988) | 5/ 10/25/35 modified to slope 1:2 13.2m 14.20m 109 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comResults Case 1.2. Optimum safety levels for rock armoured outer breakwater. 50 years service COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES lifetime. Shallow water of depth 10 m. Damage accumulation included. Real] Downtime | Deterministic design data] Oj d | Optimum limit state] Construction | Total Interest Freeboard Re = 6.6m armour | average number of —_| costs for _| lifetime Rate unit mass _| events within service | 1km length | costs Wa lifetime for 1 Design | HT kn retum, length petiod, T SLS | RLS | ULS (years) oO (4,000 (2,000 ) (m) © EURO) EURO) 2 None 100-1000 | 5.50 | 18.9 24 0.46 | 0.013 | 0.0019 | 14,853 15,622 $ 100-1000 | 5.50 | 18.9 22 0.73 | 0.023 | 0.0033 | 14,532 15,181 8 100-1000 | 5.50 | 18.9 20 1.11 | 0.047 | 0.0065 | 14,193 14,838 200,000 5 2 EURO 100-1000 | 5.50 | 18.9 26 0.28 | 0.007 | 0.0006 | 15,159 15,711 5 per day in | 199-1000 | 5.50 | 18.9 24 0.46 | 0.013 | 0.0019 | 14,532 15,353 3 months 8 100-1000 | 5.50 | 18.9 22 0.73 | 0.023 | 0.0033 | 14,532. 15,059 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 110COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Case 1.2. Rock armour. 50 years service lifetime. Shallow water of depth 10 m. Damage included. | 25000 | 2 os WwW 22500 2 8 9 iy —2% £ 20000 — 5% 3 — 8% 6 = 17500 e ec 15000 see —— 10 14 18 22 26 30 | Design armour weight in ton 111 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Case 1.3. Optimum safety levels for concrete cube armoured breakwater. 50 years service lifetime. 15 m water depth. Damage accumulation included. Real | Downtime Optimum design data Optimum limit state | Construction | Total Interest | costs average number of costs for —_| lifetime Rate events within service | 1 km length | costs for lifetime km Optimized | 7 length (%) design retum sts |rts |uts | q,000 1,000 period, T EURO) EURO) (m) (years) 2 None 400 620 |12.5 63 |141 |0.008 }0.001 |17,494 19,268 5 200 5.92 | 10.9 6.0 |1.84 |0.015 |0.003 | 16,763 18,318 8 100 5.64 | 9.5 5.8 [2.98 |0.031 |0.008 | 16,038 17,625 2 200,000 | 400 6.20 | 12.5 63 |111 |0.008 |0.002 | 17,494 19,391 EURO per 5 day in3 [20° 5.92 | 10.9 60 {1.82 }0.015 |0.004 | 16,763 18,453 8 months | 100 5.64 _|9.5 5.8 |2.98 |0.031 |0.008 | 16,038 17,821 112 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmall.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Case 1.3. Concrete cube armour. 50 years service lifetime. 15 m water depth. Damage accumulation included. 45000 40000 35000 5 30000 25000 20000 Total costs in 1,000 Euro 15000 + — T 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Design armour weight in ton H 113 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Case 2.3. Optimum safety levels for concrete cube armoured breakwater. 30 m water depth. 50 years and 100 years lifetime. Damage accumulation included. Downtime costs of 200,000 EURO per day in 3 month for damage D > 15%. Lifetime ] Real Optimum design data Optimum limit state | Construction | Total (years) | Interest average number of costs for | lifetime Rate events within structure |1km length | costs for 1 lifetime km length Optimized | 8,7 | Optimum | Free- design armour (1,000 oo retum unit mass sLs [RLS |uLs | 4,000 EURO) period, T w EURO) (years) (m) | ® (m) 2 1000 14.7 | 168 14.8 [1.21 |0.008 |0.001 | 76,907 86,971 50 5 400 14.2] 150 14.8 |1.84 |0.016 |0.003 |73,722 81,875 8 100 13.2] 122 14.8 [3.39 |0.052 [0.012 | 68,635 78,095 2 1000 14.7 | 168 15.4 |2.68 |0.013 |0.002 | 78,423 93,440 woo 5 400 14.2| 150 15.4 |3.90 |0.029 |o.005 | 75,201 84,253 8 200 13.7|136 15.4 [5.28 |0.056 |o.011 | 72,675 79,955 114 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Case 2.3. Concrete cube armour. 30 m water depth. 50 years and 100 years lifetime. Damage accumulation included. Downtime costs of 200,000 Euro per day in 3 month for damage D > 15 % 210000 5 © 190000 - 5 = 170000 ~ —— 50 year - 2% S 150000 - | ——50 year - 5% pa | —— 50 year - 8% © | 2 teen |- - - = -100 year - 2% | 9 110000 - -+++-100 year - 5% | = 90000 - Jeeves 100 year - 8% 2 70000 50000 -- : a a 25 50 15 100 125 150 175 Design armour weight in ton 115 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Conclusions related to outer rubble mound breakwaters * The results show that optimum safety levels are higher than the safety levels inherent in conventional deterministic designs, especially in the case of depth limited wave height conditions and/or low interest rates. * Further, the results show that for the investigated type of breakwater the critical design limit state corresponds to Seviceability Limit State (SLS) defined by moderate damage to the armour layer. Designing for SLS and performing repair when the SLS-damage is reached, imply that the probability of very severe damage or failure is almost neglegeable, and so will be the related cost of repair and downtime costs. This is typical for structures with ductile damage development. * The identified optimum safety levels corresponds to exceedence of the SLS-moderate damage level in average once to twice within a service life of 50 years, given the yearly interest rates are 2-5 %. For higher interest rates the optimum number of exceedences will increase corresponding to less safe structures. Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES * The relations between total lifetime costs and the safety levels (e.g. in terms of armour unit mass) show very flat minima. This means that conservative designs involving fewer repairs are only slightly more expensive than cost optimised designs. * Knowledge about damage accumulation is important for the assessment of optimum safety levels. Verification of the influence of choice of damage accumulation model is ongoing. * The obtained results indicate that optimum safety levels for rubble mound breakwaters belonging to the functional classes III and IV (cf. Fig. 1) will be almost the same as for classes | and II. This is because of the marginal influence of downtime costs. 117 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES 25 hig Re +036 toy TT | a a egg ened 10.807 Jo a updlake [6.07 figs Teeluzcti bern, breabiwater Favanreterized Crass sectors Ch, Hs , Sop Dy -chsign malves ) ‘i poner 15 ts (098 5 -car) £5 (ht 0.35 Hen) aa Cy 28th, fSl06sH et!) dst) ene tesg”™ abe Pi.bss%*-a6r) ty br ltSHy a a fe \ eal oN | LooON | Ee | vot shower otherwise Fig. . Farameterizect! crvss section of Toolrreclie. bene preiten ber 118 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES, Economical optimization of Icelandic berm breakwaters Structure lifetime 50 years. Interest rate incl. inflation 5% p.a. Downtime costs in case of failure 18,000 Euro per metre structure Rock mass density 2.70 t/m®. Wave steepness S,,=0.035, BERGE EE eumperes ea) Hm Case 11. Water depth 11 m. Shallow water waves. i Sees i z i — © ea wmv er) 1s a a a @ Hom Case 12. Water depth 20 m. Deep water waves. Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com 119COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Strength of concrete armour units *Relative strength of unreinforced units decreases with size of unit *Complex types weaker than bulky types *The tensile strength is the limiting strength in unreinforced units *The tensile strength reduces significantly if thermal stresses exceeds the tensile strength during hardening — due to micro cracking *lmpacts during placement limits very often the max. acceptable waves during construction. 120 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Arzew, Algeria 121 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Failures due to former lack of design formulae for armour unit strength (design formulae exist today) Sines outer breakwater Storms 1978-79, H, = 6 — 9m < H,“es!97 = 11m Dolos armour 40t PS Faces LEVELS ON 1:15 DOLOS SLOPES a 15-storied building 122 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES 1% of Dibosse dbsplacecl, FIG. CROSS SECTION OF THE SINES BREAKWATER 123 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES. 124 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Sines outer breakwater, 1979 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES “Types and Origine of Loads on Armor Units (Burcharth 19038) TYPES OF LOADS ORIGIN OF LOADS Weight of units Static Prestressing of units due to wedge effect and arching caused by movement under dynamic loads Gradually varying wave forces Earthquake loads Pulsating { Collisions between units when rocking or rolling, collision with Dynamic underlayers or other structural part Missiles of broken units Collisions during handling, transpor and placing High-frequency wave slamming Abrasion Impacts of suspended sand, shingle, ‘Temperature differences during the hardening (setting) process ‘Thermal after casting Freeze - thaw cycles Alkali-silica and sulphate reactions, ‘Chemical Corrosion of steel reinforcement 126 nei Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Characteristics of concrete low tensile strength Sp ~ 1.53 N/mm? high compressive strength S, ~ 20 — 30 N/mm? 4 brittle material 4 crack formation and breakage are due to load induced tensile stress or > Sp Sr is more important than S, ! Failure criterion: Max. tensile stress o;) tensile strength S; 127 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Table VI-5-40. Approximate values of ultimate rigid body impact velocities for concrete armor units (Burcharth 1993). armor unit Impact velocity Equival ent drop height of centre of body _of centre of body (m/s) (m) Cube, <5t 5-6 12-18 20 4-5 0.8- 1.2 50 t 3-4 0.4- 0.8 Tetrapod 2 0.2 Dolos, waist ratio 0.42 2 0.2 Dolos, waist ratio 0.32 1-15 0.05 - 0.12 128 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Strength of big concrete armour units TESTS AT CONSTANT HEIGHT IMPACT SPEED VERSUS NUMBER OF SHOCKS AT FRACTURE - FITTING CURVES-SINES TESTS 129 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Design diagrams for Dolos armour = pdreulic stabilty limit (52000, ¢-0.74, 41.28) corresponding to relative ‘numberof dpleced unite P Tenaie strength limit correspenaing co strength excoodence probability P He Sigiieant rare height the tae of breskwster ay Concrete tensile strength strengtn excnedence probability and relative aummter of displaced unite . 1s 7 iS a0 240 2* gn i, : i Fea a ee 130 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES, ‘Table VI-5-39. Breakage formula for Dolosse and Tetrapods (Burchorth 1993, Burcharth et al. 19958, Burcharth et al. 1995) GME 8 HE (vE5-90) where 2 Relative brakage u deme unis asia ton, 25-5 AY $50 s Conese statist eng in MPa, 2< Sy <4 x SSgueant ware fight Inter, CosCn Cy Fite paramctes Fite pareters forthe breakage formols valet ratio Variational Cont of Go Ch Trunkol 055 oa ome ora 26k Las Dole 037 4.200 nme 07m am a7 0a ast noises sor zt aart ‘Round-tead ‘ot Doiowe 037 ors 0025-065 os 242 ‘Trunk of | ‘Tetmpeds 025 nom 079-273 388 Sommary ofthe hydrate model tests Docs trunk Dolos round-iead ‘Tetrapod trunk | roakwator slope a 1 15 18 Soreshore 220 borvontal 150 ‘Water depth at tos (em) 2 0 20 and $0 Height of breakwater (er) @ 7 56.and 75 | Manx of units (kg) one oer 0.200 | CConcret density {tons/m*) 2s 23 23 Spectral onl period Ty 3) 15a 1625 tnas Significant wave height Hy (cm) BATT es agar ‘Surf slarity parameter | $= E,) tana sT3 335 ae 131 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Hans F, Meosured relative breakage Dolce trunk ote No, 14 ‘oor 04 1 Calculated relative breakage Meosured relative breakage Tetrapods eh=0.3 mb eh=0.5 m Dota Ne. 231 E=30000 Mes} Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com on 1 Coleuloted relative breckage 132COASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Illustration of thermal stresses and related crack formation Situation during Situation ofter hydration pracess cooling off Max. temo. 4 ke Nean temp. Wean tems. below 20°C__¥ win. temp. Cracks: Tensile stresses larger thon tensile \ strength of the young concrete Cracks closed “Tensile stress 133 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course -DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Thermal cracking in large concrete armour units due to large temperature differences during hardening of the concrete Days of covering 90 t cube with tarpaulin Wind velocity 2-3 m/sec € @ Days 20 3m) 7 NY WELZ Li Initial temp. of Cement Portland 300 kg/m? Wy, 10 concrete mix Temp. of fresh concrete 15°C Air temp. 15°C Wind velocity § m/sec Cracked region 25°C Steel shutter on for 24 hours fp; : 7 Tensile stresses Numbers are ratio of « tensile stress to tensile o Air temp °C strength. o 10 20 30 40 Diagram for the use of plastic cover during hardening of the concrete cubes 134 Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.comCOASTAL STRUCTURES 07 Short Course DESIGN OF RUBBLE MOUND STRUCTURES Antifier blocks with hole to reduce temperature differences during hardening Hans F. Burcharth Aalborg University Denmark e-mail burcharth@burcharthmail.com