DESIGN OF RUBBLE

RUBBLE--MOUND BR
REAKWATER: INTRODUCING A
FORMULA FOR THHE PERMEABILITY
A
A. Jafari 1 A
A. E
Etemad
Etemad-Shahidi
Shahidi2

INTRODUCTION
Determining
D t i i the
th optimum
ti weight
i ht off the
th armour blocks
bl k is i the
th mostt important
i t t issue
i The results of EB12’s formula indicates improvement in scatter index (SI), (SI)
in design of breakwaters. Existing empirical formula, such as those of Hudson correlation coefficient(CC), and index of agreement (Ia) of stability number.
(1958) and Van der Meer (1988),
(1988) depict considerable scatter between
bet een the predicted
stability number and the measurements. This scatter imposes higher safety factor
and increases the construction costs.
costs Numerous researchers put efforts in this issue
to increase the accuracy of the prediction by using different m models. However, the
proper definition for the permeability parameter of the rubble-mound
rubble mound coastal
structures is y
yet missing.
g In this p
paper,
p , a semi-empirical
p formula for the p
permeability
y
parameter is introduced and improvement in design of the rubble-mound
rubble mound breakwater
is presented.
p

EQUATION
Q OVERVIEW
Van der Meer (1988),
(1988) hereafter referred to as VdM, VdM developed the following
empirical
p formula to p
predict the stability
y number,, Ns=H/D50 , of of rubble-mound
breakwater under plunging and surging breaker type,
type
N s = 6.2S
6 2S 0.2
P 0.18
Nw
-0.1
m -0.5
if ( m <  mc ) & cot   4 (1)
Ns = S 0.2
0.
P -0.13
0. 3
Nw
-0.1
 m cot 
p 0.5
if ( m   mc ) & cot   4 (2)
where Nw is the number of wave attack,attack P is the nominal permeability of breakwater
(Fig. 1), ξm is the surf similarity parameter, cot α is slope angle, S is the damage
level and Ns is the stability number.
number The permeability parameter in equations.
equations (1) Fig.
ig 2:
2 Comparison
C p i off measured and p
prediction
i i off Ns, ((A)
(A)VdM,
) ((B)) EB09,
09 ((C))
aandd ((2)) depe
depends
ds o
on tthee pe
permeability
eab ty o of co
coree layer.
aye . Vd
VdM suggested va
values
ues o
of P range
a ge VML, (D) EB12; (○) VdM data, (▲) VML data
from 0.10 1 for a relatively impermeable core to 0.6 0 6 for homogenous rock structures
((Fig.
g 1).) METHODOLOGY & RESULT
In this research,, the data sets of VdM and VML were used to qquantify y the
permeability of the breakwater based on the non-dimensional
non dimensional governing
parameter. First step
p p in this regard
g was to identify y the g
governingg pparameters.
Therefore different parameters were examined through extensive regression
Therefore,
analysis.
y Results showed that the most effective p parameters in evaluating g the
rubble mound breakwater permeability were the core diameter (Dc),
rubble-mound ) armour
diameter ((DA), and the wave p period. Figure
g 2 depicts
p the relationship
p between
non dimensional governing parameter and the computed values of P based on
non-dimensional
equation
q i ((3)) .
permeability equation (3) was rearranged to extract P0.18
In order quantify the permeability,
b d on other
based h p parameters. Then
Th results
l was usedd to extract a relationl i f
for
permeability based on non-dimensional wave period √(gTm2/DA) and the ratio
b
between core diameter
di and
d armour diameter
di ((Dc/DA)). To
T derive
d i the h relationship,
l i hip
different data mining approached were employed and the following formula was
d i d for
derived f the
th permeability
bilit number.
b
Fig.
g. 1:: Notational
Notat o a Permeability
e eab ty CoeCoefficient
c e t s (Van
(Va de
der Meer
ee 1988)
988)
2 0 .141
gT m  Dc  (4)
Vidal et al. (2006), hereafter referred to as VML, showed that H50 is a more P  0.055  
DA  D A 
appropriate wave parameter in calculating the stability number.
number H50 is the average
wave height of the 50 highest waves reaching a rubble rubble-mound
mound breakwater in its 1
useful life.
life They showed that there is no need to consider the number of waves
pprovided
ov ded tthat
at H50 iss used instead
stead o
of Hs. 08
0.8
Using H50 , Etemad-Shahidi
Etemad Shahidi and Bali (2012),
(2012) hereafter referred to as EB12,
EB12 used H50
instead of Hs to introduce a simple
p formula for the stability
y of rock armours,, 06
0.6
P

N50 = 4.24S P  m
0 17
0.17 0 18
0.18 -0.4
04
(3) 04
0.4
Thi formula
This f l was developed
d l d using i both
b th VdM and d VML laboratory
l b t measurements.
t
Fig 2 present the comparison of measured and predicted stability number for four 0.2
diff
differentt approaches,
h which
hi h are VdM,
VdM VML,
VML EB12,
EB12 andd Etemad-Shahidi
Et d Sh hidi andd
Bonakdar (2009), hereafter referred to as EB09. In all of these formulae the nominal 0
d fi iti off P (Fig.
definition (Fi 1) hash been
b used.
d 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Dc/Da×√(gTm2/Da)
Also, four statistical error measures were used to evaluate the performance of each
of the aforementioned models which are scatter index (SI), (SI) correlation Fig. 2: Relation between non-dimensional governing parameter and the
Fig
coefficient(CC), and index of agreement (Ia) (c.f. Etemad
Etemad-Shahidi,
Shahidi, A. and Bali, M., computedt d values
l off P based
b d on rearranging
i the
th equation
ti (3)
2012) The following table (Table 1) shows the accuracy metrics of different
2012).
formulas
o u as foro tthee p
prediction
ed ct o oof stab
stability
ty number.
u be . REFERENCES
Bali,
B li M
M. and d Etemad-Shahidi,
Et d Sh hidi A A. (2011)
(2011). St
Study
d off wave hheight
i ht parameter
t effect
ff t iin
Table 1: Accuracy
y metrics of different formulas for the p
prediction of Ns ((Bali & design
des g oof rubble-mound b ea wate . 4th Nat
ubb e ou d breakwater. National
o a Offshore
O s o e Industries
dust es Conference,
Co e e ce,
Etemad-Shahidi 2011)
Etemad-Shahidi, Sharif University,
University Tehran,
Tehran Iran
Iran.
Formulas Bias SI CC Ia Etemad-Shahidi,, A. and Bali,, M.,, ((2012).) Stabilityy off rubble-mound breakwater
using H50 wave height parameter.
parameter Coastal Engineering
Engineering, 59(1): 38-45
38-45.
Van de
V der Meer
ee ((1988)
9 ) -0.11 0.18 0.73 0.8
E
Etemad-Shahidi,
d Sh hidi AA. and d Bonakdar,
B kd L L., (2009)
(2009). D
Design
i off rubble-mound
bbl d breakwaters
b k
Vidall et al.
Vid l ((2006)
(2006),
) 0.11
0 0.17
0 17 0.723
0 723 0.81
0 81 using M5
M5′ machine learning method
method. Applied Ocean Research
Research, 31(3): 197
197-201
201.
Etemad Shahidi and Bonakdar (2009)
Etemad-Shahidi -0.13
0 13 0 17
0.17 0 763
0.763 0 83
0.83 H d
Hudson, R
R., (1958)
(1958). Design
D i off Quarry-Stone
Q St Cover
C L
Layers ffor RRubble-Mound
bbl M d
Etemad-Shahidi and Bali (2012) 0 04
0.04 0 12
0.12 0 86
0.86 0 93
0.93 Breakwaters, DTIC Document.
Van der Meer,
Meer J.W.,
J W (1988)
(1988). Rock slopes and gravel beaches under wave attack. attack
1 Natural Hazard Unit,
1- Unit The City of Gold Coast
Coast, ajafari@goldcoast
ajafari@goldcoast.qld.gov.au
qld gov au Vidal,, C.,, Medina,, R. and Lomónaco,, P.,, ((2006).
) Wave heightg pparameter ffor damage g
2 Griffith
2- G iffith School
S h l off E
Engineering,
i i G
Griffith
iffith U
University,
i it a.etemadshahidi@griffith.edu.au
t d h hidi@ iffith d description of rubble-mound
rubble mound breakwaters.
breakwaters Coastal Engineering,
Engineering 53(9): 711711-722.
722