Breakwaters – layout of breakwaters, stopping area, maneuvering

area, anchorage area, harbor entrance, modeling and testing of

breakwater layout and harbor entrances; Breakwater design –
breakwater types, description of wave fields – parametric wave
forecasting, finite and deep waters; stochastic representation of
sea waves, short-term estimates for shallow waters, long-term
predictions, wave spectra – PM, Bretschneider, JONSWAP
spectrum; Design wave characteristics, return period, Problem
session.
Breakwaters
Vertical Breakwaters
Main component of vertical breakwater is concrete
‘caisson’  large hollow concrete box floated in site
and filled with granular material to form a stable
structure.
Caissons are placed on prepared pad of rock (or) berm.
Sometimes berm is partial rubble mound structure thus
forming ‘composite breakwater’
To decrease wave reflection and prevent waves
breaking directly into caisson by covering seaward
faces with armour protection.
Failure Mechanism of Vertical Breakwaters – overall failure models
Depends on the structural stability of caisson unit:
(i) sliding
(ii) overturning
(iii) settlement followed by slip failure & seaward tilt
(iv) settlement followed by slip failure & shoreward tilt

Local failure models

i. Erosion beneath seaward and shoreward edge
ii. Seabed scour
Breakwater Design
General classification:
1) Sloping or rubble mound.
2) Vertical.
3) Composite and special breakwaters.
Selection of particular type of breakwater  depends on local site
conditions.
Selection of breakwater structure  Breakwater layout, site
environmental conditions, utilization condition, availability of
construction material, cost of construction & maintenance.
Rubble mound breakwater:
Rubble mound breakwater in trapezoidal prismatic shape  most commonly
used breakwater
Seaward slope of breakwater  effectively absorbs wave energy causing little
transmission and reflection.
Advantages:
i. Flexibility in shaping breakwater geometry
ii. Ease of construction and repair
Disadvantages:
i. Need for large volume of rock material
ii. Occupy large area of sea floor
Cross-section of Rubble mound breakwater
a) Rock material is placed in layers as required.

b) Conventional structure provided with a

paraphet wall and concrete slab shaping crest
of the mound.
Wave Run-up & Overtopping:
Wave run-up on a rubble mounded breakwater depends on:
(i) angle of seaward slope and its roughness
(ii) depth of water in front of slope exposed,
(iii) incident wave characteristics,
(iv) slope of the bottom.
Selection of breakwater crest elevation above sea-surface should be given
consideration.
Calculation of wave run-up levels  varieties of methods.
PIANC (1992) developed from van der Meer’s test on armoured slopes.
Run-up levels above static water level of exceedance level (𝑥𝑥) is given by
(𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 )
𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢  run-up level relative to the static level (𝑥𝑥)

𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑎𝑎𝜉𝜉𝑚𝑚 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜉𝜉𝑚𝑚 < 1.5

= � 𝑐𝑐 (𝜉𝜉𝑚𝑚 is the Irribaren number)
𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠 𝑏𝑏𝜉𝜉𝑚𝑚 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝜉𝜉𝑚𝑚 > 1.5
tan(𝛼𝛼) 2𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋
𝜉𝜉𝑚𝑚 = 1/2 (where, 𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚 = 2 and 𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚 is the mean wave period)
𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚 𝑔𝑔𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚

For permeable structures (permeability factor p > 0.4 the upper limit of
𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
= d)
𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠
Empirical coefficients (a), (b), (c) and (d)

Exceedance a b c d
level (%)

0.001 1.12 1.34 0.55 2.58

0.02 0.96 1.17 0.46 1.97
Significant 0.72 0.88 0.41 1.35
Irribaren number is calculated using the following formula:
𝑚𝑚
𝜉𝜉 = (where, 𝑚𝑚 denotes the beach slope, 𝐻𝐻𝑏𝑏 denotes the wave
𝐻𝐻𝑏𝑏 /𝐿𝐿0 1/2
height at breaking, 𝐿𝐿0 denotes the deep water wave length as calculated
by linear wave theory)

Breaker characteristics (Battjes, 1975) are based on the following:

𝜉𝜉 > 2.0 predicts surging wave
0.4 < 𝜉𝜉 < 2.0 predicts plunging wave
𝜉𝜉 < 0.4 predicts spilling wave
Wave shape can be defined using Galvin (1972) formulation based
on the factor (𝑘𝑘)
𝐻𝐻𝑏𝑏
𝑘𝑘 = (𝐻𝐻𝑏𝑏 represents the maximum height at breaking, 𝑚𝑚 is the
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑇𝑇 2
beach slope, and 𝑇𝑇 represents the wave period)

𝑘𝑘 > 0.068  spilling wave

0.003 < 𝑘𝑘 < 0.068  plunging wave
𝑘𝑘 < 0.003  surging wave
Wave Transmission and Reflection:
Wave transmission in rubble mounded breakwater  (i) transmission by
over-topping, (ii) transmission through structure.
2 2 1/2
Transmission coefficient (𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 ) is expressed as: 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇  coefficient for waves overtopping breakwater

𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇  coefficient for wave transmission through breakwater
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇  is a complex function of many parameters (size of breakwater, i.e;
width & height, composition of various layers of materials, water depth
etc.)
For random waves, 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = (𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠 )𝑡𝑡 /𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠
(𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠 )𝑡𝑡  significant wave height due to structure overtopping
𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠  significant wave height impinging on the structure

Effectiveness of breakwater in attenuating wave energy can be

measured by wave energy transmitted past the structure.

Greater wave transmission  less wave attenuation

Quantitatively, the wave transmission coefficient (𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 ) is given by:
𝐻𝐻𝑡𝑡
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = (where, 𝐻𝐻𝑡𝑡 is height of transmitted wave on landward side of the
𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖
structure, and 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖 is the height of incident wave on the seaward side of the
structure).
Ahrens (1987) proposed an empirical formula for sub-aerial breakwater where
the crest of structure is above still water level (SWL) and ratio of freeboard to
𝐹𝐹
incident wave height is greater than one ( > 1.0)
𝐻𝐻

1.0
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = 0.592
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
1.0 +
𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛50
𝐻𝐻  incident wave height; 𝐴𝐴 is the cross-sectional area of
breakwater; 𝐿𝐿 is the wave length from linear wave theory; 𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛50 is
the nominal armour unit diameter of median size (50%) armour unit.

𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎50
𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛50 = (𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎50 is the mass of median size armour unit; 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 is
𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎
the mass density of armour material)
Seabrook (1997) developed a relation for submerged breakwater based on
physical modelling tests (using various depths of submergence, crest
width, water depth and incident wave conditions).
Following design equation was developed for wave transmission at
submerged rubble mounded breakwater:

𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖 𝐵𝐵𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖

0.65 −1.09( )
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = 1 − 𝑒𝑒 𝐻𝐻 𝑖𝑖 𝐵𝐵 + 0.047 − 0.067
𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛50 𝐵𝐵𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛50

where, 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 is the transmission coefficient, 𝐻𝐻𝑖𝑖 is incident wave height,

𝐵𝐵 is the crest width, 𝑑𝑑𝑠𝑠 is submergence depth, 𝐿𝐿 is local wave length,
and 𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛50 is median stone diameter.
Wave force on Armour Layer and Armour Stability

Armour layer stability  very important requirement for breakwater design 

armour layer is a protection for breakwater  high-end technology like XBloc
has inter-linking capability with pre-cast concrete base with non-reinforced
material base.

If this layer is damaged  breakwater core can be opened to direct exposure to

wave attack resulting in substantial erosion (or) catastrophic failure of
structures.
Wave forces acting on Armour Stone:
𝑃𝑃ℎ  horizontal wave force
𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛  uplift wave force
𝑊𝑊 ′  weight of the stone
𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝  frictional force that resists the two wave forces
𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝 = 𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝 𝑊𝑊 ′ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛
(𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝  coefficient of friction)
Armour stone stability is determined by:

′ ′
𝑃𝑃ℎ + 𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛
𝑃𝑃ℎ ± 𝑊𝑊 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 < 𝐹𝐹𝑝𝑝 ; 𝑊𝑊 >
𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ± 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
Forces 𝑃𝑃ℎ and 𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 are primarily due to drag and uplift force of waves. Both
these forces are proportional to square of water particle velocity. Assumed to
be proportional to 𝑔𝑔𝑔.
As drag and uplift forces are proportional to projected areas 𝐴𝐴ℎ and 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 of
stone, the forces (𝑃𝑃ℎ ) and (𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 ) can be obtained as:
2/3
𝑊𝑊
𝑃𝑃ℎ = 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 𝑃𝑃0 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐴𝐴ℎ = 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 𝑃𝑃0 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐾𝐾ℎ
𝜌𝜌𝑟𝑟 𝑔𝑔
2/3
𝑊𝑊
𝑃𝑃𝑛𝑛 = 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃0 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 = 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃0 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝐾𝐾𝑛𝑛
𝜌𝜌𝑟𝑟 𝑔𝑔
The terms 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷 and 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 are the drag and uplift coefficient. 𝐾𝐾ℎ and 𝐾𝐾𝑛𝑛 are the
coefficients that considers the shape of the stone; 𝐻𝐻 is the wave height.
Hence, required weight of stone is determined by:
𝜌𝜌𝑟𝑟 𝑔𝑔𝐻𝐻 3
𝑊𝑊 = (I) (𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠 is the stability number)
𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠3 𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟 −1 3

𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠 accounts for effect of stone shape and wave conditions.

3
𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝 𝐾𝐾𝑛𝑛 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 ± 𝐾𝐾ℎ 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷
𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠3 = 3
𝜇𝜇𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ± 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
Equation (I) can be rewritten using the nominal stone diameter (𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛 ) as:
𝐻𝐻
= 𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠 (useful in understanding the scale of structure in comparison to
∆𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛
wave height)
𝑊𝑊 1/3
where, 𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛 = ; ∆ = 𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟 − 1
𝜌𝜌𝑟𝑟 𝑔𝑔
Evaluation of required weight of armour blocks (or) stones is very
crucial aspect in design of rubble mounded breakwater (usually done
analytically or model tests). Most popular is the Hudson’s formula:
𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠3
𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛3 =
𝐾𝐾𝐷𝐷 ∆3 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐∝

𝐾𝐾𝐷𝐷  is the empirical damage coefficient

𝜌𝜌𝑠𝑠
∆= − 1 is the ratio of rock to water density
𝜌𝜌𝑤𝑤

∝  is the slope angle

Hudson’s formula can also be expressed in the form:
𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 𝐻𝐻 3
𝑀𝑀 =
𝐾𝐾𝐷𝐷 ∆3 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐∝

(𝑀𝑀 is the mass of armour unit; and 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎 is the mass density of armour
unit)
In terms of (𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛 ) and stability number (𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠 ):
𝐻𝐻 1/3
𝑁𝑁𝑠𝑠 = = 𝐾𝐾𝐷𝐷 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
∆𝐷𝐷𝑛𝑛
Recommended (𝐾𝐾𝐷𝐷 ) values – no damage criteria & minor
overtopping:
Armour units Placement Structure Trunk Structure Head

Breaking Non-breaking Breaking Non-breaking

Quarry stones

Smooth rounded Random 1.2 2.4 1.1 1.9

Rough angular Random 2.0 4.0 1.6 2.8

Parallelepiped Special 7.0 – 20.0 8.5 – 24.0 - -

Tetrapod & Random 7.0 8.0 4.5 5.5

Quadrapod
Tribar Random 9.0 10.0 7.8 8.5
Dolos Random 15.8 31.8 8.0 16.0
Design Wave
Success of breakwater design  parameters of design wave
Current practice  obtain long-term probability of wave distribution for the site under
consideration.
Design wave height  can be expressed in terms of significant wave height
Probability of wave height occurrence  Rayleigh distribution
From this distribution  mean wave height, most probable height, highest of given
percentile can be obtained.
Average wave height  0.64 𝐇𝐇𝐬𝐬 ; Average highest 10%  1.29 𝐇𝐇𝐬𝐬
Average of highest 1%  1.68 𝐇𝐇𝐬𝐬 ; Highest  1.87 𝐇𝐇𝐬𝐬
In general (20 – 25 years) design wave coupled to annual extreme water level is considered
as appropriate for design of small to medium sized projects.
Vertical Breakwaters
Categories  low mound breakwater, high
mound composite breakwater, horizontal
composite breakwater
Wave Transmission & Reflection
Waves acts on vertical breakwater  some
energy of incident wave is dissipated, some
part of remaining energy is reflected
(generating reflecting waves in front of the
wall), rest of the energy is transmitted behind
the breakwater.
Reflection and Transmission coefficient (𝐾𝐾𝑅𝑅 ) and (𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 ):
𝐻𝐻𝑅𝑅
𝐾𝐾𝑅𝑅 = (𝐻𝐻𝑅𝑅 is the reflected wave height, 𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼 is the
𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼
incident wave height)
𝐻𝐻𝑇𝑇
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = (𝐻𝐻𝑇𝑇 is the transmitted wave height, 𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼 is the
𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼
incident wave height)
2 2 0.5
Total transmission coefficient, 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 which
is a function of overtopping & wave transmission.
Reflection and Transmission coefficient (𝐾𝐾𝑅𝑅 ) and (𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 ):
Transmitted waves by overtopping  high frequency
components
Wave height & period of transmitted waves are in general
different from incident waves.
Transmitted waves lose their characteristics as they
propagate over long distances.
Distributions of wave heights and period vary with distance
away from the breakwater.
Wave transmission by vertical breakwaters  mainly by wave overtopping
Principal wave transmission coefficient  ratio between breakwater crest
height to incident wave height.
Based on regular wave tests, Goda and Kakizaki (1966) proposed the
following equations for determining the transmission coefficient for vertical
breakwaters.
ℎ𝑐𝑐
For 𝛽𝛽 − 𝛼𝛼 < < (𝛼𝛼 − 𝛽𝛽)
𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼

2 ′ 2 0.5
𝜋𝜋 ℎ𝑐𝑐 ℎ
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = 0.25 1 − 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝛽𝛽 + 0.01 1 −
2𝛼𝛼 𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼 ℎ
 ℎ𝑐𝑐
For ≥ (𝛼𝛼 − 𝛽𝛽)
𝐻𝐻𝐼𝐼

ℎ′
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇 = 0.1 1 −
ℎ
ℎ′  distance from design water level to bottom of upright section of
breakwater.
ℎ𝑐𝑐
For example, most breakwaters in Japan are designed with = 0.6. In this
𝐻𝐻1/3
case the transmission coefficient calculated from above equation is equal to
ℎ′
0.2 for typical condition d/h = 0.6 and = 0.7
ℎ
Non-breaking wave forces on vertical
walls:

Forces are primarily hydrostatic.

Non-breaking waves are usually expected where
the fetch is limited and when depth at structure
is greater than 1.5 times the maximum expected
wave height.
Sainflou (1928) method (simplified wave
pressure theory) – provides wave pressure
distribution at wave crest and troughs.
 Wave pressure at the crest is determined by:
𝐻𝐻 + ℎ0 𝑊𝑊0 𝐻𝐻
𝑃𝑃1 = 𝑃𝑃2 + 𝑊𝑊0 ℎ ; 𝑃𝑃2 =
𝐻𝐻 + ℎ + ℎ0 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2𝜋𝜋𝜋/𝐿𝐿
Pressure at wave trough is from the formulation:
2
𝑊𝑊0 𝐻𝐻 𝜋𝜋𝐻𝐻 2𝜋𝜋𝜋
𝑃𝑃1′ = 𝑊𝑊0 𝐻𝐻 − ℎ0 ′
; 𝑃𝑃2 = 𝑃𝑃2 = ; ℎ0 = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2𝜋𝜋𝜋/𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿 𝐿𝐿
𝐻𝐻  height of free wave in water depth (h)
ℎ0  height of clapotis orbit w.r.t mean water level
𝑊𝑊0  weight/cubic feet of water

Sainflou’s formulation correctly describes standing wave pressure

(overestimates for steep waves).
Breakwater Alignment:

Vertical breakwater  reflect waves leading to wave reflection and diffraction

Concave alignment of breakwater  wave force amplifies reaching almost

twice that of regular force.

Convex alignment  leads to reduction in wave force.

Stability of Breakwaters:
Upright section  must be stable against overall local failure modes.
Overall failure  sliding & overturning
Local failure  erosion beneath the stable platform, seabed scouring and toe erosion.
Bearing pressure on rubble mound & underlying soil  geotechnical issues (earthquakes
etc.)
Maximum allowable bearing pressure on rubble mounds called ‘toe pressure’  400 – 500
kN/m2 (permissible up to 600 KN/m2)
Stability of Rubble Mounded Foundations:
(i) Design factors  bathymetry plays a pivotal role all along the length of the breakwater
 wave-structure interaction problem.
Waves impinging a vertical breakwater does the
following:
• Break completely  projecting jet of water roughly perpendicular
to the slope.

• Break partially  poor defined jet.

• Establish oscillatory motion of water particles  clapotis at a

vertical wall.
US Army Corps of Engineers (1984)  design wave height of a
flexible rubble structure ∼ 10% of H10
Problem Session
Stability of armour units on rubble structures. The stability formula based on
results of extensive small-scale model testing and verification by large-scale
model testing – Hudson’s formula:
𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 𝑯𝑯𝟑𝟑
𝑾𝑾 =
𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 − 𝟏𝟏 𝟑𝟑 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝜽𝜽

𝐻𝐻  wave height (in meters); 𝑤𝑤𝑟𝑟  unit weight of armour unit (kN/m3); Unit
weight of water (𝑊𝑊𝑤𝑤 )  10.05 kN/m3 (unit weight of freshwater  9.8 kN/m3
and seawater  10.05 kN/m3)
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝜃𝜃  slope (m) is the angle of structure slope measured from horizontal in
degrees.
Breaking/Non-breaking waves are relevant in context to 𝐾𝐾𝑑𝑑 (damage
coefficient)
Recommended (𝐾𝐾𝐷𝐷 ) values – no damage criteria & minor
overtopping:
Armour units Placement Structure Trunk Structure Head

Breaking Non-breaking Breaking Non-breaking

Quarry stones

Smooth rounded Random 1.2 2.4 1.1 1.9

Rough angular Random 2.0 4.0 1.6 2.8

Parallelepiped Special 7.0 – 20.0 8.5 – 24.0 - -

Tetrapod & Random 7.0 8.0 4.5 5.5

Quadrapod
Tribar Random 9.0 10.0 7.8 8.5
Dolos Random 15.8 31.8 8.0 16.0
Problem –I
Estimate the required weight of an individual armour unit
both at structure trunk and head under breaking and non-
breaking wave conditions in order to maintain the structural
stability of a breakwater unit subject to the following input
conditions: Wave height = 5m; unit weight of armour unit =
25 kN/m3; unit weight of seawater = 10.05 kN/m3; slope =
2.5°. Assume that the armour unit is a quarry stone that is
rough angular?
Solution:
𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 𝑯𝑯𝟑𝟑
𝑾𝑾 = (kN)
𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 −𝟏𝟏 𝟑𝟑 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝜽𝜽
𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 = 25 kN/m3; 𝑯𝑯 = 5m; 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 = 2.0 & 4.0 (for structure trunk)
corresponding to breaking/non-breaking waves; and 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 = 1.6 & 2.8 (for
structure head) corresponding to breaking/non-breaking waves; 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 = 𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 /
𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘 ; 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝜽𝜽 = 2.5°

𝑾𝑾 = 189.8945 kN trunk − breaking waves

𝑾𝑾 = 94.9472 kN (trunk – nonbreaking waves)
𝑾𝑾 = 237.3682 kN (head – breaking waves)
𝑾𝑾 = 135.6389 kN (head – nonbreaking waves)
Problem –II
Estimate the required weight of an individual armour unit
both at structure trunk and head under breaking and non-
breaking wave conditions in order to maintain the structural
stability of a breakwater unit subject to the following input
conditions: Wave height = 5m; unit weight of armour unit =
25 kN/m3; unit weight of seawater = 10.05 kN/m3; slope =
2.5°. Assume that the armour unit is a randomly placed
tetrapod unit?
Solution:
𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 𝑯𝑯𝟑𝟑
𝑾𝑾 = (kN)
𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 −𝟏𝟏 𝟑𝟑 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝜽𝜽
𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 = 25 kN/m3; 𝑯𝑯 = 5m; 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 = 7.0 & 8.0 (for structure trunk)
corresponding to breaking/non-breaking waves; and 𝑲𝑲𝑫𝑫 = 4.5 & 5.5 (for
structure head) corresponding to breaking/non-breaking waves; 𝑺𝑺𝒓𝒓 = 𝒘𝒘𝒓𝒓 /
𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘 ; 𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄𝒄 𝜽𝜽 = 2.5°

𝑾𝑾 = 54.2555 kN trunk − breaking waves

𝑾𝑾 = 47.4736 kN (trunk – nonbreaking waves)
𝑾𝑾 = 84.3975 kN (head – breaking waves)
𝑾𝑾 = 69.0525 kN (head – nonbreaking waves)
Floating Breakwaters
a) Rapid protection of shore areas in military operations.
b) Normally used in site conditions having less steep waves.
c) Normally used for wave conditions (< 2 m) practical cases used for
waves < 4 seconds.
d) Require relatively high level of maintenance compared to fixed
structures.
e) Advantages  can be fabricated offsite and assembled when
required.
f) Categories  Reflective & Energy dissipative structures constructed
in form of rectangular pontoons moored by anchors/chains.
 Fundamental aspects of Design (Floating Breakwater)

i. Buoyancy and floating stability – sufficient buoyancy to support

the weight of breakwater and moorings.
ii.Wave transmission.
iii.Mooring forces – rotationally stable.
iv.Breakwater structural integrity – breakwater unit must sustain
wave induced hogging and sagging.
 Recommendation of PIANC (1994) following environmentally
induced loads must be considered for design purpose.
• Wave induced forces (EW)
• Wave induced forces – early return period (EW0)
• Drag forces due to currents (EC)
• Wind drag (ED)
• Ice loading (EI)
• Dead loads (DL)
• Live loads (LL)
• Loads due to temperature, stress, shrinkage etc. (TL)
Predominant loads  wave forces
Practice in USA, the strength of floating breakwater should exceed the
following load combinations:

1.2 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 1.6𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + 1.6 𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊0 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

𝑈𝑈 = � 1.2 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 1.2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + 1.3 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
1.2 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 1.2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + 1.3 𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊0 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Serviceability factor can be determined from the following un-factored
load combinations:

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + 𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊0 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸

𝑆𝑆 = �
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
Pneumatic breakwaters (Bubble breakwaters)

Constructed from perforated pipes placed below water surface and

inflated with compressed air supply system.
Air rushes to water surface  creating zones of circulating water 
producing surface induced currents directed against waves.
Interference with incoming waves leads to dissipation of wave
energy.
Leads to ice free surface waters (extra-tropical regions)
Limited applications in protecting entrances of dry docks.
Parametric Wave Forecasting:
SMB (1947, 1952, 1958) technique:

0.42
3/4 0.0125𝐹𝐹
𝐻𝐻 = 0.283 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 0.53𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 3/4
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 0.53𝑑𝑑

1/3
𝑇𝑇 3/8 0.038𝐹𝐹
= 1.2 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 0.833𝑑𝑑 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 3/8
2𝜋𝜋 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 0.833𝑑𝑑
Non-dimensional quantities:
2 𝑔𝑔𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠
𝐻𝐻 = 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔/𝑈𝑈 ; 𝑇𝑇 = ; 𝐹𝐹 = 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔/𝑈𝑈 2 ; 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔/𝑈𝑈; 𝑑𝑑 = 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔/𝑈𝑈 2
𝑈𝑈 2
Wave Spectra:

P-M Spectrum
𝛼𝛼𝑔𝑔2 𝑔𝑔 4
𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔 = 5 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 −0.74 (𝛼𝛼 = 0.0081 and 𝑈𝑈 = 𝑈𝑈19.5 )
𝜔𝜔 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈

0.21𝑈𝑈 2
For narrow band: 𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠 =
𝑔𝑔
0.87𝑔𝑔
Model frequency = 𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚 =
𝑈𝑈
Wave Spectra:

Bretschneider Spectrum:
4 4
𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚 2
𝜔𝜔𝑚𝑚
𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔 = 0.313 5
𝐻𝐻𝑠𝑠 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 −1.25
𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔

JONSWAP Spectrum:
4 − 𝑓𝑓−𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚 2
𝑔𝑔2 1 𝑓𝑓𝑚𝑚 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
2𝜎𝜎 2 𝑓𝑓 2
𝑆𝑆 𝜔𝜔 = 𝛼𝛼 4 5
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 −1.25 𝛾𝛾 𝑚𝑚
2𝜋𝜋 𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓