Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF BREAKWATERS
by
John
P.
Ahrens
Coastal Engineering Research Center
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 391800631
December 1987
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
Prepared for
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
of Engineers
US Army Corps
Washington,
under
DC
203141000
Unit 31616
Civil
Works Research Work
When
this report
is
no longer needed return
it
to
the originator.
The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so
designated by other authorized documents.
The contents
of this report are not to
be used for
advertising, publication, orpromotional purposes.
Citation of trade
official
names does not constitute an endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
Woods
Hc!e Ocsanographic
Institution
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Form Approved OMB No 07040188 Exp Date Jun30, 1986
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
1a
REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
DECLASSIFICATION
1b.
RESTRICTIVE
MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a
.
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
2b.
/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
5.
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
4.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
Technical Report CERC8717
6a NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION USAEWES, Coastal Engineering Research Center
6c.
6b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable)
7a.
NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
ADDRESS
(Oty, State,
and
ZIP Code)
7b.
ADDRESS
(City, State,
and
ZIP Code)
PO Box 631 Vicksburg, MS
8a.
391800631
8b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable)
9.
NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING
ORGANIZATION
PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
US Army Corps of Engineers
8c.
ADDRESS
(City, State,
and
ZIP Code)
10.
SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
Washington, DC
203141000
WORK
UNIT
ACCESSION NO
31616
11.
TITLE (Include Security Classification)
Characteristics of Reef Breakwaters
12.
PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
TYPE OF REPORT
13b.
Ahrens, John P.
13a.
TIME COVERED
14.
DATE OF REPORT
{Year,
Month, Day)
15
PAGE COUNT
Final report
16
FROM
December 1987
62
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
COSATI CODES
18
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
SUBJECT TERMS {Continue on reverse
if
necessary
and
identify by block
number)
Breakwaters Water waves
19
(LC) (LC)
ABSTRACT (Continue on
reverse
if
necessary and identify by block number)
A laboratory study was conducted to determine the stability, wave transmission, wave reflection, and energy dissipation characteristics of reef breakwaters. Reef breakwaters are lowcrested structures comprised of a homogeneous pile of stone with individual stone weights in the range of those ordinarily used in the armor and first underlayer of traditional multilayered breakwaters. The study included over two hundred tests, all using irregular wave conditions.
Results of the study are discussed and summarized through the use of equations fit to The equations fit the data well, are consistent with the physics of the various phenomena as they are currently understood, and approach logical limiting values.
the data.
(Continued)
20
fill
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT SAME AS RPT UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED
21
ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DTIC USERS
Unclassified
22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
22c OFFICE
22a
NAME OF
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
83 APR edition
All
SYMBOL
DD FORM
1473, 84 mar
may be used
until
exhausted
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
other editions are obsolete
Unclassified
A wave transmission model capable of predicting the amount of wave energy transmitted over and through the structure for both submerged and nonsubmerged reefs. A model which predicts the amount of incident wave energy dissipated by the reef. d. A reef stability model which can predict the degree of degration of the structure as a function of severity of irregular wave attack. Important findings include: a. A wave reflection model which makes accurate predictions of energy reflected from the reef for a wide range of wave conditions and structure heights.Unclassified •tCUFITY CLARIFICATION OF THIS FAQI 19. c. Unclasp fip. ABSTRACT (Continued). b.d SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS FAGE .
Summer Aide. Wave Research Branch (CWR) . and John G. CERC. Messrs. Wave Dynamics Division (CW) . This report was prepared by Mr. Chief of Engi neers (OCE) .PREFACE The study reported herein was authorized by the Office. . This report was edited by Ms. Louis Myerele and Martin F. Computer Assistant. Zirkel and Messrs. J. Chief and Assistant Chief.. Engineering Technicians. Lee. CERC. Calhoun. Hanshaw. Jr. D. Iceland. Information Technology Laboratory. Lockhart. and under general supervision of Dr. WES. Davidson. Titus. C. Robert W. John H. Chief. D. who helped to analyze the data. Research Oceanographer. Housley. and funded through the Coastal Engi neering Functional Area of Civil Works Research and Development. Eugene Chatham. Ahrens. and Leland Hennington. Jr. CERC. Gisli Viggosson on temp orary assignment from the Icelandic Harbour Authority. US Army Corps of Engineers. CW. Charles C. CW. respectively. The project was monitored by Messrs. John P. Reykjavik. and C. Whalin. OCE Technical Monitors. Linwood Vincent. Assisting Mr. James R. John Heggins. under Work Unit 31616.. Information Products Division. Shirley A. Houston and Mr. Commander and Director of WES during publication of this report was COL Dwayne G. The study was conducted at the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) of the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). and Eng. Ahrens in conducting the study were the following CERC employees: Ms. Technical Director was Dr. Dr. is Program Manager of the Coastal Engineering Functional Area. CE. Karen P. Work was performed under direct supervision of Messrs.
CONTENTS Page PREFACE 1 PART I : INTRODUCTION 3 Background Scope PART II: 3 4 5 7 LABORATORY SETUP AND TECHNIQUES USED Stability Tests Previous Damage Tests Profile Surveys PART III : 8 10 11 11 STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE RESULTS Stability to Irregular Wave Attack Wave Transmission Wave Reflection and Energy Dissipation PART IV: 28 36 CONCLUSIONS 43 45 REFERENCES PHOTO 1 APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: TABULAR SUMMARY OF STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE DATA REGRESSION ANALYSIS USED TO DEVELOP FIGURE 29 SHOWING ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN VICINITY OF REEF Al Bl CI NOTATION .
Dunham (1975) give a carefully reasoned discussion of the many factors influencing stability of heavily overtopped rubblemound breakwaters. the economic advantage of a lowcrested structure over a tradi tional breakwater that is infrequently overtopped is obvious. Raichlen discusses the characteristics of overtopping over Walker. or possibly even advantageous. applications include protecting water intakes for power plants and entrance channels for smallboat harbors and providing an alternative to revetment for stabilizing an eroding shoreline. A number of papers have noted that armor on the landside slope of a lowcrested breakwater is more likely to be displayed by heavy overtopping than armor on the seaward face (Lording and Scott 1971. Palmer. They also show a figure which suggests what armor weight is required for stability . Raichlen 1972. In situations where only partial attenua tion of waves on the leeside of a structure is required. it . and Lillevang 1977). particularly reef breakwaters.CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF BREAKWATERS PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 A reef breakwater is a lowcrested rubblemound breakwater without This type of breakwater is little the traditional multilayer cross section. Most of these structures are Other intended to protect a beach or reduce the cost of beach maintenance. Because the reef breakwater represents the ultimate in design simplicity. is not well documented or understood. 2. and the crest and the inherent complexity of the problem. In recent years a number of lowcrested breakwaters have been built or considered for use at a variety of locations. Unfortunately. a lowcrested rubblemound breakwater is a logical selection.could be the optimum structure for many situations. Background 3. the performance of low crested rubblemound structures. Since the cost of a rubblemound breakwater increases rapidly with the height of the crest. more than a homogeneous pile of stones with individual stone weights similar to those ordinarily used in the armor and first underlayer of conventional breakwaters.
lowcrested breakwaters shows that wave transmission is strongly dependent on a dimensionless freeboard parameter which includes the zero crossing period of irregular wave conditions. Seelig (1979) conducted an extensive series of model tests to deter mine wave transmission and reflection characteristics of lowcrested breakwaters. 1980). cates.to 5ton* range (Bremner et al. then possible stability of the backside slope would also be a function of wave period. are very similar to the Townsville breakwater except a wider gradation of stone was used in the model breakwater tests discussed herein.. . * Metric ton.e. freeboard divided by incident significant wave height). including submerged structures. In Australia. A study currently being conducted at the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station's Coastal Engineering Research Center is intended to document the performance of lowcrested breakwaters. as described in this paper. The crest height of the structure was reduced as much as 4 m but still functioned effectively as a submerged breakwater for over 2 years until it was repaired. that since wave transmission (which largely results from over topping) is dependent on period. Scope 6. 1980). 4. Australia. This breakwater is unusual because it was built entirely of stone in the 3. Allsop did not find substantial He indi wave period dependency in his evaluation of breakwater stability. Reef breakwaters. Based on the surprisingly good performance of the damaged Rosslyn Bay breakwater and the findings from model tests. 5. wave transmission and reflection characteristics. Unfortunately. Recent work by Allsop (1983) with multi layered. the breakwater at Rosslyn Bay was damaged severely during Cyclone David in 1976 (Bremner et al. From these tests Seelig concluded that the component of transmission resulting from wave overtopping was very strongly dependent on the relative freeboard (i.on the backside of a lowcrested breakwater. however. This paper discusses labora tory model tests of reef breakwaters and provides information on their stability to wave attack. the data scatter shown in the figure undermines confidence in the suggested armor weights. and wave energy dissipation. a lowcrested design was chosen for the breakwater at Townsville Harbor.
6. These tests were conducted in a 61cmwide channel within CERC's 1. For this study four files were stored on the tape which could produce a spectrum with a distinct period of peak energy density. All tests were 5(m) o DENOTES WAVE GAGE LOCATION WALL OF WAVE TANK TO WAVE 1 I ON 15 GRAVEL WAVE ABSORBER BEACH : GjAVJLJ«AJiEJiBS^REOEACHd " EFlftANNEL ""wauT ° ABSORBER "MATERIAL] SHOALING SLOPE oo REEF o  ^_ iEEj ° _P0N0!NG. 8. 205 twodimensional laboratory tests of reef breakwaters have been completed.60 sec. and water depth at ranged from 25 to 30 cm. Signals to control the wave blade were stored on magnetic tape and transferred to the wave generator through a computer data acquisition system (DAS) . This procedure produced a spectrum of the Kitaigorodskii The amplitude of the signal to the wave type as described by Vincent (1981).by 4.45 to 3.2.by 42. Plan view of wave tank and test setup The spectra used had wave periods of peak conducted with irregular waves. REL IEF CHANNEL BREAKWATER W GRAVEL WAVE ABSORBER BEACH AUXILIARY CHANNEL GRAVEL WAVE ABSORBER BEACH GRAVEL WAVE ABSORBER BEACH WALL OF WAVE TANK PLAN VIEW Figure 1 . energy density the structure d T * ranging from about 1. To date. Table 1 gives the nominal period of peak energy density for If there were no attenuation of the signal to the wave generator. symbols and unusual abbreviations are listed and defined in the Notation (Appendix C) . For frequencies lower than those of the peak. the files used were intended to produce a saturated spectrum at all frequences above the frequency of peak energy density for the water depth at the wave blade.7m tank (Figure 1). the energy density de creased rapidly. each file.PART II: LABORATORY SETUP AND TECHNIQUES USED 7. generator was attenuated by a 10turn potentiometer in a voltage divider * For convenience.
9.25 2. to 18 cm. This setup ensures that severe conditions can be developed at the SCALE 1 3 r TRAINING WALL 19 WAVE GAGES WAVE GAGES METERS TO WAVE GENERATOR FROM END OF TRAINING WALLS 15 1 T) 6 7 REEF BREAKWATER CONCRETE PLATFORM 5 8 9 10 i^ T\ 11 1 2 3 4 12 1 DISTANCE ALONG CHANNEL (M) Figure 2. Figure 2. During data collection gages were sampled at a rate of 16 times per second for 256 sec by the same DAS which controlled the wave generator motion. and two wave gages were placed behind the structure The location of gages is shown in to measure the transmitted wave height. Incident zeromoment wave heights mo ranged from about ° 1 Three parallel wireresistance wave gages were used in front of the breakwater to resolve the incident and reflected wave spectra using the method of Goda and Suzuki (1976) . the waves were generated in a water depth 25 cm greater than at the breakwater and shoaled to the water depth at the structure over a 1V on 15H slope (see network which allowed control of the wave heights generated.45 2.86 3. sec 2 3 4 1.Table 1 Period of Peak Energy Density for Each Tape File Tape File 1 Approximate T 2 . Figure 2) . Cross section of test channel H structure site. .60 In addition.
Collect wave data (several or more times). the technicians observing the tests thought that most of the stone movement occurred during the first 10 or 15 min of wave generation. Calibrate the wave gages. h. so the final survey is regarded as an equilibrium profile for the structure. f. W . In rebuilding the breakwater the technicians rarely touched the stone but merely pushed it around by foot until the shape conformed to the desired initial profile. Survey the breakwater to document its final condition. e. Figure 3 also shows a typical profile after moderately severe wave attack during a stability test. using the cube root of the volume of the median weight stone as the typical dimension d _ . Stop the wave generator. g_.5H (Figure 3). b. For a stability test the following test sequence was used: a.10. Select the tape file and signal attenuation setting. Start the wave generator and run waves. Rebuild the breakwater from the previously damaged condition. Generally. d. Survey the breakwater to document its initial condition. Outlines of the desired initial profile were fixed to the walls of the testing channel. Wave transmission and . This procedure was a con scious effort to avoid overly careful placement of the stone. reflection also were measured during a stability test. Crest widths were three typical stone dimen sions wide. 1 The duration of wave action was from 11/2 hr for a test using the File spectrum to 31/2 hr for a File 4 spectrum. Each type followed a prescribed sequence. Stability Tests 11. Initial configuration of the breakwater for a stability test was a narrow. Two types of model tests were conducted during this study: stabil ity and previous damage tests. and a moveable template was used to ensure that the initial profile was reasonably close to the desired profile. £. trapezoidal shape with seaward and landward slopes of IV on 1.
For sub Two different sizes of stone were used during this study. For previous damage tests there was very little readjustment of the damage profile from test to test. wave transmission and reflection were measured. d. Because of the test plan. stability test series have odd numbers. g_. Select wave file and signal attenuation setting. All 205 of the completed tests of this study can be divided logi cally into 10 subsets or test series. Collect wave data (two or three times) Stop wave generator. 2 lists the basic information about each subset. Table 14. Previous damage tests were conducted to answer the question of how the breakwater would perform for moderate wave conditions after it had been damaged by very severe wave conditions. and the duration of wave action was only half an hour. the breakwater was not rebuilt at the end of a test. Survey breakwater as noted above in Step 1. e. £. Start generator and run waves for half an hour. . consequently. f_. Previous damage tests were performed in the following sequence: a. Calibrate wave gages. 6 sets 1 through an angular quartzite with a median weight of 17 g was used. however. 13. No stability information was obtained from these tests.' I II nn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONCRETE PLATFORM' I I I I l i l L i 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100 110 120 DISTANCE ALONG CHANNEL. and previous damage test series have even num bers. Survey breakwater for last test which becomes initial survey for current test. CM Figure 3 Crosssectional view of initial and typical damaged reef profiles (swl denotes stillwater level) Previous Damage Tests 12. b.
0 Diorite 14.170 1. .190 1.63 45 Density (g/cm Porosity (%) .900 1. c W 50 17 * A . and Table 3 summarizes informa tion about it. and for subsets 7 through 10 a blocky to angular diorite with a median weight Photo 1 of 71 g was used.560 1.Table 2 Jasic Data for Each Subset Subset No. Table 3 Stone and Gradation Characteristics Characteristic 2% weight (g) Quartzite 7.83 44 28. s Crest Height "as built" h cm 1 Median Stone Weight Area of Breakwater Cross Section .900 NA 32 38 26 13 5 8 9 NA 32 30 30 1.900 1.900 10 NA 71 * NA denotes not applicable to previous damage test series.0 139. cm 2 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 1.0 2. depicts the stone.190 2. 98% weight (g) 3 ) W 50 (g) 17.0 71.560 NA 35 41 11 2. 1 No.170 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA* 30 17 17 17 17 17 71 71 71 29 12 1. of Tests 27 3 Water Depth d cm .0 2.0 Median weight.
the foot of the survey rod had a 7 diameter of 2.05 cm. files were used to establish an average profile for the reef. 10 . Three pro One profile line was exactly in the center of the wave channel. The survey interval along the channel was 3. Initial and final profiles of the reef were obtained by survey.Profile Surveys 15. small stone used for subsets 1 through 6.81 cm.54 cm. and for the somewhat larger stone used in subsets through 10. For the The survey rods had feet attached with ballandsocket connectors. and the other two profile lines were 15 cm on either side of center. the foot of the survey rod had a diameter of 3.
Another advantage of the crest height reduction factor is that all stability subsets have the same natural limiting values of 1. The report herein consolidates findings from all of the data sub2 sets identified in Table into general conclusions about the stability and performance characteristics of reef breakwaters. wave trans mission over and through the breakwater. will be referred to as the crest height reduction factor. This For ratio. Stability to Irregular Wave Attack 17. This aspect of stability is important because the performance of a reef breakwater will be judged largely on its wave transmission characteristics. Specific characteristics in clude the stability of reef breakwaters to irregular wave attack.0 and 0. wave reflection from the breakwater. Crest height reduction factor 18. the most important aspect of which is the reduction in crest height caused by wave attack. and dissipation of wave energy.0. The stability of reef breakwaters will be quantified by damage or lack of damage during a test. One of the most effective methods to evaluate damage to a reef breakwater is to use the ratio of the crest height at the completion of a test to the height at the beginning of the test before waves have been run. Wave transmission is very sensitive to crest height relative to water level. These math ematical models are intended to work together with the stability model fur nishing the equilibrium crest height to both transmission and reflection models which together are used to estimate the amount of energy dissipated by the reef. h /h' c c . Stability number and spectral stability number comparison 19. is effective because it inherently accounts for the random variation of one to two centimeters in the constructed crest height from test to test within a subset. h /h' comparing damage within a subset. A mathematical model is developed for each characteristic which provides a simple method to summarize findings from this study and a convenient way to furnish results to potential users. Experience with the stability of traditional rubblemound break waters to monochromatic waves suggests that one of the most important 11 .PART III: STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE RESULTS 16.
it was apparent that tests with a higher period of peak energy density did more damage than similar tests with a smaller period of peak energy density. According to the stability analysis of Gravesen. 7. and Sorensen (1980) on the stability of highcrested. and 9. 3. In Figures 4. rubblemound breakwaters exposed to irregular wave attack. _. 7. (2) W 50 . This finding is consistent with these tests were conducted in fresh water.variables to explain damage would be one similar to the stability number used by Hudson and Davidson (1975). They also show that there is little or no damage for spectral stability numbers less than about six but that damage increases rapidly for spectral stability numbers above eight. Jensen. _ w w where L P is the Airy wave length calculated using d s T P and the water depth at the toe of the reef 20. CD where w r is the density of stone and w w is the density of water.0 g/cm . As far as the the results of a study conducted by Gravesen. The figures show that there is less scatter in the damage trends when they are plotted versus the spectral stability number. the following analysis the spectral stability number will be used to define In 12 . respectively. The following definition is used for the stability number for tests with irregular waves: H N = W w^2 1/3 \ 50\ . Figures 4 through 8 show comparisons of the effectiveness of the stability number and the spectral stability number in accounting for damage to reef breakwaters. and 8 the crest height reduction factor is plotted versus the traditional stability number and the spectral stability number for stability subsets 1. 5. w =1. 6. the spectral stability number is defined N* = (h V mo \ "T 2 lY /3 p/ Y' . 5. L Since w stability tests of reef breakwaters are concerned.
b.7 a D D a n 51 2 4 ( STABILITY NUMBER.56 8 10 12 Ns* 14 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER.6 0. Crest height reduction factor versus the stability number C P % D D ] ^ D C 1 D J C 3 D D 1 0.E D 3 D D tl 0. Stability comparisons for subset 1 13 . Ns a. Crest height reduction factor versus the spectral stability number Figure 4.9 n a a a D D 8a D 0.
Stability comparisons for subset 3 14 . b. Ns Crest height reduction factor versus the stability number l.O 1 3 [ 3 °U c D 3s C n 1 D D 3 c 3 0.54 6 8 10 12 Ns* 14 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER. Crest height reduction factor versus the spectral stability number Figure 5.rn D D & D D b D c a a & a 33 D D D 2 4 J STABILITY NUMBER.
Crest height reduction factor versus the spectral stability number Figure 6. Crest height reduction factor versus the stability number 1.5 STABILITY NUMBER. b.8 a a a a a a a a a a =fa U. Stability comparisons for subset 5 15 . Ns a.b a a 0.y D a a o a a a U.1.0 —* I 1 I* TD n o Sa c a a a I a a q 3° n s a On B i 1 E D 6 8 10 12 Ns* 14 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER.0 am —^3 B— a a ° a a u.
b.9  P3 3 a a 0. Stability comparisons for subset 7 16 . b.9 ° n n n a D a u.8j « c 0. TBJEI 5^ acq3* % e — D D 3 a 3 0. Ns a.0 1 bDg.7 0. Crest height reduction factor versus the spectral stability number Figure 7. Ns. Crest height reduction factor versus the stability number 1.7  0.5 J i ' 1 6 8 10 12 14 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER.1.\ I 2 4 ( STABILITY NUMBER.6 J 0.0 B^Tg 3 ditfg 3 »* n Ca D U.6 O.
0 a h no c .9 ii _3 0. 0. a n sz £ Z O H Q 111 0.b — 2 4 6 STABILITY NUMBER. Crest height reduction factor versus the stability number —B flfl »1 t c D: o 0. Ns.7' 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER. b.6" DC U.1.9 D F.8 or 1 LU o < LU 0.7  0. Crest height reduction factor versus the spectral stability number Figure 8. Stability comparisons for subset 9 17 . Ns a.
Figure 9 the damage trends for all five stability subsets are shown using sub jectively drawn curves. the bulk number and the "as built" effective reef slope C' . which can be used with Figure 9 to evaluate the influence of secondary stability factors.the relative severity of wave attack on reef breakwaters. Secondary stability factors 21. s Figure 9 shows that the wide difN* ference in initial relative height of these structures is maintained until is about 6. the data trends tend to fall 8 Using h /d to show damage trends spreads the data out so that subsets can be distinguished and provides better orientation by showing the swl. Relative exposure to wave action. 18 . Based on analysis of all the data. which are discussed below. illustrate the influence of h'/d c on stability. tor is illustrated in Figure 9 where structures with the greater initial rela tive height h'/d have their height reduced more rapidly with increasing N* than structures with lower initial relative height. especially for N* h /h' c < c . Submerged break waters are much less exposed to wave attack than breakwaters with crests above the water level. the average value of initial relative crest height h'/d is given by subset along with two other secondary stability factors. the variable ° h /d c s For intercomparing h /h' c . Subsets 1 and 5.0: however. damage trends between subsets. One secondary stability factor is the relative exposure of the structure to wave action. . it is concluded that the greater the initial height of the reef the more vulnerable it is to wave attack. In Table 4. Water overlying a submerged crest greatly dampens wave This fac impact forces and attenuates the lift and drag forces on the stone. For the most severe condi tions at about N* = 17 s . Figure 9 will help identify In what will be referred to as secondary stability factors or variables. 22. Figure 9 shows the relative crest height h /d (see Figure 3) as a function of the spectral stability number. when noticeable stone movement starts at about ' = 6 . Data analysis and observation of the laboratory tests indicate that several factors other than the spectral stability number have a quantifiable influence on the stability of reef breakwaters. which represent tests using the same stone size and water depth. is better than c When various subsets are plotted using on top of each other. the difference in relative height between the two subsets is not very large. N* s the difference in relative heights for the reefs of the two subsets tends to decrease with increasing value of N* .
27 222 222 1 88 .88 9 1.06 1 * B n bulk number.18 1. 3. 7. and 9 Table 4 Average Values of Secondary Stability Variables by Subset Relative Crest Height "as Built" h'/d c s Subset No. "as built." defined by Equation 19 .41 337 . N Figure 9.90 3 5 7 450 631 1 80 . ** C effective reef slope. Damage trends of the relative crest height as a function of the spectral stability number for the stability subsets 1. 5. 1 Reef Size B * n Ef tective Reef Slope "as Built" c'** 1 0. defined by Equation 3. 4.SUBSET 5 APPROXIMATE THRESHOLD OF STONE MOVEMENT SUBSET 1 Bn 337 450 631 3 5 7 9 222 222 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER.99 1.76 1 1.
23.
Influence of reef bulk.
Subsets
1
and
5
can be used also to
illustrate the influence of size or bulk of the reef on stability.
Even
though the difference in relative height for the two subsets narrows with
increasing
N*
,
the crest heights of the reefs of subset
1.
5
always are higher
than those of subset
In fact, Figure
5
9
shows that the relative position of
the trends for subsets 1, 3, and
are maintained such that the larger struc
ture always has a greater crest height than the smaller structure for a given
value of
N*
.
In order to intercompare the stability of all subsets, a
general measure of breakwater size is needed which will be consistent with the
data trends shown in Figure
9.
Within this context, the variable which best
B
characterizes the size of the reef breakwater is called the bulk number
and is defined as
n
A
B "
~
A
W
T73
50\
"
"f
So
(3)
where
A
t
= area of breakwater cross section, cm
= unit weight of stone g/cm
3
2
w
d 24.
_
= dimension of stone,
cm
Bulk number can be described as the equivalent number of median
Equivalent is
stones per median stone width in the breakwater cross section.
used because
n 45 percent for the two stone gradations used in this study.
B
does not include the influence of porosity which is about
The value of the
bulk number lies in its ability to explain the rather straightforward behavior
of the relative location of the damage trends for subsets
1,
3,
and
5
in Fig
ure 9.
It also explains the rather anomalous behavior,
9
such as that of the
trend for subset
crossing the trend for subset
9 9
1.
At first it seems sur1,
prising that the reefs of subset
sidering that the reefs of subset
Table 2).
degrade faster than those of subset
con
have the greater crosssectional area (see
However, when the bulk number is used to measure the size of the
reef rather than the crosssectional area, the relative behavior of the damage
trends for subsets
1
and
9
seems more plausible.
Subsets
1
and
9
have bulk
1
numbers of 337 and 222, respectively, indicating that the reefs of subset
20
have more stone in the cross section than the reefs of subset 9.
All the data
appear to indicate that when the relative severity of wave attack is based on
the spectral stability number the stability of the reef correlates better with
the number of stones in the cross section than with the absolute size of the
cross section.
Other factors being equal, a reef with a large bulk number is
more stable than a reef with a small bulk number because there are more stones
to dissipate wave energy and to shelter other stones from wave forces.
25.
Effective slope of the reef.
The remaining secondary stability
factor is a combination of the first two.
This factor, referred to as the
effective slope of the reef, is obtained by dividing the crosssectional area
by the square of the crest height.
cussed in this report:
(a)
Two effective slope variables will be dis
the effective slope of the structure "as built,"
defined as
c*

~
A
W
and (b) the response slope for the reef breakwater to wave action, defined as
A
C =

h
c
(5)
These variables are considered a cotangent function since dividing
A
by
h
one time produces a variable which can be regarded as a horizontal length, and
dividing this length by
h
creates a cotangentlike variable.
For low
crested, or submerged reefs, these variables provide a simple way to charac
terize an average slope or shape for what is sometimes a rather complex shape
(e.g., see Figure 3).
Table
4
shows that the average values of the effective
structure slope "as built" are in a relatively narrow range.
Since the land6
ward and seaward faces of the reef were built to a slope of IV on 1.5H (cot
= 1.5),
the difference between the values of
C
in Table
4 and 1.5 result
from the crest width of the trapezoid which increases the effective slope, as
illustrated in Equation
6.
The "as built" cross section of the reef is a narFor this study
row trapezoid with a crest width three stone diameters wide.
21
the crosssectional area of the reef is given approximately by
A
t
= (h;)
2
cot
e
+
3
K (^j
6
(6)
where
cot
G
is the cotangent of the angle
between the "as built" seaIf the severity of
ward and landward breakwater slopes and the horizontal.
wave attack exceeds a value of the spectral stability number of about six, the
reef deforms.
A convenient method to quantify the deformation is to use effecIn Figure 10
tive response slope for reef breakwaters defined by Equation 5.
the response slope
C
is plotted as a function of
N*
.
This figure is simi
lar to Figure 14.17 presented by Wiegel (1964) showing the relationships among
the grain size, beach slope, and severity of the exposure of a beach to wave
action.
26.
C'
Because of the narrow range of the effective "as built" reef slope
(Table 4), it was not possible to quantify the influence of this variable
It is assumed that the flatter the initial slope of the reef
on stability.
the more stable it will be.
Future laboratory tests may expand the range of
this variable so that the influence of the initial slope can be determined
definitively.
27.
Figure 10 suggests that a logical form for a reef breakwater sta
bility equation would be
= exp
c
N
i
J7
(
s)
(7)
where
C
is a dimensionless coefficient.
C,
1
Regression analysis was used to
N*
s 7 >
determine the value of
C
for tests where
C
,
6.0
;
the value obtained was
= 0.0945.
With this value of
C
Equation
explains about 99 percent of
N*
s
>
the variance in
for the 109 stability tests with
6.0
.
Equation
7
approaches logical limits with
C
>
oo
,
as
,
N* * N* *
oo
and
C > 1.0
as
22
3. It variables to an equation like Equa7 tion 7 and improve the ability to predict the response slope over Equation At the same time it is clear from Figure 9 very much. 5. that secondary stabil ity factors have some influence on reef stability. and severity of wave attack can all be linked with a relation as simple as that in Equation is difficult to add secondary stability 7. Reef breakwater response slope versus the spectral stability number for stability subsets 1.0222 (8) where the relative "as built" crest height of the reef equation like Equation 7 h'/d c s was added to an to improve the predictive ability. After trial and error the following equation was developed which includes one secondary stability variable and does a better job of predicting the response slope of the reef: h' C = — 7y = exp N* 0. giving for a triangular reef cross section with side slopes of IV on 1H. stone size and density. Equation 8 23 . and 9 since the natural angle of repose for gravel is about 45 deg. It is surprising that the response slope of the reef.0 7 Equation can be compared to the observed data in Figure 10.SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER Ns« Figure 10. C = 1. 7.0676 + 0.
Higher values are to be expected since Equation N* > was developed for tests where 6 and there was enough rock movement to form an equilibrium reef profile and not for wave conditions where the "as built" reef slope was too stable to be deformed. 24 . To judge the effectiveness of this procedure. This equation is given by h' = exp f0. Equations 8 and 9 are used together to compute the response crest height of the reef over a wide range of wave severity. h /h' C C in Equation denoted be denoted . This approach will be s referred to as the stability model. 29. Since it would be useful to have a stability model which predicts reasonable response crest heights over the entire range of test conditions. C for the 109 tests with N* s > 6 . albeit somewhat conservatively in the range 10 as can be seen in Figure 11. It was found that when using Equation 8 to predict the relative crest height h /d for values of N* near or below six. > The procedure is to use Equation 8 for N* If we let the solution for 10 and Equation 9 9 for / \ c N* S < 6 .6 / \h' /N*  6 + / T^ ? CT \10 .N*\ /h \ 10 . 00005 (N*) 3 ' 5 ! (9) Equation 9 provides a simple relation which follows the trend of the data N* < well.explains 99. This range provides a con venient overlap with the range of Equation and allows an equation to be developed which will be simple enough to serve as a ruleofthumb relation for zero to relatively low damage situations. [h /h' \ cj ] and the solution for l h /h' c c in Equation 8 be h /h'J V /u then the following equation 10 .5 percent of the variance in 28. illogically high 6 values could result.6/ \h' c (10) can be used in the transition region 6 < N* < 10 to compute the response crest height h . another stability equation was developed to predict crest heights for values of N* < 10 8 . The small levels of damage predicted by Equation 9 for N* < 6 represent settlement and consolidation of the reef under wave action and not conspicuous stone movement.
respectively. Figures 12 through 16 show h /d versus and d N* with 2 synthetic trends for each subset generated using and of A from Table h'/d c s from Table 4. Synthetic damage trends comprise the type of information that could be generated by a user of the stability model.SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER Ns Figure 11. and 9. 15. 5. In general. and 16 were prepared to compare observed data for subsets 1. 14. 5. 25 . Discrepancies between predicted and observed values appear to occur because the stability model does not include the bulk number. 3. N* Values of h /d c s were generated at integer values N* for a range of about the same as observed within each subset. synthetic trends follow observed data trends very well. 6. and 9 Figures 12. 13. with synthetic data trends generated by the stability model. 3. Crest height reduction factor versus spectral stability number for stability subsets 1. 7.
Ns Figure 12. SYNTHETIC DAMAGE ^tK ^^ I SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER. Ns Figure 13.SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER. Comparison of data and the synthetic damage trends generated by the stability model for subset 3 26 . Comparison of data and the synthetic damage trends generated by the stability model for subset 1 3 3 ^on V D sJOD a LEGE ND OB SERVED DAT A T 5\.
Ns Figure 14.1 <?1 1 . Comparison of data and the synthetic damage trends generated by the stability model for subset 5 ?n V aiL 3 *i ft N kj SYN rHETI CDAK 1AGE <\ ! 3 TR . Figure 15.ND D LEGEND 1 SERVED DA rA SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER. Ni. 1 SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER. a SYNTHETIC DAMAGE TREND * LEGEND a QO BSERVEDDA TA ^ k: L \. Comparison of data and the synthetic damage trends generated by the stability model for subset 7 27 . ] DO D D sJ .
This definition eliminates wave energy losses occurring between the incident and transmitted gages in the absence of a breakwater in the testing channel.2  5 h' o I tr H5 SYNTHETIC DAMAGE TREND n*' < 0.6  0.3  h . 1. Equation 11 can be stated as the ratio of the transmitted wave height to the wave height which would be observed at the same location without the breakwater in the channel. Comparison of data and the synthetic damage trends generated by the stability model for subset 9 Wave Transmission 30. and 6 is the zero moment wave height at the transmitted gage locations with no breakwater in the test channel. Ns Figure 16.1.5  ' I SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER . Although this is not the most commonly used definition of K . it has some advantages over the traditional definition which is given by the ratio of transmitted to incident wave height. For the tests mentioned above the wave transmission coefficient K is defined as K t=iT c H c (ID where H t is the zeromoment transmitted wave height.8 LE( 5END b  O 3SERV ED DA TA B 0. 28 .7  0.
the smaller the wave the greater the K . the dominant mode of transmission is through the structure. K measures attenuation of wave energy because of the presence of the breakwater and eliminates addi tional energy losses caused by natural wave breaking processes occurring between the incident and transmitted wave gages. However. higher than the more traditional definition of the transmission coefficient. F = H . i. generally. the pri mary mode of transmission results from wave propagation over the crest and. K should be somewhat conservative.0 .d . The easiest way to discuss development of a general wave transmis sion model for reef breakwaters is to first consider relatively high struc When the dominant is greater than one. If the relative freeboard is greater than about one.e.. When a reef breakwater is submerged. 31. A number of other factors tend to further confuse the above generalities.. relative freeboard parameter F/H Seelig (1980) found that the was the most important variable in ex plaining wave transmission of submerged and overtopped breakwaters.e. shows a plot of K Figure 18 d versus the reef transmission variable F/H mo > (L 5o)A H mo A t^ for the 37 tests where 1. Wave transmission has proved to be a very difficult characteristic of reef breakwaters to predict partly because this study includes both sub merged and nonsubmerged rubblemound structures. i. and the smaller the wave the greater the K . the dominant mode of transmission results from wave runup and overtopping. where freeboard F is equal to crest height minus water depth.These losses were observed to be considerable for the most severe wave conditions during calibration of the channel. Using the above definition of K will allow evaluation of wave energy dissipating characteristics of reef Because of the definition used. The difficulty in parameteriz ing the wave transmission process can be appreciated partly by considering the influence of the wave height. This one variable caused the wave 29 . breakwaters in the next section. In effect. a confusing trend will be obtained using this variable when there is a transition in the dominant mode of transmission from that due to wave runup and overtopping to that due to transmission through the structure. 32. and the larger the wave the larger the K . When the crest is just above the water level. Figure 17 identifies the dominant mode of transmission as a function of the relative freeboard and shows a schematized data trend. F/H mo K is a function largely of one reef. mode is wave transmission through the tures where relative freeboard variable which is the product of wave steepness and bulk number.
0) predict transmission of relatively high reefs (F/H mo 30 .15  % 0. Wave transmission coefficient as a function of the reef transmission variable to illustrate the ability of Equation 12 to > 1.4770/v 72 a z o n D D y nP D I z (C ^ ^ '"o LEGEND O OBSERVED DATA D n/n r REEF TRANSMISSION VARIABLE. o cc I I LU ^ 3 > ^ z D O < LL Q cc >.65 n D j£ n Vol/ .z ^ \l 1.1 Figure 18.13 Z ! z GO to n. 0O.*' _l OVER CREST ''' 1 00 1 1 1 3210123 a 1 RELATIVE FREEBOARD.OJ ^ ! ! 1 TRANSMISSION THROUGH REEF *~ TRANSMISSION . 0. F/H mo Figure 17. Conceptual sketch showing the dominant modes of wave transmission for a reef as a function of the relative freeboard 0.
33. Considering the multitude of confusing influences and the complex ity of the phenomenon.0 + ''\ H HO A t .592 \ ^ for f>. wave transmission for low and submerged reefs is far too complicated to be formulated adequately in terms of F/H alone partly mo because wave energy is still propagating through low and submerged reefs even though transmission may be dominated by either overtopping or propagation over the crest. For submerged reefs the relative freeboard correctly indicates the interesting property of being able to dissipate energy of large waves more effectively than that of small waves. the relative freeboard correctly indicates that larger waves have higher transmission coefficients. energy going over the reef is quite dependent on crest width and bulk of the structure which introduces the influence of other variables.transmission data to coalesce into one welldefined trend. A prediction equa tion was fit to the data shown in Figure 18. For conditions where transmission is not dominated by wave energy propagating through the reef.. F/H is the most influenmo Part of the value of the variable is in being able to account for the changing influence of wave height as the dominant mode of transmission shifts between wave propagation over the crest to wave runup and overtopping. K for the range It is apparent from the composition of Equation 12 why the rela tive freeboard F/H was not a good variable for explaining wave transmis sion through relatively high breakwaters. and the following relation was obtained: K t= 1. For reefs being overtopped. the following regression relation was fit to the 167 tests with relative freeboards less than one: 31 .0 mo Equation 12 explains about 97 percent of the variance in considered. relative freeboard tial variable. In spite of these assets.0. In addition.
3 and 4.0 F/H and Equamo This prediction method will be referred to as the Figures 19. Figure 24 shows the shift in peak period as a function of relative freeboard. Equation 13 is the result of a considerable amount tests where F/H mo of trial and error effort to find an equation which fits the data well. Figures 19 through 23 indicate that the wave transmission model does a good job of predicting individual test results and produces trends very similar to those of the observed data. 21. 34. it is also possible to determine the relative shift in wave energy caused by the structure. 22.2 _ L \d 5Q p/ for mo where C C C = 1. makes physical sense based on current understanding of the phenomenon.0 . respectively.261 = 0. 32 What is surprising . approaches the correct limiting values.0 F/H mo wave transmission model. = 4 0.529 C. The regression analy If Equations 12 and 13 are used. 7 and 8.00551 K for the 167 Equation 13 explains about 92 percent of the variance in < 1. 35. F/H mo and 10.K^ = t 1. sis for Equation 13 is shown in Appendix B. In addition to investigating the attenuation of wave energy passing over and through the reef. and for subsets 1 and 2.188 = 0. > 1. the transmission coefficient can be predicted over the entire range of conditions tested in this study. and 23 show predicted and as a function of observed values of 5 K t 9 and 6. and is reasonably simple. < 1. 20. Pre dicted values of tion 13 for K t were made using Equation 12 for . The shift in wave energy is measured by the ratio of the period of peak energy density of the transmitted wave to the period of peak energy density of the incident wave.0 C l s (13) :jiWc' 3\H mo/ / n <i? ' "4\ .
+ + + UD n HJ "ftp u.6 * ifi LEGEND D OBSERVED c K. 5 + PREDICTED K t RELATIVE FREEBOARD." 0. F/Hrr Figure 20. Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transmission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 1 and 2 1 + + D ?A"Jp 9 + EL 3 ~i L? + 3V . > + + LE GEND Q + O OBSERVED + PREDICTED Kt K. F/Hrr Figure 19. RELATIVE FREEBOARD. Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transmission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 3 and 4 33 .
1.3 H A c + a + 0.2 c o n £ + * 0. K.1  o RELATIVE FREEBOARD. F/Hn Figure 21.8  + LEGEND 0. £ 0. + + D + h + + D j •tSSt p°H a D a LEG END + p c 6 D OBSERVED + PREDICTED K. 3 RELATIVE FREEBOARD.5 % c * z < 0. K.4 + 0. Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transmission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 7 and 8 34 . Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transmission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 5 and 6 D D iff£ It.6  "IS + PREDICTED o g u z 0.0  0.9  0. F/H„ Figure 22.7 + Q OBSERVED K.
8  0.2 D 1.5  z < z.2  0.8 1. Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transFigure 23.0 a 1.7  + ipi 0.1.9  0. F/H Figure 24. all subsets 35 .6  V + + _ LEGEND D OBSERVED K.7 RELATIVE FREEBOARD.1  D 1.3 0. mission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 9 and 10  2.9 m D D & m (P^m n„ D a n . 0.9  1.. Ratio of the transmitted period of peak energy density to the incident period of peak energy density as a function of the relative freeboard...3 b i z < jE  c 1 1. F/H.8 a D 0.7 1..0 Dryf B  P um ' a cPlr n 0.6  P 2 1. o u z o 0.0 0.1   \ T" RELATIVE FREEBOARD.5 O OBSERVED DATA ~ Q 1 14 " 1.4 + PREDICTED K t 0. £ n D 0.
In fact.about this analysis is that the reef does not produce much shift in the peak period of the spectrum. 37. in only a few tests was the shift as much as Wave Reflection and Energy Dissipation 36. the quantity (A /h \ t c/ s )d is sometimes only indicative of this horizontal distance. Such a strong trend seems surprising considering the com plex nature of irregular wave reflection and the wide range of conditions represented in Figure 25. the reef reflection parameter. for many tests. A regression equation was fit to the data shown in Figure 25 to provide a convenient ruleofthumb method to estimate reflection from a reef and to provide insight relating to wave reflection from coastal structures in general. 10 percent. The equation is given by 36 . the reflection coefficient is defined as According to Goda and Suzuki. was found to be con spicuously better than others for predicting wave reflection and is formulated as This parameter can be thought of as approximately the ratio of wave length to horizontal distance between the toe of the reef and the swl on the reef. Since. One variable. where E and E are the reflected and incident wave energy of the spec trum. respectively. the reefs are deformed and/or submerged. The method developed by Goda and Suzuki (1976) to resolve the wave spectrum into incident and reflected components is the method used in this study to calculate the reflection coefficient. When K r is plotted versus the reef reflection parameter. a very strong data trend re sults (Figure 25) .
In addi tion. Better esti mates of reflection from reefs would be valuable since wave reflection causes navigation problems.  AT ds — Figure 25. The ability of low and submerged rubble structures to dissipate wave energy has long been appreciated.K = 1. and can cause erosion at nearby shorelines by increasing the severity of wave conditions. follows the trend of the data well. While the analysis was being conducted to develop Equation 14. knowledge of wave reflection provides a way to estimate the amount of wave energy dissipated by the reef. it was clear a relation could be developed which could explain considerably more of the variance in K if more dependent variables were used.0 + C where C = 8.951 are coefficients. REEF WAVE REFLECTION PARAMETER. all subsets 38.0 (14) 1. increases potential for toe scour. Wave reflection coefficient versus the reef reflection parameter illustrating the ability of Equation 14 to predict reflection. Equation 14 explains about 80 percent of the variance in r K r for the 204 tests considered.284 and C = 0. but only in 37 . and approaches the correct limiting values.
0860 4 C C. Since all terms in Equation 16 are negative for submerged reefs. and crease with increasing crest height only until the crest height approaches the limit of wave runup which for a reef would be > 1. However. some care F/H t c mo should be exercised in using Equation 16. Equation 16 was fit to a data set where reflection was strongly correlated to height of the reef which suggests that the equation might not be satisfactory for reefs with crest heights above the limit of runup. = +0. other factors being equal.774 = 0. K increases. Quantification of energy dissipation by a reef is the property that justified consideration of rubblemound construction since both wave reflection and transmission are usually undesirable.recent years has it been possible to quantify this property. h /d cs decreases. On the other hand.293 = 0. All the depen dent variables in Equation 16 affect reflection in a monotonic manner such that. the equation approaches the correct limiting value of K = for decreasing structure height.5 F/H mo ~ . K for the 204 The dependent variables and the signs of their coefficients are consistent with current understanding of wave reflection. 38 This .0833 Equation 16 explains about 99 percent of the variance in tests considered.0 r (15) where dissipation in Equation 15 refers to the fraction of the incident wave energy dissipated by the structure.L + VI / 4^ + _£ S^V \ c/ C a(t mo \ (16) where C C 2 = 6. A /h j r increases as d /L sp decreases. The following regression equation will provide an accurate estimate of wave reflection from a reef breakwater: K = exp V. reflection will inincreases. The basic conservation of energy relation for rubble structures can be written as follows: 2 K^ + K t r + dissipation = 1. 39. for example.
Since wave energy dissipation characteristics of reef breakwaters are so important. i. > 2. greatest energy dissipation was observed for shortThe lowest period waves on reefs which were high enough not to be overtopped.7. For sub merged reefs.0 energy dissipation is strongly dependent on the relative reef width but not on wave steepness. h /d c s are obtained for transmission using the variables and n and for 39 . Equation 16. observed energy dissipation of about 30 percent occurred for the few reefs with a relative crest height less than 0. Generally.e. in the be used with the wave transmission model (discussed in paragraph 34) energy conservation relation given by Equation 15 to compute energy dissipated by the reef.5 be used in Equation 16. for some conditions. . mo Because of the possibility of systematic error for high relative freeboards.. Figure 27 shows that the procedure outlined above can make good predictions of energy dissipation and the rather surprising fact that. a value of 2. When this procedure is applied to the data of this study. the reef can dissipate up to 90 percent of incident wave energy. F/H < 1. 40. .7 . 41. it removes the systematic error as shown in Figure 26b. H /L mo p Reefs with their crest p near the swl will dissipate between about 35 to 70 percent of incident wave energy.05 with lit.. i. i. This analysis used the most effective two variables in pre dicting K t and the two most effective variables for predicting ° K t K K r r with the so that provision that one of the variables be common to both the predicted values could be plotted on a common axis. It is intended that the prediction equation for K . it is recommended that if the relative freeboard exceeds 2.5 F/H tle systematic error except for high relative freeboards. and dissipation is strongly dependent on relative reef width as shown in Figure 28. This approach was used to prepare Figure 27 which shows a scat ter plot of predicted energy dissipation versus "observed" energy dissipation caused by the reef. a special analysis was conducted to illustrate the influence of the most important variables in a simple way that would still be consistent with the data.. and Fortunately. h /d c < s 0. energy dissipation increases with increasing steepness and with increasing relative reef width A /d L t s . < For reefs with moderate to heavy overtopping.e.e.problem is demonstrated in Figure 26a where the difference between predicted K r and observed K r are plotted versus relative freeboard K ure 26a shows that Equation 16 predicts F/H Figb mo usually to within ±0. the reGood predictions B lative crest height h /d provides a good common variable.5.
14 0.1 a c  0.02 ^ n^ rfl ff ft' * rp ^O a a «o 0i ^ DQ 3 0.16 u n RELATIVE FREEBOARD. = 2. Error in predicting the reflection coefficient using Equation 16 40 . No upper bound for F/H 3 00 D t D D u o* fciJJSJj D «Zft u^V D n c D ° U n D D U D Tn B D '°n D n 3 n D ° D»« D ^ flSfe. u) 0.12 0.14 a D a I n ° a bg5f D 0. F/H a.0.2 .02 TA Dfl c D U U u a D D J  B D D iff °n U Dn S SfiaSH '}* D 0.08 0. As upper bound. F/H b.^] a D cP * a r 1° D b n D Pi DO D° rJ C C n u RELATIVE FREEBOARD.5 F/H mo Figure 26.
all subsets 0.85 3 0. Energy dissipation by reefs with crest near the swl as a function of the relative reef width 41 .OBSERVED ENERGY DISSIPATION REEF Scatter plot of the predicted energy dissipation by Figure 27. Figure 28. a reef using the dissipation model versus the observed energy dissipation.7  cfl n z < D D D a n rj n > z 0.35  a u RELATIVE REEF WIDTH.45 m  D D 0.8  a 0.
whereas Figure 8 is based on subjective curve fitting to the observed data.0 h c 1. The curves shown in Figure 29 fit the general trends of However. The equations used to compute the curves in Figure 26 explain about 82 percent and 98 percent of the variance in K and K . the real value of Figure 29 is that it is a compilation of information about wave transmission.4 RELATIVE CREST HEIGHT.2 1. Distribution of wave energy in the vicinity of a reef breakwater 42 . respectively. Appendix B gives the equations used in Figure 29 and other information related to the regression analysis. Figure 29 is an improvement over Fig ure 8 in Ahrens (1984) because Figure 29 is based on an analytic model. wave reflection. and wave energy dissipation of reef breakwaters.8 1. 111 _l a. 0. the data quite well. p Regression analysis was used to develop the curves for K and K shown in Figure 29. u o CE LU a.wave reflection when h /d c s and relative depth d /L s are used. /d s Figure 29.
was able to explain about 80 percent of the variance in the reflection coefficients. and as the slope of the structure. a rather complex relation. while energy transmitting through the reef is inversely proportional to the wave height. as defined either by Equation 4 or 5. the stability of the reef increases the lower the relative crest height h /d as its size de. Equation 14. Other factors being equal. e. can be categorized as follows: (a) Findings from this study the stability of the structure to wave attack. When the dominant modes of transmission resulted from wave overtopping or wave propagation over the crest of a submerged reef. findings are largely summarized through the use of equations fit to the data which can be used to predict various breakwater characteristics with sur prisingly high accuracy. (c) wave reflecThese tion from the structure. For conditions where transmission is dominated by wave energy propagating through the reef. The important conclusions from this study are: a. 43. There is very little stone movement or damage for spectral stability numbers less than six. c s fined by Equation 3 increases. A more complex relation. for breakwaters with positive freeboards transmission over the reef is directly proportional to wave height. Wave reflection is easier to predict than either stability or wave transmission. Part of the complexity relates to the confusing influence of some variables. b. A stability number was defined by Equation 2 and named the spectral stability number which was found to be the single most important variable influencing the stability of reef breakwaters. A simple relation using only one variable. 43 . Other factors being equal. d. Equation 12. Equation 16. Equation 13. reflection coefficients increase with increasing wave length and increasingly steeper reef slopes. the influence of other variables on stability can be identified. was developed which explained about 99 percent of the variance in the reflection coefficient. was required to make reasonable estimates of transmission coefficients. and (d) energy dissipation by the structure. (b) wave transmission over and through the structure. Reflection e.. but stone movement and damage can be clearly seen for values greater than eight. Wave transmission over and through a reef is a very complex process.g. This report summarizes the results from 205 laboratory tests of reef breakwaters conducted using irregular waves.PART IV: CONCLUSIONS 42. £. gets flatter. was found to predict the transmission coefficient very well. a simple relation. For values of the spectral stability number above six.
Reefs with their crests near the stillwater level will dissipate between 30 to 70 percent of incident wave energy depending on the relative reef width A /d L < .70 the structure would dissipate about 30 percent of incident wave energy. > 0.h /d coefficients also increase with increasing relative reef height until the and increasing relative freeboard F/H mo c s crest height reaches the upper limit of wave runup. Wave energy dissipation characteristics of a reef are difficult to summarize briefly because of the complexity of the phenomeOne surprising finding was that for shortperiod waves non. t s p The model developed in this study was found to make good estimates of energy dissipation.12 which do not overtop the crest the reef will disd /L s p sipate 80 to 90 percent of incident wave energy. For reefs with the lowest relative crest height tested 0. 44 .63 < h /d c s 0.
1976. N. Slope Stability." Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Modeling Techniques. "Breakwater Damage by Severe Storm Waves and 1982 (Mar). J. 1980 (Jun) "TwoDimensional Tests of Wave Transmission and Reflection Characteristics of Laboratory Breakwaters. Denmark.. and Experience. "Armor Stability of Overtopped Breakwater. pp 341354. R... pp 879898. 1983 (Mar)." Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Co.. J. T.. of Wave Transmission by Overtopping. R." Proceedings of the 15th Coastal Engineering Conference. Calif. D. San Francisco. D. 1972 (May). Vicksburg. Calif. Arlington. Sydney.. . T. J. H." Journal of Waterways. C. "The Design Concept of Dual Breakwaters and its Application to Townsville." Proceedings of Coastal Structures 83. 1975 (Jun). H. 1980. P. pp 26482662. Studies in Random Waves. Q. T. W. Vol 2." CERC Technical Report No. 1980. J. "Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters II. J. pp 133. pp 16031622. Hawaii. N.. J.. Miss. . 1971 (May). Vol WW2. Honolulu. Australia. C. 1964. Miss. Gravesen. J. Hudson. . B. PrenticeHall. L. Inc. Del. Walker. P. W. Australia. N. 0. "Reliability of RubbleMound Breakwater Stability Models. . Houston. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Miller. and Scott. and Dunham. W. Seelig. Newark. Long Beach. American Society of Civil Engineers. R. and Suzuki. Vol 2. 801. W. Lording. Vol WW2... L. Y. and Davidson. N.REFERENCES Ahrens. and Wallace." Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference. "A Breakwater Subject to Heavy Overtopping: Concept. pp 273279. Raichlen. Tex." Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Oceans/Ill.. C. Lillevang. Y. D. 45 ." Proceedings of the 19th 1984 (Sep). Goda. Vicksburg. Englewood Cliffs. 1977 (Mar). "Effect of Breakwaters on Waves: Laboratory Tests 1979 (Mar). Design. American Society of Civil Engineers. Calif." Proceedings of Coastal Structures '79. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station." Danish Hydraulic Institute. Harbors. N. Paper 8138. and Coastal Engineering. Foster. W. Wiegel. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid 816. Va. 1981 (Nov). Copenhagen. Wiegel. "Armor Stability of Overtopped Breakwater. Ports '77. Vincent. pp 94107. "A Method for Estimating DepthLimited Wave Energy. Oceanographical Engineering. and Sorensen. 0. R. F. Bremner. Allsop." Journal of Waterways. Berkeley. W." Proceedings of the 17th Coastal Engineering Conference. "Reef Type Breakwaters. 1975. Coastal Engineering Conference. Tsunami Waves. Discussion of paper 8138. "Breakwater Back Palmer. Construction. Seelig. . "Estimation of Incident and Reflected Waves in Random Wave Experiments. Alexandria. Jensen. Vol 2. R. pp 941961. "LowCrest Breakwater. . R.. Harbors and Coastal Engineering. pp 828845. L. pp 18981908. Va.
) .3 cm.UARTZ Photo 1. Representative samples of the stone used in this study labels in figure are 12.2 by 2. r . (As a scale.
APPENDIX A: TABULAR SUMMARY OF STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE DATA .
.
990 25.460 7.720 2.370 1 7.630 2.120 24.740 28.336 9.180 24.330 9.070 2.660 24.450 5.500 7.630 1170 1170 1170 1170 1170 2.770 40.440 42.640 91.170 29.680 13.0B0 2.090 0.210 5.040 2.440 11.B70 ! 1 0.200 13 14 1 3.440 1.3B0 14.840 8.350 9.460 23.850 21. INC.337 11.230 Note: Area of Inc.040 4.250 24.401 23.0BC 17 17 17 17 17 17 2.460 5.630 25 25 25 9.280 2.615 12.720 24. 1 1 1 2.060 4.950 12.180 6.240 37 36 39 40 41 1 2.332 0.340 299.800 18.090 24.350 17.760 34.500 2.330 0.050 1 ! 9 10 11 1 25 25 25 25 6. T P H mo H = incident Cal.080 1.344 0.311 24.100 l.312 10.B00 3.900 7.510 45 46 1 0.260 3.630 29.080 1.900 24.630 2.540 7.540 11.630 2.299 0.140 0.070 42 43 44 1 2.500 19.810 1 1 4.170 3.420 345.B90 22.630 2.450 0.234 204.010 341.630 2.630 25 25 0.060 3.840 11.260 1 17 17 17 29.160 7.220 11.390 177.630 2.520 ! 2 3 4 5 1 1.010 5.630 1.379 0.610 9.040 1 17 18 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 1170 1170 25 25 3.303 1 3.270 1. Kr Hoc CD.480 25.060 1.210 1 1 1.540 19.311 11.820 2.820 15.354 0.532 0.230 2.600 3.290 43.600 3.630 2.110 119.070 6.650 7.070 20.oee 19.610 29.590 B.010 1.640 3 3 1 25 25 25 25 25 29.620 9.030 0. Structure Danace: Cal Area Of Height H50 gr.270 332.180 1 2E 29 1 060 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 25 25 BOO 7.630 2. •P AVE.020 4.390 24.310 9.350 5.070 1? 17 17 6.980 29.630 75.000 5.7B0 25.290 11.890 29.450 1B.100 2.690 1 1 70.630 2.B1C 24.100 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 2.320 0.700 21. Hie cs AVE.060 1.040 2.630 0.750 8.930 20.960 5.040 2. Hbo c c.020 2.180 3.890 35 36 1 1.430 28.630 2.060 3.950 3.330 12.290 6.584 0.520 3.760 2.500 9.410 24.460 10.280 0.450 1.920 49.560 3.290 29.630 2.130 9.080 5.100 4.070 17 17 17 1560 1560 25 25 25 2.060 2. INC.242 0.630 25 25 0.730 24.690 30.300 8.820 4.010 5.720 1 20 2! 1 1170 1170 1170 1170 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24.430 5.740 1 1 8.630 2.170 11.100 2.650 1 1 2.810 29.360 8.070 14.610 15. 0.288 0.590 15.510 10.460 1.000 27.000 19.780 303.630 2.597 2.630 2.040 4.6B0 4.3B0 29.110 21.3B0 1 2.840 24.600 6 7 B 1 2.760 25.440 17.299 0.217 0.330 212.500 47 49 49 50 51 1 2.230 175.070 19.470 1.630 2.640 1.630 2.040 2.Median File Density Of Area Of BH.540 1B.140 24.720 26.510 1 15 It 1 3.630 1560 1560 1560 1560 0.331 1 22 23 1 2.840 2.000 1 25 25 0.630 1170 1170 0.450 0.360 29.630 10.570 11.4B0 2.305 0.040 3.950 1 1.440 1 25 25 25 2.040 2.411 10.800 22.020 4.790 7.260 16. BIO 2.990 24.350 11.660 9.630 1 0.230 2.230 24.980 8.040 1170 1170 2.630 2.840 1 1 1170 25 2.400 122.720 0.020 2.360 1 25 26 27 1 2.260 24.990 16.430 11.420 1.990 34.590 4.630 2.010 23.9B0 29.100 3.338 0.860 2.610 13.450 1.630 29.630 2.440 29.890 15.900 77.250 2.BB0 ! 9.440 25.100 3.260 67.370 21.360 29.720 3 3 3 1 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 11. Inc.590 3.610 1 1 2.220 7.880 3 3 3 3 1 4.100 11.960 6.290 28.260 5.290 102.B2C 2.630 2.413 0.060 2.430 0.630 29.630 13.500 24. Structur Height he en.270 8.3B7 0.630 1170 1170 1170 1170 1170 25 11.750 2.970 1 2.130 15.B40 29.270 2.730 0.230 5.540 8.360 9.240 2. transmitted calibrated H mo A3 .7B0 14.600 24.231 10.870 13.100 39.100 3.317 1 1560 1560 15.170 30.500 7.430 1.520 3.237 0.460 3.461 3.630 2.770 24.560 23. AVE.630 2.830 11.010 2.570 3.630 2.630 2.090 23.860 181.890 5.0BC 2.630 2.520 29.020 4.630 2.780 24.830 77.200 1 1 1 2.620 11.490 3.260 7.425 0.332 0.339 0.000 3. Height as Built he ct. Subset NO.140 2.331 0.530 21.730 23.630 2.080 29.040 32 33 34 1 1.440 6.570 28.400 6.230 7.550 1.630 2.950 111.B10 29.580 11.260 258.630 2.327 0. Dasage Ad ci!* Type 6ain CB 2 A sec.760 1.240 0.200 B.400 13. Test Ani Stone «t.20' 0.328 244.060 4. Trans. BW = crosssectional area of breakwater.040 1 i 17 17 10.990 29.eeo 2B.000 2.630 2. 1170 1170 1170 1170 2.020 5.720 5.580 3.630 2.630 2.100 4.660 131.890 9.360 11.220 3.319 B.630 2.630 2.730 24.020 3.030 16B.250 16.630 2. 1 ! 1 1.460 1.250 2.170 2.380 7.980 10.540 3 3 3 52 54 56 1 7.0B0 3.690 28.440 41.520 2.322 0.230 2.920 21.ftt Hater Decth ds cc.100 4.070 1.020 25 25 25 25 25 25 0.790 1 1 1 7.840 10.140 5.460 29.230 0.250 1 4.450 8. 21.420 155.830 11.100 3.710 1 17 17 17 17 17 8.560 24. = incident Trans.250 2.700 1 30 31 1 2.570 25.483 0.040 1.B80 35.060 3.630 2.530 3.820 19.910 11.440 1.870 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 5.040 3.890 5.760 10.910 13.303 0.450 0.470 6.390 1 1170 1170 860 25.630 2.750 13.980 17.060 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 10.080 B.730 5.630 2.690 24.980 3.020 26.670 10.296 0.690 29.340 25.100 10.230 2. BOO 0.560 2.270 7.290 29.630 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 3.290 2.960 17 25 3.610 10. AVE.630 16.170 14.040 4.480 10.000 2.920 17.270 213.490 15.630 2. Test NO.319 0.530 100.229 0.380 105.760 25.620 10.610 208.890 1 BIO 22.
110 0.560 34.080 231.260 24.880 644.340 31.870 11.140 2.020 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 1.070 17 17 17 2190 2190 3.508 0.720 B.430 66. BH.630 2.520 7.660 31.570 20.560 3.760 27.260 10.630 2.538 0.590 53B.300 2.860 2.310 9.950 4.900 6.288 0.630 2190 2190 0.670 31.560 8. AVE.430 23.970 25 25 0.870 15.090 B3 84 85 B6 87 1 1 2.910 7.820 4.060 4.570 2.630 2.471 9.760 35.060 4.030 1.7B0 35.970 1 2.040 10.230 35.030 15.130 2.030 3.060 35.0B0 1.630 231.390 132 1 2.400 2.279 0.930 35.110 25.318 0.460 15.400 5B8.020 1.352 0.120 33.3B0 35.420 35.410 5 5 5 72 17 17 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2.230 28.7B0 3.060 31.040 2.500 1 1900 1900 1900 B.630 2.460 1.370 502.537 0.220 B.2B0 3.110 6.990 0.383 0.590 1.190 108 109 110 111 25 25 7.430 10.010 1.290 2.290 29.700 116.290 10.300 3.440 35.eiC 35.600 13. Test NO. 0.900 1.110 119.060 14.250 5.810 2.000 1.870 35.460 112 124 125 126 127 128 129 1 4.410 20.250 2.020 0.020 4.330 34.560 27.170 5.100 2.550 10.720 2.630 2.650 11.630 2.520 1.420 1.364 0.630 2.140 29.335 0.311 33.070 1.581 24.320 2.060 1.300 2.450 32.384 10.960 35.200 25 25 8.630 2.590 34.270 98 99 100 101 25 25 25 3.440 1.354 31.280 2.630 2.300 35.500 11.630 2.270 34.0B0 3.750 11.660 31.6B0 0.830 2.910 35.630 2.780 14.060 17 17 17 17 17 17 25 25 2.620 5.050 2.190 2.521 10.550 8.040 4.990 35.050 3.790 4.960 0.526 0.780 34.2B0 2.070 1.720 7.350 2.150 0.040 2.341 21.560 35.335 0.060 1.070 1.090 35.550 31.560 170.830 2.530 1 2.260 5.980 1.680 1 3.630 2.490 0.360 19.370 10.540 35.440 219.226 37.700 531.455 0.820 2.570 5.590 34.020 2.650 0.170 17 17 71 71 3.340 9.350 1 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 25 25 25 7.560 3.750 36.440 2.030 4.100 3.430 1.400 7.510 7. INC.370 6.120 70 71 2.630 0.560 34.490 5.410 1.327 271.070 25 25 25 25 21.970 3.480 34.630 5.170 6.320 7.460 1.900 2.720 1.520 5.7B0 0. Height as Built he ci.610 28.030 2.509 0.060 1.600 5 5 5 5 5 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 3.580 2.0B0 2.310 13.330 5.630 2.630 0.870 29.200 92 93 94 95 96 97 25 25 25 25 25 25 9.200 0.100 1.010 1.030 5.020 9. Structun Daiaged Cal.500 31.7B0 247.680 1.910 21.610 92. Test And Bain Stone »t.010 555.610 656.810 290 6.360 36.630 2.450 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 0.030 31.750 12.317 0.050 34.460 15.64B 0.63C 2.B30 2.630 2.0B0 35.990 6.Median Density Di Area Df Hater Depth ds CI.100 2.850 5.630 2.660 t 1 1 1 1 11.070 1.830 2.590 0.830 2.450 1.100 1560 2. AVE.260 345.560 83.550 A4 .303 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1.620 1. AVE.830 1 1.450 5.460 1 2.070 0.850 2.530 66.160 23. Structur B Height he ci.790 11.040 3.900 9.354 0.850 131.630 2.690 293.390 15.630 2.630 2.4B9 0.630 2.600 1 2.630 2.950 130 131 1 2.610 22.600 8.630 2.630 11.160 4.020 71 71 133 1 25 31.580 4.440 18.378 0.314 88 89 90 91 1 3.B30 2.150 5.B90 5.6B0 9.020 2.360 31.500 0.440 29.080 3.570 8.630 2.357 0.860 1B7.330 1.100 4.290 0.140 184.450 1.460 4.540 35.630 2.B40 7.590 329.270 36.560 3.300 10.040 B.890 0.440 30.570 35. INC.630 2.630 2.310 3.700 31.630 34.285 0.312 0.170 35.630 220 2.060 4.910 35.340 26.590 10.6B0 B2 1 25 25 25 9.910 235.410 0.670 146.900 2.760 29.790 4.890 34.020 4. Kr Hio CI.030 34.630 2.720 11.080 25 25 25 25 10.000 2.590 11.230 12.990 11.0B0 12.350 31.610 0.700 73 74 75 76 77 7B 79 BO Bl 1 9.340 0. Hio CO! AVE.335 0.297 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 9.630 2.630 2.050 1.060 31.710 5 5 5 5 17 17 17 17 35.477 0.690 4.190 163.3B0 7.910 26.210 1 1.570 1.5B0 1. Daiage Ad ci"2 Type 3 3 3 3 3 67 te 69 1 1.030 11.060 3.060 3.020 29.880 3.440 0.790 25 25 25 25 25 2.060 5.050 2.910 3.B30 7.030 2.770 11.840 2.520 11.960 10.630 2.4B0 35.910 13.690 1.690 34.330 24.460 1.950 4.322 5 5 1 1 1 1 4.870 29.010 2B.420 1. Area Df File Subset NO.B60 3.770 1 1.540 3.910 32.352 0.630 6.540 34.560 22.540 27.430 1.340 31.080 1.100 3.289 34.350 0.630 5.360 35.580 3.780 2.400 4.050 35.B30 2.630 1560 1560 1560 1560 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 10.330 0.860 24.B60 2.630 2.020 8.540 4.030 11.280 2.810 35.570 0.780 6.B60 35.630 2.480 8.630 2.2B0 2.700 31.400 1 2.290 0.100 17 17 17 17 17 2.170 7.430 35.640 6.330 2.970 5 5 5 5 1 17 17 17 17 14.2B0 2.280 35.010 1 2.270 393.060 25 25 25 25 26.335 0.242 0.820 42.740 10.360 5 5 102 103 104 105 106 107 6.360 56.500 1.040 514.230 6.080 1.630 2.370 429.2B5 0. B70 2.140 3.440 1.720 31.670 24.100 12.770 4. 2.110 6.890 2.363 0.940 2.160 13B.360 2.300 2.440 1.413 0.610 26.060 25 25 25 25 2.610 2.010 25 25 11.040 71 7! 71 71 71 71 8. 110 51.630 2.298 0.100 2.340 2. Trans.080 2.330 2.050 35.940 2.190 3B9.670 31.450 1.630 2.0B0 2.830 2.670 32.At ci*2 Hio CI Tp sec.630 2.430 0.272 0.524 0.720 35.930 7.160 11.580 324.248 9.190 33.910 35.624 0.970 20.440 113.380 2. Height HSO gr.660 1.410 34.550 1 17 17 17 25 25 5 5 1 1 0.690 4.440 2.540 31.320 3.950 31.030 23.470 B.730 3.630 2.910 0.920 22.000 0.830 0.580 1.330 7.970 31.
320 32.330 0.530 3.150 0.160 7.310 198.050 4.330 2.330 17.110 11.260 2.190 0. 25 25 25 7.340 4.320 45.240 14.630 2.580 3.040 6.630 2.650 2.960 31.770 6.830 2.010 17.630 9.980 17.050 71 71 71 71 71 7.830 2.330 2.630 1770 1580 200 12 19 1 2.020 2.630 23.680 17.610 31.830 2.170 5.550 31.405 0.360 100.740 0.440 1.810 31.310 11.800 32.250 .890 17.471 12.260 2.490 1.215 0.020 4.070 4.650 2.230 0.970 26.970 2.020 1.030 4.030 2.200 2.920 11.770 32.620 31.452 2.560 "0650 060 25 25 25 25 0.511 29.630 6.310 9.510 29.321 0.790 31.250 156.090 9.330 2.860 14.610 32.760 10.440 7.910 19.830 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 25 25 0.980 5.060 3.630 2.330 2. 100 71 71 71 71 71 330 5.040 2.060 2.630 2.600 0. INC.220 13.556 0.640 '•010 1 3.680 31.870 3.070 2.550 8.660 9.740 32.870 3. Height as Built he ci. Subset NO.610 HO 7 7 7 7 25 25 25 0.0B0 3.100 0.600 1.830 2.500 12.990 5.800 2.350 11.210 141 1 1 1 1900 1900 1900 1900 10.580 10.790 0.320 18.630 2.040 6.130 20.261 17.430 U10 3.235 0.481 31.830 2.030 3.940 0.436 0.630 2.000 42.830 2.510 16.390 3.590 7.130 32.690 0.660 14.250 27.110 1.900 2.980 6.740 0.190 2.560 15B 159 160 161 1 4.B20 2.2B0 31.370 0.000 31.830 2.010 1.040 14.330 2 2 2 2 1560 1560 1560 25 25 2.360 10.700 3.830 2.422 9.630 2190 2.835" 19C0 1900 1900 3.426 0.870 5.830 2.830 2.020 17 17 17 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 2 2 2 2 2 8.630 2. AVE.050 5.310 10.790 31.520 31.910 3.100 9 9 9 1 10.460 31.860 5.070 7.030 1.220 2.020 4.630 2.540 31.870 5.B20 210 2.991 3.450 3.482 0.580 31.460 26.070 4.630 2.330 23.500 1.350 7.630 6.250 31.110 6.020 14. Daiage Ad ci*2 Type Gain 7 7 7 134 135 136 I 3.362 0. Area Df File (eight Trans.350 7.360 0.8B0 2.870 5.820 31.450 1.060 4.850 31.780 11.980 11. BH.497 0.820 31.800 17.596 32.210 6.760 26.730 31.090 13.440 8.860 2.690 31.178 3.213 0.070 11.220 2.530 1.580 9.610 31.060 l.800 12.070 2.830 2.040 2.125 0.740 17.320 11.At ci 2 A Hio CI Tp sec.420 4.520 8.230 1.190 1490 62 63 64 65 66 3.080 3.660 186 9 9 1 4.560 1.300 106.250 191290 1 71 71 71 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 1900 1900 1900 1170 1170 1170 1560 5.830 258.450 IB.120 4. Hio CD! AVE.000 2.420 1020 3.550 3.060 32.520 3.238 0.590 0.449 0.830 58 59 60 61 2.830 2.530 7.950 3.B30 1900 1900 1900 1900 13.510 4.800 189 190 191 1 5.030 2.430 17.810 14.390 32.240 7 7 7 137 13B 139 3.230 2.300 17.810 3.990 0.230 2 2 5.590 2.130 32.630 2.840 0.490 31.B30 2. Test And HSO gr.620 1.344 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 1 2.070 1.930 31.830 2.040 40.830 1900 1900 1900 1900 25 25 23 25 25 25 15.320 7.560 17.100 1.750 14.240 32.243 0.420 0.550 15.540 0.280 2.040 2.229 0.420 4.700 23.250 31.260 1 3.120 24.510 17230 1 9 9 9 1 2.040 2.540 3.730 A5 .050 2.590 32.200 16.010 17. Structure Height he ci.560 19.010 3.B30 2.390 1.950 5.B30 2.382 0.379 3.010 6.010 0.470 99.030 31.670 31.190 0.040 1.100 3.540 0. INC.100 2.660 2.420 2.410 11.060 71 71 71 2.980 1.650 11.420 142.080 2.210 15.930 5.460 1.5B6 0.34B 0.670 31.110 0.380 1300 13.170 4.890 17 17 17 17 17 2.580 32.670 11.630 25 25 25 25 25 3.330 9.040 4.340 1.409 0. Structure Daiaged Cal.830 2.129.040 71 71 71 71 71 71 1900 1900 30 30 30 5.440 1.593 0.256 0.100 2.B30 2.970 50.100 4.720 29.210 7.000 31.e30 2.450 18.710 19.443 0.100 1.OBO 1.610 5.790 11.010 17.980 17.540 31.170 30.060 29.554 0.040 3.750 '3.330 3.502 11.240 31.990 17.630 2.260 11.420 2.830 2.860 15.100 3.940 31.350 3.360 30.160 32.080 1.1edi an Jensrty 0< Area Of Hater Depth OS ca.000 29.564 0.400 17.230 2.780 2.500 2.030 10.040 B.930 5.420 1 4.140 30.271 5.860 5.520 10.230 6.409 3.300 31. Kr Hid ci.740 17. AVE.120 4.540 9.466 0.461 4.840 2.430 0.140 6.110 11.970 32.760 1 3.290 2. Stone lit.240 15.210 19.050 25 25 2.850 1.3B0 10.230 7 7 148 149 150 151 2.357 0.550 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 25 25 8.810 0.580 1 2.440 4.780 113 2.526 0.960 13.080 2.040 0.620 7840 1390 1 1.B30 9.330 2.880 19.970 31.554 0.220 31.588 0.800 32.380 3.220 31.450 31.0BO 3.640 7 146 147 1 1.660 31.740 106.720 5.030 2.100 2.560 7.B30 2.610 25.170 5.580 18.130 B.020 4.830 2.460 1.230 10.418 56.900 14.040 1.930 2.380 17.730 9 9 9 1 12.080 3.960 1.100 4.270 17.830 30 30 1.460 2.640 25.290 2.840 7.390 24 55 57 2 2 2.610 7. Test NO.301 31.230 2.660 "2.300 31.390 0.310 31.600 3.830 2.660 31.650 156 157 1 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 25 25 25 25 25 25 30 30 2.040 2.030 7.423 0.060 1 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 6.420 10.030 1.540 31. AVE.830 2.160 0.060 2B.356 0.320 31.240 2. •42 143 144 145 71 71 71 5.830 2.720 2.180 13.820 6. 4.220 6.160 9290 71 71 71 71 71 71 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 25 25 25 25 1.230 2.010 0.810 47.020 2.840 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.630 16.830 0.230 2.151 2 2 1.630 *«<> 5.830 2.880 2.210 31.B30 25 25 0.B30 2.430 28.160 1 4.272 11.370 3.040 2.440 5.640 29.800 11.500 31.790 2.320 13.030 146.120 0.680 6.510 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2.610 19.570 3.000 31.383 0.630 3.630 152 153 154 155 1 3.
620 2.391 8 3 2 830 3.250 28.160 28. 630 2.010 4.210 2.740 4.010 182 2 830 0.240 2.760 2 2 2 1.450 4.700 19.680 27.410 13. 25 25 25 25 25 25 5.370 1.610 27.120 24.40B 2.550 3.410 9.580 e 8 a 185 186 187 201 4. INC. Hio coi AVE.299 2.220 28. BH.284 0.238 0.250 5.040 4.395 0.600 11.370 6 h 630 630 630 5.580 27.811 4.040 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 2.320 6.040 2. Height as Built he ci.630 5.650 27.190 6.190 28.180 0.370 2.270 1.500 3.651 176 177 178 179 180 181 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 830 0.510 0. 9.960 1.214 B.510 0.220 2.540 3.630 19.1B0 2.430 8.260 0.630 5.550 28.540 19.010 3.160 2.290 0. 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 25 25 25 25 9.580 2 830 2 830 2 830 2 830 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 5.380 28.190 1.280 2.310 1900 1900 9.490 25.120 6.980 11.910 0.445 0.600 19. Test ND.370 3.100 6.306 25.330 25.690 11.670 1.211 2.690 0.560 8.830 2 .110 a 8 2 830 2 27.3B0 28. INC.530 19.310 10.170 7.590 8.040 2.960 2.840 2. Area Of File Subset NO.160 a a 8 8 25 25 25 25 25 25 3.160 28.437 0.050 2 .020 630 2 630 2.22! 0.940 5.650 28.830 8.560 NA 2 2 1.110 71 71 172 173 2 2 25 25 2. AVE.500 4.260 0.270 2.580 3. 71 2 830 2 830 1900 1900 1900 2.470 5.010 27.190 10.150 0.090 8 8 8 8 8 a 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 25 25 25 2B.750 12.391 28.570 8.580 5.030 1.100 2.220 2.240 0.350 0.180 11.650 0.070 1. AVE.460 1.600 28.030 1.020 71 71 71 14.810 19.550 3.730 11.457 27.430 1.180 202 203 204 205 0.110 1.800 2.490 122 17 17 630 2190 2190 1900 1900 2.440 1.610 27.400 1.590 11.190 28.810 19.440 3.450 1. Daiage Ad ci 2 A Type Gain 6 114 115 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.206 9.650 1.040 2 830 2 830 2 830 2.At ci 2 A Hio CI Tp sec.060 2.160 13.430 3.560 3.800 2.550 28.080 2.810 19.100 1.260 2.600 7.930 3.830 1900 1900 30 30 30 2.080 3.620 11.040 0.020 3.440 1.230 0.800 9.870 0.159 0.280 2.450 2 2 2 2.040 2.580 27.120 24.463 0.800 1.220 28.230 4.010 27.350 7.560 1.260 0.050 19.810 19.610 27.360 7.590 3.980 5.830 25 25 25 30 30 3.600 a 8 183 184 71 71 7.590 1.440 0.080 1.250 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 0.010 2.810 7! 71 71 71 71 12. AVE.880 1.060 1.800 2.630 19.580 5.250 2.750 3.185 0.650 27.100 2 830 2 830 7.247 0.260 A6 .160 2.190 28.990 5.660 4.780 2.670 1.060 2.310 1.230 2.351 19.630 19.250 28.600 4.220 4.920 25.610 27.272 0.540 19.680 1. BOO 25.5B0 3.650 0.240 11.810 5.990 19.160 1.250 2.030 3.230 10 71 1900 14.220 2.056 10 10 2 .830 2 .340 3.080 6 i 2.030 4.299 0.8B0 7.515 2.250 28.100 4.960 19. 630 2.830 2 .600 1.220 28.110 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.040 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.140 NA 116 117 1.760 0.393 0.430 6.493 0.640 118 119 120 12! 1.020 2.7B0 11.550 3.780 0.960 19.960 19.010 1.180 7.040 0.040 2.540 2.233 0.150 0.370 2.190 28. Structure Daiaged Cal.249 0.290 27.260 13.130 28.220 23.220 2.300 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.020 .210 25.160 28.320 0.440 1.570 0.220 2e.235 0.780 19.060 1.020 2.680 27.680 5.Median Density Of Area Of Hater Depth ds CI.580 10.161 8 a a a a 8 a 2 830 2 B30 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1.460 27.4B0 7.060 3.B30 2 .500 27.840 3.870 10.201 5.245 0.940 5.100 1900 1900 2.030 2.360 10.650 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 2 830 2 830 174 175 2 2 1900 1900 1900 1900 25 25 25 25 25 0.250 28.010 7.830 2 .680 27.960 1.700 1.420 1.490 5.920 1. Test And Stone «t.286 0.440 1.474 0.940 28.440 B.300 2.630 2.454 0.190 28.350 28.380 0.230 1.660 2.630 0. 2.490 5.040 1.060 2.650 27. Structure Height he ci.220 6.080 2.290 0.740 6 6 6 6 6 2.120 3.460 23.210 25.100 3. Height HSO gr.860 10 10 2.483 0.080 2.430 1.436 0.010 27.960 25. 19.220 2.450 1.970 2.960 10.500 9.493 0.830 2.580 123 162 2 630 2 830 2 830 2 330 2 830 12.000 8.020 2.770 3.120 10.190 163 164 2.340 2. Trans.760 1.580 3.150 6. Kr Hio CI.295 27.400 0.330 5.160 23.420 1.350 23.950 1.
APPENDIX B: REGRESSION ANALYSIS USED TO DEVELOP FIGURE 29 SHOWING ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN VICINITY OF REEF .
.
3125 2 C R = 0.0 uo + c i(t) (»„)' where C ] . = 0.329 C 2 C.859 F = 611 2.7628 = 7.1.585 R 2 = 0.02945 = 3.2899 = 0.+C 3\L \ c/ \ p/_ where C C 2 = 0.984 F = 4. = 0.175 B3 . For the energy dissipation figure (Figure 29) the following equation was used to predict the wave transmission coefficient: K = t 1. The wave reflection curves shown in Figure 29 were calculated using the following equation: K = exp l\d \ s/ / +C 2lh.
.
APPENDIX C: NOTATION .
.
d . d sf (W sn /w 1/3 ) . defined by Equation 2 Wave period of peak energy density of spectrum (sec) Density of stone (g/cra 3 ) Density of water. typical dimension of the median stone (cm) F h c .A. defined by Equation Effective "as built" reef slope. Area of damage (cm 2 ) A B Crosssectional area of breakwater (cm 2 ) n C Bulk number. s freeboard of structure which for reef can be either positive or negative (cm) h c Crest height of breakwater after wave attack (cm) Crest height of breakwater "as built" (cm) h' H Zeromoment wave height at transmitted gage locations with no breakwater in channel (cm) Zeromoment transmitted wave height (cm) Incident zeromoment wave height (cm) H H mo K r Reflection coefficient of breakwater as defined and calculated by method of Goda and Suzuki (1976) H /H .0 (g/cm 3 ) W 50 Median stone weight (subscript indicates percent of total weight of gradation contributed by stones of lesser weight) (g) C3 . defined by Equation Spectral stability number. K L wave transmission coefficient T P 1 t t c Airy wave length calculated using P s and d s (cm) N N* T P r Stability number. tests conducted in fresh water. defined by Equation 4 5 C C Dimensionless coefficient d s Water depth at toe of breakwater (cm) . defined by Equation 3 Response slope of reef to wave action. w =1.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?