Struktur Pantai

Lecture 6
Armour units from rock and concrete

H.J. Verhaen

March 2018 1
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Section Hydraulic Engineering
Overview of this lecture

In this lecture we will give an overview of armour

(= protection against wave action)
We will discuss:
• Rock armour
• Concrete elements
• Block revetments

March 2018 2
History

Iribarren * Equilibrium of forces on a block

Hudson * Experiments and curve fitting
Van der Meer * More experiments, analysis, curve fitting

Pilarczyk * Placed block revetments

April 2018 3
three main types of protection against waves

This can be rock we will not discuss

or concrete armour asphalt plates

April 2018 4
General rules

A riprap rock revetment (or breakwater) with natural rock is

usually the cheapest option
In case rock is not easily available (because of costly
transport) a placed block revetment should be considered,
but only for cases with wave heights up to 2 m
In case rock cannot be delivered with a sufficient big size
(e.g. more than 10 ton blocks are needed) on has to go for
concrete armour units

April 2018 5
Design of rock armour

Austevoll Breakwater Norway

April 2018 6
Equilibrium after Iribarren

Fwave  w g Dn 2 H
W  B   r  w  g Dn3

W  r g Dn3

April 2018 7
 Equations for uprush and downrush

N r gH 3 N r gH 3
W W
   cos   sin  
3
   cos   sin  
3 3 3

type of block downward stability upward stability transition slope

( cos  - sin ) 3 ( cos  + sin ) 3 between upward and
downward stability
 N  N cot 
rough angular 2.38 0.430 2.38 0.849 3.64
quarry stone
cubes 2.84 0.430 2.84 0.918 2.80
tetrapods 3.47 0.656 3.47 1.743 1.77

April 2018 8
 Hudson
r g H 3
W  3
 K D cot 
structure trunk structure head
number KD KD
type of block of layers breaking non breaking non
(N) wave breaking wave breaking
wave wave
rough angular quarry stone 1 ** 2.9 ** 2.3
rough angular quarry stone 2 3.5 4.0 2.5 * 2.8*
rough angular quarry stone 3 3.9 4.5 3.7* 4.2*
tetrapod 2 7.2 8.3 5.5* 6.1*
dolos 2 22.0 25.0 15.0 16.5*
cube 2 6.8 7.8 5.0

April 2018 9
comparison of Hudson and Iribarren
• shape of block
• layer thickness
H
 3 K D cot  • placing manner
D • roughness, interlock
• type of wave attack
H 1 • head/trunk
   cos   sin   N 3 • angle of incidence
D • size/porosity underlayer
• crest level
• crest type
• wave period
• foreshore shape
• reflection

April 2018 10
application of Hudson

increase of block density

increase of block weight
decrease slope
grout smaller blocks
increase KD by special shaped blocks

H
 3 K D cot 
D
April 2018 11
Optimal angle and interlock of blocks

April 2018 12
 Hudson and
measurements

April 2018 13
The need for a better formula

Around 1975 there was a need for a better formula

This formula should include wave period and permeability

Extensive tests done by Van der Meer at Delft Hydraulics

(Deltares)

April 2018 14
Damage according to Van der Meer

A
S 
Dn502
A - erosion area
Dn50 - nominal diameter ( = W50 /g)1/3
W50 - “mean” weight of the armour stones

April 2018 15
Damage(S) based on erosion area (A)

April 2018 16
classification of S-values

Slope Initial Damage Intermediate Damage Failure

(needs no repair) (needs repair) (core exposed)
1:1.5 2 3–5 8
1:2 2 4–6 8
1:3 2 6–9 12
1:4 3 8 – 12 17
1:6 3 8 – 12 17

April 2018 17
wave period

tan  2 H
  s 2
s gT
Van der Meer uses “deep water” values:
s0m
thus:
significant wave
deep water period based on Tm

April 2018 18
Permeability coefficients

April 2018 19
Original Van der Meer formula
0.2
Hsc 0.18  S  -0.5
= 6.2 P   ξ (plunging breakers)
Δdn50  N 
0.2
Hsc  S  P
= 1.0 P -0.13   ξ cot α (surging breakers)
Δdn50  N

 1 
 
 transition  6.2 P 0.31 tan    P  0.5 

 > transition  surging breakers

 < transition  plunging breakers

April 2018 20
reference case

sign. wave height Hs 2 m

slope of revetment cot 3
“Permeability” P 0.5
mean period Tm 6 s
number of waves N 3000
rock size dn50 0.6 m (300-1000 kg)
relative density  1.65
damage level S 2
Hudson coefficient KD 2

April 2018 21
Wave period

April 2018 22
permeability

notional:
P = notional permeability factor belonging to the realm of ideas,
not of experience; existing only in
the mind

April 2018 23
number of waves

maximum number of waves: 7500

3000 waves of 6 s is 5 hours

April 2018 24
damage level

April 2018 25
slope angle

November 2, 2020 26
damage development

April 2018 27
mild slopes

April 2018 28
 measured
values for
plunging
breakers

coefficients can be
considered as
stochastic
parameters:
6.2 = 0.5
1.0 = 0.08
April 2018 29
Secondary layers

One cannot place big armour stones directly on the core.

Usually a secondary layer is needed, M2 = M1/10
For a possible third layer on takes M3 = M1/200

April 2018 30
Shallow water conditions
• Original Van der Meer formula did not work well in
shallow water
• Various alternatives for shallow water have been
developed
• Eventually this proved not to be necessary, one general
formula can be used for deep and shallow water
• But one should insert in this formula the H2% and Tm-1,0 at
the toe of the structure
• These values need to be calculated with care (e.g. with
SwanOne), and not estimated with approximation
formulas
April 2018 31
General equations (deep & shallow)
0.2
H 2% 0.18  S 
 sm1,0 
0.25
 c pl P   cot 
d n50  N 
for plunging waves
0.2
H 2% 0.13  S 
 sm1,0  s1,0 
0.25 P 0.5
 cs P  
d n50  N for surging waves

1
 c pl 0.31 
cr   P tan   P  0.5 transition
 cs 
April 2018 32
Values of cpl and cs

cpl cs
Original Van der Meer formula Mean value 6.2 1.0
For design 5.5 0.9

Generalised formula using H2% Mean value 8.4 1.3

For design 7.3 1.1

April 2018 33
Example Semarang (4 m1/500 wave condition)

H2% = 2.0 m, Tm-1,0 = 5.6 s

Depth = 4m

slope Stone size Dn50 Stone weight W50

(m) (kg)
1:2.0 0.74 1100
1:2.5 0,67 780
1:3.0 0,61 590
1:3.5 0,56 470

Assume stone density 2650 kg/m3, notional permeability

P=0.1 (=reclamation); allowed damage S=3

April 2018 34
Example Glagah
Conclusion: Rock is
H2% =8 m, Tm-1,0=12,5 s not feasible here
Depth = 15 m
slope Stone size Dn50 Stone weight W50
(m) (tons)
1:2.0 2.3 33
1:2.5 2.1 24
1:3.0 1.9 18
1:3.5 1.8 14

Assume stone density 2650 kg/m3, notional permeability

P=0.4 (=breakwater); allowed damage S=5

April 2018 35
Video Rock slopes

Show here video on rock slopes

April 2018 36
April 2018
Placed block revetments

Placing of Basalton in the Netherlands

37
Some Vietnamese examples

Cangio
April 2018
38
Vung Tau

April 2018
39
Vung Tau (storage of blocks)

April 2018
40
Thai Binh

December 2015
41
Nghia Hung

December 2015
42
Casting of blocks (Ha Tinh)

December 2015
43
Casting of Blocks (Hai Hau)

December 2015
44
Storage of blocks (Hai Hau)

December 2015
45
Hai Hau

Toe ??

December 2015
46
Sheetpile at the toe in Hai Hau (2006)

December 2015
47
connection of two straight sections

December 2015
48
 Overview of the works in Hai Hau (2006)

December 2015
49
Hai Phong

December 2015
50
stability mechanisms

December 2015
51
Two failure mechanisms for blocks

The piston type failure

The beam type failure

December 2015
52
Piston type:
load and strength of block revetments

December 2015
53
head difference over block for large and small
leakage length

We will elaborate this later to come to a design formula

December 2015
54
a static approach

waves running on a slope

wave pressure on a slope

pressure difference on a slope

decrease of pressure difference

December 2015
55
Pressure differences over blocks

December 2015
56
 Measured head
differences

Revetments and
Numerical
Simulation
(8 min)

December 2015
57
Conclusion regarding leakage length

small leakage length is best

this means that top layer has to be more permeable than
filter layer
extreme case: make filter layer nearly impermeable
practical example: blocks on clay
However …………..??
execution problem
creation of gullies

December 2015
58
Formation of gullies under blocks (1)

December 2015
59
 Formation of
gullies under
blocks (2)

December 2015
60
Two failure mechanisms for blocks

The piston type failure

The beam type failure

December 2015
61
Beam type failure:
Clamping mechanism

16 k d3
Fmax  3 2
9 L

December 2015
62
pulling tests in Zeeland

December 2015
63
Pulling force vs. position
Pulling tests Zeeland (Verhagen, 1984)

60

50
pulling force (kN)

40

30

20

10

0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
distance below top (m)

December 2015
64
stability of block revetment

Hs cos 
( m   w ) gd cos    w g 0.33 H s  0  3
d 
Comes from run-down
December 2015
65
test results for placed blocks

December 2015
66
the Pilarczyk formula
Hs cos 
 u  b
m D p
u system defined (stability) upgrading factor
{for riprap by definition u = 1}
 stability factor
Hs significant wave height
Tp peak period of the waves
p Iribarren-number for peak period
D specific size of protection unit
 slope angle
m relative density of the system unit
b exponent 0.5 < b < 1
for riprap b=0.5, for smooth blocks b=1
on average b  2/3
December 2015
67
the Pilarczyk formula (2)

u 1.0riprap (by definition)

1.0poor quality pitched stone
1.5high quality pitched stone
1.5loose closed blocks
2.0high quality blocks (Basalton, Hydroblock)
1.5Pattern grouting
2.0Fixstone
2.5gabions
2.5Armorflex (cable system)

December 2015
68
“Problem” for high values of 

December 2015
69
Adapted design graph

New upper limit

for stability

Pilarczyk formula

November 2015
70
Stability equation as a formula

Hs  f duration
 7 min( p ; 2  max 0.5  (min( p ;5)  2);0

1/3

D   fb

Hs significant wave height

p Iribarren-number for peak period
D specific size of protection unit
 relative density of the system unit
fduration influence factor for duration, use a value of 1
fb influence factor for wave approach, use a value of 1
Source: Klein Breteler, M. [2016] Dutch research on block revetments,
Deltares report

April 2018 71
Example Semarang

Hs = 1.80 m, Tm-1,0 = 5.6 s slope 1:3   = 3

H/D = 6
 = 1.5
D = H/(6) = 0. 2 m

(Original Pilarczyk D=0.4 m)

April 2018 72
effect of concrete erosion (1)

December 2015
73
effect of concrete erosion (2)

December 2015
74
effect of concrete erosion (3)

December 2015
75
Concrete armour units

April 2018 76
When using concrete armour

Concrete armour is only useful when natural rock is not

available for the required design weight
This may happen when you need blocks of more than 10
tons

April 2018 77
 Armouring concepts
Number Concrete armour unit type
Placement
of
pattern Massive Bulky Slender
layers

Cube Antifer Cube Haro Stabit Akmon Tetrapod Dolos

Double
layer

1973 1984 1961 1962 1950 1963

Random Cube Accropode® Xbloc® Accropode II® Core-loc II® Core-loc® A-Jack®

Single
layer

1980 2003 2004 2006 1995 1998

Seabee Diahitis Cob Shed

Single
Uniform
layer

1978 1998 1969 1982

April 2018 78
What type to choose?

Simple units when simple execution is relevant and

concrete price is less relevant
 cubes (or Antifer cubes)
Complex multilayer interlocking blocks are not
recommended any more (so: Tetrapod is outdated)

So: choose single layer interlocking units:

• Accropode I
• Accropode II
• Xbloc
April 2018 79
The modern armour units
Accropode I

Xbloc

Accropode II
April 2018 80
Patents and copyright

The Accropode II and the Xbloc are patented, so you can only
apply them with permission of the owner
For Accropode: CLI (Artelia France)
For Xbloc: Delta Marine Consultants (BAM Holland)

The patent for the Accropode I is expired, but the name is still
protected. You can make the block, but are not allowed to
call it Accropode

April 2018 81
Disadvantage of Accropode I

Much more difficult to place

Requires more diver inspection during placement

Accropode breakwater at Fregate

Island, Seychelles
Placing difficulties due to swell
Triggered development of Xbloc

April 2018 82
Advantages of a patented block

• Support from the designer

• Liability of the design
• Guaranteed quality
• Inspection by original designer
• Access to all research data on these blocks

April 2018 83
This is a Chinese Pod, breakwater of Colombo,
Sri Lanka

April 2018 84
Simple design formula
• Slope is prescribed by manufacturer
• Only used for breakwaters, so always permeable core
• Because slopes are steep, always surging waves

So, one can use a simplified Hudson formula:

3
 Hs 
where V  
V = Volume of Xbloc
 2.77  
Hs = significant wave height at toe
 = relative density of concrete
April 2018 85
Use the Xbloc calculator
https://www.xbloc.com/en/design/calculator

Also important:
• Stable toe is essential
• Not too many rows of blocks (not more than 20)

April 2018 86
Typical design

April 2018 87
Example Glagah using Xbloc

Hs = 5.7 m
Toe at 10 m, Depth = 15 m

Volume of Xbloc 6 m3, weight of block 14.4 tons

(calculated with Xbloc calculator)

Suggested crest level: 5 m above SWL

April 2018 88
Special history (2007)

The first application of Xbloc was a revetment in West Java

But you will not find it in the track record of DMC

It is north of Merak
In fact the waves
are too small for
a Xbloc.

April 2018 89
Special history

Also interesting:
Xblocs for Gorgon LNG plant (NW Australia) were produced
in Cigading (Cilegon)

Note: these blocks were

also 6m3; 40000 blocks
were produced

Production yard in Cigading

April 2018 90