Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Experimental study of the hydraulic efficiency of a novel perforated-wall

caisson concept, the LOWREB
Crina-Stefania Ciocan a, Francisco Taveira-Pinto b, Luciana das Neves b, c, Paulo Rosa-Santos b, *
a
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Department of Civil Engineering, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal
b
Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research (CIIMAR) and Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Department of Civil Engineering, Rua Dr.
Roberto Frias, s/n, 4200-465, Porto, Portugal
c
International Marine and Dredging Consultants – IMDC nv, Van Immerseelstraat 66, B-2018, Antwerp, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel perforated-wall caisson concept, the so-called LOW REflection Breakwater (LOWREB), based on a three-
Low-reflection structure chamber perforated-wall and inner weirs, is under development in the University of Porto – Faculty of Engi-
Caisson neering, Portugal. Physical model tests, carried out in the wave basin of the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Hy-
Wave reflection
draulics, Water Resources and Environment Division, Civil Engineering Department, have been used to study the
Physical modelling
hydraulic processes related to wave reflection. The physical model was built to a Froude scale of 1:50. Test
LOWREB
conditions covered two water levels and irregular waves at three significant wave heights (3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 m) and
three peak wave periods (10, 14 and 18s). Three models of varying porosity, and vertical slots' arrangements were
tested under the same hydrodynamic conditions to study how these affect the LOWREB performance, namely how
these affect the wave reflection from the structure, as compared to a plain caisson tested under the same con-
ditions. The experimental study demonstrates that the LOWREB caisson is a valid concept for marine structures,
namely harbour breakwaters, because of its wave energy dissipation capacity, for which the inner weirs were
found to play a major role. Results indicate that the hydraulic efficiency of the LOWREB caisson increases with
wave height for the lower water level, and decreases with it for the highest. Greater efficiency with respect to
wave reflection was accomplished with the highest water level.

1. Introduction
The efficiency of port operations is often related to the wave condi-
tions inside the harbour basin. The harbour layout and the characteristics
of the breakwaters and berthing structures with regard to wave reflection
have an important influence on those conditions. This explains why
vertical perforated/slotted structures are becoming more popular, not
only as external caisson breakwaters (see, e.g., Sankarbabu et al., 2008;
Liu et al., 2012), but also as lower reflective quay walls (see, e.g., Taveira-
Pinto et al., 2011; Altomare and Gironella, 2014), when the use of rubble-
mound breakwaters and gentle slopes within the harbour basin are un-
feasible due to space limitations or physical, economical or technical
constraints. Among the advantages of the partially perforated-wall cais-
sons is their capability to absorb part of the wave energy within the
chambers or openings in the exposed wall, partly overcoming specific
limitations of vertical-wall caissons (see, e.g., Oumeraci et al., 2001):
large reflections, forces, overtopping and toe scour.
In fact, the main purpose of a breakwater is to reduce wave action at
the shore and to protect harbour facilities and infrastructures, whilst
improving the conditions for ships' manoeuvring and the safety of ships
inside the port. To that extend, those structures shall ensure that reflec-
tion is minimized in the vicinity and within the harbour basin, and that
the amount of offshore wave energy that reaches the inner harbour areas
is minimal. On the other hand, low reflection quay walls prevent multi-
reflections inside the harbour basin that could otherwise locally in-
crease wave agitation levels and negatively affect the efficiency of port
terminals. Hence, one important challenge is to find ways to limit the
(large) wave reflection of vertical impermeable structures and to design
structures able to absorb or dissipate a significant amount of the incident
wave energy with a favourable construction- and cost-wise compromise,
and still maintaining low spatial requirements (small footprint).
Jarlan (1961) proposed the first concept of a perforated caisson
breakwater with energy dissipating chambers. The so-called Jarlan-type
(Jarlan, 1961) breakwater caisson had its first application in 1966 in
Comeau Bay, Canada. In the coming years, several theoretical and
experimental research studies have been carried out in order to analyse

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pjrsantos@fe.up.pt (P. Rosa-Santos).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2017.06.001
Received 5 April 2016; Received in revised form 16 February 2017; Accepted 2 June 2017
Available online 9 June 2017
0378-3839/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
the hydraulic behaviour of this type of structures, namely with regards to
wave reflection or wave energy dissipation, and the stability increase by
the reduction of the wave forces acting on the structure. Over the years,
many have been built (see, e.g., Taveira-Pinto et al., 2011; Theocharis
et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011).
Proof of concept was accomplished by the experimental research of
Jarlan (1961) and Marks and Jarlan (1968). In their studies, the authors
showed that the wave reflection is effectively reduced by using a
perforated-wall on the exposed side of a marine structure.
Kondo (1979) developed an analytical model to estimate the reflec-
tion coefficient of a perforated caisson with one or two wave chambers,
based on shallow water linear wave theory and concluded that the two
chambered caisson has a better hydraulic efficiency with regard to wave
reflection. Fugazza and Natale (1992), concluded otherwise, i.e.
concluded that having a single wave chamber could provide the largest
reduction of wave reflection in the range of practical applications, by
using their analytical model based on potential flow theory and experi-
mental data. Also relevant is the apparent link between the wave
reflection coefficient and the relative chamber width. In that instance, it
is found that the reflection coefficient reaches its minimum value as the
chamber width is about a quarter of the incident wavelength (see, e.g.,
Zhu and Chwang, 2001). Huang et al. (2011) concluded that small wave
reflection coefficients can be obtained for multiple perforated-walls over
a wide range of wave frequencies.
Using the Galerkin-eigen function technique, Suh and Park (1995)
developed an analytical model able to predict the reflection coefficient
from a perforated-wall caisson mounted on a rubble mound foundation
(composite breakwater) for obliquely incident regular waves, which
showed a reasonable agreement with available experimental data. Suh
and Park (1995) have also verified that for obliquely incident waves, the
minimum reflection coefficient occurs for a relationship between the
chamber width and the incident wavelength that depends on the wave
approach angle. In order to predict the reflection of irregular waves
normally incident upon a perforated-wall caisson breakwaters, Suh et al.
(2001) extended the model from Suh and Park (1995) using a frequency-
averaged method. More recent work by Suh et al. (2006) further
extended the application of the model to partially perforated-wall cais-
sons with one wave chamber and verified it with 2D experimental results.
For most of the available studies, the water depths inside and outside
the perforated structure are the same; however, it is found that the use of
partially perforated wall caissons (see, e.g., Suh et al., 2006) or perfo-
rated structures with a rock filled core (e.g., Isaacson et al., 2000; Liu
et al., 2007) results in an improvement of their structural stability as
compared to fully perforated ones, due to the extra weight added to the
lower part of the caisson. For a partially perforated-wall, single-cham-
bered caisson breakwater, Tanimoto and Yoshimoto (1982) concluded
that the wave reflection coefficient reached a minimum with a chamber
width to internal wave length ratio ranging from 0.15 to 0.20 for a slot
depth to water depth ratio in the range of 0.83 to 0.33.
Lee and Shin (2014) investigated the wave reflection from single- and
double-chambered partially perforated-wall caissons in a wave flume,
with varying chamber width, number of slots, and porosity of the vertical
wall. The authors concluded that for the same chamber width, the
double-chambered model with a porosity of the middle wall smaller than
of the front wall, leads to a larger wave reflection drop, as compared to
the single-chambered model. On the other hand, when the front wall
porosity was lower than the middle wall porosity, the reflection coeffi-
cient in the double chamber cases was not improved. In addition, for a
single chambered model, the reflection coefficient reduced with the
reduction of the front wall porosity if it were between 20 and 60%.
It is usual to place a cover plate on top of the perforated caisson
breakwater so to enable other uses. Huang et al. (2011) reviewed pre-
vious experimental and numerical studies on this topic, to conclude that
the reflection coefficient of a perforated structure increases when this
cover plate is placed on top of the structure, and that it gradually de-
creases with increasing spacing between the top cover plate and the still
70
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
water level. In addition, the reflection coefficient from a perforated
structure with a cover plate is about 1.0–1.3 times the one without a
cover plate under regular waves with Sc/H ¼ 0.33–2.0, and 1.0–1.2 times
under irregular waves with Sc/Hs ¼ 0.5–2.0, where Sc is the spacing
between the top cover and the still water level and Hs is the significant
wave height (no slamming impact forces were observed on the top cover
plate). Further conclusions by Huang et al. (2011) indicate that the
reflection coefficients are generally larger under irregular waves than
regular ones for equivalent conditions, and that oblique waves could
result in larger wave reflection than normally incident waves.
Many of the researches on perforated marine structures focused on
the impact on wave reflection reduction; nonetheless, part of it also
demonstrates that the wave (pressure) forces may also be reduced
through the perforated-walls and wave chambers. Liu et al. (2007)
studied the wave-structure interaction on a caisson breakwater with a
perforated front wall, a solid back wall and an intermediate wave
absorbing chamber with a two-layer rock-filled core, to conclude that the
rock fill reduces wave loads on the structure but may increase the
reflection coefficient, as compared to the original Jarlan-type breakwater
€
without rock fill. Ozgür Kirca and Sedat Kabdaşli (2009) carried out an
experiment on a new type of partially perforated-wall caisson with a
chamber divided by a horizontal impermeable plate. The authors found
that the dimensionless wave forces and wave moments can be reduced by
up to 35–40% under both regular and irregular waves and that the
structure performance increases with decreasing wave length.
Most of the research available on the performance of perforated-wall
caisson breakwaters is based on physical model testing results or
analytical models based results, for instance, based on the potential flow
theory or the Galerkin-eigen function. Semi-empirical models based on
neural networks (multi-parametric nonlinear regression methods) were
also developed and successfully validated with experimental data (see,
e.g., Garrido and Medina, 2012). In recent decades, there was a
remarkable evolution in the application of advanced numerical models to
an extensive range of complex hydrodynamic phenomena in the field of
coastal engineering, which makes the study of, for example, the inter-
action of waves with perforated and permeable structures possible to a
reasonable level of detail and accuracy. The models based on the
Navier–Stokes equations, either Eulerian (see, e.g., Higuera et al., 2014a,
2014b; and Vanneste and Troch, 2015) or Lagrangean (see, e.g., Mer-
ingolo et al., 2015), have only a few simplifications (e.g. treatment of
aerated turbulent flow) in the translation of the problem physics. Main
limitations that prevent their wider use in practical/engineering appli-
cations relate with the computational time and, very often, the lack of
readily available data for model calibration and validation.
The present paper presents the proof of concept of a novel perforated
structure, the LOW REflection Breakwater (LOWREB). This concept was
initially presented by Pinto (2012), but hydraulic testing was only con-
ducted at a later time. The results of that testing presented herein focus
on the analysis of the hydraulic performance of LOWREB with respect to
wave reflection, for different hydrodynamic conditions (i.e. water levels,
wave-heights, and wave periods) and different structural configurations
based on physical model testing. Its use is justified in this early stage of
concept development, given that the nature of the hydrodynamic inter-
action between the incident waves and the perforated-walls and internal
weirs of the LOWREB caisson breakwater is complex and non-linear,
involving wave breaking, flow separation, intense turbulence and flow
aeration, and wave overtopping.
2. The LOW REflection Breakwater (LOWREB)
2.1. The LOWREB concept
Jarlan-type (Jarlan, 1961) breakwater caisson consists of one or more
dissipative wave chambers having an exposed perforated-wall(s) and a
rear impervious wall. The incident wave energy is partly reflected at the
front perforated-wall and partly transmitted through the openings into
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
the dissipative chamber(s), where secondary reflections take place due to
interactions between the transmitted waves and the following
perforated-walls or the rear wall. Some perforated structures may also
have a submerged rubble core or internal horizontal porous plates. The
reduction of the reflection coefficient is the result of the interference of
the waves at the front and back of the perforated face, which depends on
the chamber width to wave length ratio, and the energy dissipation
caused by viscous effects governed by the porosity of the perforated-
walls, flow separation, eddies, vortex shedding and turbulence within
the chambers.
The LOWREB caisson is composed of one or more dissipative cham-
bers with varying bottom elevations (and widths), separated by
perforated-walls with pre-defined porosities. The main innovation in the
LOWREB concept is the inner weirs located at the starting of each
dissipative chamber, Fig. 1. The presence of these inner weirs introduces
additional important dissipation mechanisms. The shape of the weirs
favours water movement in the rear wall direction, reducing wave
reflection. The backwater that flows over the weirs falls into the water
nappe created by the lower weir and so on. This process, which is forcing
the backwater flow to pass over a succession of free falling nappes at each
weir edge, generates intense turbulence, flow aeration and, therefore,
energy dissipation.
The weirs configuration in cascade inside the successive LOWREB
chambers improves the overall stability of the structure, due to the extra
weight in the lower part of the perforated caisson. The space at the lee-
side of each weir (below the crest level, Fig. 1) can be filled with rubble to
improve energy dissipation and to further increase the stability of the
breakwater.
The LOWREB concept is suitable for both applications, external
caisson breakwaters and low reflective quay walls. The present experi-
mental proof of concept is mainly focused on the first of those two
applications.
2.2. Conceptual design and hydraulic efficiency
The conceptual design of the LOWREB caisson is based on existing
knowledge about low reflection structures, namely, on previous studies
conducted on perforated structures (see, e.g., Williams et al., 2000;
Bergmann and Oumeraci, 2001; Chen et al., 2002; Li et al., 2003; and
Fig. 1. 3D view of the vertical breakwater LOWREB.
71
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
Huang, 2006), which showed that a multi-chambered caisson can be
more effective with respect to wave reflection than a single-chambered
one. In the physical model testing of LOWREB, a three-chambered
model is used, with equal width (equal spacing between perforate-
walls). The volume of the dissipation chambers decreases from the
exposed to the rear side, whilst the crest elevation of the inner weirs
increases in that same direction, Fig. 1.
According to Twu and Lin (1991), the wave-absorbing ability of
perforated structures is mainly controlled by the spacing between the
adjacent perforated-walls and the arrangement of wall porosities. The
authors also found that the porosities of the perforated-walls should
decrease gradually along the incident wave direction for increased en-
ergy dissipation. Further studies by Chen et al. (2002) and Lee and Shin
(2014) on partially perforated structures also confirmed what has been
observed by Twu and Lin (1991). In the present hydraulic testing, the
variation in overall porosity between adjacent perforated-walls is ach-
ieved by decreasing the dissipation chambers height in the direction of
the wave propagation rather than changing the number or arrangement
of slots.
Because of the variability and complexity of the geometries and
associated hydraulic processes around vertical perforated caisson
breakwaters, there are no general design criteria, in spite of the many
theoretical and laboratory studies and a high number of practical appli-
cations over the past decades.
The hydraulic efficiency with respect to reflection is determined
based on a global reflection coefficient, which typically is in the range of
0.4–0.7 for structures as the one being considered in this study for proof
of concept. The global reflection coefficient is defined as the ratio be-
tween the reflected significant wave height and the incident significant
wave height.
Based on many experimental research works carried out on perfo-
rated structures, Oumeraci et al. (2001) evaluated some specific
geometrical conditions for the design of perforated breakwaters to
establish a dependency between the porosity of the seaside wall, the
dissipation chamber width and the hydraulic efficiency with respect to
reflection. The values presented by Oumeraci et al. (2001) for the wall
porosity, defined as the ratio of the perforated area to the total area of the
wall, are within the range 15%–40%, and for the dissipation chamber
width (B) are within the range L/10 to L/4, where L is the local incident
wavelength. In the case of LOWREB, the porosity of the perforated-walls
could, in principle, be greater than indicated by Oumeraci et al. (2001),
for an equivalent hydraulic performance, given that the incident wave
energy will be partly dissipated in the inner weirs.
The main wave parameters used to evaluate the hydraulic efficiency
of a perforated structure are the wave period (T) and the wavelength (L).
The wave-energy dissipation is the result of several mechanisms that take
place within the dissipation chamber(s) of the perforated structure, such
as resonance and turbulence, which are mainly governed by the porosity
of the walls and dissipation chamber shape and dimensions.
The hydraulic design of the LOWREB caisson is out of the range of
application of formulas developed for conventional perforated structures
(see, e.g., Oumeraci et al., 2001), which typically provide the reflection
coefficient of the structure as a function of the relative dissipation
chamber width (B/L), due to the presence of the inner weirs and the
variable water depths inside the dissipation chambers.
3. Experimental setup
3.1. Experimental facility
The physical model testing was carried out in the wave basin of the
Hydraulics Laboratory of the Hydraulics, Water Resources and Environ-
ment Division of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto,
Portugal. This wave basin is 28.0 m long, 12.0 m wide, 1.2 m deep, and is
equipped with a multidirectional, piston-type wave generation system
(model HR Wallingford, U.K.), composed of 16 independent wave
C.-S. Ciocan et al. Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80

paddles. A Dynamic Wave Absorption (DWA) module is available to the presence of the inner weirs, aspects related with the structural design
control wave reflections at the wave-maker paddles. This module mea- where of secondary importance. The cross-section of the tested models is
sures the water free surface elevation in front of each paddle and ma- presented in Fig. 3.
nipulates the signal to produce an Equivalent Paddle Position (EPP)
signal, which can be considered to be the position the paddle would have
to be in to produce the measured water level without any reflections. The
difference between the EPP signal and the Demand Input Position (DIP)
signal results from the waves reflected back to the paddle. Therefore, to
absorb the reflected waves, the DWA module modifies, in real time, the
DIP signal to take into account that difference (HR Wallingford, 2007).
This facility presents a consistent track of references in experimental
studies in marine structures topic related issues, such as quay walls (see,
e.g., Taveira-Pinto et al., 2011), ports (see, e.g., Rosa-Santos et al., 2014)
and coastal protection (see, e.g., das Neves et al., 2015) works.
The LOWREB physical models were tested in a 0.80 m wide wave
channel partition of the wave basin, Fig. 2. In order to minimise possible
energy losses, because only one wave paddle was used, the dividing wall
starts right in front of the wave generator, therefore not allowing any
lateral energy transference along the incident or reflected wave crests.

3.2. Physical models

The tested models of the LOWREB breakwater are a scaled repro-

duction of full-scale structures appropriated for water depths between 16
and 20 m in locations with moderate wave conditions. Since the main
goal of this proof of concept study is to characterise the hydraulic effi-
Fig. 3. Cross-section of the LOWREB models (dimensions in meters, prototype).
ciency of the LOWREB caisson and the influence on energy dissipation of

Fig. 2. FEUP wave basin and physical model set-up (model dimensions).

72
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
In a physical model of a perforated breakwater, it is important to
reproduce properly the interaction between the wave and the structure
(e.g., wave breaking, wave overtopping, energy dissipation) and mini-
mising scale effects that could affect the quality of the results (Altomare
and Gironella, 2014). In the present testing, the model follows the Froude
similarity in a 1:50 geometric scale. The selected model scale was based
on considerations of the size of the available facility, the prototype di-
mensions of the breakwater, controlling factors with respect to the me-
chanical limitations of the wave generator and the mitigation of the scale
effects; however, it should be noted that this scale is indicative since the
study does not intend to reproduce an existing structure, but rather
analyse the feasibility of the newly patented breakwater concept.
The breakwater models were made from polycarbonate plates of
0.02 m thickness, and the perforated-walls consisted of vertical slits of
0.04 m (model 1) and 0.08 m (models 2 and 3) width. The porosity of the
perforated walls was 67% and 80%, respectively for, model 1 and models
2 and 3. The polycarbonate caisson was filled with concrete, moulded to
materialise the dissipation chambers specific shape (with inner weirs)
and to assure a proper own-weight of the structure for stability reasons,
although the stability analysis was not a main purpose in the present
study. The bathymetry was not reproduced in the physical model, as it is
meant to reproduce generic local condition and not any specified
case-study.
3.3. Instrumentation
The following measurement equipment was used in the present study:
an array of four aligned resistive wave probes and one digital camera,
Fig. 2. The four wave probes were placed on the seaside of the model to
measure the water free surface elevation in front of the structure, which
is required to determine the incident wave conditions and to estimate the
reflection coefficients. A development of the least squares method pro-
posed by Mansard and Funke (1980) that makes use of simultaneous time
series of the free surface elevation measured by four aligned wave gauges
to separate the incident waves from the reflected is used in the present
study. The spacing between the wave probes was determined according
to the test conditions, namely the wave period and the water depth. A
digital camera, GigE Ethernet UI 5220, was used to record the wave
motion in front of the structure and inside the dissipation chambers. Two
Fig. 4. Characteristics of the tested LOWREB models (prototype dimensions).
73
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
halogen spotlights were used as complementary light source.
3.4. Testing programme
In the analysis of the impact of the perforated-walls' porosity and
wave conditions (wave height and wave period) on the hydraulic effi-
ciency of the structure, three LOWREB models with different porosities
were tested, Fig. 4.
The indicated porosities are given with respect to the perforated part
of the walls, as in most studies found in the literature. The wall porosity
with respect to the total structure height (i.e., determined as the ratio
between the perforated area and the total area of the corresponding wall)
decreases in the direction of the rear impervious wall, as the crest
elevation of the inner weirs increase for the successive dissipative
chambers in that direction, see e.g. Fig. 3 (24%, 19%, 14% and 0% for
model 1 and 29%, 23%, 17% and 0% for models 2 and 3). Model 1
represents the originally designed LOWREB caisson, which suffered
variations in the slots' arrangement of the perforated-walls for models 2
and 3 to study the impact of the porosity on the model efficiency. All
three models were tested under the same hydrodynamic conditions, so as
to allow a comparative analysis of the obtained results.
The experimental tests were carried out for two water levels (or tide
levels): the Low Water Level (LWL) and the High Water Level (HWL),
corresponding to 16.0 and 20.0 m water depths in the prototype,
respectively (0.32 and 0.40 m in model dimensions), Fig. 3. Each one of
the LOWREB models has been tested under irregular waves, for three
incident significant wave heights, HSi , and three peak wave periods, TP ,
as presented in Table 1.
The hydraulic efficiency with respect to wave reflection of each in-
dividual LOWREB model is evaluated by comparison of the obtained
global reflection coefficients with those obtained for a vertical imper-
vious structure (without any openings), for which a theoretical reflection
coefficient near to 1 is expected. The impervious model has been
materialised by placing a polycarbonate plate in front of the LOW-
REB models.
The reproduced irregular sea states were characterised by a JONS-
WAP spectrum (peak enhancement factor of 3.3) and generated using the
filtered white noise technique. In this proof of concept study, a sequence
length of 211–1 pulses, corresponding to about 280–300 waves, was used
C.-S. Ciocan et al. Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80

Table 1 smaller than the typical reflection coefficients of this kind of structures,
Test conditions: Irregular sea-states. which are in the range 0.90–1.00 (Goda, 1985). The differences may
Prototype Model possibly be explained by energy losses in the wave propagation between
TP (s) HSi (m) TP (s) HSi (m) the probes and the structure (and vice-versa), but may also be related to
wave overtopping, wave breaking and model effects. Furthermore, due to
10 3.0 1.41 0.06
4.0 0.08
limitations of the DWA system, the partial absorption of reflected waves
5.0 0.10 at the wavemaker paddles also introduces uncertainties in the obtained
results (absorption of the waves reflected back from the physical model
14 3.0 1.98 0.06
4.0 0.08 in real time is complex), especially in this case, since appreciable wave
5.0 0.10 reflections are expected from a vertical impervious model. The variation
18 3.0 2.55 0.06
of the reflection coefficient with the wave period, wave height and water
4.0 0.08 level is little for the non-perforated structure, Fig. 5.
5.0 0.10 The three LOWREB models are found to have a higher hydraulic ef-
ficiency with respect to wave reflection than the reference model, for all
(a sufficiently long test duration to ensure a correct reproduction of each tested wave conditions and water levels, Fig. 5. In addition, the hydraulic
sea state). efficiency of the LOWREB caisson is clearly higher for the highest tested
water level (HWL), in all tested conditions and for all models (CR vary
between 0.74 and 0.36 for the HWL and between 0.87 and 0.74 for the
4. Results and discussion
LWL). As a matter of fact, for the lowest tested water level (LWL), all
three models perform similarly to the non-perforated structure, espe-
The analysis of the efficiency of the LOWREB models is based on the
cially in the tests carried out under smaller significant wave heights. The
reflection coefficients, CR , estimated for each one of the testing condi-
differences between the non-perforated model and the LOWREB models
tions, by presenting their variation as a function of water level and wave
increase with the wave height, for all tested peak wave periods. These
conditions, having as reference the corresponding vertical impervious
results suggest that the crest level of the first (and perhaps second) inner
(non-perforated) structure, Fig. 5.
weir are too high for the lowest tested water level; therefore suggesting
For the reference model, with a non-perforated exposed wall, reflec-
that the LOWREB caisson behaves more like an impervious structure
tion coefficients between 0.87 and 0.93 were obtained. These are slightly
under smaller wave heights, as waves are not noticeably affected by the

Fig. 5. Reflection coefficients for the three tested LOWREB models and the non-perforated structures as a function of water level: Low Water Level – LWL and High Water Level - HWL.

74
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
inner weirs because only the higher waves are able to reach them, Fig. 5.
For the LWL, there is little influence of the peak wave period, leading to
conclude that the reflection coefficient is mainly governed by the wave
height, as no clear trend with the wave period can be established.
For the HWL, all the dissipation chambers and weirs are repeatedly
active and the influence of the wave period on the LOWREB hydraulic
efficiency is found important. Fig. 5 shows that CR increases with the
peak wave period. For smaller wave periods most of the energy is
concentrated at the top of the water column and is, consequently, more
easily dissipated. The present data is inconclusive to assess the impact of
the wave height on CR . Nevertheless, results seem to indicate that the
influence of the wave height on the dissipation performance of LOWREB
caisson is somehow related to the wave period.
In order to have a better insight into the performance of the LOWREB
caisson with respect to wave reflection, Fig. 6 presents the incident and
reflected wave spectra as well as the reflection coefficient as a function of
the wave frequency, for three representative test conditions and a spec-
tral bandwidth of 0.00691 Hz. The frequency-decomposed reflection
coefficients shall be interpreted with care for frequencies away from the
peak frequency. Therefore, a threshold of 10% of the spectral variance
density estimated for the peak wave frequency is used to define the valid
frequency range.
The reflection coefficient decreases with the wave frequency for the
spectral frequencies of interest. Small local variations to this trend may
be attributed to the frequency resolution selected for the spectral anal-
ysis, Fig. 6. Nevertheless, when approaching frequencies of about twice
the peak wave frequency, the value of CR increases significantly possibly
due to the transference of wave energy to those higher frequencies as a
result of either the wave breaking or the interaction of incident waves
with the LOWREB caisson.
The presence of the inner weirs introduces, as expected, important
energy dissipation mechanisms on both directions of flow (i.e. incident
and reflected wave directions), as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8, for the high
and low water levels, respectively. The snapshots taken from the video
recordings start from the rising phase of one individual wave and cover
Fig. 6. Spectral variance density of incident (Sinc) and reflected (Sref) waves and reflection coefficient as a function of the wave frequency. High water level, model 1, incident significant
wave height of 4 m and the following peak wave periods: (a) 10s; (b) 14s and (c) 18s.
75
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
either the run-up or spill-out stages, until the next wave starts to rise. It
can be seen that as the flow is travelling in the incident wave direction
inside the inner dissipative chambers and passing over the weirs' crests,
vortices and turbulence are generated causing energy dissipation (snap-
shots 5 to 11 in Fig. 7 or snapshots 4 to 9 in Fig. 8). During the return
flow, additional energy is dissipated when the water cascades through a
succession of free falling nappes at each inner weir edge (snapshots 12 to
18 in Fig. 7 or snapshots 10 to 15 in Fig. 8). The intense turbulence and
flow aeration associated with those mechanisms can be clearly observed.
The access to the LOWREB dissipation chambers is clearly more difficult
for the low water level, even for the higher waves in the irregular wave
train (snapshots 1 to 8 in Fig. 8).
In summary, for the tested LOWREB geometries, the influence of the
significant wave height and peak wave period on the reflection coeffi-
cient depends on water depth; for the HWL, the hydraulic efficiency is
mainly governed by wave period (CR increases with TP ), but for the LWL
is the wave height that has the most impact (CR reduces with HS ). The
influence of the water level on the hydraulic efficiency of the structure is
clear from Fig. 9.
As the peak wave period increases, the reflection coefficient for the
highest tested water level also increases, consequently the difference in
reflection coefficients between the two water levels decreases, being very
similar for both water levels for the higher wave period, Fig. 9.
The little variation of the reflection coefficient between the three
tested LOWREB models, with varying porosity, is very possibly related to
the fact that the wave energy dissipation is mainly governed by the inner
weirs. The lower impact of the wall porosity on wave dissipation may be
attributed to a very large porosity of the perforated upper part of the
LOWREB models, 67% for model 1 and 80% for models 2 and 3, which is
larger than the upper limit of the interval presented by Oumeraci et al.
(2001), and studied by others researchers.
The ratio of dissipated wave energy to the incident wave energy, ED ,
was calculated from the global reflection coefficients previ-
ously estimated,
C.-S. Ciocan et al. Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80

Fig. 7. Snapshots of video recording presenting the wave interaction with the LOWREB breakwater (from 01:17:27 to 01:18:97 with a time step of 0.10s in model time): high water level,
incident wave height of 5 m and peak wave period of 10s.

present study, this was generally confirmed, namely a reduction of the

ED ¼ 1  CR2 (1) reflection coefficient with an increase in wave steepness, Fig. 11 (a), and
as the wave height increases, Fig. 5. The reduction of the distance be-
The variation of ED with the incident wave parameters, given in
tween the top cover plate and the still water level for the highest water
Fig. 10, allows looking into the energy dissipation performance of the
level may explain the increase of the reflection coefficient with the wave
LOWREB caisson from a different perspective.
height for some wave periods. The differences observed in Fig. 11 (b) for
The tested LOWREB caissons can dissipate up to four times more
the two water levels are mainly explained by the position of the inner
incident wave energy than the reference non-perforated structure for the
weirs crests, as explained previously.
high water level and up to two times more for the low water level, Fig. 10.
The hydraulic efficiency with respect to wave reflection is very much
According to Suh et al. (2006), there are other parameters, such as the
related with the dissipation chamber width (Oumeraci et al., 2001). For
relative water depth (d=LP ) and the wave steepness (HSi =LP ), calculated
the LOWREB breakwater, when the wave height increases the effective
for the significant wave height and the wave length associated to the
dissipation chamber width also increases, making the analysis more
peak wave period (LP ), that should also be taken into account. In the

76
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
Fig. 8. Snapshots of video recording presenting the wave interaction with the LOWREB breakwater (from 01:18:40 to 01:20:10 with a time step of 0.10s in model time): low water level,
incident wave height of 5 m and peak wave period of 10s.
complex. In that instance, it was observed during the hydraulic testing
that, for the lowest tested water level, the wave-energy dissipation
essentially occurs within the first two chambers, which leads to a smaller
(active) chamber width and therefore to a lower hydraulic efficiency of
the structure. In fact, only the higher waves could reach the upper
dissipation chamber, as shown in Fig. 8.
5. Conclusions
The hydraulic efficiency of a new perforated-wall caisson structure
concept, the LOWREB, is studied through physical model testing carried
out in the wave basin of the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Hydraulics,
77
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
Water Resources and Environment Division of the Faculty of Engineering
of the University of Porto, Portugal. This study encompassed three
LOWREB models of varying porosity, and vertical slots' arrangements,
tested under the same hydrodynamic conditions to study how these
impact on its efficiency, namely how these affect the wave reflection
from the structure, as compared to a plain caisson (impervious structure)
tested under the same conditions.
The LOWREB caisson is composed of one or more dissipative cham-
bers with varying bottom elevations (and widths), separated by
perforated-walls with pre-defined porosities. The main innovation of the
concept lies on the inner weirs located at the starting of each dissipative
chamber. The LOWREB concept is suitable for both applications, external
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
Fig. 9. Reflection coefficients, comparison between the two water levels.
caisson breakwaters and low reflective quay walls. Although the test
programme of this experimental proof of concept has been designed for
studying the application of LOWREB caisson in vertical breakwaters, the
application of this innovative caisson in quay-walls is promising. In fact,
waves inside harbour basins, in spite of their usual smaller wave heights,
have wave periods of the order of magnitude of offshore waves or smaller
(produced by local wind action and passing ships). The energy of short
period waves is easily dissipated by traditional low reflection structures
(see e.g., Taveira-Pinto et al., 2011). The long period waves (higher than
25s) are more difficult to dampen with this kind of solutions.
The hydraulic testing for proof of concept presented in this study
aimed at confirming the preliminary design of the LOWREB caisson, by
assessing the impact of the presence of the inner weirs on wave energy
dissipation, and by evaluating the efficiency of this new type of caisson in
the reduction of the reflected wave height and, consequently, in the
reduction of water oscillations nearby the structure.
Reflection coefficients were calculated for all testing conditions. The
78
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
analysis on the efficiency is done by comparison with the results obtained
from the reference case model (impervious structure). It was found that
the reflection coefficient of the LOWREB caisson decreases with an in-
crease of the incident wave height for the lowest tested water level. For
the highest tested water level it increases with the wave period. As
compared to the reference case model, the LOWREB presents no signif-
icant improvement on the hydraulic efficiency in the testing with the
lowest water level, whilst for the highest, an improvement is always
observed. The little efficiency observed for the lower water level is
attributed to the relatively high crest levels of the internal weirs, which
prevent incident waves from effectively reaching all the dissipation
chambers. This observation from the model, most especially for the
waves with the smaller wave heights, for which the LOWREB caisson
roughly performs as an impervious structure, indicates that the wave
height is, in these cases, a key parameter in the wave-energy dissipation,
since it determines the access to the inner dissipation chambers (that is
determines the active part of the dissipation chambers).
C.-S. Ciocan et al. Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80

Fig. 10. Ratio of dissipated wave energy to the incident wave energy for the three LOWREB models and the non-perforated structures as a function of the water level: Low Water Level –
LWL and High Water Level - HWL.

Fig. 11. Reflection coefficient as a function of dimensionless parameters: (a) HSi/LP and (b) d/LP.

79
C.-S. Ciocan et al.
This experimental study for the proof of concept indicates that the
LOWREB is a valid concept to dissipate incident wave energy in port
applications, based on fairly positive results on the hydraulic efficiency of
the structure concept with respect to wave reflection. The testing with
the lowest water level showed that the structure efficiency can be
improved by reducing the crest elevation of the first and possibly the
second inner weirs, however, such modification should be carefully
evaluated with respect to the loss of efficiency at the higher water levels,
as that change in weir crest elevation may affect negatively the efficiency
of the caisson at rising water levels. The introduction of a new chamber
(and associated weir) with a lower bottom elevation is also a possible
solution to improve efficiency at lower water levels for locations with a
large tidal range.
The little variation of the reflection coefficient between the three
tested LOWREB models, with varying porosity, is very possibly related to
the fact that the wave energy dissipation is mainly governed by the inner
weirs, which induce vortexes, air entrainment and intense turbulence.
The lower impact of the wall porosity on wave dissipation may be
attributed to a very large porosity of the tested models.
It is important to mention that this experimental research work
allowed gathering a significant amount of data that will be used to
calibrate and validate a numerical model, which could then be used to: (i)
optimise the design of the LOWREB caisson, namely the number and
dimensions of dissipation chambers; (ii) define the most favourable crest
levels for the internal weirs; (iii) define the most favourable porosity for
the perforated walls.
Additional hydraulic testing, including the measurement of the hy-
drodynamic pressures and characterisation of the velocity fields and the
flow around the structure and inside the dissipation chambers, using
image processing techniques (PIV), may contribute to a better under-
standing on the wave-structure interactions, dissipation, transmission
and reflection mechanisms, which would allow the optimisation of the
hydraulic and structural design of LOWREB.
References
Altomare, C., Gironella, X., 2014. An experimental study on scale effects in wave
reflection of low-reflective quay walls with internal rubble mound for regular and
random waves. Coast. Eng. 90, 51–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.coastaleng.2014.04.002.
Bergmann, H., Oumeraci, H., 2001. Wave loads on perforated caisson breakwaters. In:
Coastal Engineering 2000. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1622–1635.
Chen, X., Li, Y., Sun, D., 2002. Regular waves acting on double-layered perforated
caissons. In: Presented at the the Twelfth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers,
Kitakyushu, Japan, pp. 736–743.
das Neves, L., Moreira, A., Taveira-Pinto, F., Lopes, M.L., Veloso-Gomes, F., 2015.
Performance of submerged nearshore sand-filled geosystems for coastal protection.
Coast. Eng. 95, 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.10.005.
Fugazza, M., Natale, L., 1992. Hydraulic design of perforated breakwaters. J. Waterw.
Port. Coast. Ocean. Eng. 118, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
950X(1992)118:1(1).
Garrido, J.M., Medina, J.R., 2012. New neural network-derived empirical formulas for
estimating wave reflection on Jarlan-type breakwaters. Coast. Eng. 62, 9–18. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2011.12.003.
Goda, Y., 1985. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures, Advanced Series on
Ocean Engineering. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2014a. Three-dimensional interaction of waves and
porous coastal structures using OpenFOAM®. Part II: Application. Coast. Eng. 83,
259–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.09.002.
Higuera, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2014b. Three-dimensional interaction of waves and
porous coastal structures using OpenFOAM®. Part I: formulation and validation.
Coast. Eng. 83, 243–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.08.010.
80
Coastal Engineering 126 (2017) 69–80
Huang, Z., 2006. A method to study interactions between narrow-banded random waves
and multi-chamber perforated structures. Acta Mech. Sin. 22, 285–292. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10409-006-0021-x.
Huang, Z., Li, Y., Liu, Y., 2011. Hydraulic performance and wave loadings of perforated/
slotted coastal structures: a review. Ocean. Eng. 38, 1031–1053. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.03.002.
Isaacson, M., Baldwin, J., Allyn, N., Cowdell, S., 2000. Wave interactions with perforated
breakwater. J. Waterw. Port. Coast. Ocean. Eng. 126, 229–235. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2000)126:5(229).
Jarlan, G.E., 1961. A Perforated Vertical Breakwater (No. 486, Vol. 41). The Dock and
Harbour Authority, London, UK.
Kondo, H., 1979. Analysis of breakwaters having two porous walls. In: Proc. Coastal
Structures '79, pp. 962–977.
Lee, J.-I., Shin, S., 2014. Experimental study on the wave reflection of partially perforated
wall caissons with single and double chambers. Ocean. Eng. 91, 1–10. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.08.008.
Li, Y., Dong, G., Liu, H., Sun, D., 2003. The reflection of oblique incident waves by
breakwaters with double-layered perforated wall. Coast. Eng 50, 47–60. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2003.08.001.
Liu, Y., Li, Y., Teng, B., 2007. Wave interaction with a new type perforated breakwater.
Acta Mech. Sin. 23, 351–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10409-007-0086-1.
Liu, J., Lin, G., Li, J., 2012. Short-crested waves interaction with a concentric cylindrical
structure with double-layered perforated walls. Ocean. Eng. 40, 76–90. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.12.011.
Mansard, E.P.D., Funke, E.R., 1980. The measurement of incident and reflected spectra
using a least square method. In: Presented at theInternational Coastal Engineering
Conference. ASCE, pp. 154–172.
Marks, M., Jarlan, G.E., 1968. Experimental study on a fixed perforated breakwater. In:
Proc. 11th Coastal Engineering Conf. London, UK, pp. 1121–1140.
Meringolo, D.D., Aristodemo, F., Veltri, P., 2015. SPH numerical modeling of
wave–perforated breakwater interaction. Coast. Eng. 101, 48–68. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.04.004.
Oumeraci, H., Kortenhaus, A., Allsop, W., de Groot, M., Crouch, R., Vrijling, H.,
Voortman, H., 2001. Probabilistic Design Tools for Vertical Breakwaters. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group.
€
Ozgür Kirca, V.Ş., Sedat Kabdaşli, M., 2009. Reduction of non-breaking wave loads on
caisson type breakwaters using a modified perforated configuration. Ocean. Eng. 36,
1316–1331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.09.003.
Pinto, S.I., 2012. Estrutura Portuarias Verticais Perfuradas (MSc dissertation).
Universidade do Porto - faculdade de Engenharia, Porto, Portugal.
Rosa-Santos, P., Taveira-Pinto, F., Veloso-Gomes, F., 2014. Experimental evaluation of the
tension mooring effect on the response of moored ships. Coast. Eng. 85, 60–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.11.012.
Sankarbabu, K., Sannasiraj, S.A., Sundar, V., 2008. Hydrodynamic performance of a dual
cylindrical caisson breakwater. Coast. Eng. 55, 431–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.coastaleng.2007.12.007.
Suh, K.D., Park, W.S., 1995. Wave reflection from perforated-wall caisson breakwaters.
Coast. Eng. 26, 177–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3839(95)00027-5.
Suh, K.D., Choi, J.C., Kim, B.H., Park, W.S., Lee, K.S., 2001. Reflection of irregular waves
from perforated-wall caisson breakwaters. Coast. Eng. 44, 141–151. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3839(01)00028-X.
Suh, K.-D., Park, J.K., Park, W.S., 2006. Wave reflection from partially perforated-wall
caisson breakwater. Ocean. Eng. 33, 264–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.oceaneng.2004.11.015.
Tanimoto, K., Yoshimoto, Y., 1982. Theoretical and experimental study of wave reflection
coefficient for wave dissipating caisson with a permeable front wall. Rep. Port
Harbour Res. Inst. 21 (3), 44–77.
Taveira-Pinto, F., Rosa-Santos, P., Veloso-Gomes, F., Lopes, H., 2011. Efficiency analysis
to reflection of a new quay wall type. J. Hydraul. Res. 49, 539–546. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2011.574378.
Theocharis, I., Anastasaki, E.N., Moutzouris, C.I., Giantsi, T., 2011. A new wave absorbing
quay-wall for wave height reduction in a harbor basin. Ocean. Eng. 38, 1967–1978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2011.09.020.
Twu, S.W., Lin, D.T., 1991. On a highly effective wave absorber. Coast. Eng. 15, 389–405.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3839(91)90018-C.
Vanneste, D., Troch, P., 2015. 2D numerical simulation of large-scale physical model tests
of wave interaction with a rubble-mound breakwater. Coast. Eng. 103, 22–41. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.05.008.
Wallingford, H.R., 2007. Multi-element wave generation system with AC drives and
dynamic wave absorption. Rep. CQR 4104. May 2007.
Williams, A.N., Mansour, A.-E.M., Lee, H.S., 2000. Simplified analytical solutions for
wave interaction with absorbing-type caisson breakwaters. Ocean. Eng. 27,
1231–1248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0029-8018(99)00045-1.
Zhu, S., Chwang, A.T., 2001. Investigations on the reflection behaviour of a slotted
seawall. Coast. Eng. 43, 93–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3839(01)00008-
4.