2013 IEEE Business Engineering and Industrial Applications Colloquium (BEIAC)
Performance Evaluation of Arrays of
Stepped-slope Floating Breakwater
H.M. Teh
Civil Engineering Department
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Bandar Seri Iskandar
Tronoh, Perak, Malaysia
Abstract—This paper describes the performance
characteristics of a stepped-slope floating breakwater used for
wave protection in small ports and harbours. The test models
have been subjected to regular waves in a wave flume to
determine their hydraulic performance under various wave
conditions. The typical performance characteristics of the
breakwater are quantified by the amount of wave transmission,
wave reflection and energy dissipation, and are graphically
presented with respect to a range of wave parameter. The
experimental results showed that the triple-row stepped-slope
floating breakwater is a good wave attenuator and an effective
energy dissipater.
Indexed Terms—Floating breakwater; wave attenuation;
wave reflection; energy loss.
I. INTRODUCTION
The destructive power of the sea waves is very well-known
and methods of protection have been challenges for coastal
engineers to pursue for a long time. The best-known and
universally used method of wave energy suppression has been
a fixed solid structure breakwater. One of the most
conventional fixed breakwater is rubble-mound breakwater
which is typically constructed with a core of quarry-run stone,
sand, or slag, and protected from wave action by one or more
stone underlayers and a cover layer composed of stone or
specially shaped concrete armour units [1]. The fixed
breakwater offers advantage in the form of excellent storm
protection; however, its drawbacks can hardly be tolerated.
For instance, if the breakwater is not carefully designed or
carefully analysed for its effects on the physical system in
which it is to be placed, it can be a total barrier to close off a
significant portion of a waterway or entrance channel, thereby
causing a faster river or tidal flow in the vicinity as well as
potentially trapping debris on the updrift side. It creates
unacceptable sedimentation and water quality problems due to
poor circulation behind the structure [2]. At worst, a detached
breakwater may be connected to the shore by the formation of
a tombolo. This could seriously interrupt longshore transport
and cause downdrift erosion. Unfortunately, once the
978-1-4673-5968-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
H. Ismail
Coastal and Offshore Engineering Institute
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia International Campus
Jalan Semarak,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
breakwaters are constructed, very few are ever removed. They
become a permanent part of the landscape and any
environmental damage they may cause must either be
accepted or the breakwater must be removed. This may be a
very expensive penalty for a mistake.
Most of the fixed breakwaters behave in such a way that
wave dampening power decreases rapidly as the tide level
rises. Construction of fixed breakwaters is considered most
economical if the high water level at the site is less than about
four feet deep [3]. It is often uneconomical and impractical to
build a fixed breakwater in water deeper than about 20 feet,
owing to the fact that most of the wave energy is distributed
over the upper portion of water depth. It is also worthwhile to
note that the cost of a bottom-connected breakwater increases
exponentially with depth. In the endeavour to meet the needs
with a functional cost-effective engineering design, floating
breakwater appears to be an ideal alternative as well as a
viable solution in providing the required level of tranquillity.
II. FLOATING BREAKWATER
A wooden floating breakwater constructed at Plymouth Port
in England in 1811 appears to be the first floating breakwater
of the modern era and it showed an encouraging performance
in moderating the waves field. Another successful example is
the Bombardon breakwater during the invasion of Normandy
in World War II for the protection of amphibious naval
operation which represents the first major utilization of such
structures. Since then, the practicability and significance of
floating breakwaters have been universally recognized and
research and development of floating breakwaters have been
carried out worldwide to investigate and improve their
hydraulic performance.
There are many types of floating breakwaters that have been
developed, tested, proven and even commercialised in the past
decade. In most cases these floating breakwaters provide a
satisfactory attenuation of wave agitation. They can be
classified logically based on their geometric and functional
similarities into four general categories which are box,
279
pontoon, mat and tethered float [3,4,5,6,7]. Some other
floating breakwaters with exclusive features are the Y-frame
floating breakwater [8], floating plate breakwater [9] and
floating pipe breakwater [10]. The majority of these floating
breakwaters suppress the wave energy mainly by reflection,
which may, in turn, result in standing waves in front of the
structures. The confusing sea states may pose navigation
hazard to the small floating vessels in the vicinity of the
breakwaters.
Floating breakwaters are widely being applied for numerous
facilities along the coast worldwide, such as recreational Fig. 1. Test model of a single-row stepped-slope floating breakwater
harbours, marinas and fishing lagoons, to provide protection
from external wave disturbance. Apart from low construction
cost, floating breakwaters also offer some other attractive
advantages as listed below:
a. Environmentally friendly – Floating breakwaters allow
free circulation of water and seawater exchange beneath
(a)
the floating structure which is essential for fish migration.
It is a convenient way to dampen the waves while
preserving the seawater quality at the same time.
b. Flexible and removable – Mobile floating breakwater can
be easily relocated or rearranged onto a new layout with (b)
minimum effort in order to accommodate changes in
either seasonal or long term growth patterns without
leaving permanent damage to the environment.
c. Applicable in poor foundation – Floating breakwaters are
less dependent upon bottom soil condition. They can be
(c)
easily placed on soft ground without soil improvement.
d. Applicable in all tidal ranges – The performance of Fig. 2. Cross sectional views of the test model: (a) single-row; (b) double-row;
floating breakwaters is not subjected to tidal level because and (c) triple-row
they freely float on the water surface with the same
freeboard.
e. Aesthetics – Floating breakwaters have a low profile and of test model for the stepped-slope floating breakwater, i.e.
present a minimum intrusion on the horizon thereby less single-row, double-row and triple-row models (Fig.2). The
obstructive to the viewers at the shore. They can sustain total widths, B, of the respective models are 0.25 m, 0.50 m
and preserve the natural beauty of the beach. and 0.75 m. Further details of the model set-up are described
f. Short construction period – The construction period is in the subsequent section.
much shorter compared to the fixed typed breakwater.
They may be relatively easy to fabricate at site or IV. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
prefabricate at factory. The laboratory experiments were conducted at the hydraulic
laboratory of the Coastal and Offshore Engineering Institute,
III. STEPPED-SLOPE FLOATING BREAKWATER Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The
models were tested in an 18 m long, 0.95 m wide and 0.9 m
In this research, it is aimed to develop a trapezoidal barrier high unidirectional wave flume equipped with a piston-type
with a stepped-slope feature at both front and rear faces of the wave generator. At the other end of the flume was a wave
structure. Fig. 1 shows a single row of the stepped-slope absorber so as to reduce the reflected waves in the flume. The
floating breakwater model used in the experiment. The test test models were made of a composite material (i.e. cement,
model has dimensions of 0.80 m length, 0.25 m bottom width sand and polystyrene) to provide adequate structural durability
and 0.13 m height. The density of the model is 784 kg/m3 and and buoyancy. Two capacitance-type wave probes were used
it generates a draft of 0.08 m and a freeboard of 0.05 m in for the measurement of wave profiles at the seaward and the
static water. The stepped slope of the breakwater is designed leeward side of the test models. The seaward probe, which
to facilitate wave breaking and to minimize the overtopping was located at the mid-section of a movable carriage that
discharge whereas the bottom part is totally immersed in water traveled along the steel rails at the top of the side walls of the
for greater stability. The size of the breakwater model can be flume, was used for measurement of the incident and reflected
enlarged by introducing additional unit(s) to the primary one waves in the flume using the moving-probe method. The
with side-by-side connection mode. This produces three types transmitted waves were measured by the leeward probe that
was placed away from the test models by three times the tested

280
water depth. These probes were plugged into a data
acquisition system (DAS-800) for data recording. The wave
probes adopted in the experiments were well calibrated prior
to experiments on a regular basis. The schematic layout of the
wave flume and the experimental set-up are presented in
Fig. 3.
The three types of model, namely the single-row, double-
row and triple-row stepped-slope floating breakwaters were
tested in regular waves (i.e. similar height and period in wave
series). Each test model was cross-moored to the bottom of the
flume by four nylon ropes such that no initial pre-tension was
present in the mooring lines. These breakwater models were
subjected to nine wave periods ranging from 0.9 s to 1.7 s in
two water depths, i.e. 0.20 m and 0.33 m. For each test, the
models were respectively exposed to waves of two different
amplitudes. In total, 108 series of tests were conducted to
study the hydraulic behavior of the stepped-slope floating
breakwater models. The details of the test parameters are
presented in Table 1.
Fig. 3. Laboratory set-up
Table 1. Test parameters
Test Parameter
Models 1-row, 2-row, 3-row
Water depths (d) 0.20, 0.33 m
Wave periods (T) 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 s
Wave heights (Hi) 1.1 – 8.7 cm
V. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Hydraulic performance of the breakwater can be
expressed in terms of the coefficients of transmission,
reflection and energy loss. The transmission coefficient, CT is
the ratio of the transmitted wave height to the incident wave
height, e.g. a lower CT value indicates the breakwater is an
effective wave attenuator. The reflection coefficient, CR is
represented by the ratio of the reflected wave height-to-the
incident wave height, e.g. a lower CR value implies the
breakwater is an effective anti-reflection structure. Since the
energy dissipated at the breakwater involves complicated
281
processes and is difficult to measure experimentally, it is
therefore mathematically estimated based on the principle of
conservation of energy, giving the energy dissipation
coefficient, CL = 1 – CT 2 – CR 2. The CL value indicates the
percentage of the energy dissipated at the breakwater by the
incident waves. Hence, a good energy dissipater always yields
a high CL value.
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Single-row Breakwater
Fig. 4 shows the energy coefficients (i.e. CT, CR and CL)
of a single-row stepped-slope floating breakwater plotted with
respect to wave parameter, Hi/gT2, where Hi is the incident
wave height in front of the test model, g is the gravitational
acceleration and T is the wave period of the incident waves.
The wave parameter describes the steepness of the incident
waves, whereby the large value of the parameter indicates
waves of high steepness and vice versa.
Fig. 4(a) presents wave transmission of the single-row test
model in two immersion ratio, D/d (where D and d are
breakwater draft and water depth, respectively), i.e. D/d = 0.24
and 0.40. It is found that the single-row breakwater system
exhibits high transmission (0.6 < CT < 0.8) for the given range
of Hi/gT2, particularly in smaller D/d. The CT values gradually
decrease with the increase in wave parameter, indicating that
the breakwater performed slightly better in wave attenuation
when opposed by steeper waves in the flume.
Wave reflection ability of the single-row model is
demonstrated in Fig. 4(b). A mild decrease of CR with Hi/gT2
is seen for both D/d = 0.24 and 0.40. This signifies that the
breakwater is a good reflector to the milder waves. In deeper
waters, the test model tends to reflect wave energy more, with
a maximum CR value of 0.48 at D/d = 0.24.
Fig. 4(c) shows the energy dissipation characteristics of
the single-row model. The variation of CL with Hi/gT2 is
significant, i.e. the greater the Hi/gT2 the more energy
dissipative the model will be. The improvement of energy
dissipative ability is particularly evident when the model is
subjected to higher value of D/d. In another word, the single
row model serves as a better energy dissipater when
confronted by rough waves of shallow waters.
In summary, the experimental results show that the
single-row stepped slope floating breakwater is indeed a good
energy dissipater and a good anti-reflection structure;
however, the weak wave attenuation ability (CT > 0.5) of the
structure may limit its application in practice.
B. Multi-row Breakwater
To enhance the wave attenuation of the stepped-slope
floating breakwater, a different array of the structure was
considered in this study. Additional row(s) of similar
geometry was added to the existing test model to enlarge the
width of the breakwater. Fig. 5 compares the hydraulic
performance of the single-row, double-row and triple-row test
models for 0.24 < D/d < 0.40.
 (a)
(a)

(b)
(b)

(c)
(c)

Fig. 4. Energy coefficients of a single-row stepped-slope floating breakwater: Fig. 5. Energy coefficients of a single- and multi-row stepped-slope floating
(a) wave transmission coefficient; (b) wave reflection coefficient; and (c) breakwaters: (a) wave transmission coefficient; (b) wave reflection
energy dissipation coefficient coefficient; and (c) energy dissipation coefficient

282
 It is learnt from Fig. 5(a) that the CT of the single-row,
double-row and triple-row models have similar trend, whereby
the CT values decrease with the increase in Hi/gT2. This
implies that the stepped-slope floating breakwaters exhibit
higher wave attenuation performance when exposed to shorter
period waves. It is apparent that the triple row model performs
more efficiently than the single-row model by approximately
30-40%, suppressing the incident wave height more than 50%
at Hi/gT2 > 0.002.
The reflectivity of the stepped-slope floating breakwaters
is demonstrated in Fig. 5(b). It is noticed that the CR values of
the test models overlap with each other, signifying that the
reflective ability of the models are quite similar. The finding is
sensible because wave reflection is mainly controlled by the
frontal geometry (i.e. freeboard and draft) of the breakwater,
which remains unchanged in all the test cases. The CR values
recorded are barely beyond 0.4 (equivalent to a reflection of
16% of the incident wave energy) which is relatively small
compared to the amount of waves reflected by the
conventional breakwaters. The CR of the test models exhibits a
mild correlation with Hi/gT2, implying that the reflectivity of
the breakwaters is less influenced by the wave parameter.
Fig. 5(c) demonstrates the energy dissipation by the
breakwater models of different arrays. It is evident that the
triple row model exhibits the highest energy dissipative
characteristics throughout the test range of Hi/gT2. It is
surprising to note that the triple-row breakwater attained CL
values well beyond 0.6, and achieved the maximum CL of 0.97
when exposed to steeper waves. The CL of the triple-row
model is about 20% higher than those of the single-row model.
The above experimental findings lead to a conclusion that
the triple-row stepped slope breakwater is a better wave
attenuator and energy dissipater than the single-row and the
double-row breakwaters, while keeping the reflection effect to
the minimal.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Laboratory experiments were conducted to study the
performance characteristics of stepped-slope floating
breakwaters of different arrays under various wave conditions.
The experimental results reveal that despite good energy
dissipative and low-reflection performance of the single-row
breakwater, it is a poor wave attenuator. To overcome the
problem, the width of the breakwater was expanded by adding
the number of floating modules in side-by-side basis. The
hydraulic performance of the triple-row breakwater surpassed
that of the single-row by almost 35% in wave attenuation and
20% in energy dissipation whereas, the reflectivity of the
structure was not affected by the number of floating modules.
283
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the
Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment of
Malaysia for funding the research through the IPRA grant and
to Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for funding this paper and
presentation materials.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Reeve, A. Chadwick and C. Fleming, “Coastal engineering –
processes, theory and design practice,” Spon Press, 1st Ed, 2004, pp.
330.
[2] H. M. Teh, V. Venugopal and T. Bruce, “Hydrodynamic characteristics
of a free surface semicircular breakwater exposed to irregular waves,”
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, vol. 138,
no. 2, 2012, pp. 149-163.
[3] B. L. McCartney, “Floating breakwater design,” Journal of Waterway,
Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, vol. 111, 1985, pp. 307-317.
[4] M. Isaacson and R. Byres, “Floating breakwater response to wave
action,” Proc. Of the 21st Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, 1988,
pp. 2189-2199.
[5] R. E. Nece, E. E. Nelson and C. T. Bishop, “Some North American
Experience with floating breakwaters” In “Design of Breakwater”,
Thomas Telford, pp. 299-312.
[6] V. W. Harms, “Design criteria for floating tire breakwater,” Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, ASCE, 1979, pp. 149-
169.
[7] V. W. Harms, “Floating breakwater performance comparison,” Proc. Of
the 17th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, 1980, pp. 2137-2155.
[8] J. S. Mani, “Design of Y-frame floating breakwater,” Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering. vol. 117, 1991, pp.
105-119.
[9] K. S. V. Kumar and R. Sundaravadivelu, “Hydrodynamic characteristics
of moored floating plate breakwater,” Proc. of the 1st Asia-Pasific
Conference on Offshore System, Kuala Lumpur, 2001, pp. 159-164.
[10] S. Purusthotham, V. Sundar, and R. Sundaravadivelu, “Hydrodynamic
characteristics of moored floating pipe breakwater,” Proc. of the 1st
Asia-Pasific Conference on Offshore System, Kuala Lumpur, 2001, pp.
165-170.