Recent updates on parts of Conceptual design of Rubble Mound Breakwaters

The papers can be downloaded from internet: www.infram.nl under products&services and then publications.

Publication 1.
A code for dike height design and examination based on wave run-up and wave overtopping. Update of sections 3.1 and 3.2

Publication 21.
Effectiveness of recurve walls in reducing wave overtopping on seawalls and breakwaters Update of section 3.2 pages 28-30.

Publication 22.
Applications of a neural network to predict wave overtopping at coastal structures New information on section 3.2.

Publication 20.
Wave transmission at low-crested structures, including oblique wave attack Update of section 3.3.

Publication 2.
Geometrical design of coastal structures Additional information to section 3.3 on percentage of overtopping waves.

Publication 3.
Application and stability criteria for rock and artificial units Additional information to section 4.2 on probabilistic approach. Additional information to section 4.2.4 on effect of armour shape and grading.

Publication 5.
Design of concrete armour layers Update of section 4.3.

Contents of lectures
First day, 4 periods Introduction Functions, requirements,

types

BREAKWATERS I
UNESCO-IHE Dr J.W. van der Meer

Cross-section Sheet show Boundary conditions waves Second day, 4 periods Governing parameters Hydraulic response Stability formulae Rock armour stability Video

Third day, 4 periods Concrete armour Low-crested structures Berm breakwaters Toe and head Video

INFRAM BV

Functions
House Shelter (rain, cold, wind, heat Privacy Comfort (sleep, rest) Breakwater Protection against waves Protection agains currents Provision dock/quay Prevent channel siltation

Requirements
House good location, position roof, walls, windows heating, airco rooms durable costs Breakwater lay-out permeability crest level access lee side reflection

Types
House apartment double house single house farm factory Breakwater rubble mound berm breakwater monolithic vertical vertically composite horizontally composite dams, low-crested seawalls (rubble) revetments

Boundary conditions
Soil bearing capacity; tests Hydrographic data bathymetry Water levels tides astronomical tide

spring tide

storm surge depression rise due to

atmospheric pressure

wind set-up stress by wind shear wave set-up by wave groups

Part of wave record

Boundary conditions: waves

Wave Sea state Daily wave climate Extreme wave climate
seconds hours year many years T

Examples of spectra
6.0
P011

Rayleigh distribution on deep water

3.5 3

5.0

P013 P015

Energy density (m 2/Hz)

wave height (m)

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Wave heights H1/3 = 1.43 m H1/10 = 1.82 m H2% = 2.00 m H1% = 2.17 m H0.1% = 2.65 m

H2%/H1/3 = 1.40

100

90

70 50

30 20 10

1 0.5

0.1

probability of exceedance (%)

frequency (Hz)

Double Weibull distribution on shallow water

One wave versus sea state

3 2.5

Wave heights H1/3 = 1.53 m H1/10 = 1.75 m H2% = 1.85 m H1% = 1.94 m H0.1% = 2.17 m

wave height (m)

2 1.5 1 0.5 0

H H1/3; Hm0 = 4 m00.5

surplus: H2%; H1/10; Hmax

T Tm; Tp

H2%/H1/3 = 1.21

surplus: Tm-1,0 = m-1/m0

90 70 50 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 0.1 probability of exceedance (%)

100

Examples of extreme wave climates (deep water)

25
Bilbao

From deep water to the coast

Sines Tripoli North Sea Follonica Pozallo

20 15 Hs 10 5 0 1

Refraction Shoaling Breaking

rule of thumb for gentle foreshore >1:50 Hs/h = 0.5 0.6 for breaker index: CIRIA/CUR p 211
10 100 1000 Return period (years)

Breaker index Hs/h (CUR/CIRIA)

sop=Hs/Lop=2Hs/(gTp2) h=local water depth

Governing parameters breakwater design

Waves Hydraulic response parameters Cross-section Response of the structure

Waves
H1/3; Hm0; H2%; Tp; Tm; Tm-1,0 wave steepness: s = H/L = 2H/(gT2)

Hydraulic response parameters

Run-up: Run-down: Overtopping:

Ru Ru2%/Hs Rd Rd2%/Hs q q/(gHs3)0.5 Cr Hr/Hi

sop with Tp and som with Tm

maxima: sop = 0.05; som = 0.07 breaker parameter = tan/s0.5

Transmission: Ct Ht/Hi Reflection:

Parameters rock
Nominal diameter Dn50 Dn50 = V1/3 = (M50/r)1/3 = cubic size r = 2600 2700 kg/m3 (rock) Concrete units: Dn Relative buoyant density: = (r w)/ w = 1.4 1.6 in most situations

Stability number

Hs/Dn50
Relation between wave attack (Hs) and size of unit (Dn50)

r = 2400 kg/m3 (normal concrete

Rock shape

Rounding of rocks

Examples of rock types

Example of grading curve

100 90 Percentage exceeding 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 Weight (g) 1000
grading W15 (%) W85 (%) W85/W15 Dn85/Dn15 W50 (g) W50 curve (g) box 2 234 390 1.67 1.19 302 303

Example of shape curve

100 90 80 Percentage larger 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 largest/minimum dimension L/H
shape > 2 L/H (%) > 3 L/H (%) Blockiness box 2 81 4 0.41

Response of the structure

Damage level S

S = Ae/Dn502 number of squares that fit in erosion area

Damage level Nod

number of displaced units in a strip Dn wide

Applicable damage levels S

Damage level Nod

failure (under layer visible) 8 8 12 17 17

slope 1:1.5 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:6

initial damage 2 2 2 3 3

intermediate damage 3-5 4-6 6-9 8-12 8-12

Damage parameter Nod: the actual number of displaced units related to a width along the longitudinal axis of the breakwater of one nominal diameter Dn
Example: cubes 15 ton; Dn = 1.84 m; stretch 100 m long Nod = 0.2 Nod = 0.5 Nod = 1.0 Nod = 2.0 11 units 27 units 54 units 109 units In cross-section: 20 units: 0.5/20*100%=2.5% 40 units: 0.5/40*100%=1.25%

Run-up rock slope compared to smooth slope

Hydraulic response: run-up

Ru2%/Hs breaker parameter op Recent developments: o with Tm-1,0 Smooth slope: upper boundary Reductions by:
roughness (rock!) berm angle of wave attack
P>0.4

Run-up rock slope: Weibull distributions

Run-up smooth slope, very shallow water; Tm-1,0

4

3.5

wave run-up Ru 2% /H m0

2.5

Hs = 2 m Tm = 6 s P = 0.4

1.5

0.5

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

breakerparameter o

Hydraulic response: wave run-down on rock slopes

Hydraulic response: wave overtopping run-up

Wave overtopping: basic formula

3 0.5

Wave overtopping: breaking waves, all tests

1.E-01

1.E-01

m0

dimensionless overtopping q/(gH

1.E-02

Q=a exp(bR)

dimensionless wave overtopping

1.E-02

100 l/s/m 10 l/s/m 1 l/s/m 0.1 l/s/m

1.E-03

1.E-03

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-06

1.E-05 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1.E-07 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

dimensionless crest height R c/Hm 0

dimensionless crest height

Wave overtopping: general formulae

Percentage of overtopping waves

q gH
3 s

0.06 1 ) b op exp(-4.7 Rc tan H s op b f v

breaking waves

with as maximum:

1 = 0.2 exp(-2.3 Rc ) H s gH f
3 s

non-breaking waves

Parameters wave transmission

Hydraulic response: transmission

Ct = Ht/Hi Ct Rc/Hm0 and B, sop, Dn50 Change of spectral shape

General trend wave transmission; large scatter

for -2 < Rc/Hi < -1.13 for -1.13 < Rc/Hi < 1.2 for 1.2 < Rc/Hi < 2 Ct = 0.8 Ct = 0.46 0.3 Rc/Hi Ct = 0.1

More accurate transmission formula

de Jong (1996) and dAngremond et al. (1996):
Ct = a 0.4 Rc/Hi with a maximum of Ct = 0.8 and a minimum of Ct = 0.075 The parameter a describes all the other relevant influences: a = (B/Hi)-0.31 * (1 e-0.5) * Astr with: B Astr = crest width = breaker parameter = a coefficient depending on the type of structure:

rock slopes and concrete units: Astr = 0.64 smooth impermeable dam (asphalt) Astr = 0.80 impermeable smooth block revetment Astr = 0.80 block mattresses Astr = 0.75 gabion matresses Astr = 0.70

Influence crest width; smooth structures 1:4 slope

Transmission, recent information

transmission coefficient K t

0.50 0.45

Large influence of berm width is only

0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

B=2m B = 4.5 m B = 15 m

relevant for rubble mound structures

Smooth structures: no influence New tests in EU-programme DELOS

confirm the formula

Spectral shape changes

1.2

1.4

Relative crest height Rc/Hm0,i

Incident spectra
6.0
P014-Jonsw ap

Transmitted spectra
0.7
P014a-PM

5.0

0.6

P004 P005

Energy density (m 2/Hz)

Energy density (m /Hz)

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

frequency (Hz)

freque ncy (Hz)

Transmitted spectrum; rough estimation

0.12
reduced incident spectrum

Oblique wave transmission

Does Ct change with direction?

0.10
energy density (m2/Hz)

proposed transmitted spectrum

Yes!
Does direction change?

0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Yes!
Difference between rubble mound and smooth

structure? For sure, treat them differently

0,6m0,it 0,4m0,it
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Spectral change dependent on direction?

No.

frequency (Hz)

Hydraulic response: wave reflection Hudson formula Hs/Dn50 = (KD cot)1/3

Limitations Hudson formula (1958) the use of regular waves only, no account taken in the formula of wave period or storm duration, no description of the damage level, the use of non-overtopped and permeable core structures only.

Van der Meer formulae for plunging waves:

Van der Meer formulae; influences

Hs = 6.2 0.18 S -0.5 m P Dn 50 N

and for surging waves:
0.2

0.2

Hs = 6.2 0.18 S -0.5 m P Dn 50 N

0.2

Hs = 1.0 -0.13 S P Dn 50 N

cot P m

Hs = 6.2 0.18 S -0.5 m P Dn 50 N

0.2

Van der Meer formulae; S N

Van der Meer formulae: Hs S

N>8000 maximum

N<1000 straight line

Double Weibull distribution on shallow water

Reliability
6.2 and 1.0 are stochastic variables
wave height (m)

Shallow water: H2% or H1/10 better?

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

normal distribution = 6.2 and 1.0 = 0.4 and 0.08 (V=6.5 and 8%) confidance intervals:

Wave heights H1/3 = 1.53 m H1/10 = 1.75 m

H2% = 1.85 m H1% = 1.94 m H0.1% = 2.17 m

H2%/H1/3 = 1.21

90%: +/- 1.64 95%: +/- 1.96

100

90

70 50

30 20 10

1 0.5

0.1

probability of exceedance (%)

Shallow water equations plunging waves:

Crest width and thickness of layers Minimum crest width Bmin:

0.2

Bmin = (3 to 4) Dn50 The thickness of layers: ta = tu = tf = n kt Dn50 The number of units per m2: Na = n kt (1 nv)/Dn502 = /Dn2

H 2% = 8.7 0.18 S -0.5 m P Dn 50 N

surging waves:

S H 2% = 1.4 P-0.13 Dn 50 N

0.2

cot m
P

where: ta, tu, tf = thickness of armour, under layer or filter n = number of layers = layer thickness coefficient kt nv = volumetric porosity = packing density

Values of kt and nv

Values of kt and nv (SPM, 1984) kt 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.04 0.94 nv 0.38 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.47 0.50 0.56

Under layers and filters

Geotechnical filter rules:

smooth rock, n = 2 rough rock, n = 2 rough rock, n > 3 graded rock cubes tetrapods dolosse

roughly: D15A/D85f < 4 5

SPM under layer:

1/10 1/15 of W50A D15A/D85u = 2.2 2.3

Large under layer gives large P and

higher stability
Smaller under layer can be cheaper

10

Design of concrete armour layers

Introduction Hudson/Van der Meer (rock) Two-layer systems cubes tetrapods crest height packing density One-layer systems accropode core-loc cubes Overall view

Stability Formulae
Hudson

Hs = ( K D cot )1 / 3 Dn
Van der Meer - rock: plunging and surging waves

Hs = f ( m , S , N , P ) Dn

Hs/Dn = stability number m = breaker parameter S = damage level N = number of waves P = notional permeability factor

Concrete armour layers

cot =1.5 sm remains; m disappears P = 0.4 (breakwater with under layer) Damage level Nod

Two-layer systems
Research 85 - 87
Cubes

0.1 Hs N 0.4 6.7 od = + 1.0 s m Dn N 0.3

Tetrapods
0.5 0.2 Hs N od 3 . 75 = + 0.85 0.25 s m Dn N

Hs = f ( N od , N , s m ) D n

Stability formulae give damage curve

Cubes 15 ton; = 1.35; sm = 0.04; N = 3000
2.5 2
Dam age Nod

Recent research
Research 85 - 87: steep slope 1:1.5: no transition

Formula Hudson, KD=7

plunging-surging waves

1.5 1 0.5 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 Wave height Hs (m )

De Jong (1996): MSc-student TUDelft research WL|Delft Hydraulics flume tests tetrapods also steeper waves influence crest height influence packing density

11

Total formula for tetrapods

De Jong: formula for plunging waves

tetrapods
5 4.5
stability number Hs/ Dn

surging:

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.01

surging plunging

0.5 0.2 N Hs = 3.75 f ( Rc / D n ) od + 0.85 f ( ) s-om Dn N 0 .5 Hs = 8.6 2 Nod + 3.94 f ( ) s0. f ( Rc / D n ) plunging: om Dn N

f(Rc/Dn) = influence of crest height

Van der Meer (1987) De Jong (1996)

Rc = crest freeboard f() = influence of packing density

0.06

0.02 0.03 0.04 wave steepness sm

0.05

Na/A = n k (1 - nv)/Dn2 = /Dn2

Influence of crest height

1.8

Influence of packing density

1.6 1.4

Influence of crest height f(Rc/Dn )

1.6

= 1.02 = 0.95 = 0.88 = 0.48

Damage level Nod

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.5

f(Rc/Dn) = 1.0 + exp(-0.61 Rc/Dn )

2.5

3.5

Stability number Hs/ Dn

Relative freeboard Rc/Dn

Influence of packing density

One-layer systems
Advantages (accropode, core-loc)
strong units, no breaking; if breaking: 10% loss no rocking: packed

Reduction coefficient f( )

0.8

one layer: Bhageloe, 1998

0.6

under design: no damage! (safety factor) accropode: experience of 100 constructed breakwaters large saving in concrete

0.4

0.2

f() = 0.40 + 0.61/SPM

CHEAP AND RELIABLE STRUCTURE

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Packing density / SPM

Disadvantages
strict placing pattern (not always possible) not yet much experience with core-loc

12

One-layer systems
Accropode, core-loc, ..cubes
4 3.5 3 accropode start damage failure

One-layer systems
Accropode
4 accropode 3.5 3 start damage failure design KD=12 tetrapods

damage Nod

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

damage Nod

2.5

tetrapods

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

stability number Hs/ Dn

stability number Hs/ Dn

One-layer systems
Accropode and core-loc
4 3.5 3 accropode start damage failure design KD=12 core-loc KD=16 tetrapods

Overall view concrete units

Accropode number of layers slope KD (breaking waves) Hs/Dn = Ns damage Nod damage % packing density concrete per m2 on slope relative volume of concrete
1 1:4/3 12 2,5 0 0 0,61 0,182Hs 100%

Core-Loc Tetrapod Cube

1 1:4/3 16 2,8 0 0 0,56 0,148Hs 81% 2 1:1,5 7 2,2 0,5 5 1,04 0,350Hs 208% 2 1:1,5 7 2,2 0,5 5 1,17 0,370Hs 220%

Cube
1 1:1,5 7 2,2 0 0 0,70 0,236Hs 140%

damage Nod

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

stability number Hs/ Dn

Reef type (Ahrens): reduction in crest height

Conventional structure: emerged, small damage

13

Reef type: crest at still water level

Reef type: crest below still water level

Reef type: smaller material

Reef type: wide crest

Conventional low-crested structure

Reef type: lowering of the crest

14

Conventional low-crested structure; various crest heights

Reef type (Ahrens): reduction in crest height

Division of low-crested structure in three parts (Vidal)

Low-crested structure: design of front, crest, rear

Conventional breakwater
Stable structure (damage S) Reliable design formulae Well-known structure Various/many gradings (armour, under

Berm breakwater, original concept

layer(s), toe, bedding layer, etc.)

Heavy equipment (concrete units) Limited size of rock concrete

(expensive)

15

Erosion gives gentle and stable slope

Berm breakwater
Use of rock up to Hs = 6 m cheap (?) Two classes of rock: large and small Easy construction Not many in the world: around 30 (25 on Iceland) Initially unstable: profile reshaping. After

reshaping statically stable.

Design parameter: mound of berm

Dynamic stability: S-shaped profile independent of ininital profile

Schematised profile: BREAKWAT

Three curves with BREAKWAT

Basic design parameters

Hs/Dn50 = 3.0 Determine berm level Draw slope 1:4

Redesign to berm profile

Use BREAKWAT to determine berm

length

16

Erosion of berm breakwater head

Crest height: rear side stability

Rear side stability is very important for berm

breakwaters: unstable rear side may cause failure of the breakwater

Consider developed profile Rc/Hs * sop1/3 = 0.25: start of damage

0.21: moderate damage 0.17: severe damage A lower value gives more overtopping

Head, St. George, Alaska. 3D tests

Longshore transport
Longshore transport during reshaping S(x) = number of rocks displaced per wave Maximum between 15-40 degrees attack Ho = Hs/Dn50 Top = Tp/(gDn50)0.5 dimensionless period S(x) = 0

for HoTop < 105

S(x) = 0.00005 (HoTop- 105)2

Longshore transport: rock/gravel beach; Hs/Dn50 < 8

Longshore transport: onset

17

Stability test of the Icelandic type, Juhl and Sloth (EU-programme)

Stable Berm Breakwaters,

Sigurdur Sigurdarson
Icelandic Maritime Administration

Some of the profiles tested

Conventional

Stability test of the Icelandic type, Juhl and Sloth

conventional

Husavik berm breakwater, 2001-2002

Stone Classes and Quarry Yield Prediction.

Stone class I II III IV V wmin-wmax (tonnes) 16.030.0 10.016.0 4.0 10.0 1.0 4.0 0.3 1.0 wmean (tonnes) 20,7 12.0 6.0 2.0 0.5 wmax/ wmin 1.9 1.6 2.5 4.0 3.3 dmax/ dmin 1.23 1.17 1.36 1.59 1.49 Expected quarry yield 5% 5% 9% 14% 12% For Hs=6.8 m Ho HoTo 1.9 46 2.3 62 2.9 87 4.2 151 6.5 291

Grindavik berm breakwaters, 2001-2002

Sirevg berm breakwater, Norway

Design by Icelandic Maritime Administration

Stone Classes and Quarry Yield Prediction.

Stone class I II III IV wmin-wmax (tonnes) 15.030.0 6.015.0 1.5 6.0 0.3 1.5 wmean (tonnes) 20,0 9.0 6.0 2.0 wmax/ wmin 2.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 dmax/ dmin 1.26 1.36 1.59 1.71 Expected quarry yield 5% 9% 17% 20% For Hs=4.4 m Ho HoTo 1.7 2.4 3.9 47 80 166

18

Sirevg berm breakwater, Norway Design wave height and worst case scenario
Station number along the breakwater (m) 0 to 70 75 to 125 145 to 210 215 to 240 245 to 275 280 to 400 Breakwater head Design wave height 100 year return period Hs (m) 4.8 3.5 6.2 6.4 6.2 6.7 7.0 Worst case scenario 1000 year return period Hs (m) 5.3 3.9 6.8 7.3 6.8 7.4 7.7

Sirevg berm breakwater, Norway Quarry Yield Prediction

S IREVG - QUARRY YIELD PREDICTION
100 Quarry A: Yield prediction Quarry B: Yield prediction 80 Quarries A, B, and C - weighed averages: Yield prediction Design Curve 70 90

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 0,10

1,00 We ig ht o f s to ne s (to nne s )

10,00

100,00

Sirevg berm breakwater, Norway Stability number, Ho, for various design wave heights, Hs
Stone class I II III IV wmin wmax 20 - 30 10 - 20 4 - 10 1-4 wmean 23.3 13.3 6.0 2.0 dmax/ dmin 1.14 1.26 1.36 1.59 3.5 m
1.05 1.27

Stable berm breakwaters, concluding remarks (Sigurdarson)

18 year experience 27 structures have been built

1.66 2.39

Ho for various Hs 4.8 m 6.2 m 6.7 m 1.45 1.87 2.02 2.25 2.43 1.74 2.27 2.94 3.17 3.28 4.23 4.57

7.0 m 2.11 2.54 3.31 4.78

Design wave 2.5 to 7.0 m Constructed on 25 m water depth Breaking waves / non breaking On weak soil with large settlements More economical and more stable than the

homogeneous berm breakwater

Toe stability

Different toe heights

19

Different toe widths

Damage definition Nod

Toe stability: old results

Toe stability: new results

Toe stability: final results (Infram publication nr 2)

Damage location head (Jensen, 1984)

Hs/Dn50 * Nod-0.15 = 2 + 6.2 (ht/h)2.7 Application area; 0.4 < ht/h < 0.9 3 < ht/Dn50 < 25

20

Head stability
No good formulae, too many parameters Rules of thumb:

Videos
Scheveningen: land based construction Maasvlakte: construction from water Reina Sofia: caisson

increase weight by 50% to 100% decrease slope angle increase radius of head or a combination
3D-tests for important breakwaters

21