Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering
Article
Armor Damage of Overtopped Mound Breakwaters in
Depth-Limited Breaking Wave Conditions
Patricia Mares-Nasarre 1, * , Gloria Argente 2 , M. Esther Gómez-Martín 1






Citation: Mares-Nasarre, P.; Argente,
G.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R.
Armor Damage of Overtopped Mound
Breakwaters in Depth-Limited Breaking
Wave Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
2021, 9, 952. https://doi.org/
10.3390/jmse9090952
Academic Editor: Constantine
Michailides
Received: 30 July 2021
Accepted: 23 August 2021
Published: 1 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9090952
and Josep R. Medina 1
1 Laboratory of Ports and Coasts, Institute of Transport and Territory, Universitat Politècnica de València,
46022 Valencia, Spain; mgomar00@upv.es (M.E.G.-M.); jrmedina@upv.es (J.R.M.)
2 INGEOMAR, c/Maximiliano Thous, 20-1◦ B, 46009 Valencia, Spain; gargente@ingeomar.com
* Correspondence: patmana@cam.upv.es
Abstract: Armor damage due to wave attack is the principal failure mode to be considered when
designing conventional mound breakwaters. Armor layers of mound breakwaters are typically
designed using formulas in the literature for non-overtopped mound breakwaters in non-breaking
wave conditions, although overtopped mound breakwaters in the depth-induced breaking wave zone
are common design conditions. In this study, 2D physical tests with an armor slope H/V = 3/2 are
analyzed in order to better describe the hydraulic stability of overtopped mound breakwaters with
double-layer rock, double-layer randomly-place cube and single-layer Cubipod® armors in depth-
limited breaking wave conditions. Hydraulic stability formulas are derived for each armor section
(front slope, crest and rear slope) and each armor layer. The front slope of overtopped double-layer
rock structures is more stable than the front slope of non-overtopped mound breakwaters in breaking
wave conditions. When wave attack increases, armor damage appears first on the front slope, later
on the crest and, finally, on the rear side. However, once the damage begins on the crest and rear
side, the progression is much faster than on the front slope, because more wave energy is dissipated
through the armored crest and rear side.
Keywords: mound breakwater; hydraulic stability; overtopped breakwater; armor damage;
depth-limited waves; breaking waves; Cubipod®
1. Introduction
The armor damage on mound breakwaters due to wave attack is the first problem to
assess in the design phase. Extensive literature can be found reporting different hydraulic
stability formulas to design the armor layer of mound breakwaters [1–3]. Although most
mound breakwaters are built in the depth-limited wave breaking zone, most of the afore-
mentioned formulas were developed using physical tests conducted in non-breaking wave
conditions with null or insignificant overtopping (crest freeboard higher than two times the
design significant wave height). Herrera et al. [4] found that the formulas derived in non-
breaking conditions are not fully valid in breaking conditions, since the breakwater must
withstand wave storms with a percentage of waves breaking before reaching the structure.
Another key aspect to consider in mound breakwater design is the current context of
climate change. Overtopping risk in coastal structures is even more relevant due to rising
sea levels and more extreme wave storms. Higher sea levels will reduce dimensionless
crest freeboards leading to higher overtopping rates. In overtopped mound breakwaters
(crest freeboard similar to the design significant wave height), part of the wave energy
passes through the structure [5]; the wave energy is dissipated not only in the armored
front slope, but also in the armored crest and rear slope. Thus, the hydraulic stability of
the front slope, crest and rear slope becomes relevant for design purposes and related to
the overtopping. Vidal et al. [6] reported that the hydraulic stability of overtopped mound
breakwaters was dependent on the dimensionless crest freeboard, Fd = Rc /Dn50 , where
Rc is the crest freeboard and Dn50 = M50 /ρr is the nominal diameter of the armor rocks,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 2 of 20

M50 is the median rock mass and ρr is the mass density of the rocks. As Fd decreases, the
overtopping rate increases, the hydraulic stability of the front slope increases while that of
the crest and rear slope decreases. Thus, special attention is required to design the armor
crest and rear slope in overtopped mound breakwaters.
Argente [7] performed 2D physical tests with overtopped mound breakwaters
(0.4 ≤ Rc /Hm0 ≤ 2.0 and 1.5 ≤ Rc /Dn ≤ 4.7, where Hm0 = 4 (m0 )0.5 is the spectral significant
wave height) with double-layer rock, double-layer randomly-place cube and single-layer
Cubipod® armors in depth-limited breaking wave conditions. This author proposed for-
mulas to describe the hydraulic stability of these structures using the 5-power relationship
between the design wave height and the armor damage recommended by [2,8] for non-
overtopped and non-breaking wave conditions. Nevertheless, recent studies [4,9] found a
6-power relationship when depth-induced breaking wave conditions are considered.
This study reanalyzes the data by [7] to examine the hydraulic stability of overtopped
mound breakwaters with armor slope H/V = 3/2 and with double-layer rock, double-layer
randomly-place cube and single-layer Cubipod® armors in depth-limited breaking con-
ditions. New hydraulic stability formulas are proposed assuming a n-power relationship
between the design wave height and the armor damage. The exponent of the power is esti-
mated in order to better describe armor damage in depth-limited breaking wave conditions.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a review of the literature on the hydraulic
stability of low-crested mound breakwaters in breaking wave conditions is presented. In
Section 3, data reported in [7] are described. In Section 4, the experimental database is
analyzed. In Section 5, results of the analysis of the armor damage of the tested overtopped
mound breakwaters are discussed; the influence of the armor unit, the armor section and
overtopped conditions are specified. Finally, in Section 6, conclusions are drawn.

2. Literature Review
As mentioned in the previous section, most studies in the literature related to the
stability of mound breakwaters analyzed non-overtopped structures in non-breaking
wave conditions. Here, the literature on the hydraulic stability of mound breakwaters is
briefly reviewed, focusing on mound breakwaters located in the surf zone with relevant
overtopping rates.

2.1. Armor Damage Measurement

Armor damage is typically assessed considering both quantitative and qualitative
methods. Although a quantitative analysis provides a reasonably objective value for armor
damage, qualitative criteria are needed to characterize the severity of the damage. Here,
both quantitative and qualitative methods are summarized.
It is not easy to standardize the quantitative armor damage to mound breakwaters in
a manner valid for different armor units, number of layers and slopes. Several criteria for
quantitative armor damage can be found in the literature, but the most commonly used
criterion is the measurement of the dimensionless armor damage. The dimensionless armor
damage parameter is defined as S = Ae /Dn 2 , where Ae is the average eroded cross-section
area, and Dn = M/ρ is the nominal diameter or equivalent cube size, being M the median
mass of the armor unit, and ρ the mass density of the armor unit. Ae can be determined
using mechanical or laser profilers as well as the visual counting method [10], assuming
a constant armor porosity during the erosion process. However, Gómez-Martín and
Medina [11] indicated that these conventional methods were not adequate when analyzing
armor units with significant Heterogeneous Packing, HeP (e.g., cube armors). The HeP
failure mode, further explained in [12], involves an increase in the local packing density
in the lower area of the armor and a reduction in the local packing density in the upper
area, due to an undesired face-to-face arrangement of the armor units. Gómez-Martín
and Medina [11] also proposed the Virtual Net method to analyze the armor damage
considering the changes in the porosity of the armor and, thus, the HeP. The Virtual Net
method divides the armor into strips of constant width (w = aDn ) and length (l = bDn ). The
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 3 of 20

dimensionless damage is measured in each strip (Si ) considering the porosity evolution in
time and space. The equivalent dimensionless armor damage parameter (Se ) is obtained by
integrating Si over the slope, as shown in Equation (1).

∑ ∑ ∑
I I 1 − pi I
   
φi
Se = S = a 1− = a 1− (1)
i =1 i i =1 1 − pi0 i =1 φi0

where a is the number of rows in the strip, I is the number of strips, pi = 1 − (Ni Dn 2 /wl) is
the armor porosity of the strip i, being Ni the number of armor units within the strip i, p0i
the initial armor porosity of the strip i, Φi = n (1 − pi ) the packing density of the strip i,
being n the number of armor layers, and Φ0i the initial packing density of the strip i. In the
present study, the Virtual Net method is used in order to consider the HeP failure mode.
As previously mentioned, qualitative analysis of damage is also required to properly
describe the severity of the armor damage. Losada et al. [13] and Vidal et al. [14] proposed
four qualitative levels of armor damage for conventional double-layer armors:
• Initiation of Damage (IDa): some units are lost from the upper armor;
• Initiation of Iribarren’s Damage (IIDa): a large area of the upper armor is damaged, so
the extraction of units from the bottom armor layer is possible;
• Initiation of Destruction (IDe): the filter is clearly visible due to the extraction of at
least one element from the bottom armor layer;
• Destruction (De): several elements from the filter layer are removed.
In order to describe the severity of damage on conventional mound breakwaters with
single-layer armors, Gómez-Martín [15] defined three levels of armor damage:
• Initiation of Damage (IDa): some isolated units are removed from the armor, producing
holes whose size is close to the size of the armor units;
• Initiation of Destruction (IDe): several adjacent units are removed from the armor,
producing cracks and holes whose size is larger than the armor unit. The filter is
clearly visible;
• Destruction (De): several elements from the filter layer are removed.
In the present study, two levels of armor damage are considered: Initiation of Damage
(IDa) and Initiation of Destruction (IDe).

2.2. Hydraulic Stability of Mound Breakwaters in Breaking Wave Conditions

Most hydraulic stability formulas are based on the stability number, Ns = H/∆Dn ,
where H is the design wave height, ∆ = (ρ − ρw )/ρw is the relative submerged mass density,
ρ is the mass density of the armor units, and ρw is the mass density of the sea water.
Hudson [1] proposed Equation (2), the most widely used stability formula, which was
validated using physical tests with regular waves in non-breaking wave conditions. KD
is the stability coefficient which depends on the type of armor unit, armor placement, the
number of layers in the armor and the section of the breakwater (trunk or head); cotα is the
armor slope.
H
= (K D cot α)1/3 (2)
∆Dn50
In order to account for the depth-limited wave breaking conditions, USACE [16,17]
proposed reducing the value of KD in Equation (2). According to [16], KD = 4.0 for double-
layer rough-angular rock armor in non-breaking wave conditions while KD = 3.5 for the
same armor in breaking wave conditions. On the other hand, USACE [17] recommended
applying KD = 4.0 for double-layer rough-angular rock armor in non-breaking wave
conditions and KD = 2.0 for the same armor in breaking wave conditions. It should be
noted that [16] proposed using H = Hs = H1/3 (average of the one-third highest waves)
while [17] recommended H = H1/10 (average of the one-tenth highest waves) in non-
breaking wave conditions and H = Hb (Hb = 0.78hs , where hs is the water depth at the toe of
the structure) in breaking wave conditions.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 4 of 20

Van der Meer [2] performed physical tests focused on the hydraulic stability of rock
armors and combined these results with those by [18]. A wide range of stability numbers
(1 ≤ Hs /∆Dn ≤ 4), armor slopes (1.5 ≤ cotα ≤ 6.0) and structural permeabilities were
covered. Most of these tests were conducted in non-breaking wave conditions. Based on
this experimental database, Van der Meer [2] proposed Equation (3).

Hs
= 6.2S0.2 P0.18 Nz −0.1 ξ m −0.5 f or ξ m < ξ mc ( plunging waves)
∆Dn50
(3)
Hs
= 1.0S0.2 P−0.13 Nz −0.1 cot α0.5 ξ m P f or ξ m > ξ mc (surging waves)
∆Dn50

where ξ mc = (6.2P0.31 tanα0.5 )1/(P+0.5) is the critical breaker parameter, 0.1 ≤ P ≤ 0.6 represents
the permeability of the structure, Nz is the number of waves and ξ m = tanα/(2πHs /[gTm 2 ])0.5
is the surf similarity parameter calculated using the mean period (Tm ).
Van der Meer [2] conducted 293 tests in non-breaking wave conditions but also 16 physi-
cal tests in breaking wave conditions on a bottom slope m = 1/30 and 3.3 ≤ hs /∆Dn50 ≤ 6.5,
where hs is the water depth at the toe of the structure. A permeable structure with cotα = 2.0
composed of rocks with Dn50 = 3.6 cm was considered. Based on these additional tests,
Van der Meer [2] proposed replacing Hs in Equation (3) by H2% /1.4, where H2% is the
average of the 2% highest waves. Note that H2% /Hs ≈ 1.4 for a Rayleigh distribution.
Van Gent et al. [3] performed additional physical tests in breaking and non-breaking
conditions on bottom slopes m = 1/30 and 1/100 with rock armors with permeable and
impermeable core. The tested rock armored structures considered cotα = 2.0 and 4.0,
and Dn50 = 2.2 and 3.5 cm. Van Gent et al. [3] combined their experimental database
with that by [19] to validate Equation (4) within the ranges 1.5 ≤ hs /∆Dn50 ≤ 11 and
0.5 ≤ Hs /∆Dn ≤ 4.5; in total, 207 tests were used.

H2%
= 8.4S0.2 P0.18 Nz −0.1 ξ s−1 −0.5 f or ξ s−1 < ξ mc ( plunging waves)
∆Dn50
(4)
H2%
= 1.3S0.2 P−0.13 Nz −0.1 cot α0.5 ξ s−1 P f or ξ s−1 > ξ mc (surging waves)
∆Dn50

where ξ s −1 = tanα/(2πHs /[gTm −1,0 2 ])0.5 is the surf similarity parameter calculated using
R ∞ period Tm −1,0 = m−1 /m0 , in which mi is the i-th spectral moment obtained
the spectral
as mi = 0 S( f ) f i d f , being S(f ) the wave spectrum. Equations (3) and (4) have several
common elements.
In order to account for Dn50 of the core of the structure, Gent et al. [3] also derived
Equation (5).
  0.2
Hs Dn50 core S
= 1.75 1 + √ cot α0.5 (5)
∆Dn50 Dn50 Nz
Prevot et al. [20] carried out physical tests with rubble mound breakwaters in breaking
wave conditions on a bottom slope m = 1/30. These authors compared their experimental
results with Equations (3) and (4) and concluded that the best estimations were given by
Equation (4).
Herrera et al. [4] also analyzed the armor damage of non-overtopped rock armors and
depth-limited breaking wave conditions. In total, 45 physical tests within the experimental
ranges 1.0 ≤ Hm0 /∆Dn ≤ 2.5 and 3.8 ≤ hs /∆Dn ≤ 7.5 were performed on a bottom slope
m = 2% using conventional rock armored structures with cotα = 1.5 and Dn50 = 3.18 cm.
Herrera et al. [4] did not find that the wave steepness sm = Hm0 /Lm and water depth at
the toe hs significantly influenced the armor damage, and recommended using Hm0 at a
distance of 3 times hs from the toe of the structure as design wave height. These authors
derived Equation (6) to describe the hydraulic stability rock armors in breaking wave
conditions, where Se is the equivalent dimensionless armor damage.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 5 of 20

 6
Hm0
Se = 0.066 (6)
∆Dn50

Recently, Etemad-Shahidi et al. [9] examined the 791 physical tests by [2,3,10,18]
on non-overtopped rubble mound breakwaters and considered Equation (7) as valid for
both breaking and non-breaking conditions within the ranges 1.0 ≤ Hs /∆Dn ≤ 4.3 and
1.35 ≤ hs /Hs ≤ 19.68.
Hs
= 4.5 C p Nz −0.1 S1/6 ξ s−1 −7/12 (1 − 3m) f or ξ s−1 < 1.8 ( plunging waves)
∆Dn50
(7)
Hs
= 3.9 C p Nz −0.1 S1/6 ξ s−1 −1/3 (1 − 3m) f or ξ s−1 ≥ 1.8 (surging waves)
∆Dn50

where Cp = (1 + [Dn50 core/Dn50 ]3/10 )3/5 is the coefficient of permeability.

After describing the formulas given in the literature to assess the hydraulic stability of
rock-armored breakwaters, it can be concluded that no consensus exists regarding neither
the variables involved nor the power of the relationship between Ns and the dimensionless
armor damage when the breakwater is placed in depth-limited breaking wave conditions.
The 5-power relationship recommended by [8] based on [17] and Equations (3) and (4)
for non-breaking wave conditions must be assessed when compared to the 6-power rela-
tionship proposed by Equations (6) and (7) valid for structures in depth-limited breaking
wave conditions.
Gómez-Martín et al. [21] carried out 2D physical model tests to analyze the trunk
hydraulic stability of single- and double-layer Cubipod® armors in depth-limited regular
wave breaking and non-overtopping conditions with horizontal foreshore (m = 0) and
armor slope cotα = 1.5. Gómez-Martín et al. [21] proposed Equation (8) to design safe
Cubipod® armored breakwaters (cotα = 1.5) on gentle bottom slopes (0 ≤ m ≤ 2%), for
any deep-water wave climate, regardless of the wave height at the toe of the structure,
considering a design water depth (h) at a distance three times the water depth at the toe of
the structure, h = hs (1 + 3 m).
 
h
Dn > f or double-layer Cubipod(r) armors
7∆
  (8)
h ( r )
Dn > f or single-layer Cubipod armors
6.2∆

2.3. Hydraulic Stability of Overtopped Mound Breakwaters

As previously mentioned, most studies focus on the hydraulic stability of non-
overtopped mound breakwaters and only consider the damage to the front slope. However,
when overtopping rates become relevant, the hydraulic stability of the crest and rear side
of the structure must be considered. In this section, the literature related to the hydraulic
stability of overtopped mound breakwaters is reviewed.
The European project DELOS (Environmental design of low-crested coastal defense
structures) was one of the main projects analyzing the performance of low-crested struc-
tures. During this project, 2D and 3D physical tests were performed to analyze the hydraulic
stability of the head and trunk of low-crested mound breakwaters. However, most of the
existing studies on low-crested structures consider breakwaters with very high overtopping
with crest levels similar to the mean water level. Thus, their behavior is different from
overtopped mound breakwaters with crest freeboards similar to the design significant
wave height.
Van der Meer et al. [22] summarized the results published by [23] and classified low-
crested structures into three categories: (1) dynamically stable reef breakwaters, (2) statically
stable low-crested structures with the crest above the mean water level and (3) statically
stable submerged breakwaters. Regarding the second category, statically stable low-crested
structures, Van der Meer et al. [22] concluded that their front slope was between 20% and
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 6 of 20

30% more stable than the front slope of non-overtopped structures. These authors also
proposed applying Equation (9) as a reduction factor to estimate the required size of rock
armor calculated with formulas for non-overtopped breakwaters.

1
RF = r (9)
Rc s0p
1.25 − 4.8
Hm0 2π

where s0p = 2πHm0 /gTp 2 is the fictitious wave steepness. Equation (9) can be applied within
q
s0p
0 ≤ HRm0
c
2π ≤ 0.052.
Vidal et al. [6] tested rubble mound breakwaters with armor slope H/V = 3/2 within
the ranges −0.63 ≤ Rc /Hm0 ≤ 1.00 and −2.01 ≤ Fd = Rc /Dn50 ≤ 2.41. These authors
divided the model in four sections to analyze the hydraulic stability: (1) front slope,
(2) crest, (3) rear slope and (4) total section. Vidal et al. [6] observed that the stability of the
front slope decreased with increasing values of Fd while the stability of the crest increased
for higher values of Fd . In addition, the minimum stability for the rocks in the armored
crest was determined for a null crest freeboard. Burger [24] reached similar conclusions
when reanalyzing the data by [6,25].
Later, Vidal et al. [26] conducted new physical tests with emerged and submerged
rubble mound breakwaters with H/V = 1/2 and 1/1.15, and four crest freeboards within
−4 ≤ Fd ≤ 4. The authors proposed threshold values for the damage parameter S for IDa,
distinguishing between the three sections of the armor: S (IDa) = 1.0 for the front slope
and crest and S (IDa) = 0.5 for the rear slope. Vidal et al. [26] also derived a quadratic
relationship between Fd and the stability number for IDa, Ns50 = H50 /∆Dn50 , where H50 is
the average of the 50 highest waves of the incident wave train, given by

Ns50 = AFd 2 + BFd + C (10)

where A, B and C are empirical coefficients calibrated for the three sectors of the armor.
Van der Linde [27] performed the first tests on overtopped mound breakwaters with
precast concrete armor units. This author tested XBlock-armored mound breakwaters with
H/V = 4/3 within the range −0.8 ≤ Fd ≤ 0.8. Later, Muttray et al. [28] reanalyzed the data
provided by [27] and recommended values of Ns to design low-crested mound breakwaters
with XBlock on the armor layer.
Argente et al. [29] carried out physical model tests on overtopped mound breakwaters
(0.3 ≤ Rc /Hm0 ≤ 2.6) with armor slope H/V = 3/2 in depth-limited breaking conditions on
a bottom slope m = 2%. Three armor layers were considered: double-layer rock (rock-2L),
double-layer randomly-place cube (cube-2L), and a single-layer Cubipod® (Cubipod® -1L)
armors. No significant damage was observed for Cubipod® -1L. Argente et al. [29] proposed
a relationship between Se and Ns for rock-2L and cube-2L given by

Se 0.2 = C1 Ns + C2 (11)

where C1 and C2 are empirical coefficients calibrated for rock-2L and cube-2L armors, as
shown in Table 1, and Ns is calculated with Hm0 estimated at a distance of 3hs from the toe
of the model [4]. Note that the 5-power relationship between the design wave height and
the armor damage recommended by [8] for non-breaking wave conditions was assumed.

Table 1. Value of coefficients C1 and C2 for Equation (11) given by [29].

Armor Sector C1 C2
Rock-2L Front slope 0.633 −0.056
Cube-2L Front slope 0.137 0.621
Cube-2L Crest 0.240 0.362
Cube-2L Rear slope 0.255 0.113
 Armor Sector C1 C2
Rock-2L Front slope 0.633 −0.056
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 Cube-2L Front slope 0.137 7 of 20 0.621
Cube-2L Crest 0.240 0.362
Cube-2L Rear slope 0.255 0.113

Recently, the database

Recently,compiled by [29]
the database was extended
compiled by [7],
by [29] was who performed
extended by [7], whoaddi-
performed
tional physical tests m = 4%tests
tionalonphysical considering
on m = 4% theconsidering
same threethe armors
same(rock-2L, cube-2L
three armors and cube-2L
(rock-2L,
Cubipod® -1L) and similar®-1L)
Cubipod experimental
and similar ranges, 0.4 ≤ Rc /H
experimental m0 ≤0.4
ranges, 2.0≤and 1.5
Rc/H ≤2.0
m0 ≤ Rcand
/Dn 1.5≤ 4.7.
≤ Rc/Dn ≤ 4.7
Although no significant
hough no differences were
significant observed
differences in the
were quantitative
observed in thedata regardingdata
quantitative armor
regarding a
damage, Argentedamage,
[7] analyzed m = 2% and m = 4% separately. Using the extended database,
Argente [7] analyzed m = 2% and m = 4% separately. Using the extended
Argente [7] re-fitted
base,Equation (11).
Argente [7] re-fitted Equation (11).
It should be noted that inbe
It should Equation (11)inthe
noted that 5-power
Equation relationship
(11) the 5-power between the design
relationship between the d
wave height andwave
the armor
heightdamage
and theforarmor
non-overtopped
damage for and non-breakingand
non-overtopped wave conditions wave c
non-breaking
tions was assumed.
was assumed. However, both [4,9]However, both [4,9]relationship
found a 6-power found a 6-power
betterrelationship
to describe better
the to des
armor damage on therubble
armormound
damagebreakwaters
on rubble mound breakwaters
in depth-limited in depth-limited
breaking breaking wave c
wave conditions.
tions. Therefore,
Therefore, the exponent the exponent
of the power must be of the power
assessed musttobedetermine
in order assessed intheorder to determin
optimal
exponent when optimal
describingexponent when describing
the hydraulic stability of theovertopped
hydraulic stability
mound of overtoppedinmound b
breakwaters
waters in
depth-limited breaking depth-limited
wave conditions. breaking wave conditions.

3. Experimental3.Methodology
Experimental Methodology
Two-dimensionalTwo-dimensional
physical tests werephysical
performed by were
tests [7] in the wave flume
performed (30in×the
by [7] × 1.2 flume
1.2 wave m) (30 ×
of the Laboratory
1.2ofm)
Ports and
of the Coasts atof
Laboratory the Universitat
Ports and CoastsPolitècnica de ValènciaPolitècnica
at the Universitat (LPC-UPV).de València (
Two configurations
UPV). ofTwo
the configurations
wave flume were considered:
of the wave flume(1) werea continuous
considered: ramp with a ramp
(1) a continuous
bottom slope m = 4%, and (2) a 6.25 m-long m = 4% ramp followed by a 9.0
a bottom slope m = 4%, and (2) a 6.25 m-long m = 4% ramp followed by m-long m = 2%
a 9.0 m-lon
ramp. These bottom slopeThese
2% ramp. configurations are configurations
bottom slope depicted in Figure 1.
are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure Figure 1. Longitudinal

1. Longitudinal cross-sections
cross-sections of the of the configurations
configurations at theat the LPC-UPV
LPC-UPV wavewave flume.
flume.

Mound breakwaters Mound breakwaters

with armor slope withH/Varmor slope
= 3/2 andH/Vrock= toe
3/2 berms
and rock toetested.
were berms were te
Three
Three armor layers were armor layers were
considered: (1) considered:
double-layer(1)randomly
double-layer randomly
placed placed with
rock (rock-2L rock (rock-2L
Dn50 = 3.18 cm),D(2) = 3.18 cm), (2)randomly-placed
n50 double-layer double-layer randomly-placed
cube (cube-2L cubewith (cube-2L
Dn = 3.97with
cm) D n = 3.97 cm
and
(3) ®
single-layer ®
Cubipod ® (Cubipod®-1L with Dn = 3.79 cm). The initial packing dens
(3) single-layer Cubipod (Cubipod -1L with Dn = 3.79 cm). The initial packing density of
the tested armorsthe
wastested (1 − p) was
Φ =armors Φ =0.59
= 0.63, (1 −and
p) = 0.60
0.63,for
0.59 and 0.60
rock-2L, for rock-2L,
cube-2L cube-2L®and
and Cubipod - Cubip
1L, respectively.1L,
Torespectively.
guarantee the Totoe
guarantee the toe berm
berm hydraulic hydraulic
stability duringstability during the experim
the experiments,
tests carried outtests
on acarried
bottom out on a m
slope bottom
= 2% slope
were m = 2% wereusing
conducted conducted using a medium-sized
a medium-sized rock roc
toe berm (Dn50 =berm (Dn50
2.3 cm) = 2.3 tests
while cm) while tests conducted
conducted with m = 4% with m =performed
were 4% were performed with a larger
with a larger
rock toe berm (Dtoe
n50berm
= 3.9(D n50 =The
cm). 3.9 same
cm). The same
filter andfilter
core and core materials
materials were considered
were considered for the for the
armor
three armor layers; layers;
a filter a filter
layer withlayer
Dn = with
1.78Dcmn = 1.78
and cm andwith
a core a core
Dnwith Dn cm
= 0.68 = 0.68
werecm were p
placed under the armor. Figure 2 shows the tested cross-section whereas Table 2 providesprovides
under the armor. Figure 2 shows the tested cross-section whereas Table 2 a a
mary of the characteristics of the materials
summary of the characteristics of the materials used during the tests. used during the tests.
Runs of 1000 random waves were generated following a JONSWAP spectrum (γ = 3.3).
The AWACS wave absorption system was activated to avoid multireflections in the wave
flume. Neither low-frequency oscillations nor piling-up were significant during the tests.
The LPC-UPV wave flume prevents piling-up by allowing water to recirculate through a
double floor.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 8 of 20
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8

Figure 2. Cross-section
Figure 2. Cross-section of the
of the tested testedbreakwater
mound mound breakwater model. Dimensions
model. Dimensions in m. in m.

Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics ofCharacteristics of theduring
the materials used materials
the used during
physical the physical tests.
tests.
Material
M or M 50 (g) M or M50 (g)
ρ or ρr (g/cm3 )
ρ or ρDr (g/cm 3) Dn or Dn50 (c
Material n or Dn50 (cm)
Rock (armor) 86.77 2.68 3.18
Rock (armor) 86.77 2.68 3.18
Cube
Cube 141.51 141.51 2.27 2.27 3.97 3.97
Cubipod® Cubipod® 121.06 121.06 2.22 2.22 3.79 3.79
Rock (filter) Rock (filter)15.40 15.40 2.73 2.73 1.78 1.78
Rock (core) Rock (core) 0.68 0.68 2.72 2.72 0.68 0.68

Two water depths Runs(hof s ) 1000

at therandom waves
toe of the were generated
structure were tested following
for each a JONSWAP
model andspectrum
foreshore configuration (m = 2% and 4%). All tests except those corresponding tomultireflections
3.3). The AWACS wave absorption system was activated to avoid cube-2L in
wave flume. Neither low-frequency oscillations
with m = 2% were performed with hs = 20 cm and 25 cm. Tests with cube-2L on m = 2% nor piling-up were significant durin
were conductedtests.withThe hs =LPC-UPV
25 cm and wave
30 cm.flume Forprevents
each water piling-up
depth by at theallowing
toe (hswater
), Hm0to recirc
through
and the peak period (Tpa) double
at the wave floor.generation zone were calculated so as to maintain
approximately constant Twothe water wave depths (hs) at(sthe
steepness toe of /L
Hm0 the0pstructure
= 2πHm0were /(gTtested2 for each model and
0p = p )) through each
test series (s0p =shore
0.02configuration
and 0.05). For (m each
= 2% ands0p , 4%).
Hm0 All
at thetestswave
except those corresponding
generation zone (Hm0,g to) cube-2L
was augmentedmin=steps 2% were of 1 performed
cm from nowith damage hs = 20
to cm and 25of
initiation cm. Tests withofcube-2L
destruction the armor on m = 2%
conducted
layer or wave breaking with
at the wave hs = generation
25 cm and 30 cm.Table
zone. For each
3 shows water thedepth
rangeatofthe thetoe (hs), Hm0 and
main
peak period (T ) at the wave generation zone were
variables during the tests. Note that wave characteristics (Hm0 and Tp ) are provided at a
p calculated so as to maintain app
mately constant the wave steepness (s
distance of 3hs from the toe of the structure following recommendations by [4].
0p = H m0 /L 0p = 2πH m0 /(gT p 2)) through each test s

(s0p = 0.02 and 0.05). For each s0p, Hm0 at the wave generation zone (Hm0,g) was augme
in
Table 3. Structure andsteps
wave of characteristics
1 cm from noofdamage the physicalto initiation
tests. of destruction of the armor layer or w
breaking at the wave generation zone. Table 3 shows the range of the main variables
m Armor
ing the tests. Note B [m] that wave hs [m]
#Testscharacteristics R
(H [m]
c m0 and TH are[m]
p)m0 provided Tp [s]
at a distance o
from the toe of the structure 15 following 0.20 recommendations
0.15 by [4]. 1.0–2.2
0.06–0.12
Rock-2L 0.26
Eleven capacitive wave 15 gauges were installed
0.25 0.10 to measure
0.06–0.13 water surface elevatio
1.0–2.2
along the wave flume. 30 wave gauges
Five 0.25 (S1 0.11
to S5) 0.05–0.16
were placed 1.0–2.7
in the wave genera
2% cube-2L 0.27
zone following [30]; S1 to24S5 were0.30 0.06
used to separate 0.06–0.18and reflected
incident 1.0–2.2 waves in
30 0.20 0.12 0.06–0.15 1.0–2.7
wave
Cubipod generation
® -1L 0.24zone. Four wave gauges (S6 to S9) were installed close to the mod
30 0.25 0.07 0.06–0.17 1.0–2.7
distances from the model20toe 5hs, 0.20 4hs, 3hs and 0.15
2hs, respectively.
0.05–0.14
It1.0–2.4
should be noted
depth-induced0.26
rock-2L wave breaking 18 takes
0.25place in the
0.10 model zone,
0.06–0.13 so the existing method
1.0–2.2
separate incident and reflected 30 waves 0.20are not reliable.
0.16 Two extra wave
0.05–0.17 gauges were pl
1.1–2.4
4% in the middle 0.27
cube-2L of the breakwater crest
30 0.25 (S10) and 0.11behind the breakwater
0.06–0.18 1.0–2.7model (S11)
was used to analyze the overtopping 28 0.20layer thickness
0.12 0.06–0.17
[31] whereas S11 1.0–2.4
was used to d
Cubipod® -1L 0.24
possible phenomena of water 30 piling-up. 0.25 Overtopping0.07 0.06–0.18
discharges were 1.0–2.7 recorded usi
weighting system located behind the model [32].
Eleven capacitive Threewave cameras
gaugeswere werealso installed
installed to perpendicular
measure watertosurface front slope, crest all
elevation and rear sid
along the wavethe armor
flume. in order
Five wavetogaugesanalyze (S1thetoarmor
S5) were damage
placed usingin the Virtual Net method (see Fi
wave generation
zone following 3). Photographs
[30]; S1 to S5 were wereused
takentobefore
separate starting the tests
incident and and after each
reflected waves testinrun.
the
wave generation zone. Four wave gauges (S6 to S9) were installed close to the model at
distances from the model toe 5hs , 4hs , 3hs and 2hs , respectively. It should be noted that
depth-induced wave breaking takes place in the model zone, so the existing methods to
separate incident and reflected waves are not reliable. Two extra wave gauges were placed
in the middle of the breakwater crest (S10) and behind the breakwater model (S11); S10
 m Armor B [m]
#Tests hs [m] Rc [m] Hm0 [m] Tp
15 0.20 0.15 0.06–0.12 1.0–
Rock—2L 0.26
15 0.25 0.10 0.06–0.13 1.0–
30 0.25 0.11 0.05–0.16 1.0–
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 2% cube—2L 0.27 9 of 20
24 0.30 0.06 0.06–0.18 1.0–
30 0.20 0.12 0.06–0.15 1.0–
Cubipod®—1L 0.24
30 0.25 0.07 0.06–0.17 1.0–
was used to analyze the overtopping 20 0.20 0.15 0.05–0.14 1.0–
rock—2Llayer thickness
0.26 [31] whereas S11 was used to detect
18
possible phenomena of water piling-up. Overtopping discharges 0.25 recorded
were 0.10 using
0.06–0.13
a 1.0–
weighting system located behind the model [32]. 30 0.20 0.16 0.05–0.17 1.1–
4% cube—2L 0.27
Three cameras were also installed perpendicular to 30 front slope,
0.25crest and
0.11rear0.06–0.18
side 1.0–
of the armor in order to analyze the armor damage using 28 the Virtual
0.20 Net method (see
0.12 0.06–0.17 1.0–
Cubipod®—1L 0.24
Figure 3). Photographs were taken before starting the tests30
and after each test0.07
0.25 run. 0.06–0.18 1.0–

Figure 3.Figure 3. Location

Location of the cameras
of the cameras and experimental
and experimental set cube-armored
set up for up for cube-armored
model.model.

4. Data Analysis
4. Data Analysis
Inexperimental
In Section 3, the Section 3, theset
experimental set up and instrumentation
up and instrumentation are described.are described.
Here, data Here,
from the described experiments are analyzed; the incident wave characteristics
from the described experiments are analyzed; the incident wave characteristics in the model in
model zone and the equivalent dimensionless armor damage (S e) after each test ar
zone and the equivalent dimensionless armor damage (Se ) after each test are obtained
tained
using the Virtual Net using
method.the Virtual Net method.

4.1. Wave Analysis

4.1. Wave Analysis
As mentionedAs in mentioned in Section
Section 3, wave gauges3, wave
S1 to gauges
S5 wereS1placed
to S5 close
were toplaced close to the w
the wave
maker.
maker. The LASA-V The LASA-V
method method
[33] together [33]wave
with together with
gauges S1wave gauges
to S5 were S1 to S5
used were used to s
separate
rate incident
incident and reflected wavesand reflected
in the wave waves in thezone.
generation waveNote
generation zone. Note
that LASA-V that can
method LASA-V me
be applied to nonstationary and nonlinear irregular waves. However, it is not possible ittois not pos
can be applied to nonstationary and nonlinear irregular waves. However,
to separate
separate incident incident
and reflected andusing
waves reflected wavesinusing
methods methodswhen
the literature in the wave
literature when wave br
breaking
ing the
occurs. Therefore, occurs. Therefore,
SwanOne modelthe SwanOne
[34] model
was applied [34] was applied
to characterize waves to in
characterize
the model waves i
zone. The SwanOne model uses the input incident wave conditions to fit a JONSWAP
spectrum (γ = 3.3) in the wave generation zone. This spectrum is propagated along a given
bathymetry and the Composite Weibull distribution recommended by [35] is assumed to
characterize the wave height distribution in shallow foreshores. Since the SwanOne model
considers frequencies within a range typical for prototype scale (0.03–0.8 Hz), a reference
scale 1/30 was assumed in this study.
Following [4], the SwanOne model is validated here using tests without a struc-
ture. An efficient passive wave absorption system was installed at the end of the flume
(Kr = Hm0,r /Hm 0,i < 0.25) during the test without a structure. The measurements of these
test (total waves) were compared with results provided by the SwanOne model at both the
 JONSWAP spectrum (γ = 3.3) in the wave generation zone. This spectrum is propagate
along a given bathymetry and the Composite Weibull distribution recommended by [3
is assumed to characterize the wave height distribution in shallow foreshores. Since th
SwanOne model considers frequencies within a range typical for prototype scale (0.03–0
Hz), a reference scale 1/30 was assumed in this study.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 10 of 20
Following [4], the SwanOne model is validated here using tests without a structur
An efficient passive wave absorption system was installed at the end of the flume (Kr
Hm0,r/Hm0,i < 0.25) during the test without a structure. The measurements of these test (tot
waves) were compared with results provided by the SwanOne model at both the wav
wave generation zone (Figure 4a) and the model zone (Figure 4b). The comparisons at the
generation zone (Figure 4a) and the model zone (Figure 4b). The comparisons at the wav
wave generation generation
zone represent the capability of the SwanOne model to fit to the input
zone represent the capability of the SwanOne model to fit to the input incide
incident waves towaves
a JONSWAP spectrum.
to a JONSWAP spectrum.

Figure 4. The measured spectral wave height without a structure (total waves) compared to the incident spectral wave
Figure 4. The measured spectral wave height without a structure (total waves) compared to the
height estimated by the SwanOne model: (a) in the wave generation zone, and (b) in the model zone.
incident spectral wave height estimated by the SwanOne model: (a) in the wave generation zone,
and (b) in the model zone.
Two statistics were used in this study to quantify the goodness of fit: (1) the correl
tion coefficient (r), and (2) the coefficient of determination (R2). 0 ≤ r ≤ 1 assessed the co
Two statisticsrelation,
were used
and in
0 ≤this
R2 ≤study to quantify
1 estimates the goodness
the proportion of fit:explained
of variance (1) the correlation
by the model. Ther
coefficient (r), andfore,
(2) the coefficient of determination (R 2 ). 0 ≤ r ≤ 1 assessed the correlation,
the higher the r and the higher the R2, the better.
and 0 ≤ R2 ≤ 1 estimates the proportion of variance explained by the model. Therefore,
the higher the r and the higher the R2 , the better. ∑ (𝑜 − 𝑜̅ )(𝑒 − 𝑒̅ )
𝑟=
(1
N ∑ (𝑜 − 𝑜̅ ) ∑ (𝑒 − 𝑒̅ )
∑i=o1 (oi − o )(ei − e)
r= q (12)
N 2 N 2
∑i=o1 (oi − o ) ∑i=o1 (ei −1 e)∑ (𝑜 − 𝑒 )
𝑁
𝑅 =1− (1
12
1 No ∑ (𝑜 − 𝑜̅ )
No ∑i =1 ( oi − ei )𝑁
R2 = 1 − (13)
1 N 2
∑i=o1 (oi − o i)and ei are the observed and estimated value
where No is the number of observations;
and 𝑜̅ is the average observed N o value. Figure 4 shows a good performance of the SwanOn
model toofestimate
where No is the number the incident
observations; oi andsignificant
ei are thewave heightand
observed bothestimated
in the wave generation zon
values,
(R2 observed
and o is the average = 1.00) andvalue.
the model zone
Figure (R2 = 0.97).
4 shows a good performance of the SwanOne
model to estimate theDuring
incident thesignificant
design phasewave of height
a moundboth breakwater, thegeneration
in the wave design significant
zone incide
2 wave height has to
2
(R = 1.00) and the model zone (R = 0.97). be estimated at the location where the mound breakwater will be bui
thus, H m0 estimated by SwanOne is applied in this study to estimate the significant inc
During the design phase of a mound breakwater, the design significant incident wave
dent waveat
height has to be estimated height at the toe
the location of thethe
where structure.
mound breakwater will be built; thus,
Hm0 estimated by SwanOne is applied in this study to estimate the significant incident
wave height at the toe of the structure.

4.2. Armor Damage

In Section 2.1, quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze the hydraulic stabil-
ity of mound breakwaters are summarized. As previously mentioned, the Virtual Net
method by [11] is applied in this study in order to account for the HeP failure mode in the
quantitative analysis of armor damage. Pictures were taken perpendicular to the slope
using the cameras as shown in Figure 3 before starting the tests and after each test to
analyze the evolution of armor damage over time. The front slope, crest and rear slope
were divided into strips. The front slope and rear slope were divided in four strips of 3Dn
or 4Dn while one strip of 6Dn was considered on the crest. Only the central part of the
model was included in the analysis to avoid interference with the boundaries of the flume
or the instrumentation on the crest (see Figure 3). Si was calculated for each strip after each
test, and it was integrated to obtain Se . An example of the application of the Virtual Net
method on the rock-armored model is presented in Figure 5.
 alyze the evolution of armor damage over time. The front slope, crest and rear slope were
divided into strips. The front slope and rear slope were divided in four strips of 3Dn or
4Dn while one strip of 6Dn was considered on the crest. Only the central part of the model
was included in the analysis to avoid interference with the boundaries of the flume or the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 11 oftest,
instrumentation on the crest (see Figure 3). Si was calculated for each strip after each 20
and it was integrated to obtain Se. An example of the application of the Virtual Net method
on the rock-armored model is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Application of the Virtual Net method on the front slope of rock-armored model.
Figure 5. Application of the Virtual Net method on the front slope of rock-armored model.

Qualitativelevels
Qualitative levelsofofarmor
armordamage
damagetotothe therock-2L
rock-2Landandcube-2L
cube-2Lmodels
modelswere
wereestab-
estab-
lished according to [13,14]. Recommendations given by [15] were applied
lished according to [13,14]. Recommendations given by [15] were applied to determine to determine
thequalitative
the qualitativelevels
levels of
of armor
armor damage
damage to to the Cubipod-1L
theCubipod
®®
-1Lmodel.
model.IDa andand
IDa IDeIDe
were con-
were
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
considered in this study for front slope (F), crest (C) and rear slope (R). Figure 6 presentsan
sidered in this study for front slope (F), crest (C) and rear slope (R). Figure 6 presents
anexample
exampleofofthe
theexperimental
experimentalresults
resultsobtained
obtainedfor forthe
thecube-2L
cube-2Lmodel.
model.

Figure
Figure6.6.Armor
Armordamage
damagedata
datafor
forcube-2L
cube-2Lmodel
model and
and Initiation
Initiation of
of Damage level for
for front
front slope
slope
(IDa F), ),
(IDa F
crest (IDa
crest c) and
(IDa c ) rear
and slope
rear slope(IDa R). ).
(IDaR

5.5.Stability
StabilityFormulas
Formulasfor
forOvertopped
OvertoppedMound
Mound Breakwaters
Breakwaters
InInthis
thissection,
section,the
thearmor
armordamage
damage toto overtopped
overtopped mound
mound breakwaters is described,
described,
andhydraulic
and hydraulicstability
stabilityformulas
formulasare arederived
derived based
based onon the experimental results from
from the
the
previous section. Results for m = 2% and 4% were
previous section. Results for m = 2% and 4% were consideredconsidered as a single population, since
population, since
nonosignificant
significantdifferences
differencesininthe
thedistribution
distribution of
of See were
were observed
observed [7].
In the following sections, hydraulic stability formulas are fitted for the different sec-
tions of the armor (front slope, crest and rear slope) of each tested armor layer (rock-2L,
cube-2L and Cubipod®-1L). For further analysis, only values Se > 0.05 are considered. As
mentioned in Section 2.2, Herrera et al. [4] obtained a 6-power relationship between Hm0
and Se; this may indicate that the 5-power suggested for non-breaking wave conditions
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 12 of 20

In the following sections, hydraulic stability formulas are fitted for the different
sections of the armor (front slope, crest and rear slope) of each tested armor layer (rock-2L,
cube-2L and Cubipod® -1L). For further analysis, only values Se > 0.05 are considered. As
mentioned in Section 2.2, Herrera et al. [4] obtained a 6-power relationship between Hm0
and Se ; this may indicate that the 5-power suggested for non-breaking wave conditions may
not be the best relationship in depth-limited breaking wave conditions. Thus, Equation (14)
is assumed to describe armor damage, similar to [4].

Se = K1 Ns K2 (14)

where K1 and K2 are empirical coefficients to be calibrated, and Ns = Hm0 /∆Dn is the
stability number calculated with Hm0 given by the SwanOne model at a distance of 3hs
from the toe of the model, following the recommendations by [4,29].

5.1. Rock-Armored Model

The failure of the front slope of the rock-armored model was achieved before noticeable
overtopping discharges took place (Q = q/(gHm0 3 )0.5 < 4 × 10−4 , where q is the mean wave
overtopping discharge and g is the gravity acceleration), so the armor damage appeared
mainly on the front slope. Thus, only results for the front slope are used to calibrate
Equation (14) in this section; the best fit was obtained for K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 with R2 = 0.72.
Figure 7a shows the fit of Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 to the experimental data,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
as well as the IDa and IDe levels. Figure 7b compares the measured and estimated Se using
Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5; the 90% confidence interval (CI) is also given.

Figure 7. Performance of Equation (14)

Figure 7. Performance with K1 =(14)
of Equation 0.06with
andKK1 2== 0.06
5 to and
estimate
K2 = armor damage
5 to estimate of the
armor front slope
damage of theof the roc
armored model:
front slope of the rock-armored model: (a) Fitting to the measured data, IDa and IDe levels, Sand
(a) Fitting to the measured data, IDa and IDe levels, and (b) measured against estimated e.

(b) measured against estimated Se .

Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 is valid within the ranges 1.0 ≤ Hm0/ΔD
Equationand with≤ KR1c/ΔD
(14) 1.9 = 0.06 2.8. KBased
n ≤and 2 = 5 ison
valid within
this theN
fitting, ranges 1.0= ≤
s (IDa) 1.6Hand
m0 /∆D ≤ 2.7= 2.5. Th
Ns n(IDe)
and 1.9 ≤ Rc /∆D ≤
confidence
n 2.8. Based on this fitting, N (IDa) = 1.6 and N (IDe) = 2.5.
interval of Equation (14)s shown in Figure s7b was obtained assumingThe 90% aG
confidence interval of Equation
ian error (14) and
distribution shown it isingiven
Figureby7b was obtained assuming a Gaussian
error distribution and it is given by
%
𝑆 |q % = 𝑆 ± 1.64 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝜀) = 𝑆 ± 1.89
95%
where var(ε)Seis|5% Se ± 1.64
the=variance (ε) = Se ± 1.89
varerror.
of the (15)

where var(ε) is5.2.

theCube-Armored
variance of the error.
Model
The front slope of the cube-armored model was more stable than that of the
armored model, so higher overtopping discharges were reached during the test
9·10−3). Therefore, the armor damage to the front slope, crest and rear side are des
in this section.
Equation (14) was calibrated for the front slope, crest and rear side using the e
mental data in Section 3. The best fit of Equation (14) for the front slope was obtaine
K1 = 0.05 and K2 = 3 with a goodness-of-fit of R2 = 0.78. Figure 8a presents the fit of Eq
 Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 is valid within the ranges 1.0 ≤ Hm0/ΔDn ≤ 2
and 1.9 ≤ Rc/ΔDn ≤ 2.8. Based on this fitting, Ns (IDa) = 1.6 and Ns (IDe) = 2.5. The 90
confidence interval of Equation (14) shown in Figure 7b was obtained assuming a Gaus
ian error distribution and it is given by
%
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 𝑆| % = 𝑆 ± 1.64 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝜀) = 𝑆 ± 1.89 13 of 20 (1
where var(ε) is the variance of the error.

5.2. Cube-Armored
5.2. Cube-Armored Model Model
The front Theslopefront slope
of the of the cube-armored
cube-armored model was model
morewas more
stable stable
than that than
of thethat
rock-of the roc
armored model, so higher overtopping discharges were reached during the tests tests (Q
armored model, so higher overtopping discharges were reached during the
(Q < 9 × 10 −3 ).
9·10 −3). Therefore, the armor damage to the front slope, crest and
Therefore, the armor damage to the front slope, crest and rear side are describe
described in this section.
section.
Equation (14)Equation (14) was calibrated
was calibrated for the front for slope,
the front
crestslope,
and crest and using
rear side rear side
theusing
exper-the exper
mental
imental data data in3.Section
in Section 3. The
The best best
fit of fit of Equation
Equation (14) for(14)
thefor theslope
front front slope was obtained wi
was obtained
with K1 = K 1 = 0.05
0.05 andandK2 =K32 =with
3 with a goodness-of-fit
a goodness-of-fit R2R=2 =0.78.
of of 0.78.Figure
Figure8a8apresents
presentsthe
thefit
fitof
of Equatio
(14) with K11 ==0.05
Equation (14) 0.05and
andKK2 =2 3= to thethe
3 to experimental
experimental data together
data with
together thethe
with IDaIDalevel. Figu
level. Figure
8b 8b compares
compares thethe measuredSeSwith
measured e withthe
theestimations
estimationsprovided
provided by
by Equation (14) with K1
with K1 = 0.05 and K22 ==3,3,as aswell
wellasasthe
the90%90%confidence
confidenceinterval.
interval.

Figure 8. Performance
Figure of
8. Equation (14) with
Performance K1 = 0.05(14)
of Equation andwith
K2 = 3Kto
1 =estimate armor
0.05 and K2 = damage of thearmor
3 to estimate front slope of the
damage of cube-
armored model: the
(a) Fitting to the measured data and IDa level, and (b) measured against estimated Se.
front slope of the cube-armored model: (a) Fitting to the measured data and IDa level, and
(b) measured against estimated Se .

The empirical coefficients K1 = 0.05 and K2 = 3 for Equation (14) were calibrated
within the ranges 1.0 ≤ Hm0 /∆Dn ≤ 3.6 and 1.2 ≤ Rc /∆Dn ≤ 3.2. Based on this calibration,
Ns (IDa) = 2.5. IDe level was reached in just one test with Se = 3.7, which corresponds to
Ns (IDe) = 4.3 when applying Equation (14), but it is beyond of the experimental ranges
of the fitted formula. The 90% confidence interval of Equation (14) shown in Figure 8b is
calculated, assuming a Gaussian error distribution, as

Se |95%
5% = Se ± 0.46 (16)

As mentioned above, the crest and rear side of the cube-armored model were damaged
due to the significant overtopping discharges. Equation (14) was then fitted for the armored
crest; the best results were obtained with K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 with R2 = 0.62. In Figure 9a,
the performance of Equation (14) when using K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 to estimate the damage
to the armored crest is presented together with IDa level. Figure 9b compares the measured
Se with the estimations given by Equation (14) with K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5, as well as the
90% confidence interval.
The values of K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 for Equation (14) are valid within the ranges
1.2 ≤ Hm0 /∆Dn ≤ 2.7 and 1.1 ≤ Rc /∆Dn ≤ 3.6. Based on this formula, Ns (IDa) = 3.0.
Similar to the front slope, one test presented IDe level with Se = 3.4. If Equation (14)
with K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 is applied, Ns (IDe) = 3.7 is obtained. It should be noted that
it is beyond the experimental ranges of the fitted formula. Assuming a Gaussian error
distribution, the 90% confidence interval of Equation (14) shown in Figure 9b is obtained as

Se |95%
5% = Se ± 0.80 (17)
 As mentioned above, the crest and rear side of the cube-armored model were
aged due to the significant overtopping discharges. Equation (14) was then fitted f
armored crest; the best results were obtained with K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 with R2 = 0
Figure 9a, the performance of Equation (14) when using K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 to est
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952
the damage to the armored crest is presented together with IDa level.14Figure
of 20
9b com
the measured Se with the estimations given by Equation (14) with K1 = 0.005 and K
as well as the 90% confidence interval.

Figure 9. Performance of Equationof

Figure 9. Performance (14) with K1(14)
Equation = 0.005 and
with K1K=2 =0.005
5 to estimate
and K2 =armor damage armor
5 to estimate of the crest
damageof the
of cube-armore
the
model: (a) crest
Fitting to the measured data and IDa level, and (b) measured against estimated Se .
of the cube-armored model: (a) Fitting to the measured data and IDa level, and (b) measured
against estimated Se .
The values of K1 = 0.005 and K2 = 5 for Equation (14) are valid within the range
H
Regarding the rearn ≤side,
m0 /ΔD 2.7 and 1.1 ≤fitRfor
the best c/ΔD n ≤ 3.6. Based
Equation on obtained
(14) was this formula,
with N
Ks1 (IDa) −4 Similar
= 6 ×=103.0.
and K2 = 6 with front slope, one test of
a goodness-of-fit 2
presented
R = 0.65. IDeInlevel with
Figure Se =the
10a, 3.4.fit
If of
Equation
Equation(14)(14)
with
is K1 = 0.00
shown when using = 6 × 10N
K2 = 5 Kis1 applied, −s4 (IDe)
and K=23.7 = 6iswith
obtained. It should be noted
the experimental that it is with
data together beyond the e
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1
IDa level. Figure mental
10b ranges of the
compares thefitted formula.
measured Se Assuming a Gaussian
and the estimated Seerror
whendistribution,
applying the 90%
Equation (14) withfidence
K1 =interval − 4
6 × 10 of and
Equation
K2 = 6, (14)
as shown
well asin Figure
the 9b is obtained
90% confidence as
interval.
%
𝑆| % = 𝑆 ± 0.80
Regarding the rear side, the best fit for Equation (14) was obtained with K1 =
and K2 = 6 with a goodness-of-fit of R2 = 0.65. In Figure 10a, the fit of Equation (14) is s
when using K1 = 6·10−4 and K2 = 6 with the experimental data together with IDa level. F
10b compares the measured Se and the estimated Se when applying Equation (14) w
= 6·10−4 and K2 = 6, as well as the 90% confidence interval.

Figure 10. Performance of Equationof(14)

Figure 10. Performance with K1(14)
Equation = 6·10
with K1 = 6 × 10−4 and Karmor
−4 and K2 = 6 to estimate damage
2 = 6 to estimateto the reardamage
armor slope of the cube
armored model: (a) Fitting to the measured data and IDa level, and (b) measured against estimated
to the rear slope of the cube-armored model: (a) Fitting to the measured data and IDa level, and Se .
(b) measured against estimated Se .
K1 = 6·10−4 and K2 = 6 are applicable within the ranges 1.6 ≤ Hm0/ΔDn ≤ 3.6 and
R
K1 = 6 × 10 and− 4
/ΔD n ≤ 3.2.
K2If=the derived
6 are relationship
applicable withinisthe
applied,
rangesSe 1.6
(IDa)
≤ =H0.6 leadsn to
≤ N3.6
s (IDa) = 3.
c m0 /∆D
and 1.1 ≤ Rc /∆Ddamage
n ≤ 3.2.level IDe derived
If the was not relationship
achieved in any test. TheS90%
is applied, confidence
e (IDa) interval
= 0.6 leads to of Equ
Ns (IDa) = 3.2. (14)
The shown
damage inlevel
Figure 10b
IDe is determined
was not achievedassuming a Gaussian
in any test. The 90%error distribution as
confidence
interval of Equation (14) shown in Figure 10b is determined assuming a Gaussian error
𝑆 | %% = 𝑆 ± 0.36
distribution as
Se |95%
5% = Se ± 0.36 (18)
5.3. Cubipod®-Armored Model
The Cubipod®-1L armor had a higher hydraulic stability than did the rock-2
cube-2L armors. Therefore, high overtopping discharges were reached during the te
< 9·10−3), similar to the tests conducted with cube-2L. However, since no damage app
on the rear slope, only the armor damage to the front slope and crest is described i
section. It should be noted that very low levels of damage were reached during thes
(Se < 1), so it was not possible to calibrate Equation (14) properly. Figure 11 provid
®
 K1 = 6·10−4 and K2 = 6 are applicable within the ranges 1.6 ≤ Hm0/ΔDn ≤ 3.6 and 1.1 ≤
Rc/ΔDn ≤ 3.2. If the derived relationship is applied, Se (IDa) = 0.6 leads to Ns (IDa) = 3.2. The
damage level IDe was not achieved in any test. The 90% confidence interval of Equation
(14) shown in Figure 10b is determined assuming a Gaussian error distribution as
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 15 of 20
%
𝑆| % = 𝑆 ± 0.36 (18)

5.3. Cubipod®®-Armored Model

5.3. Cubipod -Armored Model
The
The Cubipod
Cubipod®-1L
®
-1Larmor
armorhad
hadaahigher
higherhydraulic
hydraulicstability
stabilitythan
thandiddid the
the rock-2L
rock-2L and and
cube-2L armors. Therefore, high overtopping discharges
cube-2L armors. Therefore, high overtopping discharges were reached duringwere reached during thethe
tests (Q
tests
<(Q
9·10 −3), similar to the tests conducted with cube-2L. However, since no damage appeared
− 3
< 9 × 10 ), similar to the tests conducted with cube-2L. However, since no damage
on the rearon
appeared slope, only
the rear the armor
slope, only thedamage
armor to the front
damage slope
to the and
front crestand
slope is described in this
crest is described
section. It should be noted that very low levels of damage were reached
in this section. It should be noted that very low levels of damage were reached during these during these tests
(S e < 1), so it was not possible to calibrate Equation (14) properly. Figure 11 provides the
tests (Se < 1), so it was not possible to calibrate Equation (14) properly. Figure 11 provides
data of
the data theofarmor damage
the armor to theto
damage front
the slope
front of the Cubipod
slope
®-1L model,
of the Cubipod ® -1L as well as
model, as the
wellIDa
as
level. S e (IDa) = 0.4 corresponds approximately to N s (IDa) = 3.5, obtained
the IDa level. Se (IDa) = 0.4 corresponds approximately to Ns (IDa) = 3.5, obtained as the as the average
value
average of the
valueobserved Ns (IDa).NThe
of the observed damage level IDe was not observed in any test. These
s (IDa). The damage level IDe was not observed in any test.
results are valid within the ranges
These results are valid within the ranges 2.0 ≤ H2.0
m0/ΔD
≤H n ≤ 3.9 and 1.5 ≤ Rc/ΔDn ≤ 2.6.
m0 /∆Dn ≤ 3.9 and 1.5 ≤ Rc /∆Dn ≤ 2.6.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

Figure
Figure11.
11.Armor
Armordamage
damageto
tothe
thefront
frontslope
slopeof
ofthe Cubipod®®-armored
theCubipod -armoredmodel
modeland
andIDa
IDalevel.
level.

With regard to the crest, the low levels of armor damage in the experimental data
With regard to the crest, the low levels of armor damage in the experimental data
(0.05<<SeS<e1.5)
(0.05 < 1.5)
did did not allow
not allow EquationEquation (14)
(14) to be to be calibrated
calibrated properly,
properly, as as was
was the case the case of
of the
the front
front slope.slope.
Se (IDa)Se =(IDa) = 0.7 corresponds
0.7 corresponds approximately
approximately to Ns (IDa)to Ns (IDa)
= 3.5; = 3.5Nwas
= 3.5;
Ns (IDa) s (IDa) = 3.5
was obtained
obtained as the as the average
average value ofvalue of the observed
the observed Ns (IDa).
Ns (IDa). The damageThe damage
level IDe waslevel
not IDe was
not reached
reached in anyin any
test. test. 12
Figure Figure 12 the
presents presents
data ofthe data
armor of armor
damage damage
to the crest of to
thethe crest of the
Cubi-
Cubipod
pod ® -1L model,
®-1L model, as well as as the
well aslevel.
IDa the IDa level.
These These
results results
are valid are valid
within within
the ranges 2.2 the
≤ ranges
H2.2 ≤H
m0/ΔD n≤ 3.9
m0 and
/∆D n ≤
1.5 ≤
3.9Rc /ΔD
and n ≤ ≤
2.6.
1.5 R c /∆D n ≤ 2.6.

Figure
Figure12.
12.Armor
Armordamage to the
damage to crest of theofCubipod
the crest
®-armored
the Cubipod model and
® -armored IDa and
model level.IDa level.

5.4. Influence of the Armor Unit and the Armor Sector

In the previous sections, the hydraulic stability of overtopped mound breakwaters
with rock-2L, cube-2L and Cubipod®-1L armors was described. Here, the armor damage
to the different armor layers and armor sections is compared. Table 4 summarizes the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 16 of 20

5.4. Influence of the Armor Unit and the Armor Sector

In the previous sections, the hydraulic stability of overtopped mound breakwaters
with rock-2L, cube-2L and Cubipod® -1L armors was described. Here, the armor damage to
the different armor layers and armor sections is compared. Table 4 summarizes the results
of the previous sections.

Table 4. Summary of the results of the analysis of the armor damage to overtopped mound breakwaters.

Front Slope Crest Rear Side

Armor Layer ∆Dn (cm)
K1 K2 Ns (IDa) K1 K2 Ns (IDa) K1 K2 Ns (IDa)
rock-2L 5.34 0.06 5 1.6 - - - - - -
cube-2L 5.04 0.05 3 2.5 0.005 5 3.0 6 × 10−4 6 3.2
Cubipod® -1L 4.62 - - 3.5 - - 3.5 - - -

First, the different results from the three tested armor layers are discussed. Although
similar ∆Dn were tested for the different armor units, significant differences can be observed
in their hydraulic stability, as shown in Table 4. It can be concluded that Cubipod® -1L was
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021,
much9, x FOR PEER
more REVIEW
stable than cube-2L and rock-2L. Figure 13 compares the armor damage data 17

and the fitted stability curves for the three tested armor layers.

Figure 13. Comparison

Figure Comparison of
of the
the damage
damage curves
curvesof
ofthe
thethree
threearmor
armorunits:
units:(a)
(a)front
frontslope,
slope,and
and(b)
(b)crest.
crest.

In Figure 13, theInformulas

Figure 13,derived in the previous
the formulas derivedsections are also compared;
in the previous formulas
sections are also compared
for cube-2L were muchfor steeper than observations for Cubipod ® -1L for both the front armor
mulas cube-2L were much steeper than observations for Cubipod®-1L for both
and crest. As [12] ® armors are much more ®stable than
frontobserved,
armor and single-layer Cubipod
crest. As [12] observed, single-layer Cubipod armors are much m
conventional double-layer cube ones.
stable than conventional double-layer cube ones.
In order to evaluate
In orderthetodifferences
evaluate theobserved in the
differences armor sections,
observed cube-2L
in the armor results
sections, cube-2L re
are further analyzed. Figure
are further 14 presents
analyzed. the14formulas
Figure presentsdeveloped
the formulasin this study for
developed the front
in this study for the
slope, crest andslope,
rear slope of cube-2L.
crest and rear slope of cube-2L.
In Figure 14, armor damage is seen to appear first on the front slope. As Hm0 increases,
armor damage starts on the crest and, later, on the rear slope. Therefore, higher Hm0 are
required to begin the erosive process of the armor on the crest and rear slope. However, the
damage curves are steeper for the crest and rear slope (higher power, K2 , in Equation (14));
the damage evolves faster on the crest and rear slope than on the front slope.
 In Figure 13, the formulas derived in the previous sections are also compared; for-
mulas for cube-2L were much steeper than observations for Cubipod®-1L for both the
front armor and crest. As [12] observed, single-layer Cubipod® armors are much more
stable than conventional double-layer cube ones.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 In order to evaluate the differences observed in the armor sections, cube-2L results
17 of 20
are further analyzed. Figure 14 presents the formulas developed in this study for the front
slope, crest and rear slope of cube-2L.

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Comparison
Comparison of
of the
the damage
damage curves
curves of
of the
the three
threearmor
armorsections
sectionsfor
forcube-2L.
cube-2L.

5.5. Comparison with

In Figure 14, Non-Overtopped
armor Structures
damage is seen to appear first on the front slope. As Hm0 increases,
armorAfter analyzing
damage startsthe
onexperimental
the crest and,results
later, of
onarmor damage
the rear slope.inTherefore,
this study,higher
a comparison
Hm0 are
between
requiredthe new formulas
to begin derived
the erosive here
process ofand
the formulas
armor onin the
the literature
crest and rearis performed. First,
slope. However,
Equations (5) and (6) given by [3,4], respectively, for non-overtopped rubble
the damage curves are steeper for the crest and rear slope (higher power, K2, in Equation mound
breakwaters in breaking
(14)); the damage evolvesconditions arecrest
faster on the compared
and reartoslope
Equation (14)the
than on with K1slope.
front = 0.06 and
K2 = 5 for the front slope of overtopped rubble mound breakwaters. Equation (5) given
by [3] can be rewritten for the data in this study as
  0.2
Hs 0.68 S
= 1.75 1 + √ 1.50.5 = 1.3S0.2 → S = 0.767Ns 5 (19)
∆Dn50 3.18 1000

Figure 15 compares Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 and Equations (5) and (6)
developed by [3,4], respectively. It should be noted that for rock armors, HeP failure mode
is not dominant, so S ≈ Se [4]. Note that different experimental set-ups were used in the
compared studies, as shown in Section 2.
In Figure 15, it is shown how the front slope of overtopped mound breakwaters
is much more stable than that of non-overtopped structures; a much gentler trend is
observed in the hydraulic stability curve of overtopped mound breakwaters. In overtopped
structures, as Hm0 increases, overtopping becomes more frequent and a relevant part of the
wave energy is dissipated by the overtopping phenomenon, as well as through the crest
and rear slope. Less energy is supported by the front slope, making it more stable than
structures with null overtopping.
Significant differences can be also observed between Equation (5) given by [3] and
Equation (6) developed by [4]. Higher levels of armor damage are predicted by [3] for
the same Ns , as previously observed in [4]. This may be due to the differences in the
measurement procedure; Van Gent et al. [3] used a surface profiler while [4] applied the
Virtual Net method. In addition, the formula by [3] was developed for a single sea state
whereas the formula by [4] considered cumulative damage in a succession of sea states as
done in the tests for the present study.
Finally, Equation (8) given by [21] for non-overtopped single-layer Cubipod® armors
in depth-limited breaking wave conditions is compared to the experimental data for
the single-layer Cubipod® model. A minimum nominal diameter Dn,min = 3.70 cm was
provided by Equation (8) for the worst case in this study (m = 4% and hs = 0.25 cm).
 breakwaters in breaking conditions are compared to Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 =
5 for the front slope of overtopped rubble mound breakwaters. Equation (5) given by [3]
can be rewritten for the data in this study as
.
𝐻 0.68 𝑆 . .
= 1.75 1 + 1.5 = 1.3𝑆 → 𝑆 = 0.767𝑁 18 of(19)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 ∆𝐷 3.18 √1000
20

Figure 15 compares Equation (14) with K1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 and Equations (5) and (6)
developed by [3,4], respectively. It should be noted that for rock armors, HeP failure mode
D min =
isn,not dominant, DnS=≈ 3.79
3.70 cm <so cmNote
Se [4]. agrees with
that the high
different hydraulic stability
experimental set-ups observed
were usedduring
in the
the tests, although Equation (8) was
compared studies, as shown in Section 2. developed on gentler bottom slopes (0 ≤ m ≤ 2%).

Figure15.
Figure 15.Comparison
Comparisonbetween
betweenEquation
Equation(14)
(14)with
withKK1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 and Equations (5) and (6)
1 = 0.06 and K2 = 5 and Equations (5) and (6)
proposed by [3,4], respectively.
proposed by [3,4], respectively.

In Figure 15, it is shown how the front slope of overtopped mound breakwaters is
6. Conclusions
much more stable than that of non-overtopped structures; a much gentler trend is ob-
The hydraulic stability of the armor layer of mound breakwaters has been the subject
served in the hydraulic stability curve of overtopped mound breakwaters. In overtopped
of much study over the years, since this is the main failure mode of this type of coastal
structures, as Hm0 increases, overtopping becomes more frequent and a relevant part of
structure. Most studies were conducted in non-overtopped and nonbreaking wave condi-
tions,wave
the energy
although is dissipated
overtopped mound by breakwaters
the overtopping phenomenon,
in depth-limited as wellwave
breaking as through
conditionsthe
crest and rear slope. Less energy is supported by the front slope,
are common and increasingly relevant in the current context of climate change and sea making it more stable
than rise.
level structures with null overtopping.
Significant
In this study, differences
2D physical cantests
be also observed
reported in [7]between Equation
are examined (5) given
in order by [3] and
to describe the
Equation (6) developed by [4]. Higher levels of armor damage
armor damage to overtopped mound breakwaters in breaking wave conditions with are predicted by [3] armor
for the
same H/V
slope Ns, as =previously
3/2 and threeobserved in [4].armors:
different This may be due to the
double-layer rockdifferences
(rock-2L), indouble-layer
the measure-
ment procedure; Van Gent et al. [3] used a surface
randomly-place cube (cube-2L) and single-layer Cubipod (Cubipod -1L). profiler
® while [4]
® applied the Virtual
Net method.
Hydraulic stability formulas were developed assessing the exponent of thewhereas
In addition, the formula by [3] was developed for a single sea state power
the formula between
relationship by [4] considered
the designcumulative
wave height damage
and theinarmor
a succession
damage,offollowing
sea statesrecommen-
as done in
the testsbyfor
dations the present
[4,9]. study. (14) was fitted for each armor section and each armor unit
Thus, Equation
Finally, Equation (8)
obtaining coefficients in Table given 4; by
Ns [21] for non-overtopped
for Initiation of Damage single-layer
(IDa) level isCubipod ® armors
also presented.
in depth-limited
Cubipod® -1Lbreaking
models werewavemuch conditions is compared
more stable to the
than those experimental
built with rock-2L data
andfor the
cube-
single-layer
2L, similar ∆Dmodel.
althoughCubipod ®
n wereA minimum
tested. Mound nominal diameter
breakwater Dn,minwith
models = 3.70cube-2L
cm waswere provided
also
by Equation
more (8) for
stable than theconsidering
those worst case in this study
rock-2L armors.(m =The
4% front s = 0.25
and hslope ofcm). Dn,min = 3.70
overtopped cm <
mound
breakwaters was much more stable than that of non-overtopped mound breakwaters, since
part of the wave energy was dissipated through the crest and rear slope.
In addition, it is worth noting that armor damage started on the front slope for low
values of Hm0 . As Hm0 was increased, damage reached the crest and, later, the rear slope.
However, once the erosive process started, damage evolved faster on the crest and rear
slope. Therefore, as Hm0 increases for the same Rc , more wave energy is dissipated through
the armored crest and rear slope, making them a critical part on the armor design.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.M.-N.; methodology, P.M.-N. and G.A.; formal analy-
sis, P.M.-N. and G.A.; investigation, P.M.-N., G.A., M.E.G.-M. and J.R.M.; writing—original draft
preparation, P.M.-N.; writing—review and editing, G.A., M.E.G.-M. and J.R.M.; funding acquisition,
M.E.G.-M. and J.R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 19 of 20

Funding: The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Agencia Estatal de Investigación
and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) under grant RTI2018-101073-B-I00.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Agencia Estatal de
Investigación and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) under grant RTI2018-101073-B-I00.
The authors thank Debra Westall for revising the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Hudson, R.Y. Laboratory Investigation of Rubble-Mound Breakwaters. J. Waterw. Harb. Div. 1959, 85, 93–121. [CrossRef]
2. Van der Meer, J.W. Rock Slopes and Gravel Beaches under Wave Attack. Ph.D. Thesis, Thecnical University of Delft, Delft,
The Netherlands, 1988.
3. Van Gent, M.R.A.; Smale, A.J.; Kuiper, C. Stability of Rock Slopes with Shallow Foreshores. In Proceedings of the Coastal
Structures 2003, Portland, OR, USA, 26–30 August 2003; pp. 100–112.
4. Herrera, M.P.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Hydraulic stability of rock armors in breaking wave conditions. Coast. Eng.
2017, 127, 55–67. [CrossRef]
5. Mares-Nasarre, P.; Molines, J.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Explicit Neural Network-derived formula for overtopping flow
on mound breakwaters in depth-limited breaking wave conditions. Coast. Eng. 2021, 164, 103810. [CrossRef]
6. Vidal, C.; Losada, M.A.; Medina, R.; Mansard, E.P.D.; Gomez-Pina, G. A Universal Analysis for the Stability of Both Low-
Crested and Submerged Breakwaters. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Venice, Italy,
4–9 October 1993; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 1679–1692.
7. Argente, G. Estudio de la Estabilidad Hidráulica de Diques en Talud Rebasables Protegidos Con Mantos de Escollera, Cubos y
Cubípodos. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain, 2019. (In Spanish)
8. Medina, J.R.; Hudspeth, R.T.; Fassardi, C. Breakwater Armor Damage due to Wave Groups. J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng.
1994, 120, 179–198. [CrossRef]
9. Etemad-Shahidi, A.; Bali, M.; Van Gent, M.R.A. On the stability of rock armored rubble mound structures. Coast. Eng. 2020, 158,
103655. [CrossRef]
10. Vidal, C.; Medina, R.; Lomónaco, P. Wave height parameter for damage description of rubble-mound breakwaters. Coast. Eng.
2006, 53, 711–722. [CrossRef]
11. Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Damage progression on cube armored breakwaters. In Proceedings of the 30th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Diego, CA, USA, 3–8 September 2006; World Scientific Publishing Company: Singapore,
2006; pp. 5229–5240.
12. Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Heterogeneous Packing and Hydraulic Stability of Cube and Cubipod Armor Units. J. Waterw.
Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2014, 140, 100–108. [CrossRef]
13. Losada, M.A.; Desire, J.M.; Alejo, L.M. Stability of Blocks as Breakwater Armor Units. J. Struct. Eng. 1986, 112, 2392–2401. [CrossRef]
14. Vidal, C.; Losada, M.A.; Medina, R. Stability of Mound Breakwater’s Head and Trunk. J. Waterw. Port Coastal Ocean Eng. 1991,
117, 570–587. [CrossRef]
15. Gómez-Martín, M.E. Análisis de la Evolución de Averías en el Manto Principal de Diques en talud Formado por Escolleras,
Cubos y Cubípodos. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain, 2015. (In Spanish)
16. USACE Shore Protection Manual; U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station: Vicksburg, MA, USA, 1975.
17. USACE Shore Protection Manual; U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station: Vicksburg, MA, USA, 1984.
18. Thompson, D.M.; Shuttler, R.M. Riprap Design for Wind Wave Attack. A Laboratory Study in Random Waves; Report EX 707; Hydraulic
Research: Wallingford, UK, 1975.
19. Smith, G.; Wallast, I.; Van Gent, M.R.A. Rock slope stability with shallow foreshores. In Proceedings of the 28th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Cardiff, UK, 7–12 July 2002; World Scientific Publishing Company: Singapore, 2003;
pp. 1524–1536.
20. Prevot, G.; Boucher, O.; Luck, M.; Benoit, M. Stability of rubble mound breakwaters in shallow water and surf zone: An
experimental study. Coast. Eng. 2012, 1, 85. [CrossRef]
21. Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Herrera, M.P.; Gonzalez-Escriva, J.; Medina, J.R. Cubipod® Armor Design in Depth-Limited Regular
Wave-Breaking Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 150. [CrossRef]
22. Van der Meer, J.W.; Daemen, I.F.R. Stability and Wave Transmission at Low-Crested Rubble-Mound Structures. J. Waterw. Port
Coast. Ocean Eng. 1994, 120, 1–19. [CrossRef]
23. Van der Meer, J.W.; Pilarczyk, K.W. Stability of Low-Crested and Reef Breakwaters. In Proceedings of the 22nd International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, 2–6 July 1990; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY,
USA, 1991; pp. 1375–1388.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952 20 of 20

24. Burger, G. Stability of Low-Crested Breakwaters; Final Proceedings 1995; EU research Project Rubble Mound Breakwaters Failure
Modes, MAST 2 Contrast MAS2-CT92-0042; Delft Hydraulics Report H1878/H2415. 2006. Available online: http://www.
vandermeerconsulting.nl/downloads/stability_e/1996_vandermeer_tutuarima.pdf (accessed on 31 August 2021).
25. Van der Meer, J.W. Stability of cubes, tetrapods and accropode. In Design of Breakwaters; Thomas Telford Publishing: London, UK,
1988; pp. 71–80.
26. Vidal, C.; López, F.; Losada Rodríguez, Í. Stability analysis of low crested and submerged rubble mound breakwaters: Relation-
ship between flow characteristics and measured damage and stability formulae for low crested and submerged breakwaters.
In Proceedings of the Proc. Coastal Structures 2007, Venice, Italy, 2–4 July 2007; World Scientific Publishing Company: Singapore,
2009; pp. 939–950.
27. Van der Linde, J.P. Stability of Single Layer Armour Units on Low-Crested Structures. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Nertherlands, 2010.
28. Muttray, M.; ten Oever, E.; Reedijk, B. Stability of Low Crested and Submerged Breakwaters with Single Layer Armouring.
J. Shipp. Ocean Eng. 2012, 2, 140–152.
29. Argente, G.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Hydraulic stability of the armor layer of overtopped breakwaters. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
2018, 6, 143. [CrossRef]
30. Mansard, E.P.D.; Funke, E.R. The Measurement of Incident and Reflected Spectra Using a Least squares Method. In Proceedings
of the 17th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Sydney, Australia, 23–28 March 1980; ASCE: Reston, VA, USA, 1980;
pp. 154–172.
31. Mares-Nasarre, P.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Influence of mild bottom slopes on the overtopping flow over mound
breakwaters under depth-limited breaking wave conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 3. [CrossRef]
32. Mares-Nasarre, P.; Molines, J.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Individual wave overtopping volumes on mound breakwaters
in breaking wave conditions and gentle sea bottoms. Coast. Eng. 2020, 159, 103703. [CrossRef]
33. Figueres, M.; Medina, J.R. Estimating incident and reflected waves using a fully nonlinear wave model. In Proceedings of the
29th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Lisboa, Portugal, 19–24 September 2004; pp. 594–603.
34. Verhagen, H.J.; van Vledder, G.; Arab, S.E. A practical method for design of coastal structures in shallow water. In Proceedings of
the 31st International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 31 August–5 September 2008; World Scientific
Publishing Company: Singapore, 2008; pp. 2912–2922.
35. Battjes, J.A.; Groenendijk, H.W. Wave height distributions on shallow foreshores. Coast. Eng. 2000, 40, 161–182. [CrossRef]