SCALING THE WEIGHT OF BREAKWATER

ARMOR UNITS
By James J. Sharp 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst Of Technology - Chennai on 11/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

In developing his stability parameter for rubble m o u n d breakwaters,

H u d s o n (1) considered the velocity, Vw, of water impinging on armor
units and related it to other variables to obtain
Vw (V„l. pw la H d k \

in which g = gravitational acceleration; la = characteristic length of armor

units; v = kinematic viscosity; pm = density of water in which the struc-
ture is placed; p„ = mass density of armor units; d = depth of water; H
= wave height; X = wave length; k = surface roughness height; a, (3,
and 9 = angles of seaside slope, direction of wave attack, and bottom
slope, respectively; D = percentage damage to the cover layer; a n d A =
shape factor.
The Froude n u m b e r on the left h a n d side of Eq. 1 was then trans-
formed by squaring it, c o m p o u n d i n g it with the density ratio a n d by
writing Vw in terms of the wave height [Vw <* (gH)1/2]. Also, the char-
acteristic length, la, was p u t in terms of the weight, W„, a n d the specific
weight, 7„, of the armor units (W„ « y„ ?«)• Thus
3
VI• a
(gH) 7y H
/3 (2)
•i /wy P. - P» I 7* , w V 3
la / Pw \"iw-l
The term on the right h a n d side of Eq. 2 was called the stability n u m b e r
and its use in design (4) of rubble m o u n d breakwaters is well k n o w n .
However, it has also been used (3) for modeling purposes. A n y com-
plete dimensionless equation provides a series of model laws and, with
the transformation of Eq. 2, Eq. 1 can be written as

( S - l ) W y 3 f{ v '•••) W

in which S = ya/yw; and the terms in parenthesis on the right h a n d side

are identical to those of Eq. 1, except that the Reynolds n u m b e r has also
been transformed to give a Froude Reynolds n u m b e r .
Thus, it is possible to relate the weights of model (m) and prototype
(p) armor units by
'Prof., Faculty of Engrg., Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland, St. John's, New-
foundland, Canada.
Note.—Discussion open until October 1, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
September 19, 1983. This paper is part of the Journal of Watenvay, Port, Coastal
and Ocean Engineering, Vol. I l l , No. 3, May, 1985. ©ASCE, ISSN'0733-950X/85/
0003-0594/$01.00. Paper No. 19698.
594

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(3): 594-597

 1/3 /3
7r> H 7•l H
/3 m = (4)
[_(s - 1 ) wl j _(S - 1) Wl1/3
' (ya)m (S - Ifp
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst Of Technology - Chennai on 11/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

or (Wa)m = (Wa)v (5)

?/ (7.,)? (S Ifm'
This equation has been used (2) to scale the weight of armor units
when the density of the model fluid (freshwater) is not the same as that
of the prototype (seawater).

OTHER MODEL LAWS

An alternative approach to the problem of modeling would be to con-

sider the weight of the armor units required to limit damage to D%,
rather than the impingement velocity of the water striking the units.
Partial analysis then leads to
Wa
= /(•••) (6)
y„(S -1) H-
in which, again, the right hand side is the same as in Eq. 3.
Modeling the weight of armor units on the basis of Eq. 6 then leads
to
Hm\3(ya)m(S-n
(WX = (Wa)P[-T (7)
HPJ Cy.)P (S - 1),
At first sight, this appears to be a quite different requirement from
that of Eq. 5. However, it is important to remember that although each
dimensionless term in a functional equation is a model law, any one, by
itself, is not a sufficient condition for similarity. Thus, Eq. 5 or 7 must
be considered not in isolation, but together with all other models laws
derived from Eq. 1 or 3. In particular, this means that
Po>\
(8)
P«/p

or (S - l) m = (S - 1), (9)
Taken in conjunction with Eq. 9, it can be seen that Eq. 5 and 7 lead to
identical answers. Indeed, Hudson's stability number (Eq. 4) and the
weight parameter of Eq. 6 are simply two of the infinite number of cor-
rect partial solutions to the problem. Either one can be obtained from
the other by compounding. Thus
Wa (7J 1/3 H " i
(10)
7«(S - 1)H 3
L(s - i)wy3. (S - l) 4
This raises problems, however, if Eqs. 5 or 7 are used to determine the
weight of model units in situations in which S,„ ¥= Sv. Then, it can be
seen that quite different answers are obtained depending on which
equation is used. Indeed, the problem is more general because in com-
pounding parameters, it is permissible to multiply two terms raised to
595

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(3): 594-597

 any powers. For example, if
A = ${B,C) (11)
then AB" = (f)(B,C) (12)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst Of Technology - Chennai on 11/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in which A, B and C are dimensionless groups; and n = an exponent

which may be positive, negative or zero.
Applying this principle in Eq. 10 would then give
3
(s -1)„ (13)
**-<™K)TZ .(s-i)J
This leads to a multiplicity of answers depending on the value of n, and
it is now clear that neither Eq. 5 nor Eq. 7 can be considered to be nec-
essarily correct if Eq. 9 is not satisfied. Thus, in cases where freshwater
is used in the model to represent salt water in the prototype, it is nec-
essary to obtain model laws in a more fundamental fashion or at least
to use a more basic argument to determine which of the many possible
solutions indicated by Eq. 13 might be valid.
One method of achieving this end would be to use a similarity ar-
gument. In two similar systems, the ratios of any two forces at homol-
ogous points must be the same. In this particular problem, the forces of
most relevance could be considered to be the submerged weight, Ws,
of the armor units and the inertia force, F,, of the water as it impinges
on the unit. Thus

Ws <* W„ (7 ° " 7M)

a n d F, « PwH2V2a (14)
la

Taking Vw « (gH)1/2 as before

F<«P»gH 3
« 7u,H3 (15)
Thus, for dynamic similarity
ms -1) wa(s -1)
m = p (16)
~ ^ - ^

or (Wa)m = (WX-^-(^) ^ - ^ . . (17)

v
ha)P \HJ (s-i)„,
This is the same as Eq. 13 with n = - 1 ; in Eq. 5, n = - 3 ; and in Eq. 7,
n = +1. However, Eqs. 16 and 17 have been developed from a funda-
mental basis and have relevance to modeling techniques independent
of any assumptions concerning the constancy of the density ratio. This
suggests that Eq. 17 would be a more logical choice for calculating model
weights than either Eq. 5 or 7.
Using typical values of the variables involved, (yw)m = 9,810 N/m 3 ;
(yw)v = 10,062 N/m 3 ; and (7„)m = (ya)p = 25,000 N/m 3 .
Thus, for a linear scale of 1/10, Eq. 5 leads to
(Wa)m = 0.881 x 10" 3 (W„)p (18)
596
J
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(3): 594-597
 Eq. 7 leads to
(W„)m = 1.043 X 10"3 (Wa)p (19)
and Eq. 17 leads to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst Of Technology - Chennai on 11/11/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Wa)„, = 0.959 x 10"3 (W„)p (20)

CONCLUSIONS

As a specific conclusion, it may be said that Eq. 17 provides a better

basis for calculating the weights of individual model armor units than
does Eq. 5 or 7. Although the differences between the results obtained
from these equations are relatively minor, this is fortuitous and such
errors should be avoided whenever possible. However, this particular
study also leads to general conclusions regarding the formulation of model
laws.
Although the inclusion of p„/p,j, in Eq. 1 implies that the density ratio
should be the same in model and prototype, this is not necessarily so
in practice. There is, for example, much evidence (3) to suggest that this
requirement may, within certain limits, be relaxed when dealing with
densimetric flows. However, if the density ratio is permitted to vary,
then great care should be taken in using any dimensionless parameter
containing it, as a basis for formulating a model law. From the foregoing
analysis, it is fairly obvious that it is not permissible to use a particular
term for compounding, and then drop it from the list of model laws if
the compounded term is to be used as a model law itself. However, as
was the case in this instance, such compounded terms may arise directly
from the dimensional analysis (Eq. 6) without having undergone any
formal compounding process. Terms of this type are particularly prev-
alent if the analysis is performed using a "reduced" gravitational accel-
eration (g Ap/p) as is common (3), in densimetric studies. This study has
served to indicate the dange of using such terms for modeling without
having due regard to their composition or to the other terms appearing
in the dimensionless list.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This note was prepared while the writer was a Visiting Professor in
the Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore.
The assistance provided in the preparation of this article together with
useful discussions with colleagues is gratefully acknowledged.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Hudson, R. Y., "Coastal Hydraulic Models," Special Report No. 5, Chapt. 6,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engrg. Research Center, Fort Belvoir,
Va., May, 1979.
2. Markle, D. G., and Carver, R. D., "Breakwater Stability Study, Imperial Beach
California," Tech. Report H-77-22, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss., Dec, 1977.
3. Sharp, J. J., "Hydraulic Modelling," Butterworths, London, England, 1981.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Shore Protection Manual," Vol. 11, Coastal
Engrg. Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., 1977.
597

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(3): 594-597