CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Dr. Jimmy Murphy
Name: Eoghan ODriscoll Collins Student Number: 109326049 April 2013

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

University College Cork

Coliste na hOllscoile Corcaigh
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Page 1 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Table of Contents
Experiment 1: Wave Celerity .................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 Apparatus ................................................................................................................................ 3 Method ................................................................................................................................... 4 Formulae ................................................................................................................................. 4 Results and Calculations ......................................................................................................... 5 Discussion and Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 7

Experiment2: Observation of Different Wave Types, Wave Run-up and Interaction with Obstacles.... 8 2.1 Observation of Different Wave Types..................................................................................... 8 Regular Waves ................................................................................................................ 8 Irregular Waves ............................................................................................................... 8 Bulls Eye Wave ................................................................................................................ 8 Freak Wave ..................................................................................................................... 8 Observation of Wave Period and Wavelength ............................................................... 9

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.2

Observation of Reaction with Obstructions............................................................................ 9 Interaction with Rubble Mound Breakwater (Beach) ..................................................... 9 Interaction with Vertical Wall ....................................................................................... 10 Interaction with Partial Depth Fixed Wave Barrier ....................................................... 10

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

Experiment 3: Stability of a Floating Body ............................................................................................ 11 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11 Apparatus .............................................................................................................................. 11 Method ................................................................................................................................. 12 Formulae ............................................................................................................................... 13 Theoretical Metacentric Height .................................................................................... 13 Experimental Metacentric Height ................................................................................. 14

3.4.1 3.4.2 3.5 3.6 3.7

Results and Calculations ....................................................................................................... 14 Graph for Determination of Experimental Metacentric Height ........................................... 16 Discussion of Results and Conclusion ................................................................................... 17

Experiment 4: Sediment Transfer ......................................................................................................... 18 4.1 4.2 4.3 What is happening? .............................................................................................................. 18 How is it happening?............................................................................................................. 18 Why are we studying it? ....................................................................................................... 19

Page 2 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Experiment 1: Wave Celerity

1.1 Introduction
This experiment investigates linear water wave theory with respect to real waves. Linear wave theory models wave behavious. It is only an approximate method of analysis but results can be suprisingly accurate and consistent. The experiments to compare real waves and linear wave theory were carried out in the UCC Hydraulics and Maritime Research Centre (HMRC) in Pouladuff, Cork City in the specialised 18 x 25 x 1 metre wave tank in which the waves are generated by 40 centrally controlled flap type wedge shaped aluminium paddles. The wave tank in this facility is capable generating waves up to a significant wave height of 0.18 metres at a period of 2.5 seconds. In this experiment, it was decided to investigate the agreement with theoretical values for wave periods varying from 0.8 to 2 seconds. The wave height in this case was selected as 50mm. This was however varied in order to enable the easy observation of the waves.

1.2

Apparatus

The only apparatus required in this experiment were a stopwatch and the aforementioned HMRC wave tank: a picture and a schematic of which is shown in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.1: HMRC Wave Tank

Page 3 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Figure 1.2: Schematic of HMRC Wave Tank

1.3
1.

Method
For a particular wave period, measure the time taken for ten waves to pass a point and divide it by ten to determine the experimental wave period. Repeat this and take the average figure.

2.

Measure the time it takes for a wave to pass between the two marks on the side of the tank (8 metres apart). Divide 8 by this value to determine the experimental celerity of the wave.

3. 4.

Repeat steps 1 and two for wave periods of 0.8, 1, 1.1, 1.14, 1.33, 1.6 and 2 seconds. Use the data collected to calculate C0, C values against Period, T.
Theory,

0,

Theory

and

Measured.

Plot these

1.4

Formulae

The waves are classified as either deep water waves or transitional waves. The relevant formulae are as follows: Parameter Wave Velocity (c) Wave Length () Limits of Application
Table 1.1: Formulae of Linear Wave Theory

Deep Water

Transitional Water ( ( ) )

The shallow water equations are omitted as none of the waves were shallow water waves.

Page 4 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

1.5

Results and Calculations

The data collected and the calculated C0, C Theory, 0, Theory and Measured are shown in Table 1.2 below.

Period (T) 0.8 1 1.14 1.33 1.6 2

TMeasured 0.8 1 1.144 1.32 1.62 1.99

C0 1.25 1.56 1.78 2.08 2.50 3.12

0 1.00 1.56 2.03 2.76 4.00 6.25

CTheory 1.25 1.56 1.77 2.04 2.33 2.61

Theory 1.00 1.56 2.02 2.71 3.73 5.22

CMeasured 1.27 1.54 1.75 1.91 2.24 2.38

Measured 0.99 1.60 2.01 2.58 3.63 4.78

Classification Deep Deep Transitional Transitional Transitional Transitional

Table 1.2: Results and Calculations

The variation of C0, C

Theory

and C Measured with Period (T) is shown in Figure 1.3 while the

variation of 0, Theory and Measured with Period (T) is shown in Figure 1.4.

Page 5 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Plot of C0, CMeasured & CTheory Against Period (T)

Celerity, c / (m/s)

Period, T / (sec) C Measured C Theory

C0

Figure 1.3: Variation of Wave Celerity with Period (T).

Plot of 0, Measured & Theory Against Period (T)

Wavelength, / (m)

Period, T / (sec) Measured Theory Figure 1.4: Variation of Wavelength with Period (T).

Page 6 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

1.6

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on this experiment, it is possible to deduce that, for a given wave height, both the wave celerity (c) and the wavelength () increase with increasing Period (T), as is illustrated by Figures 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. It is apparent that the TMeasured is nearly always greater than the actual Period (T). This can be attributed to human error, resulting in a delay in turning off the stopwatch after the wave passes the mark. It can be seen that the linear water wave theory agrees reasonably well with real waves. The agreement is very good for low periods. However, as the period increases, the

wavelengths and wave celerities recorded (I love cock) from the real waves deviate from the values predicted by the linear water wave theory. For each measurement of wavelength and wave celerity, the measured figure is lower than that predicted by the linear wave theory. It is possible that this could be attributed to experimental error. This is unlikely however as the any experimental error would have been minimised by choosing a large number of waves (ten) over which to record the times. It is more likely that the discrepancy occurs as a result of the fact that the linear water wave theory is less accurate for periods over approximately 1.4 seconds.

Page 7 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Experiment2: Observation of Different Wave Types, Wave Run-up and Interaction with Obstacles
2.1
2.1.1

Observation of Different Wave Types

Regular Waves

Both long and short crested regular waves were observed in the wave tank. Regular waves are waves which travel from one end of the tank to the other without changing or meeting other waves. These waves are ultimately absorbed by the artificial Enkamat absorption beach at the other end of the wave tank and hence, are not reflected back along the tank.
2.1.2 Irregular Waves

Irregular waves were then observed in the wave tank. These types of wave simulate the conditions likely to be found offshore. They are the types of wave which commonly occur in the ocean. Waves come randomly from different directions, meet and break at different locations and spread and diffract in different directions. The result is a choppy surface, similar to that found when wind blows across an open stretch of water.
2.1.3 Bulls Eye Wave

Bulls Eye waves were then observed in the tank. These occur when a series of similar waves travel towards each other at an angle and intersect at a central point. At this point, the wave height increases. A bulls eye formation then occurs propagating from this point. This type of wave is rarely occurs in reality.
2.1.4 Freak Wave

Finally, freak waves were created in the tank. These occur when a series of waves with varying height and period are created. Firstly, waves with a low celerity are created. These are then followed by waves with a higher celerity. The waves with the higher celerity move faster than those with the low celerity and therefore catch the slow moving waves. At the point when the fast moving waves catch the slow moving waves, a breaking wave with a large amplitude known as a freak wave is formed.

Page 8 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering 2.1.5 Observation of Wave Period and Wavelength

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Several different types of waves were observed in the 26 metre wave flume. Firstly, waves with a height of 50 mm, a Period (T) of 0.7 seconds and a wavelength () of 0.76 metres were observed. Following this, waves with a similar height a Period (T) of 1.75 seconds and a wavelength () of 4.78 metres were observed. It was noticed that the second group of waves (with the greater Period and Wavelength) seemed much smaller owing to the fact that they were less steep and more spread out as a result of their longer wavelength.

2.2

Observation of Reaction with Obstructions

The elevation and plan view of the obstructions to which the waves were subjected in the wave flume are shown below in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Layout of Obstructions in Wave Flume

2.2.1

Interaction with Rubble Mound Breakwater (Beach)

At one end of the wave flume, a sloped rubble mound breakwater had been constructed from loose granular material. The interaction of the waves with this obstruction was observed. As the waves approached the beach, they changed from deep water waves (d > 0.5 L) to transitional waves (0.05 L d 0.5 L) and ultimately to shallow water waves (d < 0.05 L). As the waves hit the sloped rock beach (and propagated from deep to shallow
Page 9 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

water), the wave speed slowed at the leading edge and the wave length reduced. The kinetic energy of the wave was converted to potential energy. As a result of this, the wave height increased and the waves ultimately broke on the beach. This process is known as shoaling. Breaking occurred when the ratio of the height to the wavelength (the steepness ratio) exceeded approximately 1:7. The majority of the wave energy was dissipated by the structure as the water percolated through the beach. However, approximately 20-30% of the energy of the waves was reflected.
2.2.2 Interaction with Vertical Wall

At one end of the wave flume, a vertical sea wall had been constructed from concrete blocks. The interaction of the waves with this vertical wall was then observed.

Approximately 80-90% of the energy of the waves was reflected from this wall. It was noticed that, just outside this wall, a non-breaking standing wave was formed as a result of the reflected waves approximately 0.5 metres from the vertical wall. This wave was a combination of the approaching waves and the reflected waves, and as a result, its height was approximately twice that of the approaching waves. In a real life situation, this

standing wave would have resulted in severe scouring of the sea bed and possible undermining of the vertical wall, possibly resulting in loss of stability and subsequent rotational failure. The height of the waves was then increased, ultimately resulting in the collapse of the blocks forming the vertical wall. It was therefore apparent that the waves had a much softer interaction with the rubble mound breakwater than with the vertical wall. The energy of the waves was absorbed by the rubble mound breakwater, but simply reflected by the vertical wall resulting in a standing wave.
2.2.3 Interaction with Partial Depth Fixed Wave Barrier

At one end of the wave flume, a partial depth fixed wave barrier was constructed. The depth of this barrier was varied and the extent to which the waves were transmitted beyond the barrier was observed. It was noticed that the barrier had little effect when it did not extend the whole way to the floor of the tank. In this case, the waves simply propagated under the breakwater and continued almost at the same height. It is therefore evident that a partial depth wave barrier has little use in the control of waves.

Page 10 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Experiment 3: Stability of a Floating Body

3.1 Introduction
A floating body is said to be stable if it returns to its original position following a small disturbance. The metacentric height of a body is a measurement of the stability of a floating body. It is the distance between the centre of gravity of the body and its metacentre. The greater the metacentric height of the body, the greater its stability. The metacentric height of vessels following loading is frequently calculated in order to gain an insight into the stability of the vessel. The purpose of this experiment is to determine the stability of a small floating pontoon by calculating its metacentre in two different ways. Firstly, its metacentre will be predicted theoretically, based on the dimensions of the barge and its forces. The metacentre will then be determined experimentally by taking a series of readings obtained by varying the position of weights on the pontoon. The experimental procedure is carried out on a specially manufactured apparatus, similar to the one shown in the diagram below. It consists of a barge with two weights attached. The first is free to slide up and down the vertical mast in the centre of the barge. The second one (the jockey weight) is free to slide along a shaft which is located at the middle of the longitudinal centreline. Also attached to the barge is a plumbline, which enables the measurement of the angle to which the barge lists following the adjustment of the jockey weight.

3.2

Apparatus

Basin of water Metacentric Height Apparatus (See Figure 3.1) Steel Ruler

Figure 3.1: Metacentric Height Apparatus

Page 11 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

3.3

Method
Figure 3.2. Also record the mass of the entire apparatus, and of the jockey weight.

1. Measure the dimensions of the pontoon (height, width and length) as shown in

2. Set the weight on the mast of the apparatus at a point, and measure its height. Set the jockey weight at the centre of the pontoon. 3. Measure the centre of gravity of the barge using the balance test. 4. Float the barge in the basin of water and measure the depth of the barge below the water level (z). 5. Move the jockey weight to different points along the horizontal shaft at the centre of the boat, measuring the angle d (read from the plumbline) and the distance dx (the distance from the centre of the jockey weight to the centre of the barge) as shown in Figure 3.3. 6. Plot the graph of dx against d and find the slope of the graph. Calculate the experimental metacentric height from this slope. 7. Calculate the theoretical metacentric height from the dimensions and weights of the apparatus. 8. Compare the two values and calculate the experimental error. 9. Repeat steps 2 to 8 as many times as required.

Figure 3.2: Dimensions of Apparatus

Page 12 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Figure 3.3: Determination of Stability

3.4
3.4.1

Formulae
Theoretical Metacentric Height

Where:

GM

= = = = =

Metacentric Height First Moment of Water Plane Area Displaced Volume Centre of Buoyancy Centre of Gravity (Balance Test)

Page 13 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering 3.4.2 Experimental Metacentric Height

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Where:

GM

= =

Metacentric Height Weight of Jockey Weight Weight of Barge Distance of Jockey Weight from Centreline Angle of Tilt of Barge Slope of Graph

W dx d dx/ d

= = = =

3.5

Results and Calculations

= = = = = = 2500 g 200 g 204 mm 360 mm 35 mm 17.5 mm

Weight of Barge (W) Weight of Jockey Weight (wj) Width of Barge (x) Length of Barge (y) Depth of Barge below water (z) Height of Centre of Buoyancy (zb)

The calculations of the theoretical and experimental height are shown overleaf.

Page 14 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Height of Mast Weight = 365 mm Height of C.O.G = 91 mm dx d d (metres) (degrees) (radians) 0.074 10 0.175 0.051 7.5 0.131 0.036 5 0.087 0.029 2.5 0.044 0.014 0.5 0.009 -0.001 -2.5 -0.044 -0.016 -5 -0.087 -0.031 -7.5 -0.131

Theoretical GM Iyy = V GM = =

0.000255 m4 0.00257 m3 25.58 mm

Experimental GM Slope of Graph = GM ERROR = =

0.327 26.16 2.24 %

Height of Mast Weight = 260 mm Height of C.O.G = 77 mm dx d d (metres) (degrees) (radians) 0.0075 0.5 0.009 0.015 1.5 0.026 0.0225 2.5 0.044 0.03 3.25 0.057 0.0375 4.1 0.072 -0.0215 -2 -0.035 -0.039 -4.5 -0.079

Theoretical GM Iyy = V GM = =

0.000255 m4 0.00257 m3 39.58 mm

Experimental GM Slope of Graph = GM ERROR = =

0.5217 41.74 5.43 %

Height of Mast Weight = 185 mm Height of C.O.G = 65 mm dx d d (metres) (degrees) (radians) 0.0075 0.25 0.004363 0.015 1 0.017453 0.0225 1.75 0.030543 0.03 2.25 0.03927 0.045 3.5 0.061087 -0.026 -2 -0.03491 -0.042 -3.5 -0.06109

Theoretical GM Iyy = V GM = =

0.000255 m4 0.00257 m3 51.58 mm

Experimental GM Slope of Graph = GM ERROR = =

0.7223 57.78 12.01 %

Page 15 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

3.6

Graph for Determination of Experimental Metacentric Height

Variation of dx with d
y = 0.327x + 0.012 R = 0.9919

y = 0.7223x + 0.0016 R = 0.9972

dx (m)
y = 0.5217x + 0.0005 R = 0.9949

d
h = 365 mm Linear (h = 365 mm) h = 77 mm Linear (h = 77 mm) h = 65 mm Linear (h = 65 mm)

Figure 3.4: Variation of dx with d

Page 16 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

3.7

Discussion of Results and Conclusion

Based on the data collected, the theoretical and experimental values for the metacentric height of the barge were calculated for three different stabilities. The error between the theoretical and experimental values was also calculated, relative to the theoretical value. Errors of 2, 5 and 12 percent were calculated. An error of 5% is quiet acceptable in this case as there are a number of places where experimental error could occur. However, an error of 12% can be considered slightly high. Firstly, the calculation of the centre of gravity of the barge (using the balance test) was prone to human error, as were the measurement of the distances and height and the determination of the angle d due to the oscillation of the barge in the basin of water. Overall, the experiment is considered fairly accurate however, with a difference of only 6mm between the theoretical and experimental metacentric heights in the worst case. It is possible to conclude that this experiment is a satisfactory method of calculating the metacentric height of the barge. It was noticed that the metacentric height of the barge increased as the weight on the mast was lowered (corresponding with a lowering of the centre of gravity and hence increasing stability of the barge). Figure 3.5 shows the increase in metacentric height as the centre of gravity is lowered. It can therefore be concluded that a greater metacentric height implies greater stability.
Variation of Metacentric Height with Height of Centre of Gravity

Metacentric Height (mm)

y = -1.1067x + 126.35 R = 0.9992

Height of Centre of Gravity (mm)

Figure 3.5: Variation of Metacentric Height with Centre of Gravity Height

Page 17 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

Experiment 4: Sediment Transfer

4.1 What is happening?
In this location, it is apparent that there have been significant changes over the past 10 years. This location appears to be a place where a river and a stream meet the ocean. There is considerable movement of sediment in this location. At the mouth of the larger river, there is a build-up of sediment in 2001 which is being washed out to sea by the flow from the larger river. By 2007, this seems to be nearly completely gone. However, by 2011, this has built up again. It is likely that storm events around 2005/2006 are the cause for the break down of these banks of sediment. The sediment appears to have come from two locations. Firstly, it appears that it has been washed downstream by both rivers. The sand spit located in the centre of the pictures is being broken down and this is another source of sediment. This spit is being broken down by the flow of the rivers and its sediment is being distributed around the area.

4.2

How is it happening?

The sediment is being distributed by the flow of the two rivers in the picture. The flow from the smaller river is wearing away at the sand spit, making it narrower. Between 2007 and 2010, a breach in the spit has begun to occur. This breach has further developed by 2011. In addition, the build up of sediment noticeable inside the spit in 2001 has been disturbed by 2011 and the tidal streams in this area have become deeper, eating away at the sand. The sediment is being washed out into the path of the larger river by the smaller river. This is in turn washed out to sea by the flow from the large river forming large banks outside the estuary which build up and break down as storm events occur. Indeed, it is likely that storm events were to blame for the breach of the spit. The breach occurred after approximately 2007, when the sediment bank outside the spit had been eliminated. It is possible that the waves from the ocean, which were allowed an easy path to the spit following the elimination of the sand bank, eroded the sand spit during a series of storm events and, in conjunction with the erosion from the small stream resulted in the breach in the spit.

Page 18 of 19

CE 4013: Harbour and Coastal Engineering

Denis OSullivan, 108348006

4.3

Why are we studying it?

It is important to study and monitor the transfer of sediment, and in particular, the effect which waves have on the sediment. It is possible that changes in the transfer patterns of sediment can be caused by the activities of people who tamper with the coastline. For example, the construction of coastal structures can disrupt the movement of sediment. It is important that we should have a picture of the movement patterns of sediment in order to notice the effects which the tampering with the coastline has on it. In addition to this, it is important to be aware of coastal processes which may be occurring in case remedial action needs to be taken in order to remedy this before too much damage has been done to the coastline.

Page 19 of 19