Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019

Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.

Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and

seawall coastal defence
Alexander L. Atkinson1, Linda Rijkenberg1, Gildas Colleter2 and Daniel Rodger2
1
Queensland Government Hydraulics Laboratory,
Department of Environment and Science, Deagon, Australia.
Email: alex.atkinson@des.qld.gov.au
2
Jeremy Benn Pacific, Brisbane, Australia.

Abstract
This paper presents physical model investigations of a new rock revetment and seawall. A coastal community
is exposed to flooding during storms through wave overtopping of an existing step revetment with recurved
seawall defence. The East Rhyl (UK) Coastal Defence project plans to upgrade the existing coastal defence
measures to a rock revetment, backed by a new seawall. Physical model testing of design wave and water
levels (including sea level rise) was conducted in the Queensland Government Hydraulics Laboratory (QGHL)
wave flume and large basin. This paper presents the results of physical model investigations of wave
overtopping of the existing step revetment and seawall in the flume at a prototype-to-model scale ratio NL =
25, and overtopping and structural stability of the new design in both the flume (NL = 25) and basin (NL = 40).
The flume and basin testing confirmed that the new design rock revetment was stable under the variety of
design storm conditions tested, and significantly reduced the wave overtopping.

Keywords: physical model, coastal structures, wave overtopping, structural stability, rock revetment, climate
change.

1. Introduction testing was conducted at a prototype-to-model

length scale ratio NL = 25, in a 1-metre-wide by 1.4-
A coastal community in Rhyl, Wales, is exposed to metre-deep wave flume, with an installed false floor
flooding during storms through wave overtopping of to represent the nearshore bathymetric profile
an existing step revetment and recurved seawall (Figure 1). Basin testing was conducted at NL = 40,
defence. This situation is likely to worsen with the in the QGHL’s Large Basin (42m x 25m x 0.8m) with
effects of climate change and sea level rise. To a concrete fixed bed profile to provide an accurate
mitigate this, a new rock revetment and seawall representation of a LIDAR-measured nearshore
design was developed using numerical modelling bathymetric profile (Figure 2).
with overtopping discharge estimated empirically
(Eurotop2). Physical modelling in a wave flume and
basin was used to test the new revetment cross
section design with a variety of design conditions,
corresponding to 1 in 200 year average recurrence
interval events.

The primary objectives of the physical modelling

were to: (i) demonstrate improved performance of
the new rock revetment, compared with the existing
step revetment; (ii) confirm the structural stability of
the rock revetment; and (iii) refine the rock
revetment cross-section design (if necessary) for
optimal performance (reduction in wave overtopping
discharge). The remainder of this paper presents
the Methodology (Section 2), Results (Section 3),
Discussion (Section 4) and a Summary (Section 5)
of the physical modelling.
2. Methodology
2.1 Description of the Facilities
Reduced-scale (Froude) physical model testing was
undertaken for designs of a coastal defence
structure in the flume and basin at the Queensland
Government Hydraulics Laboratory (QGHL). Flume
Figure 1 Flume cross-shore bathymetric profile (dashed
black line). Also plotted are the XS_14 profile (blue line)
extracted from LIDAR data and basin profile along the
same transect (orange line) (Figure 2).
2.2 Testing schedule, wave conditions and
water levels
The flume investigations were used to perform initial
quasi-two-dimensional (i.e. structure and waves
retain some three-dimensionality) tests on the
design structure cross-section to refine the design
against the selected wave conditions before
proceeding with the basin tests. The flume testing
schedule consisted of eight test series (F01 to F08,
F02 featured a different set of wave conditions to
F01 and has been omitted in this paper for brevity).
Each series has a new sea defence structure and
set of tested wave conditions. The basin testing
1
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.

schedule consists of four test series (B01 to B04).

As with the flume test, each basin test series
adopted various combinations of revetment cross-
section designs through four overtopping sections
(see Section 2.4.2). The tests in each series were
run twice to confirm repeatability in both basin and
flume.

Figure 3 Existing step revetment and seawall for existing

scenario test series F01. Reduced overtopping capture
width for existing step revetment tests in the wave flume.

2.3.2 New rock revetment and seawall

Rock scaling for the models was conducted using

Figure 2 Comparison of LIDAR bathymetry data (grey
contours) and final laser-scanned, model domain
bathymetry (coloured contours).
the Hudson formula [3]. The Reynolds stability
number and model-scale rock sizes were confirmed
to be within acceptable limits following established
best-practice (e.g. [1] and [4]). Raw quarry stocks of
appropriate density (2,650 kg/m3) were mixed,
sorted and graded at the QGHL to match the target
grading. A portion of the rocks was painted to aid in
visual identification of movement (e.g. Figure 4).

A variety of extreme sea levels and wave conditions

were tested and identified by unique run IDs
(Table 1) and the duration of each test
corresponded to 1000Tp waves. Waves were
measured over the horizontal bed in the flume and
basin.

Table 1 Experiment run ID’s and conditions, Water level

(WL), spectral significant wave height (Hm0), and peak
wave period (Tp), values in prototype.
Run ID WL Hm0 Tp
(m OD) (m) (s)
14900 5.46 2.76 7.83 Figure 4 Flume testing of a revetment cross-section
design (F03).
8782 5.41 3.36 8.80
The initial new revetment/seawall design (F03,
7376 5.41 3.58 8.98 Table 2) was obtained by using Eurotop2 to
estimate overtopping discharges associated with
30648B 5.83 3.51 8.27
cross-section designs against a suite of 1 in 200
year average return interval events, derived from
numerical simulations. The F03 cross-section
2.3 Model Structure Design design was predicted to result in acceptable mean
overtopping discharge levels (qOT < 5L/s/m) for Run
2.3.1 Existing step revetment and seawall ID’s 14900, 8782 and 7376 (Table 1). The rock
revetment consisted of two layers of primary armour
The existing step revetment and seawall were built layer (M50 ≈ 4,770 kg) topping a filter layer (M50 ≈
to scale and constructed out of wood (painted to 670 kg) on top of the existing step revetment
protect from water damage, Figure 3). (Figure 4). The purpose of the flume testing was to
refine the cross-section design of the rock
revetment (Figure 4) for a selected profile within the
model domain of the basin (XS_14, Figure 2). A total
2
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.

of six different cross–section iterations were tested discharged into four buckets (a bucket can be seen
in the flume (F03 to F08, Table 2). in the top photo in Figure 5). The buckets were
emptied each time a pre-determined volume (10L)
2.4 Overtopping measurements was reached. The time of emptying and number of
buckets emptied during a test was noted to provide
2.4.1 Flume measurements a time-varying overtopping discharge (at the
reasonably coarse resolution of one filled bucket per
The total volume of water that overtopped the section). For each test, the mean overtopping
structure was captured in a tray located in the lee of discharge qOT, was calculated for each section,
the seawall. An electric pump actively removed the which were also combined to provide a mean for the
water from the overtopping tray during each test to entire model domain. The buckets were manned by
prevent the tray from overflowing during higher QGHL personnel and allowed to fill up until they
discharge conditions. The water in the overtopping contained ~10L of water (the level corresponding to
tray was pumped back into the flume and measured this volume was marked on each bucket) before
via a volumetric water meter (±2% confidence). A quickly being emptied and filling resumed. As a
reading of the water meter was taken before and result, small volumes of water were lost during
after each test to determine the total volume and the emptying. These losses were considered
mean overtopping discharge qOT (L/s/m) was insignificant due to the minimal loss of water during
calculated for each test. The discharge was too high emptying because of the short time required to
for the pump to keep up during Test F01, requiring empty and replace the buckets.
the capture region to be reduced to a quarter of the
Table 2 Indicative revetment geometry for each Test
flume width (Figure 3). Series: seawall crest elevation (Zwall); revetment crest
elevation (Zcrest); revetment crest width (Wcrest); and face-
2.4.2 Basin measurements slope (Slope).
Test Zwall Zcrest Wcrest Slope
To measure overtopping in the basin, the water that
Series (m OD) (m OD) (m) (H:V)
overtopped the structure was channelled into two F01 +7.4 N/A N/A N/A
tanks located landward of the seawall (Figure 5). Existing
The guttering was configured to capture the water step
overtopping the seawall for the entire shoreline in revetment
the model domain. Four discrete sections were and
seawall
identified to investigate the alongshore overtopping F03 +7.7 +7.4 5.0 1:3
variability. Figure 6 shows the model domain,
approximate locations and prototype distances of F04 +7.7 +7.4 7.0 1:3
each of the overtopping sections, Section 1 to F05 +7.7 +6.7 6.0 1:6
Section 4, henceforth abbreviated to OS1 to OS4. F06 +8.2 +7.9 11.5 1:3
F07 +8.2 +7.9 8.5 1:3
F08 +7.7 +7.4 11.5 1:3
B01_OS1 +7.7 +7.4 11.5 1:3
to OS4
B02_OS1 +7.7 +7.9 13.0 1:3
B02_OS2 +7.7 +7.4 10.0 1:3
to OS4
B03_OS1 +7.7 +7.7 11.5 1:3
B03_OS2 +7.7 +7.4 7.0 1:3
B03_OS3 +7.7 +7.7 8.5 1:3
B03_OS4 +7.7 +7.7 7.0 1:3
B04_OS1 +7.7 +7.9 11.5 1:3
B04_OS2 +7.7 +7.4 8.5 1:3
B04_OS3 +7.7 +7.7 10.0 1:3
and OS4
Figure 5 B01 revetment configuration with overtopping
gutter capture system on the landward side of the seawall
(left of both pictures).
As with the flume tests, qOT was determined in the
basin by the total volume of water captured for each
section. Each of the four overtopping section drains

3
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.

diameter from its original position. Damage was

also assessed by quantifying the percentage of
rocks moved following Hudson [3] and estimating
the total number of rocks by the area of the affected
region divided by the area of D50, which is estimated
to be 67 mm2. Damage was given a qualitative
classification following HR Wallingford [2],
reproduced below in Table 3.

Figure 6 Approximate locations and prototype lengths of

the overtopping catch sections. Note: Section 4 length
was reduced to 130m for test series B03 and B04.

It is important to note that for test series B01 and

B02, the wave overtopping noticeably reduced in
the final ~1.5 metres of the OS4 (compared with
OS3) due to energy losses associated with wave
diffraction resulting from the early termination of the
wave guide on the eastern edge to allow the
longshore current to exit the model domain Figure 7 Example overhead photos from fixed camera in
(Figure 6). Therefore, the overtopping volumes for the flume (top) and basin (bottom), used to assess
this section may not be representative and are structural stability in the basin model.
expected to be underestimates. The length of OS4
was reduced by 1.5 metres (60 metres prototype) to
Table 3 Damage classification in model breakwaters,
provide a new length of 130 metres for test series source HR Wallingford Report EX 6361 [2]
B03 and B04 to mitigate this issue.
Damage Description
2.5 Stability testing Destroyed Core of revetment affected
Serious Core of revetment visible
Video cameras documented each test in the wave Much Large gaps in primary layer; 5% of rocks
displaced
flume and basin. Photos were also taken
Moderate Gaps in primary layer; 3% of rocks
opportunistically throughout testing. Structural displaced
stability was assessed by visual observations of any Little 2% of rocks displaced
rock movement during testing and the model runs Slight 1% of rocks displaced
were documented with high resolution video and Hardly No obvious damage
before/after photography. The number of rocks
rocking and displaced were determined by visually 3. Results
analysing before and after overhead photos, which
were taken from an overhead camera at a fixed 3.1 Structural Stability
position in both the flume and basin (Figure 7).
The structural stability of the rock revetment was
Movement was described as either rocking or assured through the flume and basin testing.
displaced. Rocking was defined as a single rock Analysis of before and after photos allowed
moving forward, backward or sideways, but identification of rocking and displaced rocks. The
remaining within half the rock’s (approximate) most damage was observed in Test Series F08
diameter at the end of the test. A rock is considered during Run ID 30648B, with 24 rocks identified as
to be displaced if it moves further than half its
4
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.
rocking and four rocks displaced (approximately
1.4% of top armour layer), resulting in a damage
classification of Slight (Table 3). In the basin tests,
the highest impact zone was located along OS1.
The deeper bathymetry in front of the structure likely
resulting in larger waves arriving at the structure.
3.2 Overtopping
3.2.1 Flume Investigations
All mean overtopping discharges for each Run ID
and each cross-section design are provided in
Table 4. The physical model results indicated a
mean overtopping discharge qOT, larger than the
target (qOT ≤ 5 L/s/m) for all Run IDs tested
(Table 4), triggering an iterative process of adjusting
the revetment cross-section geometry to find a
design that reduced the qOT to acceptable levels.
The target qOT was determined by consideration of
overtopping discharge hazard guidelines provided
in the Eurotop manual and capacity of an
overtopping retention basin, located in the lee of the
promenade. Obviously, individual overtopping
events may be many time greater than qOT. Cross-
section geometries are provided in Table 2. The
cross-section assessed in test series F08 was found
to perform acceptably for all Run ID’s.
Table 4 Mean overtopping discharge per metre width
(prototype), qOT (L/s/m) for all test series and each wave
condition. NT=Not Tested.
Run ID
Test Series 14900 8782 7376 30648B
F01 120 189 223
F03 7.5 22 28
F04 4.5 13 21
F05 2 6 9 32
F06 NT NT 1 2
F07 NT NT 2 8
F08 <1 2 4
3.2.2 Basin Investigations
The basin investigations commenced with the
finalised design of the cross-section from the flume
tests. Significant variability occurred between the
four overtopping sections, to account for this the
cross-section designs were further adjusted through
basin test series B02 to B04.
The Run ID that resulted in the greatest overtopping
discharge in both the flume and basin tests was
30648B. This set of conditions featured the highest
water level (+ 5.83 m AOD), second largest wave
heights Hm0 = 3.51 m, and longest peak periods Tp
= 8.27 s (Table 1). Figure 8 shows the overtopping
time series for Run ID 30648B and the B03 Test
Series. The greatest peak overtopping discharge
(being the fastest time a single bucket was filled)
measured during this run was approximately 35
L/s/m, which occurred at OS3 (red line, Figure 8).
This test also featured one of the highest mean
overtopping discharges, qOT = 13 L/s/m (Figure 10).
Figure 9 presents the peak overtopping discharge
for each test series and each overtopping section
for Run ID 30648B. The overtopping discharge for
OS1, OS3 and OS4 were reduced toward
acceptable levels for all overtopping sections by
adjusting the rock revetment crest elevations and
widths (Table 2). Section OS2 included a part of the
curved shoreline (Figure 6) where wave energy
reduced, resulting in lower overtopping rates,
allowing a reduction in cross-section area (Table 2)
Figure 8 Prototype overtopping discharge time series per
metre length for each overtopping section (Section 1 to
Section 4) for Run ID 30648B and Test Series B03. Fine
horizontal dashed lines indicate mean for entire time
series of each corresponding section (see legend).
50
NT
40
peak qOT (L/s/m)
NT
30
NT
20
10
0
20
OS1 OS2 OS3 OS4
Overtopping Section
B01 B02 B03 B04
Figure 9: Prototype peak overtopping discharge for all
basin test series and each overtopping section (OS1 to
OS4) for Run ID 30648B.
Figure 10 depicts the qOT results of each of the basin
test series for the worst-case conditions, run ID
30648B. For OS1, the bathymetry is deepest in front
of the revetment, resulting in the highest qOT of all
sections during test series B01 (11.21 L/s/m) so the
crest width was increased, reducing qOT to less than
2 L/s/m for B02 to B04. The divergence of the waves
around the curved shoreline through OS2 resulted
in the lowest qOT for B01 (2.43 L/s/m), this resulted
in a reduction in crest width for B02 to B04, with a
final qOT of 4.18 L/s/m for B04. Due to the energy
5
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.
losses to the edge of OS4, the bathymetry and
straight shoreline through OS3 are expected to
provide the most representative overtopping
conditions to compare with the flume testing.
Following the moderate qOT measured during B01
(8.67 L/s/m - less than half that measured in the
corresponding flume test, F08, Table 4), the crest
width was reduced for B02, resulting in the highest
qOT (13.63 L/s/m). The lowest qOT was measured for
B04 (qOT = 4.61 L/s/m). Through OS4, qOT was
lowest for B04 (qOT = 3.20 L/s/m) and highest for
B03 (10.94 L/s/m).
15
qOT (L/s/m)
10
5
0 direction (and associated reflections) and
OS1 OS2 OS3
ER_B01_04_002 ER_B02_04_003
ER_B03_04_001 ER_B04_04_002
Figure 10: Prototype mean overtopping discharge per
metre length for each overtopping section (OS#) and for
full model length of seawall for JBA Run ID 30648B from
all Basin Tests B01 – B04, sorted by overtopping section.
3.2.3 Comparison of Flume overtopping results
with those of the Basin tests
All mean overtopping discharge measurements
during the flume tests were greater than the initial
B01 test series with the same wave conditions (e.g.
run ID 30648B Table 4 and Figure 10). Due to
energy losses at the end of OS4 (associated with
early release of the wave), Overtopping Section 3
(OS3) was the considered most appropriate to
compare the results from the flume tests. The
prototype overtopping discharge per metre wall
length was approximately qOT = 9 L/s/m for B01
(Figure 10). This value increased for B02 and B03
with the reduced crest widths, and reduced to qOT <
5L/s/m for the final geometry applied in B04
(Figure 10).
4. Discussion
The following section presents a comparison of
measured overtopping discharge between similar
basin and flume tests. There are two fundamental
differences between the flume and basin results that
should be considered when comparing results,
being longshore variability and scaling.
The flume experiments are restricted to quasi-2D
wave transformations over a simplified and shorter
bathymetry (Figure 1). Therefore, three dimensional
effects on the wave climate are essentially absent
in the flume tests. On the other hand, the larger
flume scaling gives more confidence, reduced
potential for error. The flume is likely to be
conservative for larger waves as the wave energy
released at the paddle remains contained between
the two walls, with the waves breaking
perpendicular to the seawall and the walls
minimising lateral losses of wave energy across the
structure.
Conversely, with the waves approaching the shore
from the north-west (Figure 6), many waves arrive
obliquely at the structure in the basin. The effects of
three-dimensional wave transformation, including
refraction and diffraction as well as longshore
currents and oblique wave reflections and edge
waves all add to the increased complexity of the
model, compared to the flume model. Therefore, the
basin may be considered to be more representative
of natural waves, which includes oblique wave
OS4 directional spreading in between individual waves.
The bathymetry tested in both the flume and basin
models represent a single snapshot of an inherently
variable system. Therefore, the resulting nearshore
wave climate and overtopping observed for similar
offshore conditions may be expected to vary,
depending on the nearshore bathymetry. The
differences in overtopping through the four separate
sections alongshore in the basin tests demonstrate
the importance of considering variable bathymetries
and non-linear shorelines, and the strength of a
three-dimensional modelling approach for coastal
defence structures, which may identify locations
where the cross-section profile may be adjusted to
refine the design and increase or reduce material
requirements, as appropriate.
The mean overtopping discharge qOT, for the full test
duration of 1000Tp waves for F03, F08, B01 (OS3)
and B04 (OS3) are presented in Table 5. Figure 11
plots the mean overtopping discharge against a
dimensionless parameter, Hs/Freeboard. Excluding
the F01 data, for Run IDs 8782 and 7376, the mean
overtopping discharge, qOT, was higher through
OS3 for B01 compared with F08 but lower for Run
ID 30648B. F08 and B01 featured the same
revetment cross-section design yet there was an 11
L/s/m difference between the two test cases for Run
ID 30648B. The qOT was reduced further in B04
(Table 5 and Figure 11) with an increased
revetment crest elevation and reduced crest width
(Table 2).
The combination of cross shore width of the
bathymetry and higher water level in the flume may
have contributed to the significant reduction in
overtopping for the 30648B basin test. The basin
bathymetry extended a further 140 m (prototype)
6
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Physical model flume and basin investigations of a rock revetment and seawall coastal defence
Atkinson, A. L., Rijkenberg, L., Colleter, G., Rodger, D.

offshore than the flume (Figure 1) so the additional effects, such as uncertainty associated with
length of bathymetry for waves to propagate and longshore variability due to the curved shoreline.
transform in the basin would dissipate more energy
prior to reaching the shoreline. In addition, the The wave flume investigations compared the mean
variability associated with three dimensional effects overtopping discharge qOT (L/s/m), of the existing
in the basin will also have influenced the wave step revetment and seawall with the new rock
climate arriving along the structure. There was also revetment and seawall design. The initial new
more variability in the flume tests for this run (repeat cross-section design reduced the overtopping by
runs not shown here) that was associated with wave more than 90%, but the measured qOT exceeded the
grouping and wave setup causing water levels to desired target (qOT < 5 L/s/m) for all tests. This
build up within the revetment that influenced prompted a series of adjustments to the cross-
subsequent wave overtopping. This also occurred in section design (revetment armour and filter layer
the basin; however, the setup was reduced in the dimensions) and seawall elevation to reduce the
basin model due to longshore variability, oblique overtopping discharge to acceptable levels before
approach and longshore propagation of the waves finalising the design to continue with the wave basin
interacting with the structure (as opposed to shore- model.
normal waves contained between the flume walls).
A three-dimensional fixed bed basin model was
Table 5: Comparison of dimensionless parameter, constructed to match a LIDAR-measurement of the
Hs/Freeboard and mean overtopping discharge, qOT local bathymetry to ensure representative wave
(L/s/m), for each run ID from F03, F08, B01 and B04. transformation through the basin model domain.
Overtopping for B01 and B04 taken from OS3. Water overtopping the seawall was captured along
the length of the model domain shoreline via a
Run ID Hs / F01 F08 B01 B04 gutter-system that channelled the overtopped water
Freeboard qOT qOT qOT qOT
to collection points, enabling quantification of
14900 1.23 7 <1 <1 <1
overtopping discharge through four discrete,
8782 1.47 23 1.9 3.3 1.37 hydrodynamically variable sections.
7376 1.56 29 3.6 5.4 2.88
All the wave conditions tested in the larger scale
30648B 1.88 N/A 19.8 8.8 4.61
flume tests and smaller scale 3D basin tests
indicated an acceptable degree of structural stability
was provided by the revetment geometry and
30
armour grading selected. The iterative adjustment
25 process for the cross-section designs in the flume
and alongshore sections (OS1 to OS4) in the basin
qOT (L/s/m)

20 resulted in acceptable mean overtopping discharge

15 values (qOT < 5L/s/m, Figure 10) for all conditions
tested.
10
6. References
5

0 [1] Frostick, L.E., McLelland, S.J. and Mercer, T.G. eds.,

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2011. Users guide to physical modelling and
experimentation: Experience of the HYDRALAB network.
Hs / Freeboard CRC Press.
F03 F08 B01 B04
[2] HR Wallingford Report EX 6361. 2010. Borth Coastal
Figure 11: Plot of overtopping discharge qOT, against Defence Scheme – 3D Physical Modelling.
dimensionless parameter Hs/Freeboard.
[3] Hudson, R.Y., 1959. Laboratory investigation of
rubble-mound breakwaters. Reprint of the original paper
as published in the Journal of the Waterways and Harbors
5. Summary
Division of ASCE, proceedings paper 2171.
Physical model testing was used to test and refine [4] Hughes, S.A., 1993. Physical models and laboratory
the cross-section design of a new rock revetment techniques in coastal engineering (Vol. 7). World
and seawall, intended to reduce the risk of flooding Scientific.
of a coastal community due to wave overtopping
during storm events. The flume was initially used to
assess the structural stability and overtopping
discharge before proceeding with basin testing. The
basin testing was undertaken to refine the model
breakwater in the presence of three-dimensional