Proceedings on the Third International Conference on the Application of Physical Modelling to Port and Coastal Protection

LEARNING FROM THE UNSUCCESSFUL DESIGN OF KYPARISSIA’S

HARBOUR EXPANSION

TH. E. GIANTSI (1), C.I. MOUTZOURIS (2)

(1) Civil Engineer Res. Ass., National Technical University of Athens, 5 Iroon Polytechniou str. , Zografou,157 80, Athens, Greece,
dgiantsi@central.ntua.gr
(2) Professor, National, Technical University of Athens, 5 Iroon Polytechniou str., Zografou, 157 80, Athens, Greece,
lhwmout@central.ntua.gr

A physical model of Kyparissia’s harbour, Greece, is conducted in a wave basin of the Laboratory of Harbour Works, NTUA, to
investigate the wave disturbance into the port. The recent expansion of the port infrastructure has caused serious functional troubles at
the port’s use. Eight different layouts of the port were tested and evaluated. The results of this study show that alternative solutions with
small-scale technical interventions applied selectively to different areas of a port installation may be comparably competent to a plan
consisting of extended conventional structures.

Keywords: Physical model, wave disturbance, significant wave height

1. Introduction

The harbour of Kyparissia is located at the south-western part of Kyparissiakos Gulf, in Peloponnesus, Greece, where
the highest waves in Greece are observed (see Fig. 1). The harbour used to work as a small fishing port exposed to the
north direction wave attack. Diffracted waves from west and north-west directions, penetrated also into the harbour
basin.
In 2007 the port infrastructure was expanded by the construction of internal quay walls and the extension of both
existing breakwaters (See Fig. 2). The main interventions are: a) The rubble mound primary breakwater (BRA) was
extended 182m, armoured with accropodes. The angle between the old part of the breakwater and the extension is
165˚. b) At the harbour side of the breakwater a berth for cruisers boats was built with a manoeuvring circle of 200 m.
c) The old lee breakwater (BRB) converted into a pier vertically directed to the new rubble mound breakwater. The
extension of the new part of the lee breakwater has a length of 200m. At the internal side of the breakwater a berth
also was built. d) Quay walls longer than 460 m were constructed at a depth of 2.0m and at a working level of
+1.10m, creating the new harbour basin, where a sandy beach previously existed.

KYPARISSIA

Figure. 1. a) Kyparissia, in the Mediterennean, b) The harbour of Kyparissia before 2007

The new layout was unsuccessful and the new port never obtained the operational data defined. Waves induced
from the south west to west directions, overtopped the crest of the primary breakwater located at 5.4m, causing
serious problems to the internal berth and basin. Waves penetrating into the main basin of the harbour created
1
 COASTLAB 2010

inadequate conditions for safe berthing and mooring of the boats. At present only the pier of the lee breakwater at old
basin is operated by small pleasure and fishing boats. During storms the harbour installation is considered to be
inconvenient and even dangerous for sheltering boats. (See Fig.3)

Figure 2. a) The harbour of Kyparissia, b) interventions at the Kyparissia’s harbour

The main problems of the harbour are the following: a) The shape of the port basin (multi-angle) with vertical
quay walls, which reflect the induced wave energy, b) the overtopping of the primary breakwater by the waves, due to
the low crest level of the protecting wall causing problems at the internal berth especially, c) the depth of the internal
new quay walls which is too small and led to a high natural period, d) the wave conditions in the old basin behind the
pier, where the water is trapped provoking the water elevation at the docks and an eddy at the edge of the pier, e) the
width of the port’s entrance which is designed for the cruiser boats and permit the entry of the induced waves in
addition with the diffraction of the waves and finally f) the penetrating swell into the basin.

Figure 3. a) Overtopping of the primary breakwater, b) water elevation at the docks

2 METHODOLOGY

To investigate the wave disturbance into the harbour, a physical model was constructed in the 3D wave basin at the
Laboratory of Harbour Works, (LHW), National Technical University of Athens. The investigation carried out in two
phases. At the first phase the existing layout of the port is compared to two different layouts, with an extension of
50/100m of the primary breakwater. At the second phase 5 alternative solutions with internal interventions were tested
and compared.
The physical model was constructed in a 3D wave basin of 32. 0 X 26. 0 X 1. 0m dimensions, under a geometrical
scale of 1:75, according to Froude similarity laws. An area of 1,500m X 700m was modelled including the harbour
area and the north coast till the depth of -20 m. For the reproduction of the waves a 3 paddle wave generator was used
producing JONSHAP type spectra with a peak enhancement factor of 3.3, for 3 different directions of wave attack
(West, North West and North).
Resistive type wave gauges collected wave data under a 30Hz sampling rate throughout the entire 510sec duration
of each measurement. At least 3 measurements were taken for each test. The significant wave height Hs was measured
in 25 locations throughout the model area (11 locations being inside the port’s basin).

2
Proceedings on the Third International Conference on the Application of Physical Modelling to Port and Coastal Protection

2.1 PHASE 1

The extension of the primary breakwater appears to be the best solution to improve sheltering conditions into the
harbour. Three different layouts were tested: The existing layout (LAYOUT 1), the layout with an extension of 50m
of the primary breakwater (LAYOUT 2) and the layout with an extension of 100m of the primary breakwater
(LAYOUT 3). The extension of the breakwater keeps a cross section similar to the existing one. Armouring of the
new breakwater will be formatted with accropodes at the external side and at the internal side of the breakwater a
berth shall be constructed.
The port basin is divided in 3 subareas A, B and C (See Fig. 4.).
subarea A: the entrance of the harbour with the internal berth for the cruisers boats,
subarea B: the new basin consisting of the internal part of the extension of both breakwaters and part of the new
quay walls and
subarea C: the old basin behind the pier
Waves coming from three different directions were tested which are generated from the West, the North West and
the North winds. The entrance is mainly exposed to waves coming from the North direction. The highest waves
observed in the area are coming from the south west to west direction and the entrance seems to be protected. Only
diffracted waves penetrate into the basin from this direction. In this phase 36 tests were conducted (See Table 1). The
wave conditions during the phase1 cover 6 different deep-water wave spectra from 3 different directions.

Table 1.-Tests of phase 1

WAVES CONDITIONS
DIRECTION OF WAVE
No LAYOUT TEST NUMBER
ATTACK Hs Tp
(m) (sec)
1 WEST 1.1.1 8.45 12.517
2 WEST 1.1.2 6.11 10.644
3 WEST 1.1.3 4.80 9.434
4 WEST 1.1.4 3.38 7.916
5 WEST 1.1.5 2.26 6.473
6 WEST 1.1.6 1.57 5.395
LAYOUT 1
7 NORTH WEST 1.2.1 4.80 9.434
8 NORTH WEST 1.2.2 3.38 7.916
9 NORTH WEST 1.2.3 2.26 6.473
10 NORTH WEST 1.2.4 1.57 5.395
11 NORTH 1.3.1 2.26 6.473
12 NORTH 1.3.2 1.57 5.395
13 WEST 2.1.1 8.45 12.517
14 WEST 2.1.2 6.11 10.644
15 WEST 2.1.3 4.80 9.434
16 WEST 2.1.4 3.38 7.916
17 WEST 2.1.5 2.26 6.473
18 WEST 2.1.6 1.57 5.395
LAYOUT 2
19 NORTH WEST 2.2.1 4.80 9.434
20 NORTH WEST 2.2.2 3.38 7.916
21 NORTH WEST 2.2.3 2.26 6.473
22 NORTH WEST 2.2.4 1.57 5.395
23 NORTH 2.3.1 2.26 6.473
24 NORTH 2.3.2 1.57 5.395
25 WEST 3.1.1 8.45 12.517
26 WEST 3.1.2 6.11 10.644
27 WEST 3.1.3 4.80 9.434
28 WEST 3.1.4 3.38 7.916
29 WEST 3.1.5 2.26 6.473
30 WEST 3.1.6 1.57 5.395
LAYOUT 3
31 NORTH WEST 3.2.1 4.80 9.434
32 NORTH WEST 3.2.2 3.38 7.916
33 NORTH WEST 3.2.3 2.26 6.473
34 NORTH WEST 3.2.4 1.57 5.395
35 NORTH 3.3.1 2.26 6.473
36 NORTH 3.3.2 1.57 5.395

Wave data from the model tests were collected and analysed by Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) analysis and
by statistical analysis. The transmission coefficient Kt, which is the ratio of the transmitted versus the incident
characteristic wave heights (e.g. Hst and Hsi), is also calculated, by the equation (1), where Hst is the wave height at
every measurement location of the model and Hsi is the wave height in front of the wave generators.
H
Where Kt is: K = st t
(1)
H si
3
 COASTLAB 2010

The results indicate that the port is not adequately protected even with a 100 m extension of the primary
breakwater especially from the West direction. Only the subarea A (the berth inside the primary breakwater and the
entrance) is protected by the extension of the primary breakwater. The waves into the basin are still high and swell
waves are also present. The most exposed area seems to be the old basin (subarea C) where the measured significant
wave height is higher than 1.00m when the induced Hs is 6.11 m.
The primary breakwater is strongly overtopped by waves higher than 4.8m .To eliminate the wave overtopping, an
elevation of the protecting wall is proposed.

Figure 4. a) The physical model of Kyparissia’s harbour, b) Layout3 with subareas of Kyparissia `s harbour and locations of wave measurement

In Figure 5 the significant wave height for all measurement locations for the Layout 1(existing layout) and for the
internal locations of wave measurement for the Layout 3 during the west direction wave attack are presented.

LAYOUT 1 LAYOUT 3
DIRECTION OF WAVE APPROACH: WEST
DIRECTION ON WAVE ATTACK: NORTH
Hs
Hs

10 2
TEST
SIGNIFICAN WAVE HEIGHT (m)

9 1.8
1.1.1
8 1.6
1.1.2
7 1.4 TEST
1.1.3
6 1.2
Hs (m)

5 1.1.4 3.3.1
1
4 1.1.6 3.3.2
0.8
3 1.1.5
0.6
2
0.4
1
0.2
0
0
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24
M25
M26
H-33
M1
M2
M3
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
H

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M19

M20

M21

M22

M23

M24

M25

M26

WAVE PROBE PROBES

Figure 5. a) Measured Hs from west direction for Layout 1 b) Measured Hs from North direction for Layout 3

In Figures 6, 7 and 8 the significant wave height Hs for all measurement locations and the transmission coefficient
Kt for the locations into the basin are comparably presented. In Figure 6, Hs and Kt from west direction wave approach
for incident wave Hs=2.26m, in Figure 7, Hs and Kt from west direction for incident wave Hs=6.11m and in Figure 8,
Hs and Kt from the north direction for incident wave Hs=2.26m are presented.

Hs TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT
DIRECTION OF WAVE APPROACH:WEST direction of wave approach: WEST
Hs=2.26 m, Tp=6.47sec
Hs=2.26 m, Tp=6.47sec
3.5
0.25
3
0.2
CHARACTERISTIC WAVE HEIGHT (M)

2.5

0.15 LAYOUT 1
2 LAYOUT 1
LAYOUT 2 LAYOUT 2
Kt

LAYOUT 3
1.5 0.1 LAYOUT 3

1
0.05
0.5
0
0 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M23 M24 M25
H
H-33
M1
M2
M3
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24
M25
M26

WAVE PROBE
WAVE PROBE

Figure 6. Measured Hs and Kt for incident Hs=2.26m from west direction (Phase 1)

4
Proceedings on the Third International Conference on the Application of Physical Modelling to Port and Coastal Protection

Hs TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT
DIRECTION OF WAVE APPROACH: WEST DIRECTION OF WAVE APPROACH: WEST
Hs=6.11m, Tp=10.64sec Hs=6,11m, Tp=10,64sec

7 0,25

6
CHARACTERISTIC WAVE HEIGHT (Μ)

0,2
5
LAYOUT 1
0,15 LAYOUT1
4 LAYOUT 2
LAYOUT 2

Κt
LAYOUT 3

3 0,1 LAYOUT 3

2
0,05
1

0 0
H
H-33
M1
M2
M3
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24
M25
M26
M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M23 M24 M25
WAVE PROBE WAVE PROBE

Figure 7. Measured Hs and Kt for incident Hs=6.11m from west direction (Phase 1)

Hs TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT Kt
direction of wave approach: NORTH
Hs=2,26m, Tp=6,47sec direction of wave approach: NORTH
Hs=2.26m, Tp=6.47sec
3
0.9
0.8
CHARACTERISTIC WAVE HEIGHT (Μ)

2.5
0.7
2 0.6
LAYOUT 1
ΔΙΑΤΑΞΗ 1 0.5
LAYOUT 2

Kt
ΔΙΑΤΑΞΗ 2
1.5 0.4
ΔΙΑΤΑΞΗ 3
LAYOUT 3
0.3
1
0.2
0.1
0.5
0
M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M23 M24 M25
0
wave probe
N1
N1-33
M1
M2
M3
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M11
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
M17
M18
M19
M20
M21
M22
M23
M24
M25
M26

WAVE PROBE

Figure 8. Measured Hs and Kt for incident Hs=2.28m from north direction (Phase 1)

2.2 PHASE 2

Due to the high cost of construction for an extension longer than 100 m of the primary breakwater (water depth is
increasing rapidly) and to potential erosion hazards provoked by the extension, alternative solutions were examined,
in the physical model, to attain a favourable result, within the limits of construction cost and schedule. One or two
parallel rubble mound jetties were proposed into the harbour basin. Also it is suggested to make openings in the
existing pier, to enforce the circulation of the sea water and armoring with rip-rap part of the quays, to reduce the
reflection on the vertical wall. Finally five alternative solutions (combinations of the proposed structures) were
examined at the model -Layouts from L4 to L8 (see Fig. 9.)-, for 6 wave conditions developed by West winds blows.
Totally 30 tests were conducted during phase 2 (See Table 2.).
The tested layouts are:

•
LAYOUT 4 : Existing layout + 2 internal rubble mound parallel jetties
•
LAYOUT 5 : Existing layout + 1 internal rubble mound jetty
•
LAYOUT 6 : Existing layout + 2 internal rubble mound parallel jetties + 3 openings at the pier
•
LAYOUT 7 : Existing layout + 2 internal rubble mound parallel jetties + 3 openings at the pier +armoured
quays
• LAYOUT 8 : Existing layout + 3 openings at the pier + armoured quays
It is proposed to construct at the pier 3 openings of 5.0m width each. In Figure 10 are presented: a) the plan and
the horizontal section of the pier with the openings, b) sections of the openings c) the detail of the opening and d) a
typical cross section of the jetties. Wave data model tests from phase 2, were collected and analysed. In Figures 11
and 12, for all tested layouts during phase1 and phase 2, the significant wave height at the locations into the port
basin, for incident significant wave height Hs=6. 11m and Hs=2.27m are presented comparably. The mean Period Tm
(wave calculated) at the internal locations of the wave measurements for incident significant wave height Hs=6.11m it
is also presented (See Fig.13.).

3. RESULTS OF THE MODEL

The main results from the tests of both phases of wave measurements indicate that:
• All the alternative layouts afford satisfactory wave conditions in the internal basin of Kyparissia Harbour,
5
 COASTLAB 2010

than do the layout with a 100 m extension of the primary breakwater

• A two parallel jetties solution should be selected at least to eliminate the wave penetration into the harbour
of Kyparissia.
• The Layout with openings and armouring only, does not protect adequately the wave basin
• Openings and armouring of quay walls will improve sheltering conditions in the harbour
• Openings improve sheltering conditions especially in the old basin (subarea C) and armouring of quay walls
the new basin (subarea B) of the harbour.

Figure 9. Layouts 4 to 8
LEE BREAKWATER

SECTION B-B RUBBLE MOUND

LEE BREAKWATER
LEE
HORIZONTAL SECTION A-A BREAKWATER
DETAIL Α

BOTTOM
LEE BREAKWATER

SECTION C-C RUBBLE MOUND

LEE BREAKWATER

LEE BREAKWATER

SECTION C-C BOTTOM

a) b)
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF THE JETTY

DETAIL Α SEA SIDE

RIP_RAP

BOTTOM

d)
c)
Figure 10. a) Plan of the pier and horizontal section with openings, b) sections of the pier with openings, c) detail of the opening at the pier and d)
typical cross section of the internal jetty

6
Proceedings on the Third International Conference on the Application of Physical Modelling to Port and Coastal Protection

• The entrance of the harbour (subarea A) is better protected by the conventional extension of the primary
breakwater
• An elevation of the protecting wall is needed to eliminate the wave overtopping,.
• The incoming swell is not affected by the alternative solutions
• The mean Period Tm (wave measured) is related to the shape of the layouts and
• Into the port the mean period Tm is increasing especially with openings and armouring.

In the case of the construction of an alternative solution, the new internal smaller basin will be transformed to a
Marina for small pleasure boats, there as the outer basin used by cruisers boats will be limited. New docks in piles can
be constructed in front of the armoured quay walls and floating pontoons can be installed to obtain new sheltering
places.

Table 2. Tests of Phase 2

WAVE CONDITIONS
DIRECTION OF TEST
No LAYOUT
WAVE ATTACK NUMBER
Hs Tp
(m) (sec)
1 WEST 4.1.1 8.45 12.517
2 WEST 4.1.2 6.11 10.644
3 WEST 4.1.3 4.80 9.434
LAYOUT 4
4 WEST 4.1.4 3.38 7.916
5 WEST 4.1.5 2.26 6.473
6 WEST 4.1.6 1.57 5.395
7 WEST 5.1.1 8.45 12.517
8 WEST 5.1.2 6.11 10.644
9 WEST 5.1.3 4.80 9.434
LAYOUT 5
10 WEST 5.1.4 3.38 7.916
11 WEST 5.1.5 2.26 6.473
12 WEST 5.1.6 1.57 5.395
13 WEST 6.1.1 8.45 12.517
14 WEST 6.1.2 6.11 10.644
15 WEST 6.1.3 4.80 9.434
LAYOUT 6
16 WEST 6.1.4 3.38 7.916
17 WEST 6.1.5 2.26 6.473
18 WEST 6.1.6 1.57 5.395
19 WEST 7.1.1 8.45 12.517
20 WEST 7.1.2 6.11 10.644
21 LAYOUT 7 WEST 7.1.3 4.80 9.434
22 WEST 7.1.4 3.38 7.916
23 WEST 7.1.5 2.26 6.473
24 WEST 7.1.6 1.57 5.395
25 WEST 8.1.1 8.45 12.517
26 WEST 8.1.2 6.11 10.644
27 LAYOUT 8 WEST 8.1.3 4.80 9.434
28 WEST 8.1.4 3.38 7.916
29 WEST 8.1.5 2.26 6.473
30 WEST 8.1.6 1.57 5.395

DIRECTION OF WAVE ATTACK: WEST

Hs= 6.11m, Tp=10.64sec

1.5 LAYOUT1
Measured Hs(m)

LAYOUT2
1
LAYOUT3

0.5 LAYOUT4
LAYOUT5
0 LAYOUT6
M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M23

M24

M25

LAYOUT7

PROBE LAYOUT8

Figure 11. Measured significant wave height into the basin for incident Hs=6.11m for all tested layouts

7
 COASTLAB 2010

Hs
DIRECTION OF WAVE ATTACK: WEST
Hs=2,28m Tp=6,47sec

SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT

0.4
0.35 LAYOUT 1
0.3 LAYOUT 2
0.25
LAYOUT 3
(M)

0.2
0.15 LAYOUT 4
0.1 LAYOUT 5
0.05
LAYOUT 6
0
LAYOUT 7
M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M18a

M23

M24

M25

M27
LAYOUT 8
WAVE PROBES

Figure 12. Measured significant wave height into the basin for incident Hs=2.11m for all tested layouts

Tm
DIRECTION OF WAVE ATTACK: WEST
Hs=6.11 m Tp=12.517 sec

50

45
40
Tm (sec)

LAYOUT1
35
LAYOUT2
30
LAYOUT3
25
LAYOUT 4
20
LAYOUT 5
15
LAYOUT 6
10 LAYOUT 7
5 LAYOUT 8
0
M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M11

M12

M13

M14

M15

M16

M17

M18

M23

M24

M25

Figure 13. Wave measured mean period Tm for incident Hs=6.11m for all tested layouts

4. CONCLUSIONS

According to the experimental investigation on a physical model for 8 different Layouts, it was concluded that a two
parallel jetties solution should be selected to eliminate the wave penetration into the harbour of Kyparissia. Openings
and armoring will improve sheltering conditions in the basin of the harbour which can be transformed to a Marina for
small boats.
In the present study, to assess capability of alternative solutions for an expansion program in an existing port, the
physical modelling is used, which indicate that, small-scale technical interventions applied selectively to different
areas of a port installation, may be comparably competent to a plan consisting of extended conventional structures,
which may also cause substantial impact to coastal environment .
Model tests are an essential tool of a project to optimize harbour plan and to improve port management in cases
where vessel characteristics and site restrictions are competitive and a feasible solution is limited. This tool is better to
be used in the preliminary stage of a study in order to prevent serious failures.

References

LHW, Research program “Investigation of wave disturbance at the port of Kyparissia” , Technical Report , Phase 1, Athens 2009
LHW, Research program “Investigation of wave disturbance at the port of Kyparissia” , Technical Report , Phase 2, Athens 2010.