Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research

ISSN: (Print) 2324-9676 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tjaw20

2D physical model tests for the design and the

construction stages of the Coruña Outer Port
Breakwater (Spain)

R. Gutierrez-Serret & J. Lozano

To cite this article: R. Gutierrez-Serret & J. Lozano (2013) 2D physical model tests for the
design and the construction stages of the Coruña Outer Port Breakwater (Spain), Journal of
Applied Water Engineering and Research, 1:1, 91-99, DOI: 10.1080/23249676.2013.832024

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2013.832024

View supplementary material

Published online: 04 Sep 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1899

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjaw20
Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research, 2013
Vol. 1, No. 1, 91–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2013.832024

2D physical model tests for the design and the construction stages of the Coruña Outer Port
Breakwater (Spain)
R. Gutierrez-Serret∗ and J. Lozano
Harbours and Coastal Studies Centre, Studies and Experimentation Public Works Centre (CEDEX), Ministry of Public Works,
Antonio López 81, 28026 Madrid, Spain
(Received 21 May 2013; accepted 31 July 2013 )

At a height of 65 m and constructed using 150 t blocks, the Coruña Outer Port Breakwater is one of the largest break-
waters in the world – if not the largest! 2D and 3D tests on the main section and at the construction stages of the
Coruña Outer Port breakwater were conducted at CEDEX in 2007, 2008 and 2010. The aim of this paper is to present
the 2D tests performed in the CEDEX Large Flume in 2010 for validating the main breakwater section design, to
define temporary protections, and to establish the wave conditions at which works must be stopped for safety during
the construction. The paper includes the characteristics of the sections tested, the test flume and the model, scale effects
considerations, test methodology, the results and the breakwater behaviour during the storms registered until the time of
writing.
Coruña Outer Port, Spain NW [Noya F. 2008. New port facilities at Punta Langosteira, Spain. Marit. Eng. ICE. 161:101–
106; Pérez Freire JD, Alonso EM, Arquero FN, González VB, 2011. The projet of the new Outer Port of A Coruña, Spain.
PIANC, Yearbook; p. 225–240] is protected by a huge rubble mound breakwater: 3354 m long and 65 m high, designed for a
: 15.1 m significant wave and 18 s peak period. The main section, crowned with a concrete parapet at +25 m and maximum
depth at −40 m, comprises two layers of 150 t cubic blocks, two layers of 15 t cubic blocks, 1 t armour stone filters and a
riprap core. A layer of 50 t blocks was placed at the back with 5 t and 0.5 t armour stone filters. The breakwater construction
was accomplished by the end of 2012.
Keywords: breakwater design; construction and physical models; Coruña Outer Port

1. Introduction 2. Breakwater main section type and construction

When designing and constructing the Coruña Outer Port,
the State Ports Public Body, at the request of the Coruña
Port Authority, commissioned CEDEX to conduct a series
of studies of various features of the project, including the
breakwater (Figure 1).
In the case of the breakwater, these studies involved 2D
and 3D physical model tests to check the behaviour. The
section type stability, its singular sections (starting stretch,
trunk, direction change and head), and various construction
stages were analysed.
The aim of this paper is to present the 2D tests
conducted in the CEDEX Large Flume (90 m × 3.6 m ×
7.5 m), for validating the design solution for the main
section type (CEDEX 2007) and to establish the construc-
tion stages to: (A) define temporary protections (CEDEX
2010) and (B) determine the waves at which construc-
tion must be stopped for the workers’ safety (CEDEX
2008).
stages
2.1. Main type section (Noya 2008; Pérez Freire et al.
2011)
The main section (Figure 2) comprises a riprap core with the
seaward side composed by two armour layers of randomly
placed 150 t cubic blocks, two layers of 15 t cubic blocks
and 1 t armour stone filters, sloping at 2H/1V and supported
by a 3–5 t rubble mound berm at −28 m. On the harbour
side, a layer of 50 t drilled blocks was regularly arranged,
sloping at 1.5:1, with 5 t and 0.5 armour stone filters and it
is supported by a 0.5 t rubble mound berm at −7 m, after
which other 5 t are used instead of blocks.
At the breakwater crest, a concrete parapet lies at the
same seaward armour layer crest elevation +25 m, so
that it is protected from the waves. The breakwater has
three alignments and the maximum depth is −40 m at the
head.

∗ Corresponding author. Email: ramon.m.gutierrez@cedex.es

© 2013 IAHR and WCCE

92 R. Gutierrez-Serret and J. Lozano
Figure 1. Coruña Outer Port. Layout and general view. Courtesy of Coruña Port Authority.
Figure 2. Breakwater main type section.
2.2. Construction stages
Five construction stages were tested for temporary pro-
tections (A): 1 t core protection armour stone, one of the
two layers −150 t blocks – and several layouts for crown
protections −150 and 50 t blocks (Figure 3).
The following seven stages were reproduced for waves
at which the works must be stopped (B). Figure 4 shows
stages 1, 4 and 7.
(1) Core protected by a 1 t filter layer.
(2) Core protected by one 15 t filter layer, levelled
at +10 m.
(3) Core protected by two 15 t filter layer, levelled
at +10 m.
(4) Core protected by one 1 t filter layer with crown
berm.
(5) Core protected by one 150 t block layer, levelled
at +10 m.
(6) Core protected by two 15 t filter layer, levelled
at +10 m.
Figure 3. Temporary protections. Stages 1–5.
(7) Core protected by one 150 t block layer with crown
berm.
3. The waves
The design wave for the main section was: significant wave
height Hs = 15 m and peak period Tp = 18 s and, on the
basis of this, two test storms were defined: Tp = 18 and 16 s.
Each storm was created using successive sea conditions: Hs
increasing and four tide phases: low, mean (rising), high,
and mean (ebbing). The duration of each condition was
set so that the number of waves generated (610–690) was
sufficient to ensure the section equilibrium state for those
sea conditions. The test storms began at Hs = 8 m (≈50%
Hsdesign), this being gradually raised m. by m. until the
flume wave generation limit for the scale 1/30, reached
Hs = 19.2 m (Tp = 18 s) and 20.7 m (Tp = 16 s). In all the
tests, a Jonswap spectrum was used with a peak parameter
γ = 3.3.
For (A) temporary construction protections, tests were
performed with Tp = 20 s and Hs , increasing m by m, from
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research
Figure 4. Waves at work must be stopped. Stages 1, 4 and 7.
7 m up to the crown protection failure. Each storm was cre-
ated in the same way as for the main section test. For (B)
waves at which work must be stopped, testing was carried
out with Tp = 8, 10, 12, 16 and 21 s and Hs increasing from
1 m in 0, m steps until reaching the “stop criterion: water
must not reach the work platform”. 500 waves were repro-
duced at a rate of Hmax = 1.9 Hs and for three sea levels: 3;
4 and 5 m.
4. The test
4.1. Test flume
The tests were conducted in the Large Flume at the CEDEX
Experimental Maritime Laboratory (Figures 5 and 6). The
main characteristics of these facilities are: 90 m long, 3.6 m
wide and depth 6 > 4.5 m; wave generation rotating pad-
dle (dry inner surface, 22.50◦ max. rotation, 300 Kw);
regular/irregular wave generation (max. height: 1.60 m)
and active absorption reflected wave system.
Figure 5. Large wave flume. Overview. Source: CEDEX.
Figure 6. Large wave flume. Longitudinal profile and model layout.
93
4.2. Similarity law, scale of the model and scale effects
As is general practice, Froude’s similarity: Fm = Fp where
F = V /(g L)0,5 (V : waves celerity, L: cube blocks length.
m:model, p: prototype), was used with a 1:30 geometric
scale for the main section and 1:28.5 for the construction
test. This was chosen considering: wave generation capac-
ity; operating range of the flume wave gauges and pressure
model sensors; model size and scale effects.
The scale effects due to the elasticity forces (Fe ), sur-
face stress (Fσ ) and viscosity (Fμ ) can be disregarded. In the
case of Fe , because water can be considered virtually incom-
pressible. In the case of Fσ , because when the periods are
greater than 0.5 s, as is habitual in maritime physical models,
the wave movements are governed by gravitational action
not by surface stress forces, and for Fμ , because Reynolds
model number (Re)m is > 3 × 104 for HD > 0.09 m, so the
model flow is turbulent.

−3/2 g · H D · le
(Re)m = λ (Re)p ; (Re)p = . (1)
v
94 R. Gutierrez-Serret and J. Lozano
Table 1. Characteristics of the wave records for each period.
Tp (s)
Prototype Model Spectral peak parameter (γ )
18 (storm 1) 3.30 3.3
16 (storm 2) 2.92 3.3
HD : Hs starting damage; le = (P/γ )1/3 (P: block weight;
γ : density); λ: geometric scale.
The effects of the core permeability, defined in the
design specifications by Dmax = 100 kg and 5% max. size
D < 1 kg (D: grain core size), are also negligible, because
this element was modelled with sizes somewhat larger
than those that there would be if the geometric scale were
applied (Dm = Dp /λ × K, where K = 3.4 for the small
sizes, K: stone size scalar multiplier; Hughes 1993). The
grain size distribution curve used can be seen in Figure 7.
Finally, the effects of scale on the measurement of pres-
sures on the parapet are also negligible because the design
selected – parapet protected by armour blocks (Figure 2) –
prevents the waves from breaking over it and, so, there are
no impulsive forces exerted (“ventilated impact”).
4.3. Water depth for the test
The maximum depth at the breakwater main section toe is
around 40 m. A 1.40 m test depth was adopted (prototype:
42 m for the main section and 39.9 m for the construction
stages). As the zone bathymetry is fairly uniform and paral-
lel to the breakwater with a gradient ≈1.5%, an even model
seabed was selected for approximately one wavelength
from its toe.
Figure 7. Core. Grain size distribution.
Duration of records
Model (min) Prototype (h) N o waves
27.5 2.5 610
27.5 2.5 690
4.4. Test wave calibration
Before the tests, waves were calibrated to create paddle
movements that would make it possible to reproduce waves
whose characteristics would adapt to the previously defined
JONSWAP spectrum. With a view to this, a record was
generated for each one of the waves and water levels whose
duration was such that the number of waves was sufficient
for statistical analysis. Table 1 shows these records for the
main section test:
4.5. Characteristics of the model materials
• Core
The model grain size curve is shown in Figure 7. The
specific weight of the stone is γp = 2.62 gr/cm3 .
• Blocks and quarry stones
The design prototype block density was γp =
2.4 t/m3 . To maintain the model/prototype density
ratio, (γw )p /(γw )m = 1.025 must hold, so it was nec-
essary to manufacture (γw )m = 2.34 g/cm3 model
blocks. Although blocks were constructed to reach
that density, this was not achieved, which meant that
the correction model/prototype stability number (Ns)
conservation had to be applied (Hudson et al. 1979),
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research 95

Table 2. Characteristics of the blocks manufactured for the model.

Prototype Model
Block Weight (t) Density (t/m3 ) Cubic block side (m) Weight (g) Density (g/cm3 ) Cubic block side (cm)

Main armour layer 150 2.4 3.97 6193 2.27 13.97

Back armour layer 50 2.4 2.75 2064 2.27 9.68
Filter 15 2.4 1.84 620 2.27 6.48

Table 3. Characteristics of the quarry stone selected for the model (main section. 1:30 scale).

Prototype Model
Equivalent side Equivalent side
Quarry stone Weight (t) Density (t/m3 ) length (m) Weight (g) Density (g/cm3 ) length (cm)

Mound 3–5 2.6 1.15 100–170 2.6 3–4

Sea side filter 1 2.6 0.72 28–30 2.6 2.1–2.4
Back armour layer 5 2.6 1.24 148–180 2.6 3.98–5
Back filter 0.5 2.6 0.57 14–18 2.6 1.5–2

for guaranteeing similarity in the systems: such a way that the quarry stone sizes, adapted to the char-
    acteristics of the different layers, for the 1:30 scale (main
Hs Hs section), and the equivalent weights given by the expression
(Ns)m = (Ns)p ; = ,
 · Dn50 m  · Dn50 p
(1), determined the values shown in Table 3.
(2)
5. Model construction
where Dn50 = (P/γp )1/3 ;  = (γa /γw ) – 1; Hsm / In all the models, construction began with the core, followed
Hsp = 1/λ by the filters; first the 1 t quarry stones, later the 2 layers of
and the model elements weight is obtained by 15 t blocks were placed over them by hand, making sure
  that there were no smooth zones, so that the main armour
Pp (γa )m 3p γ
Pm = × × ; = − 1. (3) blocks could have a coarse support.
λ3 (γa )p 3m γw When constructing the main armour layer (150 t), a
placing pattern, using coordinates, was devised with 40%
Samples were taken from 80 of the 150 t blocks manufac- porosity as included in the project. The placing was done
tured following this criterion, the average values being: using a cable with a clamp that gripped the blocks and they
weight = 6.193 g, γ = 2.27 g/cm3 and equivalent side were taken suspended as far as the position defined by the
le = (P/γ )1/3 = 13.97 cm; 7.7 mm greater than by apply- coordinate, where they were released and deposited, once
ing the geometric scale [23.1 cm, ≈5% in prototype]. The they had made contact with blocks or the filter layer. The
same procedure was applied to obtain weights and sizes coordinates were established with an approximate gap of
for filter blocks (15 t), leading to identical increases for 1.50 m between the blocks in each row and in such a way
le ≈ 5%. In both cases, the deviation is allowable. Table 2 that they were in contact with the ones on the row below,
shows the model block characteristics. arranged in staggered formation. For the main section test,
The design information for the quarry stone to be used the 150 t blocks were laid with Hs = 3 m waves and mean
in the berm and the filters was γ ≈ 2.6 t/m3 . A selection tide: 2.50 m. Figure 8 shows various model construction
was made from the types and sizes available at CEDEX, in phases.

Figure 8. Core, filter and main armour layers (150 and 50 t). Construction phases.
96 R. Gutierrez-Serret and J. Lozano
To find out the characteristics of the main layer, porosity
(p = no blocks · block vol./armour vol), packing density
(φ = 1 − no layers ·kp · (1 − p); kp = 1.05) and placing
density (d = no blocks/surface armour), were calculated
p = 0.37, φ = 1.32 and d = 0.034, for the main section.
For all the models, the porosity turned out to be slightly
less than the 0.40 design value and the packing density was
slightly above 1.20, the normal value for blocks placed ran-
domly. However, the values obtained validate the main layer
model.
6. Test methodology
6.1. Wave generation and measurement
The waves generated were measured to make sure the
model characteristics were the same as the test storms.
Measurements were analysed with the Mansard–Funke
method (Mansard & Funke 1980), at 50 Hz with 3 gauges
to calculate Hs incident and reflected, and the GEDAP
application (NRC, Canada) being used.
6.2. Stability tests: damage criteria
6.2.1. Main section test
The damage at each storm stage was not repaired. The
following activities were performed at each storm stages:
measuring the section incident/reflected waves, counting
the elements displaced in the section zones (an element is
displaced when it moves from its position a distance ≥ to
its equivalent side length) and photographs and video at the
beginning, during and at the end of each storm stage.
Quantitatively, the degree of damage in the section was
expressed by the indexes D: % elements displaced (n) with
respect to those place (N) [D = 100 n/N] and Nod: blocks
number displaced in a section whose width is the equiv-
alent block side length (le) [Nod = n/(B · le); B: tested
breakwater length.
The description of the main armour layer state after each
storm stage was (Losada et al. 1986):
• Start of damage: the outer blocks become displaced,
gaps appearing greater than their porosity.
• Iribarren failure: the number of blocks displaced
from the outer layer is such that many from its inner
layer are exposed, the waves can act directly on those
elements, which can be extracted.
• Start of destruction: the elements from the inner
armour layer are displaced, holes appearing that are
greater than their porosity, the filter emerging through
these.
• Destruction: some filter elements become displaced.
D and Nod can be associated with the above criteria by:
D < 5%; Nod = 0–0.5 ≈ “start of damage”; Nod = 0.5–
1.5 ≈ “moderate damage” and Nod = 2.0 ≈ filter visible:
“destruction start” (Negro 2002).
6.2.2. Construction stages
For the temporary construction protections (A), the dam-
age at each storm stage was not repaired and the fol-
lowing activities were performed: measuring the section
incident/reflected waves, counting the elements displaced
in the section and photographs and video at the start, during
and at the end of each storm stage.
6.3. Measuring pressure on the parapet
To measure parapet pressures and calculate wave forces,
two pressure gauge bands were attached to its frontal face
(9 units) and base (3 units), located in the central zone,
25 cm apart in the model (7.5 m in the prototype). The
model was exposed to Tp = 18 s storm (the worst). A stress
analysis made it possible to establish the moment for the
least favourable situation, which was generally the moment
of maximum horizontal force (Fx )max . The waves forces
time series – vertical and horizontal – were computed by
integration from the pressures measured in each sensor.
6.4. Overtopping measurements
Overtopping numbers were registered (volumes and rates
were obtained in earlier tests for the main section).
7. The results
7.1. Main section: design solution validation
• Stability tests
Along general lines, the section tested behaved
satisfactorily for the 2 design test storms (Figure 9).
Where the type section elements are concerned, the
following can be specifically stated:
• Main armour layer (150 t blocks).
In the 2 storms, only 1 block was displaced
for Hs = 15 m − D = 0.09, Nod = 0.039-. For Hs >
15 m, the damage was slight; for Hs = 20 m-Tp =
18 s 2 blocks fell −D = 0.18, Nod = 0.078- (“start
of damage”).
The model behaved in a similar way for both
storms. After the first stage (Hs = 8.0 m), the block
movements started. The blocks were not displaced,
but they tended to go back into place and settle on
other adjacent ones and those on the underlying row.
There was a clear “paving” effect on the middle and
lower rows as the storm continued. By contrast, in the
upper zone, as from the water line, the opposite effect
occurred: the block gaps increased, bringing about a
block “segregation” effect.
• Berm (1–3 t stones)
Stone movements took place in both storms. For
Hs = 15 m, stones became displaced and built up on
the berm and the armour layer toe, covering the 1st
row of blocks. Stone movement increased for Hs >
15 m, almost covering the 2nd row for Hs = 20 m,
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research
Figure 9. Main and back armours layers. State for Hs = 15 and 20 m, Tp = 18 s.
Figure 10. Overtopping. Tp = 18 s y Hs = 19 m. General view and close-up of the back armour layer.
Figure 11. Construction stages 1, 3 and 5. Crown failure. Final situation.
the berm profile adapting to the armour layer profile,
yet fulfilling its support function.
• Back armour layer (50 t blocks).
As the breakwater can be overtopped, this zone
was the most sensitive. Major overtopping made the
blocks descend but not fall. For 18 s, the descent
began at Hs = 15 m; affecting 2 blocks for Hs =
19 m, without any filter loss. For 16 s, the descent
occurred for Hs = 18 m (much less than for 18 s).
Regarding the overtopping effect on this armour layer, it
must be stressed that in the 3D tests conducted in the multi-
directional wave flume, this element failed in certain zones
because the blocks slid, which, as has been pointed out, did
not occur in the 2D tests. This failure was a result of the
7.2.
overtopping concentration in the zones where the obliquely
incident waves and the running waves along the breakwa-
ter came together. This circumstance made it necessary to
extend the armour layer and provide a support berm at an
elevation deep enough to ensure that the overtopping impact
did not destroy this element. These circumstances reveal the
need for 3D tests for breakwaters that can be overtopped.
• Pressure measurement tests on the parapet
In storm Tp = 18 s, adopted to determine the
parapet stresses, the pressures – face and base –
97
were measured, and the forces calculated, yielding
for Hs = 15 m and high tide: (Fx )max = 84.42 t/m
and (Fy ) = 67.39 t/m (Figure 10) and for 19 m:
(Fx )max = 121.22 t/m and (Fy ) = 100.24 t/m. These
values are not very high, because the parapet is
crowned at the same elevation as the main armour
layer (+25).
• Overtopping tests
The overtopping for both storms starts for Hs =
9 m at high tide. For Tp = 18 s and Hs = 15 m,
11.80% of the waves overtop the breakwater and 32%
for Hs = 19 m. Figure 10 shows waves overtopping.
Construction stages
(A) Temporary protections during construction
Phase 2 was the best performing. It failed for
Hs = 11 m-Tp = 20 s. Other stages failed for Hs =
9–10 m (Figure 11).
(B) Wave height at which the works must be stopped
for the worker’s safety.
The first overtopping was for Hs = 1.35 m at
Stage 1, with 5.0 m water level and Tp = 21 s. The
highest overtopping was for Hs = 6.92 m at Stage
7, level 3.0 m and Tp = 21 s.
98 R. Gutierrez-Serret and J. Lozano

8. The breakwater performance during the 9. Conclusions

construction As a result of the study described in this paper, the following
The construction works began in March 2005, and ended conclusions may be drawn:
in September 2011. So far, the breakwater has performed
as planned. Table 4 shows the major storms the breakwa- • Main section. Design validation
ter withstood during its construction. Damage only affects – Stability test
stretches under construction and temporary protections, in a • Main armour layer: for the waves design conditions
similar way to what happen in the physical model test, which (Hs = 15 m; Tp = 18 s) only one block was displaced
can be seen in Figure 12, shown by way of comparison. and for Hs > 15 m the damage was slight.
• Berm: for Hs = 15 m displacement of only two
blocks took place increasing for Hs > 15 m. With
Table 4. Major storms (May 1998–February 2012).
Hs = 20 m the berm profile adapting to the armour
Year Date HS (m) Hmax (m) Tp (s) layer profile fulfilling its function.
• Back armour layer: this zone was sensitive to the
1998 29/11/98 7.42 13.18 17.24 overtopping, and resulted in settlement of the whole
1999 18/1/99 7.58 13.54 14.30
2000 6/11/00 9.61 14.76 13.40
block layer but no individual block movement for
2001 28/1/01 11.91 18.06 14.30 any Hs .
2002 22/11/02 8.02 10.69 14.30 • Crown wall Parapet: Pressure measurement test: the
2003 21/1/03 8.76 13.80 15.30 values measured were not very high, because the
2004 18/4/04 6.80 10.65 12.50 parapet is protected by the main armour layer blocks,
2005 1/1/05 9.36 14.65 16.70
2006 8/12/06 7.81 13.24 15.30
crowned at the same elevation (+25 m).
2007 10/2/07 9.04 13.77 16.70 • Overtopping test: overtopping started for Hs = 9 m
2008 10/3/08 10.40 15.30 16.70 at high tide, for Hs = 15 m 12% of the waves overtop
2009(*) 20/1/09 8.84 13.47 14.30 and 32% for Hs = 19 m.
2009 5/11/09 7.46 11.21 13.20
2010 9/11/10 10.41 16.56 13.40
2011 15/2/11 9.93 15.75 16.70 – Construction stages
- (A) Temporary protection during construction:
∗ Buoy failure. stage 2 (Figure 11) was the best performing, fail-
ing for Hs = 11 m and Tp = 20 s. Other solutions
failed for Hs = 9–10 m
- (B) Wave height at which construction works must
be stopped for worker’s safety: 1st overtopping in
the work platform was at Stage 1 (Figure 1) for
Hs = 1.35 m, Tp = 21 s and 5.0 m tide level.
– Breakwater performance: in the various storms that
have been experienced during its construction, the
breakwater behaviour has shown a very good correla-
tion with test results and only damage affects stretches
under construction and temporary protections.

In addition, in relation to the physical model testing of large

breakwaters, both to define its section final rate and its
construction phases, CEDEX experience leads to the two
following general conclusions:

• Utility and reliability of the physical model tests for

Figure 12. The breakwater after the 15/2/11 storm. Courtesy of
Coruña Port Authority.
the study of port breakwaters construction stages,
both with regard to the safety of the people involved in
the works and the progress of the works themselves;
• Tests must be conducted on a small scale (large model
size), in order to avoid “scale effects”, especially
in the case of rubble mound breakwaters (e.g. 1:20
to 1.40);
• While the tests presented in this paper are 2D, in gen-
eral large breakwaters should be tested further in 3D
 Journal of Applied Water Engineering and Research
to study the behaviour of its singular points (head,
layout changes or typology, etc.) and the overtopping
effect on its rear side, as appropriate, generating the
wave incidence directions that may affect the struc-
tures and not just the perpendicular area, as in 2D
tests.
Acknowledgements
We thank the State Ports Public Body and Coruña Port Authority
for entrusting CEDEX with these tests.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2013.832024.
Notes on contributors
Ramón M. Gutiérrez Serret received his Doctorate from the Poly-
technic University of Madrid. He is an Associate Professor at
the Technical School of Public Works Engineering (Polytech-
nic University of Madrid) teaching the subject of Projects and
Planning of Works. He is currently Head of the Maritime Exper-
imentation Laboratory of the CEDEX Centre for Harbours and
Coastal Studies. During this period the Laboratory has devel-
oped numerous port and coastal physical model tests and ship
manoeuvring studies. He has also been in charge of several har-
bour and marine feasibility studies in Spain and Latin America
(Chile, Nicaragua and Colombia) and is the CEDEX representative
for the HYDRALAB network and the Iberoamerican Network of
National Institutes of Engineering and Hydraulic Research. He is
Secretary General of the International Association for Engineering
and Hydroenvironment Research (IAHR).
José Lozano Pedroche holds a Public Works Engineering Degree
and a Civil Engineering Degree from the Polytechnic University
of Madrid. He is also a Professor of the Master in Port and Coastal
Engineering, developed at the CEDEX from 2000 until 2009. He
99
is currently Head of the Laboratory Marine Structures Department
at the Maritime Experimentation Laboratory of the CEDEX Cen-
tre for Harbours and Coastal Studies. He has developed numerous
port and coastal physical model tests and has planned and directed
all performed in the Laboratory from his post as Head of the
Department of Maritime Structures. He is also responsible for the
management and maintenance of the facilities and the experimen-
tal test equipment. Furthermore, he has developed works to study
prototype breakwater behaviour in various Spanish harbours.
References
CEDEX. 2007. Behavior of the breakwater of the Coruña Outer
Port. Sensitivity tests against extreme conditions (In Spanish.
Unpublished).
CEDEX. 2008. Test, in large scale flume, of the type section and
construction phases of the breakwater main section of the
Coruna Outer Port (In Spanish. Unpublished).
CEDEX. 2010. Construction phases study in the main section
of the breakwater of the Coruña Outer Port (In Spanish.
Unpublished).
Hudson RY, Herman FA, Sager RA, Whalin RW, Keulegan GH,
Chatham CE, Hales LZ. 1979. Coastal hydraulic models.
Special report no 5. Vickburg (MS): US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station.
Hughes SA. 1993. Physical models and laboratory techniques in
coastal engineering. Singapore: World Scientific.
Losada MA, Desire JM, Alejo LM. 1986. Stability of blocks
breakwater armour units. J Struct Eng. ASCE. 112(11):2392–
2401.
Mansard EPD, Funke ER. 1980. Measurement incident-reflected
spectra using a least square method. 17th coastal engineering
conference; Sydney, Australia, p. 154–172.
Negro V. 2002. Diseño de diques rompeolas. Colegio de Ingenieros
de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, editor. Colección Senior No
28. Madrid.
Noya F. 2008. New port facilities at Punta Langosteira, Spain.
Marit. Eng. ICE. 161(MA3):101–106.
Pérez Freire JD, Alonso EM, Arquero FN, González VB. 2011.
The project of the new Outer Port of A Coruña, Spain.
PIANC, Yearbook; p. 225–240.