See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257943925

2D and 3D Physical Model Testing of New Breakwaters in Karaikal Port –India

Conference Paper · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 355

4 authors, including:

Sanjeewa Wickramaratne Indika Kusum Kumara

Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd. Lanka Hydraulic Institute Ltd.
33 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seabed Survey & Numerical Model Simulation on the Dispersal of Outfall Discharge for the Proposed Export Processing Zone at Punnaikudah, Batticaloa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjeewa Wickramaratne on 06 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Annual Transactions ofofIESL,
Annual Transactions IESL,pp.
pp. [44-52],
[page range],
2013 2013
©
© The Institution
Institution ofofEngineers,
Engineers,SriSri Lanka
Lanka

2D and 3D Physical Model Testing of New

Breakwaters in Karaikal Port –India
S. Wickramaratne, T.M.E.S. Haniffa, I.G.I. Kumara and T. Parathithasan

Abstract: Physical model testing is recognized to be a vital element in the coastal engineering
design, for the confidence and security it adds in into the design. In consequence, many clients
consider physical model testing is a priori for a successful launch of the design. This fact is exemplified
in Karaikal Port (India) where the port owner has embarked on a phase-wise development plan that
constitutes modelling work. In particular, Phase II of the development envisaged in broadening the
port basin and lengthening the existing breakwaters. Accordingly, the designed breakwater layouts
were physically modelled, and tested for their structural integrity and overtopping performance. The
process includes recreation of breakwater cross sections in a 2D wave flume at a scale of 1:35, and a
reproduction of the proposed breakwater configuration in a 3D wave basin at a scale of 1:60. The
testing campaign has created a splendid platform to re-evaluate the design, first with the theory, and
next with the observations and measurements gathered from the modelling. This paper presents the
approach, results and lessons learned from the project that continue to contribute to subsequent
model testing of local and overseas harbours.

Keywords: Physical Model, Breakwater, Stability, Overtopping, ACCROPODE

1. Introduction the initial design, and to propose modifications

Karaikal Port is located on the Eastern Coast of
India in the District of Pondicherry. Currently
the port contains five berths with a total
handling capacity of 28 million MT per annum
(MMTPA), which is to be raised to 47 MMTPA
by a phase wise development plan [16]. The
development mainly targets increasing import
and export needs of highly industrious central
TamilNadu State.
The port owner; Karaikal Port (P) Ltd: a
subsidiary of MARG Group completed phase I
of the development plan in April 2009, with
two berths added, one each for bulk and
general cargo. Vessels carrying cargo ranging
from coal, cement, project cargo, and sugar
have been called at the port. Currently the port
development is in its Phase II stage (Figure 1).
Amongst the main facilities to be provided at
the Phase II, a 490m extension of the each
existing breakwater stands out. Breakwaters are
necessarily armoured with ACCROPODE
concrete armour units with a crest elevation of
+9.0mCD at its head section.
Howe India (Pvt) Ltd being the consultant of
the project provided the initial design, which
has been the base for subsequent modelling
work. Thus, the scope of this physical
modelling campaign is to check the integrity of
if any. Albeit not being part of the project scope,
a research work component is developed in
parallel such that a robust verification of
physical model results could be made through
a combined theoretical and experimental
approach. In this context, overtopping
discharge is evaluated comparing the two
experimental evidences: i.e. from 2D and 3D
modelling, against the theoretical discharge.
Overtopping data is further analysed to
investigate the appropriateness in adding them
to the published overtopping literature [17]. On
this purpose, dimensionless overtopping
discharge is plotted against the dimensionless
crest height. Obtained results have shown a
satisfactory level of compliance with
established measurements, suggesting their
application as a guidance in low overtopping
events caused by non-breaking, oblique, long
crested waves.
Eng. (Dr) S. Wickramaratne, C. Eng., MIE(Sri Lanka),
BSc Eng. (Moratuwa), PhD(Calgary), Engineering
Manager, Lanka Hydraulic Institute (LHI), Katubedda, Sri
Lanka.
Eng. T.M.E.S. Haniffa, BSc Eng. (Moratuwa), AMIE(Sri
Lanka),Ex-Research Engineer, LHI, Sri Lanka.
Eng. I.G.I. Kumara, BSc Eng. (Moratuwa), AMIE(Sri
Lanka), Research Engineer, LHI, Sri Lanka.
Eng. (Miss) T. Parathithasan, BSc Eng. (Ruhuna),
AMIE(Sri Lanka), Ex-Research Engineer, LHI, Sri Lanka.

1
ENGINEER 44
 Existing
Breakwaters

Proposed
Breakwaters

Figure 1 - Geographical sketch and port features

(Picture courtesy: MARG Group)

2. Design Parameters (+0 m CD) and the high water (+2 m CD)
events. All other wave characteristics were kept
Karaikal is exposed to NE and SW monsoons unchanged.
annually. The port receives waves from NE,
ENE and E during NE Monsoon and S, SSE, SE, 3. Design Concerns of Breakwaters
SW and SSW during SW Monsoon [16]. A wave
transformation and an extreme wave analysis 3.1 Armour units
led to the evaluation of wave characteristics at Armour size of the primary layer is decided
the tip of the two breakwaters. Hence, the upon the type of wave breaking in front of the
testing wave height (Hs) and the period (Tp) is breakwater. The predominant wave type is
determined to be 5m and 10s, respectively. considered plunging/surging if the actual surf
Required bathymetry data were extracted from parameter (m) is less/higher than the critical
Indian Hydrography Charts and the surf parameter (mc) [9].
hydrographic survey campaigns [14].
The two surf parameters read,
Semi diurnal tides present in Karaikal create tan 
two highs and two lows during a day. m  (1)
Considering the highest high water level sm
(HHWS) of 1.18m CD (Chart Datum) together and,

 
1
with storm surge of 0.80m, the design extreme
water level is set as +2.00m CD. Here, the mean  mc  6.2 P 0.31 tan P  0.5  (2)
sea level stands at 0.34 m CD. Hence, six test
conditions were derived as shown in Table 1. where,
sm  2H s (3)
Table 1 - Test scenarios –3D basin model gTm2
tan= structural slope
Test Water Level
Hs(m) Tp(s) Dir. Hs= significant wave height
No. m,CD
Tm= mean wave period
1 5 10 NE 0
P=permeability coefficient [9]
2 5 10 NE +2
3 5 10 SE 0 Armour size is governed by,
4 5 10 SE +2
0.2
5 5 10 E 0 HS  S  0.5
6 5 10 E +2  6.2 P 0.18   m (4)
DN 50  N
In terms of 2D tests, two scenarios were
considered; understandably for the low water
for plunging waves, and

2
45 ENGINEER
 HS
0.2 where, a=0.6 and b=0.3 [3].
 S 
 P 0.13   cot   mP (5)
DN 50  N On the other hand, excessive overtopping
creates a hazardous environment besides its
for surging waves, where, tendency for destabilizing the rear armour.
 relative buoyant density, (ssd/w) -1 TAW [6] indicates that for an ACCROPODE
laid slope, the overtopping rate, q is related to,
DN50 nominal diameter of armour unit
N =number of waves q  Rc 1 
Sd damage level  0.2 exp   2.6  (9)
gH 3
 H mo  f 
ssd rock density [9] s

If rock sizes computed from the above formulae Influence factor γf for ACCROPODE is 0.46
exceed the available sizes, design is resorted to which takes into account directeffects of the
using concrete armour units. Amongst many armour roughness and armour porosity [7].
concrete units, ACCROPODE type is chosen by
the designer for its proven superior hydraulic 4. Breakwater Configuration
performance including high stability.
Consequently, armour sizes and weights were Application of concrete armour units has been
calculated from, increasingly in vogue due to its superior
H hydraulic stability coupled with relatively small
 K D cot   3
1
(6) unit weight. ACCROPODE serves as the main
Dn 50 armour unit in many major coastal
and, protection/port projects including Jalali
c H 3 (Oman), Chioggia (Italy), Dungun
M 50  3
(7)
(Malaysia),and Condamine Port (Monaco)[15].
 c 
KD   1 cot  Ruhunu Magampura Port (Hambantota- Sri
 w  Lanka) utilizes a close variation of
where,c - mass density of concrete, and KD- ACCROPODE.
stability coefficient [13]. As per CLI‟s [15]
recommendation, KD values of 15 and 11.5 have Initial calculations revealed that main armour
been used for trunk section and head section, size could have been 21T had rock boulders
respectively. been used instead of concrete armours. The
same stability is achieved with ACCROPODE
3.2 Crest height units of 4m3(9.5T). Hence, adopted cross section
Determination of a suitable crest height is of the breakwater is shown in Figure 2. Apart
primarily controlled by two factors: wave run from the concrete main armour layer, an
up and overtopping. However, in terms of run- underlayer of rock boulders, and a toe
ups on concrete armour slopes, the surf protection layer of graded quarry dust
parameter is evaluated under design and constitute the breakwater.
operational conditions and the average is
selected. This is due to the fact that design
condition tends to overestimate the run-up, Ru
which is given by,

Ru 2% aop
 (8)
H op (1  bop )

Figure 2 - Cross section of breakwater (Test section only)

3
ENGINEER 46
5. Similitude Aspects of Modelling
Determination of a suitable model scale is a
crucial aspect of model planning. A selected
scale must ensure that the model effectively
describes prototype, ideally with zero
distortions. A greater emphasis has to be placed
on gravitational and inertia forces since they
govern the other physical quantities of interest
(velocities, forces, volumes and levels etc.).
Froude number similarity which is extensively
used in the similar model studies for its
accountability for gravitational and inertia
forces, is thus adopted in determining the
above physical quantities with respect to a basic
scale factor λ.
essentially by a hydraulic paddle connected to a
PC based Wave Synthesiser Software. The
mechanism generates random irregular waves
of an opted (Johnswap) spectrum.
A tray fixed to the rear end of the breakwater
collected the overtopping discharge while wave
gauges placed at the toe recorded wave heights.
An active wave absorption system fitted with
the wave paddles provided the required self-
adjustment it needs to compensate the reflected
waves off wave paddles.

For a selected λ, the corresponding model must

fit in the available physical modelling facility
(2D flume /3D basin), and further, water levels,
wave heights and currents must be in
measurable order. Principal limiting factor of
the scaling is dimensions of the modelling
facility. In addition, a sufficient seaward
distance must be provided for the generated
Figure 3 - Modelled section in 2D flume
waves to be fully developed before reaching the
foreshore slope. Under such restraints, model
Pre and post-test investigations mainly relied
scale (λ) is determined to be 1:35 for the 2D
on respective photographs, that determined
flume and 1:60 for the 3D Basin.
number of model unit displacements, and
hence, the percentage of damage in each layer.
All model units have been scaled as per
The same technique follows for the modelling
Hudson formula that follows Froude number
of breakwater in 3D. The wave basin (35m x
similarity. In particular, average weight of
25mx 0.8m) accommodated the physical model
model unit (Wn50)m is related to the respective
(Figure 4).
prototype weight (Wn50)pas,
3
 s 
  1
Wn 50 m  1  s m   w p
(10)
Wn 50 p   s p   s 
3

  1
  w m
where, ρs and ρw stands for density of material
and water, respectively. Note that underlayers,
and the core which do not face the direct wave
attack should be scaled based on correct degree
of permeability to the water flow [11]. Sampath Figure 4 - Modelled breakwater in 3D basin
and Wijetunge [8], and authors‟ subsequent
investigations revealed that scale differences
This version of modelling enables to monitor
between the two methods are minute, and that
breakwater‟s stability and overtopping
Froude scaling is warranted for all layers.
performance in an oblique wave attack from
NE and SE directions.
6. 2D & 3D Physical Model Testing
The damage level assessment of rock armours
6.1Experimental model set-up are in accordance with BS 6349: Part 7: 1991
Trunk and head sections of the breakwater whereas ACCROPODE assessment is in line
were first modelled in the 2D flume of size with manufacturer‟s recommendations [15]. In
30mx 1.8m x0.8m (Figure 3). Wave generation is brief, level of damage in rock armouris

4
47 ENGINEER
classified from slight, little, moderateto destructive
base on the percentage of model units
displaced. In terms of concrete armour units,
rocking should not be more than 1%, besides no
model unit must be removed.
6.2 Stability Assessment
Flume tests revealed that the breakwater trunk
recorded slight damages to its filter layer while
some considerable displacements at the
breakwater transition sections. However, rest of
the layers all have shown a satisfactory level
(more than 97%) of stability. Meanwhile, the 3D
modelling demonstrated that two breakwater
head sections bore moderate damages to its filter
layer and slight damages to its transition
sections (Figure 5). Toe and Toe Base layers of
head and transition sections have shown little
displacements. Analogous to the 2D model
outcome, a satisfactory level of stability is
observed in all other layers.
Revisiting the causes for displacements in
transition sections, it is seen that the orientation
of two breakwaters do not provide a full shelter
for all waves, and that waves from NE and SE
travelled through the access channel to slam on
the rear side of the south and north
breakwaters, respectively. In such context, rear
armour size of the transition sections is
suggested to change from 2-4T to 3-4T.
Figure 5 - Breakwater roundhead before (top)
and after (bottom) Test 2
ENGINEER
Albeit a moderate damage experienced by the
filter layer, it still (marginally) satisfies the
design criteria. As per given specifications of
the filter layer, the smallest and the next
smallest particle sizes are 0.375 mm and 1 mm,
respectively. Scaling down of such sizes gives
rise to respective model particles of sizes 0.010
mm and 0.027 mm, which are classified as silt
as per the USDA Soil Texture Classification
system. In the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) and the AASHTO Soil
Classification system, sand-silt distinction is
made at 0.075 mm particle size [1]. In such
context, more than 15% of quarry dust that
have been used to model the filter layer
possesses different particle characteristics from
the rest. In consequence, a settlement of the
filter layer is naturally expected. Hence, a re-
grading of the filter layer is suggested
eliminating last two sizes in the prototype
material.
6.3 Theoreticalassessment of overtopping
TAW [6] shows the theoretical formation of
overtopping discharge (q) caused by non-
breaking waves on armoured slopes. The
relation reads as,
q  Rc 1 
 k . exp   4.75  (11)
3
gH s  H s  0 . b . f .  . v 
0.067
where, k  . b .0 (12)
tan 
α- slope of run-up
ξ0- breaker parameter
γb- influence factor for berm
γf- influence factor for slope roughness
γβ- influence factor for incident angle
γv- influence factor for vertical wall on slope
Rc- crest free board
Hs- significant wave height at toe of the slope
Considered test slope necessarily yields tan α to
be 0.75; and γb, and γv to be unity. For a single
layer ACCROPODE slope, γf holds a mean
value of 0.46 [7]. TAW [6] indicates that the
influence factor γβ for long crested waves varies
from 1 to 0.6, and remains at 0.6 beyond the
incident angle 600. In addition, computed
breaker parameter varies between 3.6 to 4.3
suggesting non breaking waves (>2), which in
fact is the case as per modelling observations.
The influence factor for wave incident angle is
considered unity for 2D flume studies since
wave direction is perpendicular to the slope.
5
48
However, wave obliquity must be taken into possibility of the collection being mixed with
account in the 3D modelling. Yet, only a limited splashes occurring on front side of the south
research is available on the influence of oblique breakwater.
wave attack on wave run-up and wave
overtopping, due to the complexity and the
high costs of model tests in wave basins.
[10,12]. β
NE Waves
A
It is also important to note that Eq.(11) is
relevant for probabilistic design where the
same equation can be used for the comparison Collecting
Trays
of measurements of the flume and basin
modelling. However, TAW [6], and
subsequently EurOtop [17] suggested a
B
maximum limit for overtopping as,

qmax  Rc 1  Figure 7 - Configuration of discharge trays

 0.2 exp   2.6  (13)
gH s
3
 H s  f .  
On this basis, collections of Tray B in NE wave
tests and Tray A in SE wave tests have been
where it is easily seen that q of Eq.(11) can neglected. Thus, the effective test scenarios of
attain values higher than qmax for the adopted basin and flume tests, together with their
plausible parameters above. On this basis, corresponding parameters are listed in Table 2.
Eq.(13) is considered invalid for the test Need for the data enhancement and the relative
campaign. ease in the repetition of flume tests had its test
no.1 and 2 re-simulated as no. 3 and 4,
6.4Experimental assessment of overtopping respectively.
The experimental set-up, both in flume and
basin modelling includes discharge collecting Table 2 -Tests for overtopping assessment
trays fixed to the test sections. Basin model Test Test Hs Hs @ Tp Water Wave Breakwater β Rc γβ
contains two trays, one each for south and Type No. (m) Toe (s) Level Direction Segment (m)
(m) (m,CD)
north breakwater, located on the breakwater
Basin 1 5.0 4.07 10 0 NE (45°) North 26.6 8.7 0.95
transition facing the incident waves for all test 2 5.0 5.68 10 2 NE (45°) North 26.6 6.7 0.95
scenarios (Figure 6). 3 5.0 4.18 10 0 SE (135°) South 29.7 8.7 0.95
4 5.0 5.45 10 2 SE (135°) South 29.7 6.7 0.95
5 5.0 4.00 10 0 E (90°) North 71.6 8.7 0.60
6 5.0 4.00 10 0 E (90°) South 74.7 8.7 0.60
7 5.0 4.84 10 2 E (90°) North 71.6 6.7 0.60
8 5.0 5.00 10 2 E (90°) South 74.7 6.7 0.60
Flume 1 5.0 3.15 10 0 E (90°) 8.7
2 5.0 4.14 10 2 E (90°) Cross 6.7
0.0 1.0
3 5.0 3.74 10 0 E (90°) Section 8.7
4 5.0 4.34 10 2 E (90°) 6.7

Collected overtopping volumes for a testing

Figure 6 -Collection of overtopping discharge
This necessarily means changing the orientation
of trays for each of the three wave directions.
For example, Figure 7 shows the tray
configuration for NE waves. However, Tray B
is fixed at the seaside of south breakwater to
collect discharge resulting from diffracted
waves from north breakwater. During the
process, waves run up the rear side of the south
breakwater which is not armoured with
ACCROPODE. Further, there existed a slight
period of 1 hour were scaled up to derive the
corresponding discharge in the prototype. The
same entity is independently computed with
Eq.(11) above, and is herein after called
„theoretical discharge‟. It enables a comparison
with the observed discharge. In terms of safety
assessment, both measurements are checked
against the design standards [3]. The design
itself is not meant for allowing larger
overtopping volumes although no quay walls
or any other structures are attached to the
breakwater segments. According to Table 3, the
maximum overtopping discharge in the basin
model: 9.68x 10-4 l/s/m occurs for the SE wave
direction at high tide. The flume test for high
tide scenario recorded a maximum discharge of

6
49 ENGINEER
 1.32l/s/m.
1.32 l/s/m.Despite
Despitebeing
beingwell
wellexpected,
expected,Table
Table including
including scale
scale effects,
effects, andand measurement
measurement
33further
furtherpresents
presentsaalarge
largedisparity
disparitybetween
betweenthethe inaccuracies
inaccuracieshavehavebeenbeenthetheclassical
classicalexplanation
explanation
2D and
2D and 3D 3D test
test results.
results. This
This isis aa clear
clear for
for this
this discrepancy
discrepancy [4,17]. [4,17]. In In particular,
particular,
experimental evidence
experimental evidence of of the
the reduction
reduction ofof EurOtop
EurOtop [17] [17] elaborates
elaborates how how theoretical
theoretical
overtopping volumes
overtopping volumes duedue toto wave
wave obliquity.
obliquity. formulae
formulae failfail to to assess
assess wave
wave overtopping
overtopping
Nonetheless, the
Nonetheless, the Coastal
Coastal Engineering
Engineering Manual
Manual discharges
discharges andand individual
individual volumes
volumes accurately,
accurately,
stipulatesaamaximum
stipulates maximumpermissible
permissibledischarge
dischargeofof especially
especially for
for lowlow overtopping
overtopping volumes.
volumes. In In
50l/s/mfor
50l/s/m forthe
thestructure
structureunder
underconsideration,
consideration, addition
additiontotothe
theallallknown
knownissues
issuesabove,
above,authors
authors
andthat
and thatall
allobserved
observedvalues
valuesare
arewell
wellbelow
belowthe
the noted
notedtwotwoevents:
events:teststestsno.
no.22andand44of ofthe
thebasin
basin
permissibleupper
permissible upperlimit.
limit. modelling
modelling that
that recorded
recorded high high significant
significant wave
wave
heights
heightsatatthe
thetoe,
toe,implicating
implicatinghigh highovertopping
overtopping
Table33-Theoretical
Table -Theoreticaland
andobserved
observeddischarges
discharges discharges
discharges in in the the theoretical
theoretical assessment.
assessment.
However,
However, the the overtopping
overtopping trays trays diddid notnot
Theoretical
Theoretical Observed
Observed indicate
indicate aa comparably
comparably high high collection,
collection, as as the
the
Test Test
Test Test
Discharge
Discharge Discharge
Discharge wave
wave obliquity
obliquity may may havehave prevented
prevented itit from
from
Type No.
Type No.
(l/s/m)
(l/s/m) (l/s/m)
(l/s/m) happening
happening as as anticipated.
anticipated. Yet, Yet, the
the 2D
2D model,
model,
Basin
Basin 11 0.02645
0.02645 0.000048
0.000048 being
being devoid
devoid of of obliquity
obliquity issues,
issues, showed
showed very
very
22 3.03670
3.03670 0.000081
0.000081 satisfactory
satisfactory results
results with with almost
almost all all four
four
measurements
measurements tallyingtallying withwith the the theoretical
theoretical
33 0.03212
0.03212 0.000065
0.000065 estimates
estimates(Figure
(Figure9). 9).
44 2.45216
2.45216 0.000968
0.000968
55 0.00001
0.00001 0.000032
0.000032
66 0.00001
0.00001 0.000065
0.000065
77 0.00704
0.00704 0.000048
0.000048
88 0.00914
0.00914 0.000113
0.000113
Flume
Flume 11 0.00746
0.00746 0.09000
0.09000
22 0.87345
0.87345 1.32000
1.32000
33 0.02718
0.02718 0.03000
0.03000
44 1.13432
1.13432 0.47000
0.47000

Eq.(11)
Eq.(11) contains
contains aa multiplicative
multiplicative factor
factor (-4.75)
(-4.75)
which,
which, according
according to to TAW
TAW [6] [6] isis normally
normally
distributed
distributed with
with mean
mean of of 4.75
4.75 and
and aa standard
standard
deviation
deviation of
of 0.5.
0.5. ItIt yielded
yielded aa confidence
confidence level
level Figure
Figure99- -Evaluation
Evaluationof
ofdischarge
dischargein
in2D
2Dmodel
model
assessment
assessmentof ofthe
thetheoretical
theoreticaldischarge
dischargewhere
whereaa
90%
90%confidence
confidenceband
bandcan canbebeset
set(Figures
(Figures88andand In
In this
this context,
context, the
the overtopping
overtopping research
research isis
9).
9). further
further extended
extended to to contribute
contribute to
to the
the existing,
existing,
published
published database
database of of overtopping
overtopping [5,6,17].
[5,6,17].
Dimensionless
Dimensionless overtopping
overtopping discharge:
discharge:

qq gH 
gHs3s3 derived
derived from
from historic
historic flume
flume andand
basin
basin tests
tests are
are available
available plotted
plotted against
against the
the
dimensionless
dimensionless crest heightRRc c ((HHs s..f f.. )). .
crest height
Despite
Despitethethedifferences
differencesin intest
testconditions,
conditions,such such
as
as slope
slope roughness,
roughness, wave wave obliquity,
obliquity, and and steep steep
foreshore
foreshore etc,
etc, all
all the
the data
data were
were conveniently
conveniently
illustrated
illustrated in in twotwo basicbasic categories:
categories: wave wave
breaking
breaking andand non-breaking
non-breaking [17]. [17]. The
The historic
historic
data
data corresponding
corresponding to to non-breaking,
non-breaking, oblique, oblique,
long
long crested
crested waves
waves have have been been carefully
carefully
separated
separated and and plotted
plotted alongside
alongside with with the the
additional
additional data
data generated
generated from from thisthis physical
physical
Figure
Figure88- -Evaluation
Evaluationof
ofdischarge
dischargein
in3D
3Dmodel
model
modelling
modelling campaign
campaign (Figure
(Figure 10). 10). The
The generic
generic
trend,
trend, as
as depicted
depicted as as the
the best
best fit
fit in
in the
the source
source
ItItisisseen
seenthat
thatonly
onlythethetest
testnos.
nos.55and
and66resulted
resulted
graph
graph isis not
not altered
altered to to suit
suit thethe newly
newly added added
inin comparable
comparable discharge
discharge values
values among
among thethe
data,
data, and
and isis shown
shown as as itit is.
is. The
The two two most most
eight
eight basin
basin tests.
tests. In
In retrospect,
retrospect, many
many causes
causes

77
ENGINEER 50
significant “outliers” are in fact, linked to the
test scenarios no. 2 and 4 which flagged high
wave heights at the toe.
Figure 10 - Overtopping data of non-breaking
waves
Given the lack of research data pertaining to the
oblique, long crested waves, any apparent
outliers cannot be eliminated. In contrast, all
other data points generated from this campaign
are already inline with the established trend.
7. Concluding Remarks
The paper elaborates a series of physical model
tests carried out for the newly proposed
breakwater sections of the Karaikal port. The
study is a prime example to reveal the
importance of conducting physical model tests
for theoretically complied breakwater sections,
since the tested sections have shown a room for
improvement in their stability assessment. It
led to a revision of the composition of rear
armour and filter layers. However, the
overtopping discharges were inline with the
theory, and complied well with the stipulated
standards. In consequence, the Karaikal port
successfully reached a major milestone in its
phase II stage with the construction of
breakwaters as reckoned from the modelling
campaign.
The research component of this project
elucidates what degree of compatibility to
expect when overtopping discharges of
physical models are compared with the theory.
Furthermore, given the lack of low overtopping
data available in the published databases,
generated new data points could be of value for
future investigations on overtopping
performance of concrete armour laid
breakwaters subjected to non-breaking, oblique,
long crested waves.
8
51
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank MARG Group and
Lanka Hydraulic Institute for their provision of
data and permissions to publish the research
findings, while CLI (France) for the provision of
ACCROPODE model units. The initial support
rendered by Eng. (Dr). K. Raveenthiran, and
Eng (Ms) P.L. Ranasinghe, is also
acknowledged.
References
1. ASTMD. D. 2487-83, “Standard Practice for
Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification
System)”, Annual Book of ASTM. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1985,
pp.395–408.
2. BS 6349-7:1991, Maritime Structures. Guide
to the Design and Construction of
Breakwaters, British Standards Institution
/29-Nov-1991/94p,ISBN: 9780580696084.
3. CEM. “Fundamentals of Design”, Coastal
Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1100 (Part
VI), US Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C. 2006.
4. Huges, S.A., ”Physical Models and
Laboratory Techniques in Coastal
Engineering”, World Scientific Publishing,
1993.
5. TAW, “Guidelines for Design of River
Dikes, Part 2 - Lower River Area”, Technical
Advisory Committee on Flood Defence, 1989.
6. TAW, In: van der Meer, J.W. (Ed.),
“Technical Report on Wave Run-up and
Wave Overtopping at Dikes”, Technical
Advisory Committee on Flood Defence, The
Netherlands,www.tawinfo.nl., 2002.
7. Bruce, T., van der Meer, J.W., Franco, L.,
Pearson, J.M., “Overtopping Performance of
Different Armour units for Rubble Mound
Breakwaters‟, Coastal Engineering 56(2),
2009, pp.166-179.
8. Sampath D.M.R. and Wijetunge J.J. “How
Significant is the Wave run-up Reduction
due to Underlayer Permeability in the
Design of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters?”,
Journal of the Institution of Engineers, Sri
Lanka, 39(1), (2006), pp.13–18.
9. Van der Meer, J.W., “Conceptual Design of
Rubble Mound Breakwaters”. World
Scientific, In: Advances in Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, Volume 1, Ed. P.L.F. Liu, 1995,
pp. 221-315.
ENGINEER
 10. Wolters, G., and Van Gent, M., “Oblique
Wave Attack on Cube and Rock Armoured
Rubble Mound Breakwaters”, Coastal
Engineering Proceedings, 1(32), 2011.

11. Burcharth, H. F., Liu, Z., and Troch, P.,

“Scaling of Core Material in Rubble Mound
Breakwater Model Tests”, Proceedings of 5th
Intl. Conf. on Coastal and Port Engineering in
Developing Countries: COPEDEC V: South
Africa, 1999, pp.1518-1528.

12. Galland, J. C., “Rubble Mound Breakwater

Stability under Oblique Waves: An
Experimental Study”, Proc. Coastal
Engineering 1994, pp.1061-1074.

13. Hudson, R.Y., “Laboratory Investigations of

Rubble-Mound Breakwater”, Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 85, WW3, 1959, pp.93-121.

14. Indian Hydrographic Chart No.357 Point

Calimere to Chennai, National Hydrographic
Office, Dehradun-248001, India, 2005.

15. CLI, “ACCROPODE Design Guide Table”,

retrieved from
http://concretelayer.com/sites/default/fil
es/ACCROPODE%E2%84%A2_Design_Tab
le_2010_0.pdf, Oct 5, 2010.

16. MARG, “About Us, Marg–Karaikal Port (p)

Ltd”, retrieved from
https://karaikalport.com, Oct 1, 2010.

17. EurOtop, “Wave Overtopping of Sea Defences

and Related Structures: Assessment Manual”,
2007, retrieved from www.overtopping-
manual.com, Dec05, 2010.

9
ENGINEER 52
View publication stats