Design and Construction of Berm

Breakwaters

Jentsje van der Meer - Van der Meer Consulting

UNESCO-IHE
Sigurdur Sigurdarson - Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration
IceBreak Consulting Engineers
 Contents
• New guidance
• Classification of berm breakwaters
• Geometrical design guidance
• Design spreadsheet
• Example for HsD = 5 m and 6-10 t
• Comparison with conventional rock
design
• Quarry yield – large rock
• Application in arctic area
• Conclusions

2 Þróun íslenska bermugarðsins

 New book on Berm Breakwaters

Design and Construction of Berm Breakwaters

Available since November 2016
Based on cooperative work, both in the scientific as well as in
the practical field, with a number of papers presented
Chapters
1. History of Modern Berm Breakwaters
2. Classification and Types of Berm Breakwaters
3. Prediction on Stability and Reshaping
4. Functional Behaviour: Wave Overtopping,
Reflection and Transmission
5. Geometrical Design of the Cross-section
6. Armourstone and Quarrying
7. Construction
8. Geometrical Design into Practice, Examples
9. Constructed Examples
Iceland; berm breakwater
Sirevåg, Norway; berm breakwater
Sirevåg, Norway; berm breakwater after design storm
Development in berm breakwater design

Originally: reshaping mass armoured

Developing to Icelandic-type
 Mass armoured berm breakwater
For classification: design wave height = 100 years return period

Fully reshaping berm breakwater (mass armoured)

Partly reshaping berm breakwater (mass armoured)

Mainly difference is stone size

 Icelandic-type berm breakwater
For classification: design wave height = 100 years return period

Partly reshaping Icelandic-type berm breakwater

Hardly reshaping Icelandic-type berm breakwater

Mainly difference is stone size Class I

 New classification

Breakwater Abbrevation Hs/ΔDn50 Sd Rec/Dn50

Hardly reshaping berm breakwater (Icelandic-type) HR-IC 1.7 - 2.0 2 - 8 0.5 - 2
Partly reshaping Icelandic-type berm breakwater PR-IC 2.0 - 2.5 10 - 20 1 - 5
Partly reshaping mass armoured berm breakwater PR-MA 2.0 - 2.5 10 - 20 1 - 5
Fully reshaping berm breakwater (mass armoured) FR-MA 2.5 - 3.0 -- 3 - 10

Design is a choice of availability of rock

and wanted reshaping
Proposal for new fully reshaping berm breakwater
Do not allow one wide graded rock class (1-9 t),
but divide in two narrower classes (1-4 t and 4-9 t)
No extra costs, but larger stability!

Quite some fully reshaping berm breakwaters needed

maintenance over 15-25 years.

4-9 t

1-4 t
Geometrical design guidance

• berm width B (recession, resiliency)

• berm level db
• crest level Rc (overtopping)
• horizontal armour height Ah
• transition to Class II
• toe depth ht
Berm width and resiliency

Resiliency: a percentage, P%, of the berm width, B,

that may erode under the design condition HsD.

Very resilient, hardly reshaping, IC HR P% = 10-20%

Good resiliency, partly reshaping, IC PR or MA PR P% = 20-40%

Minimum resiliency, fully reshaping, MA FR P% ≤ 70%

Berm width B = Rec/(P%/100)

Example
Rec = 4 m; P% = 30%
B = 4/0.3 = 13.3 m
New recession formula – average trend

Rec/Dn50 = 1.6 (Hs/ΔDn50 - 1.0)2.5

 Front Slope Stability - Influences
Other parameters influence berm recession
Three geometrical parameters identified

Down slope
Gentle slope less recession

Berm level and width

High berm less recession
Large berm width reduces recession

Toe depth
High toe reduces recession
Wave overtopping at berm breakwaters
q   Rc 
1.3

 0.09  exp  1.5  
g  H m3 0   H m 0  g BB  g  
 
 
with:
gBB = 0.68 - 4.5sop - 0.05B/HsD for HR and PR
gBB = 0.70 - 9.0sop for FR
and B/HsD is given by the design wave height.
1.E+00
Smooth slope 90% Conf. band
Project 1 NR-IC Project 4 PR-IC
1.E-01 LA (2008) PR-IC Project 1 PR-MA
Wave overtopping q/(gHm03)0.5

LA (2008) PR-MA Keilisnes PR-MA

1.E-02 LA Armour 1 NR-MA LA Armour 2 PR-MA

1.E-03

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06

1.E-07
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Relative crest height Rc/(Hm0 gBB)
 Conceptual design spreadsheet www.vdm-c.nl
General conditions Outcome main parameters Minimum transition level to class II
Design wave height HsD 3m Wave steepness sop 0.020 - For HsD at lowest level -0.2 m CD
Peak period Tp 9.8 s Relative mass density D 1.54 - For lowest level with according Hs -1.2 m CD
Overload Hs 3.5 m Median mass Class I M50 2.5 t Design choice of transition for IC (3 rock classes) -1.8 m CD
Design water level DWL 1 m CD Nominal diameter Class I Dn50 0.99 m Transition lower class for MA (2 rock classes) -1.8 m CD
Lowest water level with HsD 1 m CD Stability number HsD/DDn50 1.98 -
Lowest storm level 0 m CD Type of berm breakwater Hardly reshaping Crest level (g  = 1)
Hs at lowest storm level 3m Number of rock classes for berm 2 If no overtopping criteria, Rc min 4.6 m CD
Mean High Water Spring 1 m CD Basic recession for HsD (no adaptation) 1.49 m If no overtopping criteria, Rc max 5.2 m CD
Bottom level of foreshore at toe of structure -9 m CD Recession for overload (no adaptation) 2.28 m For given allowable overtopping, q, gBB 0.46
Allowable overtopping q for HsD 5 l/s per m Nominal diameter Class II, Dn50 0.61 m Required crest level for design conditions 4.93 m CD
Allowable overtopping q for overload 20 l/s per m Nominal diameter Class III, Dn50 No Class III Required crest level for overload 4.87 m CD
3
Mass density water 1025 kg/m Design choice of crest level 4.80 m CD
3
Mass density rock 2600 kg/m Resiliency, berm width and level
Wanted resiliency 20 % Check possibility of toe berm at level ht
Choice of rock classes Resulting Berm width B from resiliency 7.47 m Lowest possible toe level (two layers) -6.27 m CD
Rock Class I: minimum mass (0-15%) 1t Minimum berm width Bmin from geometry 2.96 m Design conditions
Rock Class I: maximum mass (85-100%) 4t Berm level 0.6 HsD 2.8 m CD Allowable damage level for HsD, Nod 2-
Rock Class II: minimum mass (0-15%) 0.2 t Dw for waves during construction 1m Highest level of toe for HsD with chosen N od -3.83 m CD
Rock Class II: maximum mass (85-100%) 1t MHWS plus Dw = working level 2 m CD Check validity range ht/Dn50 7.9 ok
Rock Class III: Mmin (leave open for MA) t Minimum berm level from construction 3.97 m CD Check validity range ht/h 0.48 ok
Rock Class III: Mmax (leave open for MA) t Design choice of berm width 8.00 m Overload conditions
Design choice of berm level 4.00 m CD Allowable damage level for overload, N od 4-
Highest level of toe for overload with chosen N od-4.12 m CD
Required horizontal armour width Ah 11.9 m Check validity range ht/Dn50 8.3 ok
Design choice of A h 12.0 m Check validity range ht/h 0.51 ok
Design choice of toe berm level (0 if no berm) 0 m CD
Design choice cota core below A h 1.5 -
 Design spreadsheet result
HsD = 5 m; Class I 10-20 t
15 Design water level DWL
Chart Datum
Summary of design choices
10 Horizontal armour width Ah
Design of berm width 8.50 m
Recession for HsD and overload Design of berm level 5.50 m CD
Design of Ah 17.0 m
5
Design of transition class I to class II -1.8 m CD
Design of crest level 10.00 m CD
0 Design of toe berm level 0 m CD
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 choice cota
Design 70core below A 1.5 -
h

-5
Rock Class I 10 - 20 t
Rock Class II 4 - 10 t
-10
Rock Class III 1 - 4 t

-15
Rock classes versus stability numbers
Stability number HsD/DDn50
Dedicated quarry M50 (t) HsD = 3 m HsD = 5 m HsD = 7 m
Class 20-35 t 25.0 0.87 1.46 2.04
Class 10-20 t 15.0 1.04 1.73 2.42
Class 4-10 t 7.0 1.34 2.23 3.12
Class 1-4 t 2.5 1.88 3.14 4.39
Class 0.2-1 t under layer
Class 2-6 t 4.0 1.61 2.68 3.76
Class 0.5-2 t 1.2 2.41 4.01 5.61
Standard gradings
Class 10-15 t 12.5 1.10 1.84 2.57
Class 6-10 t 8.0 1.28 2.13 2.98
Class 3-6 t 4.5 1.55 2.58 3.61
Class 1-3 t 2.0 2.03 3.38 4.73
Class 0.3-1 t under layer
 HsD = 5 m; Class I 6-10 t

15 Design water level DWL

Summary of design choices
Chart Datum
Design of berm width 10.50 m
10 Horizontal armour width Ah Design of berm level 5.00 m CD
Recession for HsD and overload Design of Ah 21.0 m
5 Design of transition class I to class II -1.8 m CD
Design of crest level 10.00 m CD
Design of toe berm level -6 m CD
0
Design choice cota core below Ah 2-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

-5
Rock Class I 6 - 10 t
Rock Class II 3 - 6 t
-10 Rock Class III 1 - 3 t

-15
HsD = 5 m; Class I 6-10 t
Drawing for tender
working level
Placing Class I rock from top of Class II
 Conventional rock armour 6-10 t

Breakwat: damage curves for performance based design

cotα = 2.5; P = 0.4; N = 3000
12
Tm=7 s
10 Tm=8.6 s
Tm=10 s
8 Design condition
Overload
Damage Sd

0
2 3 4 5 6 7
Wave height Hs (m)
Conventional rock armour 6-10 t
 Comparison

Conventional: two times more 6-10 t rock

Total volume of rock similar
Berm breakwater: construction by excavator only
Construction – quarry. Getting the large rock!
Sirevåg berm breakwater, Norway
The rocks in quarry A

Drilled borehole cores

Quarry Yield Prediction, very important for dedicated quarry
100

90 In situ block size

Yield prediction A
Percentage by mass heavier (%)

80 Yield prediction B

70 Required design volumes

Produced from quarry
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mass of stones (t)
From Smarason et al. (2000)
Blasting for very large rock
Blasting design
Hammerfest for
20-35 t rock

Low charge of explosives

Bottom charges
One row at the time
Optimum spacings
Hambantota Artificial Island Revetment
 Application of the geometrical design rules
Potential project in arctic conditions
Conceptual design for a road crossing a small bay, sheltered for ocean waves
This area is difficult to reach
Icefree only for few months each summer
Initially there was no information on rock

• Initial design conditions:

• Hs = 4.4 m
• Tp = 7.9 s
• Spring tide +1.2 m CD
• Design water level +2.0 m CD
• No information on available
rock
 Parameters and volume of different design
Initial design wave height: Hs = 4.4 m Tp = 7.9 s
Applying the geometrical design rules different desings can be suggested
Heavy Class I rock with low stability number on top of the table
Lighter Class I rock withe higher stability parameter further down
Crest height and berm width determine the total volume
Armour width increases with higher stability number
Armour Resi- Berm Berm Crest Large
width liency width level level rock Core Total
Class I Hs/DDn50 Ah (m) (%) B (m) Bl (m) Cl (m) (m3/m) (m3/m) (m3/m)
5-15 t 1.74 16 10% 12 4.8 7.7 240 610 850
4-12 t 1.87 17 14% 12 4.7 7.7 250 600 850
3-9 t 2.06 19 21% 12 4.7 7.7 270 580 850
2-6 t 2.36 21 34% 12 4.7 7.5 290 550 840
1.5-4.5 t 2.60 23 46% 12 4.7 6.9 310 500 810
1-3 t 2.98 27 69% 12 4.7 6.9 350 460 810
Photos only information on possible rock sizes
But no scale!
 Conclusions on design of
berm breakwaters
• Full guidance in the book
• Most guidance in papers (free download)
• Guidance on construction mainly in the book
• New classification: HR, PR and FR
MA or IC
• Conceptual design spreadsheet available
• Design depends on: the rock you can get
design wave height
wanted resiliency
• Berm breakwater designs possible for 3 m to 7 m
Thank you!