E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress

28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF A RUBBLE MOUND WITH ONE LAYER CUBIC BLOCKS USING
VIDEO IMAGE ANALYSIS

FRANCISCO TAVEIRA-PINTO(1), LILIANA ALMEIDA(2) & LUCÍLIA LUÍS(3)

(1)
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal,
fpinto@fe.up.pt
(2)
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal,
liliana_almeida9@hotmail.com
(3)
Consulmar – Projetistas e Consultores, Lda, Av. António Augusto de Aguiar, 19, 2E, 1050-013 Lisboa, Portugal,
lucilia.luis@consulmar.pt

ABSTRACT
The armour layer of traditional rubble mound breakwaters is in general designed and built with two layers of blocks.
However, in recent projects, one single layer of special blocks has been proposed and used (e.g. Accropode). The main
reason for this is the cost reduction due to the decrease in the number of blocks needed.

The main objective of this work is to analyze the evaluation of the stability of models of cubic blocks rubble mounds in a
single armour layer structure, and to take this into account in future developments. The physical tests performed in the
Hydraulics Laboratory of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto were also planned to analyze the velocity
fields near the breakwater through image processing techniques.

With this experimental setup, it was possible to study, not only the general behavior of the armour layer, but also the
influence of the blocks’ density, the characteristics of the filter layer underneath the cubic blocks, the wave steepness and
the depth at the breakwater’s toe.
This study tries to explain the origin and evolution of damage on the exposed layer of the structure. The interpretation of
the effects on the physical model was supported by the outcome from the processed images, namely through the velocity
fields, the dynamic areas and the envelope of the flow near the breakwater. At the same time, information regarding wave
reflection on the structure was also obtained. The performance of the cubic blocks in a single armour layer structure was
satisfactory, proving that this can be an alternative to the traditional solutions, with economic benefits..

Keywords: Rubble mound breakwater; cubic blocks; single layer; Video image analysis.

1. INTRODUCTION
Breakwaters are coastal or harbour protection structures that present resistance limits as any other structure. They are not
designed to resist without damage to every action along their life cycle. A breakwater that would resist to all those actions
without any damage would have unaffordable costs and dimensions. The costs reduction regarding the traditional scheme
of double-layered armour layer has been the reason of the interest in the study of single armour layer rubble mound
breakwaters. The economic and technical advantages of the protection blocks have contributed for the common use of
this sort of armour layers. The referred cost reduction can be achieved through the use of simpler blocks such as cubes.
Thus, this paper aims to study the general behaviour of armour layers with cubes based on performed tests, namely in
what concerns the influence of the density of the blocks placement, the filter material dimension, the wave steepness and
the water depth near the structure. The goal of this work is to evaluate the behaviour of the breakwater and, mainly, its
armour layer performance.
According to previous studies the best behaviour appears to occur from the combination of the individual weight of the
block with the contact forces between adjacent faces. The exposure to the wave attack due to the regularity of the
exposed armour slope has the disadvantage of increasing the intensity of overtopping and wave transmission. This is
something that needs to be optimized.
Van Gent and Spaan (1998) showed that weight ratios of the underlayer 10 to 20 times less than the weight of the armour
layer blocks, lead to a better stability of blocks and higher values result in a very irregular surface, while lower values lead
to erosion of the underlayer material.

©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1 1

2943
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

The placement density that proved to be more stable is between 25% and 30%. Lower densities of placement (40%) give
rise to unacceptable settlements. Densities of the order of 30% lead to the appearance of voids in the crown area of the
slope, but not leading to breakage. It was also found that the water depth at the toe of the structure has a great influence
on the stability of the blocks, especially for limited breaking wave height. For these conditions the mechanism of rupture is
also more immediate when compared with the characteristic progressive mechanism of rupture of structures located at
greater depths (Van Gent and Spaan, 1998).
d'Angremond et al. (1999), Van Gent et al. (1999, 2001), Van Gent (2003), Van Buchem (2009), Wolters et al. (2010) and
Almeida (2013) conducted studies with different physical models that have proven some of these findings. New
technologies for analysis of data tests on physical model (velocities) were also used, Almeida (2013).
2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND MEASURING EQUIPMENT
The experimental work took place at the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Hydraulics, Water Resources and Environmental
Division, of the Civil Engineering Department of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto. The wave tank is 28
m long, 12 m wide and 1.2 m deep. The wave generating system has 16 individual piston type modules, model HR
Wallingford, allowing the generation of regular and irregular waves. The physical model was built in a channel with about
75 cm wide, Figure 1.

Figure 1. Plant and longitudinal profile of the channel with the location of the model and the used probes.

The breakwater model was built according to the geometric scale of 1:30, keeping in mind the dimensions of the wave
tank and the limitations of the wave generator equipment. Figure 2 presents the cross section of the model. The model’s
foundation was built, Figure 2, with a height of 0.318 m at the toe of the structure, extending over 9:55 m long with a slope
of 1.30 and ending at 1.80 m of the wavemakers. They were made with gravel with dimensions between 0.010 m and
0.020 m. The breakwater armour layers were built with a slope of 3(H):2(V) and the tested water depth varied between
0.6m and 0.8m.
For controlling the test conditions and measurement of data, two kinds of equipment were used, hydrodynamic probes and
video cameras.

Figure 2. Model cross section and general view at the scale 1:30.

To control the wave conditions, six hydrodynamic probes were placed in front of the structure to register the incident
waves and to determine the reflection coefficients (not analysed in this paper). The probes were placed halfway between
the wavemaker and the structure, near the structure and at its toe and in the middle of the wave tank to measure wave
conditions in the absence of the structure. GigE ethernet camera (UI 5220 µeye – 0.8 Mpx Megapixels) capable of
recording up to 90 frames per second (fps) was used to analyse the flow during the tests and to record the particle
movement for the application of PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry). In the traditional PIV (Particle Image Velocimetry) and
PTV (Particle Tracking Velocimetry) systems a light source was used for illuminating the interest area. In these tests a
different approach using conventional halogen spotlights, cheaper and with fewer requirements was tested.

22944 ©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1

 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

3. TEST PROGRAM
3
The armour layer was materialized with 0,036m cubes of density 2433 kg/m . The density (n) of placement was
considered according with Table 1. Sub-layer weight was considered proportional to the armour layer weight according to
Table 1, with Dn50=0.019m; 0.015 and 0.010m and relations of D n85/Dn15=1.77; 1.86 and 2.1, respectively. Core
materialised with material of Dn50=0,01m.

A geometric scale of 1:30 was considered. The distance from the wavemaker to the structure was equal to 20m. Water
depth near the wavemaker h0= 0,6m, h=0,8m and the water depth near the structure toe, h toe=0.3m; 0.43 and 0.5m.
Jonswap Spectra was considered. Probes were located halfway between the wavemaker and the structure, near the
structure and at the structure toe for the tests in the case of the absence of the structure. Test results are presented based
on the wave heights measured at the toe of the structure but obtained in its absence.

The wave heights were gradually increased until damage occurred. The periods were altered in order to keep the
steepness as indicated in Table 1 for test conditions of 1000 waves’ duration. If no damage was registered, the wave
height was increased and 1000 more were applied and so on. When damage starts occurring after each series of 1000
waves the test proceeded until 3000 waves were reached.

The tests’ goals were to verify the influence of: the density of the placement of the blocks; the dimension of the filter/sub-
layer; the wave steepness; the depth near the structure toe and the height of the slope crest. Nevertheless, according to
the initial tests program, not all tests were performed due to the lack of time and facilities restrictions. The tests conditions
are presented in Table 1 and 2.

According to the tests of Van Gent (1998) considered as benchmark of these ones, the densities of placement to be used
should be of n=0.25; 0.3 and 0.4. In the construction of the model’s layer, for a porosity of 0.4 there were some difficulties
in placing the cubes with the filter of 0.019 m. So, and due to the limited time, all the tests of all the series for a poros ity of
n=0.4 and filter with Dn=0.019 m were not performed. The fact that there is a certain difficulty with the cubes placement led
to believe that the armour layer for these test conditions would not be stable. Initially three different filters with weights
proportional to the armour layer weight of 1/10-1/5; 1/20-1/10 and 1/50 with Dn50=0.019m; 0.015m e 0.010m and relations
of Dn85/Dn15=1.77; 1.86 and 2.1, respectively were used.

Table 1. Performed tests program based on Van Gent (1998).

Dimensionless
Water
Porosity Steepness Crest
Series Dfilter Depth
(n) (som) Freeboard
(htoe) (m)
(Rc /D)
D 0,25 1/20 – 1/10 0,05 0,30 5,2
E 0,3 1/20 – 1/10 0,05 0,30 5,2
F 0,25 1/50 0,05 0,30 5,2
G 0,3 1/50 0,05 0,30 5,2
J 0,25 1/20 – 1/10 0,05 0,50 5,2
K 0,3 1/20 – 1/10 0,03; 0,05; 0,06 0,50 5,2

Comparing to the benchmark case it was not possible to find materials with the exact desired characteristics. Thus,
aggregates with Dn50=0.020m; 0.014m and 0.010m and with relations of D n85/Dn15=1.39; 1.66 and 1.59 (table 3) were
used. The core was materialized with the same material as the filter, which means, with D n50=0.010m.

Table 2. Characteristics of the materials used in the filters’ model.

Filter 1/10 – 1/5 1/20 – 1/10 1/50

Rip-Rap (mm) 16-22 5-16 Gravel 6-14

Dn50 (m) 0,0198 0,0136 0,0100
Dn85/ Dn15 1,3 1,66 1,59
Dn15 (m) 0,0160 0,0096 0,0079
Dn85 (m) 0,0223 0,0159 0,0126

During the test series, the wave period and height were considered keeping constant the wave steepness (s om=0.03; 0.05
e 0.06). The wave characteristics of the model were defined according to the Froude’s similarity. Each series of tests was
made, as mentioned before, for growing wave heights until damage occurs.

©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1 3

2945
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

4. RESULTS ANALYSIS
4.1 Evaluation Criteria
In an armour layer two types of damage may occur: movement of one or more blocks or damage of the layer. The
damaged blocks may lose their function due to the reduced gravitational force and the possible effect of blocking or
interlocking. The blocks that move with the impact of the waves can serve as projectiles and damage the neighbouring
ones.

According to Burcharth (1993), the displacement / movement of the blocks can be divided into [Consultants, 2010]: no
movement; balance (accidental movement; regular motion, continuous motion); displacement of the single-layer blocks
from the initial position between 0.5D and D; displacements greater than D being the block considered as removed from
the layer; sliding of several blocks with settlement of all or just a part of the armour layer.

In these tests the following definitions were used to characterize the damage: balance as continuous movement of the
blocks of the armour layer; beginning of damage, as displacement of a block of the armour layer (one unit removed);
damage with displacement of more than 5 blocks of the armour layer.

The displacement of a block is characterized as the beginning of damage. Around the space left by the displaced blocks
settlements occur and no further damage happens at these sites. However these settlements lead to a rupture in the
armour layer in the transition of the slope to the crown.

There are two ways to present the number of moved blocks, through the damage numbers N d and Nod. Nd represents the
number of units deployed as a percentage of the total number of units within a reference area. Van der Meer (1993) used
a different definition of damage, Nod, as the number of units displaced out of the armour layer over a range with a width
equal to the nominal diameter, independently of the length of the movements.

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑠 [1]

𝑁od =
𝐴𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ/𝐷n

It should be noted that the number of units displaced outside the layer was the criterion used in this study. CIRIA C683
(2006), as Van der Meer (1993), defines the damage number, Nod, as the number of units displaced within a band width
equal to the nominal diameter, without specifying the magnitude of the displacement of the block. Thus, it becomes difficult
to understand when a block is considered as removed. However, there are other references, Burcharth (1993), CEM
(2006), amongst others, that indicate that a block is considered removed when it moves from its initial position to a
specified minimum distance, for example, Dn or h, where h represents the length (height) of the unit. Thus, and given the
difficulties in analysing the displacement of the blocks, since there is no special equipment able to detect and count the
displacements, it was considered that a block was removed if it is visibly extracted out the slope. In the present work,
those blocks will be represented by the damage number related to the removed blocks "N or", let’s say only large
movements,

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 [2]

𝑁or =
𝐴𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ/𝐷n

On the other hand, all the relative displacements between blocks within the armour layer model were regarded as blocks
that somehow have undergone movement/displacement; however, they were not removed from the armour layer.

So they will be represented by the number of damage of displaced blocks "Nod" [Eq. 1]. The width of the wave channel is
used as the width of the armour layer. The damage after each test was determined through photographs from a fixed
position.
4.2 Armour layer performance
The performance analysis of the armour layer was made based on the displacement of the blocks on the slope. Note that
the tests were carried out to simulate a storm, which means that the damage within the same series of tests is cumulative.
The results are shown through damage curves. In each graph is shown in which test the damaged started (at least one
block is removed from the armour layer) and disruption of the structure was observed (at least five blocks are removed
from the armour layer).
Figure 3 presents the damage curves for the analysis of the influence of the filter material in the breakwater slope.

42946 ©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1

 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Figure 3. Filter material influence (som=0.05, n=0.3, Rc/D=5.2, hst, toe=0.3 m).

The present work analysed through the use of photographs how the damage number varied throughout the tests, till
“complete rupture / destruction" of the breakwater was observed. For example, Figure 4 show the evolution of the damage
of one of the series D test conditions, in which the "complete rupture / destruction" of the breakwater was visualized.

Figure 4. Images of the observed damages (D series n=0.3; filter 1/50; s om = 0.05; hstructure toe=0.3), to Hs=4,5m, left, and Hs=6m, right.

The fact that the rupture/destruction of the armour layer occurred next to the side window, may be associated with its
characteristics, since the roughness of the glass is practically null, which together with the drag forces, vertical impulses
and negative pressures on the slope generated by the reflux and the spreading lead to greater instability of the blocks and
therefore larger displacements because there is no friction with adjacent blocks.
4.2.1 Displaced blocks
In general, the displacement of blocks was observed for each series of tests for significant wave heights equal or higher
than 4.5m. However there were also test series in which the beginning of the displacements occurred for wave heights
greater than or equal to 3 m and 5.5 m.

Most blocks displacements were observed for the upper rows of the slope, being the first 5 the most affected.
Furthermore, waves with a steepness of 0.05 exhibit more displacements of blocks in the following 5 rows mentioned
above, than waves with steepnesses of 0.03 and 0:06.

As the wave height increases, the number of displaced blocks increases as well. Upon displacement of several blocks of
the armour layer, the blocks that are in the upper rows of the slope are moving continuously and are partially lifted with the
breaking waves with maximum height or near it.

Due to the different speeds of water flow in the case when the breakwater slope is "submerged", the number of displaced
blocks in the slope is quite different from those observed for a "non-submerged" breakwater slope. This difference is due,
in part, to the fact that the armour layer below the mean water level becomes more compact than above it.

The fact that the wave energy is concentrated around the water level, leads to a greater number of displacements of
blocks in the slope area (active zone), in the case of non-submerged breakwater slope or at crest zones, when compared
to the submerged situation (figure 5).
4.2.2 Removed blocks
The blocks removal from the armour layer only occurs in some test series, starting for 6m wave heights and wave
steepness of 0.05 (test 004 of series B, D and F). For the remaining wave steepnesses no armour layer blocks were
removed. Partial and complete rupture of the breakwater were obtained for test series D and F. Note that while the rupture
in the D series occurred in the slope of the breakwater, in the F series it happened in the crest.

©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1 5

2947
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Figure 5. Blocks displacement in a “non-submerged” breakwater slope (left) and in a submerged one (right).

This happens for different water depths. Most of the removed blocks were positioned in areas of greater wave attack. After
the first blocks were removed, the adjacent ones begin to move easier and eventually ended up removed as well. At series
F, the displacement of the blocks of the slope was correlated with the movement of the crest blocks. If some of the blocks
were removed from the crest, the blocks of the top row of the slope were more easily removed and vice versa.

The hydraulic stability of the blocks positioned on the breakwater slope decreased due to settlements in combination with
wave action. During the period when the blocks are in continuous movement, the incidence of a wave in combination with
an unfavourable positioning of the block leads to its removal from the armour layer. The same happens in the case of
displacement of the crest blocks, in which the action of the impact and drag forces on misplaced blocks leads as well to its
removal.

Generally when the wave breaks at the slope of the structure, the mass of water that falls on the slope induces under
pressures inside it and reduces the effective weight of the blocks, thus creating mechanisms that due to the randomness
and dynamic actions of waves lead to the structure rupture.

4.2.3 Analysis of the displaced and removed armour layer blocks

The performance of the cubes on the armour layer is described based on its balance, in other words relative
displacements between the blocks at the armour layer; beginning of the damage, at least one block is removed from the
armour layer and rupture, when more than 5 blocks are removed from the armour layer.

For all specified tests, data was analysed for each of the objectives in question, representing the number of blocks that
oscillated as a function of the stability number. The balance of the protection units leads to a significant decrease in
locking capacity between blocks and consequently to damage of the armour layer. In these tests, balancing is defined as
the continuous and regular movement of one or more units. It is considered as a form of instability since the units are not
dynamically stable and are moving from its initial position.

The greater is the number of cubes moving from its initial position (swing) the less stable is the armour layer. To quantify
the number of elements that undergoes balancing the same principle as for the quantification of elements
displaced/removed is used.

Each protection unit moved from its initial position is visibly registered up to a total of about 20 units, though higher
registers are also present. Damage is the number of protection units that have moved from the initial position in the
armour layer within a band width of the nominal diameter (Dn). This means that the balance of a protection unit generates
the same number of Nod for the total breakwater. Through the graphics produced for the various series it was possible to
compare the damage index for the different test conditions.

In those graphs is referred the number of units removed to emphasize that the balance/displacement between cubes is a
mechanism that operates before the beginning of the damage and breakage occur. In this study the graphs depict the
results obtained for around 20 units displaced from its initial position in order to facilitate comparison with the results
obtained by Van Gent (1998). However, a general analysis of all results was performed.

Comparing the results presented here with the ones obtained by Van Gent (1998) it appears that there are some slight
differences. The results of Van Gent illustrated that the rupture of the armour layer happened to stability numbers between
3 and 3.5 whereas in the present work these values ranged from 3.5 to 4. Such differences indicate that the tests
performed in this study took the armour layer to rupture with wave heights larger than the ones tested by Van Gent. These
differences may be related to the model construction (materials used, geometry of the cubes, higher accuracy in the
density of the placement of the cubes) as well as in the test series (wave heights and periods used in this work may have
been different).
Though the results in terms of Nod/Nor and Ns have been slightly different from the ones obtained by Van Gent, in what
concerns the behaviour of the armour layer influenced by the density of the placement of the blocks, the size of the filter
blocks, the wave steepness and the water depth at the toe of the structure, it behaves in a similar way. The levels of
damage were achieved for Nor higher than 0.2 which corresponded to Nod higher than 4.

62948 ©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1

 Exposiç
Tempo
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands
Serie A
Teste 002 Hs = 3.5m Tp = 7s Teste 003 Hs = 4.5m Tp = 8s Teste
In the majority of the tests it is visible a clear mechanism of sudden rupture rather than gradual. Although the
displacements of the blocks along the tests happen gradually, that does not occur after the beginning of damage once the
rupture of the structure is achieved suddenly. This was clearly visible in tests with a higher water level, where suddenly the
Exposição
Temporal

damage rose from Nor= 0 to Nor= 6.48 for a stability number of Ns = 3.9.

Média
Generally when the wave breaks at the slope of the structure, the mass of water that falls on the slope induces under
pressures inside it and reduces the effective weight of the blocks, thus creating mechanisms that due to the randomness
and dynamic actions of waves lead to the structure rupture.
Most of these analyses were confirmed by the application of video image techniques, namely through PIVLab and Zeus
Software allowing the detection of movements and definition of dynamic areas, Figure 6.

Variância
Média

Figure 6. Average flow and variance near the rubble mound, showing the most dynamic areas.
Variância

5. CONCLUSIONS
The performance of cubes in a single layer has proven to be an attractive alternative compared to other configurations.
The construction of cubes can be cheaper than other types of blocks and the stability of the armour layer is also relatively
good when compared with the traditional armour of two layers. According to the tests it was found that the armour layer
behaved similarly as the one tested by Van Gent (1988). The rupture verified with these test conditions was influenced by
the placement layout of the cubes and by the lack of friction with the glass display. The maintenance after such storms
should be considered with the placement of additional cubes at the openings if necessary. Lower water depths at the toe
of the structure originates armour layers considerably more stable than to the same test conditions (same wave height and
length) to higher water depths at the toe of the structure. For smaller water depths, the mechanism of breakage is much
more sudden than gradual when compared with that found for higher water depths. It is apparent, therefore, that a single
layer of cubes performs well and therefore its use is recommended for slope breakwaters with wave heights up to 4.5 m,
as well as the other test conditions.

REFERENCES

Almeida, L.I.P, 2013. Experimental evaluation of the behaviour of rubble mound breakwaters with a single layer of cubic
blocks, MSc-Thesis, Faculty of Engineering of University of Oporto, Oporto, Portugal (In Portuguese).
Burcharth, H. F. (1992). Rehability Evaluation of Structures at Sea - The design of breakwaters. Proc. of the Short Course
on Design and Rehability of Coastal Structures, Tecnoprint Bologna, Venice, Italy.
CEM - Coastal Engineering Manual Part VI - Chapter 2 - Types and Functions of Coastal Structures; Chapter 5 -
Fundamentals of Design, 1 Jun 06. http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil.
CIRIA; CUR; CETMEF (2006). The Rock Manual - The use of rock in hydraulic engineering. Second Edition, C683, CIRIA,
London.
Consultants, Delta Marine. (2010) Stability of single layer armour units on low-crested structures. Master of Science
Thesis, Delft University of Technology , Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Section Hydraulic Engineering,
October.
d’Angremond, K., E. Berendsen, G.S. Bhageleo, M.R.A. van Gent and J.W. van der Meer, 1999. Breakwaters with a
single-layer, Proc. Copedec-V, Capetown, South Africa.
Van Buchem, R.V., 2009. Stability of a single top layer of Cubes, MSc-Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Van Der Meer J.W. (1993). Conceptual Design of Rubble Mound Breakwaters. Delft Hydraulics Publication number 483.
Van Gent, M.R.A and Sppan, G.B.H (1998), Single-layer rubble mound breakwaters. Coastal Structures’99, Lousada (ed)
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Van Gent, M.R.A., E. Berendsen, S.E. Plate, Spaan, G.B.H. and d’Angremond, K., 1999. Single-layer rubble mound
breakwaters, Balkema, Proc. International Conference Coastal Structures, Santander, Spain, Vol.1, pp.231-239.

©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1 7

2949
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Van Gent, M.R.A., d’Angremond, K. and Triemstra, 2001. Rubble mound breakwaters: Single armour layers and high-
density units, Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastlines, Structures and Breakwaters, London, ICE,
pp. 307-318.
Van Gent, M.R.A., 2003, Recent developments in the conceptual design of rubble mound breakwaters, Proceedings of the
COPEDEC VI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

82950 ©2015, IAHR. Used with permission / ISBN 978-90-824846-0-1