-

BREAKWATERS f^^,,,
u ueiTt
Delft University of Technology
•

MARCH 9-10, 2000

Jointly organised by

Prof. V. Sundar (I.I.T. Madras) •

Prof. K.d' Angremond (T.U.

INTER INSTITUTIONAL WORKSHOP ON

Jointly organised by
Ocean Engineering Centre
L L T. Madras, INDIA
and
Faculty of Civil Engineering
and Geosciences,
T.U. Delft, The Netherlands

Coordinators
Prof. V. Sundar (I.I.T. Madras)
Prof. K.d' Angremond (T.U. Delft)
 PREFACE

This Inter Institutional Workshop on Breakwaters organised jointly by Ocean

Engineering Centre, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India and Department of Civil
Engineering and Geosciences, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands is perhaps the
first of its kind. There has been a tremendous progress in the development of ports
especially fishing harbours along the coastline of India. Among the various components of
a harbour, a considerable portion of the expenditure for the development of harbours is
towards construction of breakwaters which is the main component. This has forced
Engineers and Scientists to have a critical look into the different concepts of breakwaters, its
stability, minimum expenditure towards its maintenance without compromising for the
tranquillity of waves on its leeward side. The Ennore Satellite Port which is likely to be
commissioned this year is formed by breakwaters with armour layer of accropods which is
first of its kind in our country. The Technical University Delft have been involved in this
project in a big way. OEC, IIT Madras have contributed significantly towards the
experimental investigation on the performance characteristics of new concept of breakwaters
and also have been involved on a number of consuhancy projects mostly the study on the
stability of breakwaters through physical modelling. The studies also covered suggestions
for the remedial measures for rehabilitation of a few damaged breakwaters. In addition, a
number of projects involving the suggestion for alignment of breakwaters through
application of numerical models developed in Ocean Engineering Centre have been carried
out. The expertise of T U Delft in the area of Coastal Engineering is known worldwide.
With these background, the coordinators decided to organise a workshop exclusively on
Breakwaters. It is felt that the workshop may be a forum to project the expertise of both the
Institutions and also to bring out the latest trends in design of breakwaters to the delegates of
this Workshop. The main topics that will be covered under this workshop are Functional
requirements for breakwaters. Case studies on the stability of breakwaters in India and New
concepts of breakwaters.

The Coordinators wish to thank the speakers Mr. S. Gopalan, Port Development
Advisor, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi for his lecture on "Breakwater in India -
An Overview", Mr. L.A.Meyboom, Mr. S.Pearson and Mr.R.Haggie from Haskoning,
Chennai for their lectures on "The details of the Ennore Satellite Port Project" and Mr.
Om Prakash, Director, CICEF, Bangalore for his lecture on 'T)evelopment of Fishing
Harbours in India". The Coordinators also wish to record their thanks to all the co-
sponsors. Research Organisations, State and Central Government Agencies and Consulting
Companies for having sponsored their Officers to the Workshop. It is earnestly hoped that
the deliberations of this workshop will be extremely usefiil to the delegates.

Coordinators
Prof d'Angremond
Prof V. Sundar

i
 CO-SPONSORS I ^^.^

ib Delft
INTER INSTITUTIONAL COURSE ON DaiftUniv^^i^yofTecwiogy

COASTAL ENGINEERING
AND WORKSHOP ON
BREAKWATERS
(6-10 MARCH, 2000)

C H E N N A I PORT TRUST, CHENNAI

C H I L I K A D E V E L O P M E N T A U T H O R I T Y , BHUBANESWAR

D H A R T I DREDGING AND CONSTRUCTION L I M I T E D , CHENNAI

D R E D G I N G CORPORATION O F INDIA L I M I T E D , CHENNAI

HASKONING CONSULTING E N G I N E E R S AND A R C H I T E C T S , CHENNAI

H O C H T I E F (INDIA) P R I V A T E L I M I T E D , CHENNAI

I R R I G A T I O N MANAGEMENT TRAINING INSTITUTE, TAMILNADU

K A N D L A PORT TRUST (KUTCH)

K V A E R N E R C E M E N T A T I O N I N D I A L I M I T E D , CHENNAI

MECON LIMITED, RANCH!

MORMUGAO PORT TRUST, GOA

NAVAYUGA E N G I N E E R I N G COMPANY L I M I T E D , VISAKHAPATNAM

VAN OORD A C Z INDIA, N E W D E L H I

ii
 List of Speakers

From I I T Madras

Mani, J.S.
Neelamani, S.
Sundar, V.

From T.U. Delft

d'Angremond, K.

From other Organisations

Gopalan, S. , Port Development Advisor,

Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi.
Haggle, R . , Haskoning Consulting Engineers and
Architects, Chennai.
Meyboom, L . A . , Haskoning Consuhing Engineers and
Architects, Chennai.
Om Prakash , Director, Central institute of Coastal Engineering
for Fishery, Bangalore.
Pearson, S., Haskoning Consuhing Engineers and Architects,
Chennai.

iii
 CONTENTS

Page No.

1. Functional requirements for Breakwaters 1

Prof. K.d' Angremond

2. Development of fishery harbors in India 14

Mr. K. Omprakash

3. Non-rubble Breakwaters and optimisation 38

Prof. K.d' Angremond

4. Wave energy caisson Breakwaters 54

Dr. S. Neelamani

5. Partially suspended porous wall Breakwaters 73

Dr. J.S. Mani

6. Case studies on stability of Breakwaters 80

Prof. V. Sundar

7. Introduction on Ennore coal port proj ect 101

Mr. L.A. Mayboom

8. Design of Brealcwaters for Ennore port 107

Mr. R. Haggie

9. Construction of Breakwaters for Ennore port 128

Mr. S. Pearson

10. Profiles of Co-Sponsors

11. List of participants

iv
 Inter Institutional Workshop On BREAKWATERS ^ /
(Jointly Organised By I I T Madras And T.U. Delft) "fU Delft
March 9 - 10, 2000
Delft University of Tecfinology

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BREAKWATERS

Kees d'Angremond
Delft University of Technology
Email: k.dAngreniond@ct.tudelft.nl

1. INTRODUCTION
Breakwaters can fulfil a variety of functions, of which the most important ones
are:
• Protection against waves. This can be subdivided in firstly, protection of ports
and shipping and secondly, shore protection.
• Guiding of Currents
• Protection against shoaling
• Provision of dock or quay facilities

2. PROTECTION AGAINST WAVES

2.1 Ports and s h y i n g

Vessels at berth

The protection fimction against wave action must be split into some sub-
categories. The best-known protection fimction relates to navigation. Over the years,
breakwaters are connected with ports. It makes a large difference, however, what is
the status ofthe vessels or installations that are to be protected. In other words, one
shall have an idea how vulnerable the protected area is to decide what degree of
protection shall be provided.

In general, the most vulnerable condition for any vessel is when it is moored
alongside a rigid structure as a quaywall or a jetty, or alongside another vessel. The
acceptable wave height is related to the size ofthe vessel on one side and the height,
period and direction of the waves on the other side. Thoresen [1988] gives
suggestions for ships at berth in head seas. These values are slightly modified in
Table 1 according to the experience ofthe authors. The acceptabihty of the conditions
refers to both, damage to the vessel and damage to the structure.

1
 At bcath (head sea) ' -
Pleasure craft 0.15-0.25
Fishing vessels 0.40
Dredges and dredge barges 0.80-1.00
General cargo (<30,000 dwt) 1.00-1.25
Dry Bulk cargo (<30,000 dwt) 1.00-1.25
Dry Bulk cargo (up to 100,000 1.50
dwt)
Oil tankers (<30,000 dwt) 1.00-1.25
Oil tankers (100,000 to 200,000 1.50-2.50
dv^)
Oil tankers (200,000 to 300,000 2.50-3.00
dwt)
Passenger vessels 0.70

Table 1

Loading and unloading operations may impose extra restrictions. It will be clear
that (un) loading liquid bulk cargo via a flexible hose allows larger ship movements
than placing containers in a slot. Velsink and Thoresen approach this question ft-om a
different angle. Thoresen gives values for acceptable ship movements; Velsink [1987]
gives limiting wave heights for different directions. The approach of Velsink relates
more directly to the functional requirements ofthe breakwater. Therefore, his data are
given in Table 2, Maximum Wave Heights for Loading and Unloading Operations. A
comprehensive review of the problem o f ship movements is given in PIANC report I I -
24 [1995].

Limiting wave height H^ in m

430 _ 000
(head or §tera) (beam)
General cargo [i7o 0.8
Container, Ro/Ro ship 0.5
Dry bulk (30,000-100,000); loading 1.5 1.0
Dry bulk (30,000-100,000); 1.0 0.8 — 1.0
unloading
Tankers 30,000 dwt 1.5
Tankers 30,000 — 200,000 dwt 1.5—2.5 1.0—1.2
Tinkers >200,000 dwt 2.5 — 3.0 1.0—1.5
Table 2, Maximum Wave Heights for Loading and Unloading Operations

How often exceedance of these limits is accepted is not indicated in the above
figures. In other words, it is not indicated during which percentage of time loading
and unloading operations may be interrupted, or how often certain berths must be left
by the vessels to find a safer place to ride out a storm. This question shall be answered
on the basis of a thorough economic analysis, including the risk of negative publicity

2
for the port. Such studies are beyond the scope of this book. The answer must be
known, however when the design of the actual breakwater is started. It is stressed here
that these considerations will lead to the definition of service limit states (SLS) that
are generally different from the Uhimate Limit State (ULS) that deals with the
survival of the structure under extreme conditions.
Fig. 1 shows the layout of a harbour where the breakwater typically protects the
harbour basin, including berths for loading and unloading.

Fig. 1 Harbour of Marseille (France)

Sailing vessels
So far, we considered the protection required by vessels at berth. Free sailing vessels
are fortunately a lot less vulnerable.

National regulatory bodies like the (Netherlands) shipping inspectorate strictly control
the operation and the design of ocean going vessels. The work of those national
organisations is co-ordinated by the international Maritime Organisation, IMO. Apart
from those Government related regulatory bodies, there are also private regulatoiy
bodies that check the design of vessels, often on behalf of the insurers. Such private
bodies are Bureau Veritas, Det Norske Veritas, Lloyds, etc. These bodies issue
certificates of seaworthiness with or without certain restrictions.

In this way, ocean going vessels with an unrestricted certificate are designed to cope
with the highest waves. In severe conditions they may adapt course and speed to the
prevailing wind and wave direction, but modem vessels with an unrestricted
certificate can in principle survive the most severe conditions at sea. The situation
changes when a free choice of course and speed becomes impossible, for instance
because of the proximity of land, the need to sail in a specific (dredged) fairway, or
the wish to come to a hah at a mooring or anchorage. The more confined the
conditions, the stricter will be the limits with respect to wind, waves and currents.
3
What apphes for vessels designed to sail non-restricted at the high seas does not apply
to all categories of vessels. Some vessels have a certificate that limits their operations
to certain areas (coastal Vk^aters, sheltered waters, and inland waters) or to certain
periods in relation to certain areas (North Atlantic summer). Such restrictions refer not
only to the structural aspects ofthe vessel, but also to skill and number of crew.
What does all this mean for the operation of a port, and for the functional
requirements of its breakwater? Can any vessel enter the port under any
circumstances? This is certainly not true, but we have concluded already that a sailing
vessel is less vulnerable than a moored vessel. The fimctional requirements for a
breakwater that protects an entrance channel only are thus much less than those for a
breakwater that protects a harbour basin. Still, the actual situation will change from
place to place. In case ships need tugboat assistance during the stopping operation and
the subsequent turning or mooring, the waves shall be attenuated to a level that makes
tugboat operation feasible. In general, one can assume that a significant wave height
of 2 to 2.5 m is acceptable for tugboats and their crews working on deck. I f only
tugboats with an inland waters certificate are available, working of those tugboats
may be restricted to significant wave heights of 1 to 1.5 m. Exceeding the limits
imposed by the certificate often means that insurers will not cover the cost of
damages.

Fig. 2 Breakwater at the Europoort Entrance

Fig. 2 shows an example of a breakwater, which does not protect any berths.
Here again, decisions shall be made as to how frequent interruption of the
navigation is accepted due to closure of the port for weather conditions. One must
realise that also pilotage becomes a limiting factor under heavy sea and swell
conditions.
Port facilities
A third condition that needs attention is the harbour basin itself, with its
facilities that may suffer damage i f the wave heights in the basin are getting too high.
Quays and jetties and the installations that are placed on their deck may be damaged
4
even in the absence of vessels. Here again, it shall be decided whether such damage is
acceptable at all, and i f so what chance of occurrence is acceptable. It is evident that
in case the harbour installations are damaged, one is not only concerned about the
direct cost of repair, but also about the consequential damage due to non availability
ofthe cargo transfer systems. In this respect one may try and imagine what happens i f
the only power plant or refinery in a region must be closed because no fiiel can be
supphed.
Shore Protection
From coastal engineering theory, we know that waves cause both, longshore
transport and cross-shore transport. Both phenomena can cause unwanted erosion,
specifically on sandy shores.
As far as cross-shore transport is concerned, the erosion is often connected
with changes of the equilibrium profile. A more gentle profile (after erosion of
dunes!) is connected with higher incoming waves, whereas a milder wave climate
tends to restore the beach by a landward sediment transport. Similarly, when erosion
is due to a gradient in the longshore transport, the effect will be less when the wave
heights are lower.
In general terms one can therefore conclude that a reduction of wave heights in
the breaker zone will mitigate beach erosion. Such reduction of wave heights can be
achieved by constructing offshore breakwaters, parallel to the shore {FIG. 3). From
literature it is known, however, that one must be careful with this solution. Due to
wave set-up, the water level on the lee side of the breakwater rises, which causes a
concentrated return current, (comparable with a rip current) between the breakwater
sections ( Bowder, Dean and Chen [1996]).

FIG. 3 A SYSTEM OF DETACHED BREAKWATERS A T FIÜMICINO,

TTALY

3. GUIDING OF CURRENTS

When approaching a harbour entrance, vessels are slowing down by reducing

power. This is done because at high speed, the stopping length is rather long, and the
15
vessels produce a high v^ave and a strong return current. A slower speed means that
the vessel is more affected by cross current (or a crosswind), since the actual direction
of propagation is the vectorial sum of the vessels own speed and the current velocity.
To sail a straight course into the port along the axis of the approach channel means
than that the vessel will move more or less crab-wise.
Closer to the shore, one must expect at the same time stronger tidal currents
parallel to the shore. I f the port entrance is protruding into the sea, there will possibly
be a concentration of flow lines near the head of the breakwater.

Combining the slower speed of the vessel and the potentially stronger cross
currents at the harbour entrances poses problems for the manoeuvrability. In the lee of
the breakwater tugboats can assist the vessel, but it takes some time (about 15
minutes) before the tugboats have made a connection with the vessel, and in the mean
time, the vessel continues to sail without external assistance. Assuming a speed of 4
knots, the vessel travels a distance of about 1 nautical mile (1850 m), before the
tugboats can control the course of the vessel. Only then, the remaining stopping
procedure can be completed. The vessel gives full power astern, and it will stop
within 1 to 1.5 times the length of the vessel.

OPP. DRIJVERS ( S N H H E I D S S C H A A L I t m ü S O f W O

Fig. 4 Flow Pattern at the Europoort Entrance

6
 This means that cross currents are critical over a considerable distance from
well outside the harbour entrance to the point where tugboats assume control. It is not
only the velocity of the crosscurrent that is important, but also the gradient in the
crosscurrent, since this forces the ship out of its course.

The harbour entrance of Rotterdam is a good example of an entrance where

the layout (plan) of the breakwater is designed to cope with the current pattem(Figure
4). In this case, the fimction of the breakwater is twofold: it guides the current and it
damps the waves to a level that the tugboats can work.

4. P R O T E C T I O N AGAINST SHOALING

Many ports are located at a river entrance or in an estuary. It is known in

coastal engineering that the entrance channel has an equilibrium profile that is mainly
determined by the tidal prism. (d'Angremond et al. Introduction to Coastal
Engineering [1998]). I f the natural depth in the entrance channel is insufficient for
nautical purposes, one may decide to deepen the channel by dredging. Though this
may be a very good solution, disturbance of the equilibrium means that dredging has
to be continued forever. In a number of cases it has therefore been decided not to
dredge, but to restrict the width of the natural channel and to force the channel to
erode its bed. This may also be the fianctional purpose of a breakwater that is designed
to guide currents. An example of such solution is the port of Abidjan (Fig. 5 and Fig.
Ö).

It is stressed here, that improvement of the efficiency of dredging and the

lower cost of dredging operations have caused a shift from building breakwaters to
accepting the annual cost of dredging.

Another challenge for entrance channels into a port is the existence of the
longshore current along sandy shores. Under the influence of oblique waves, a
longshore current develops in the breaker zone. Due to the high turbulence level in the
breaker zone, a lot of sand is brought in suspension.

This material is carried away, along with the longshore current. It will be
deposited at places where the velocity is less, i.e. where the water depth is larger
because of the presence of the shipping channel. Thus a dredged or even a natural
channel may be blocked after a storm of short duration and high waves or after a long
period of moderate waves from one direction. To avoid this, a breakwater can be
constructed. For a proper fiinctioning, the head of the breakwater shall extend beyond
the breaker zone. I n that case, sand will be deposited on the "upstream" side of the
breakwater, whereas erosion will take place at the downstream side. This is the
classical example in coastal engineering for erosion problems due to interruption of
the longshore transport. A good example is shown in Fig. 7, which shows the actual
situation in IJmuiden (the Netherlands).

7
 Fig. 5 Entrance to the Port of Abidjan

Fig. 6 Flow Pattern at the port of Abidjan

Even if the breakwater is present, sedimentation of the port's entrance channel

may occur. This is the case when so much sediment has been deposited on the
upstream side of the breakwater that the accumulated material reaches the end of the
breakwater
8
 Fig.7 Port and Breakwaters at I Jmuiden

and passes around it's head. Dredging is difficuh in such case because of the
proximity of the breakwater. An example o f a breakwater that is too short is the
breakwater of Paradip (India), shown in Figure 8.

9
 Erosion

Siltation of
Channel

Accretio

Fig. 8 Entrance to the Port of

Paradin

5. PROVISION OF DOCK OR QUAY FACILITIES

Especially when the breakwater is directly protecting a harbour basin (and

therefore already quite high), it is attractive to use the crest of the breakwater for
transport of cargo and passengers to and from moored vessels. Special facilities shall
be provided in that case to enable the vessels to berth alongside the breakwater. These
faciUties may consist of a vertical wall at the inside, or a (piled) jetty connected to the
breakwater.

In this case, it must be ascertained that the conditions on or direct behind the
crest of the breakwater are safe. Again a distinction can be made between operational
conditions (Service Limit State or SLS) and extreme conditions like survival of the
installations (Ultimate Limit State or ULS).

10
6. S T R U C T U R A L IMPLICATIONS

The functional requirements have a direct impact on the design of cross

sections. They have specifically a large impact on crest level and wave transmission.
Therefore, some research has been done in this field.
Wave transmission is the phenomenon that wave energy passing over and through
a breakwater creates a (reduced) wave action in the lee of the structure
(Figure 9). This will certainly happen when considerable amounts of water are
overtopping the structure. Wave transmission is also possible, however, when the core
of the structure is very permeable and the wave period is relatively long. It is
specifically the influence of these two factors that has for a long time prevented the
derivation of an acceptable formula for wave transmission.

Fig. 9 Typical Wave Transmission

The effects of wave transmission has been investigated by many authors

(Seelig [19801], PoweU and Allsop [1985], Daemrich and Kahle [1985], van der Meer
[1990]).

This resulted in a diagram presented in Figure 10.

It must be noted that the transmission coefficient can never be smaller than 0
or larger than 1. In practice, limits of about 0.1 and 0.9 are found in practice (Fig. 10).

It is remarkable that for R. = 0, which represents a structure with the crest at

SWL, the transmission coefficient is in the order of 0.5. This means that a relatively
low structure is already rather effective in protecting the harbour area behind the
breakwater. In combination with the requirements for tranquillity in the harbour, the
designer can decide on the minimum required crest level.

11
 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 O .5 1 1.5 2

relative crest height Rc/Hmo Rc/'~'s

Fig. 10

Eventually, Daemen (1991) (See also Van der Meer and d'Angremond [ 1991 ])
in his MSc thesis has been able to produce an acceptable formula that relates the
transmission coefficient to a number of structural parameters of the breakwater. To
account for the effect of permeability, Daemen has decided to make the freeboard R,
of the breakwater dimensionless dividing it by the armour stone diameter. This
eliminates a lot of the scatter that was present in previous approaches. The Daemen
formula reads (for tradkional low crested breakwaters) as follows:

+b
D.

with:

a = 0.031^^-0.24
D.
nSO

and

a.84
H B
b=-5.42sop+ 0.0323 ^—0.0017 + 0.51
Dn50 Dn50

12
in which:

Kt = Hsi/Hst = transmission coefficient

Hsi = incoming significant wave height
Hst = transmitted significant wave height
Rc = crest freeboard relative to SWL
Dn50 = nominal diameter armour stone
B = crest width
sop = wave steepness

Use of the Daemen formula is complicated in case it is decided to use a solid crown
block, or to grout armour stones with asphalt into a solid mass. Therefore, another
MSc student, R.J. de Jong (1996), reanalyzed the data and came up with a different
expression. He choose to make the freeboard dimensionless in relation to the
incoming wave height:

with

« = 0.4, and

' B ^-O "

b=0.64 <l-e-0-5^

The factor 0.64 is valid for permeable structures; it changes into 0.8 for
impermeable structures.

7. R E F E R E N C E S
Angremond, K.d', Meer, J.W. van der, and Jong, R,J, de, "Wave transmission at low-
crested structures" Proc. 25th ICCE, Orlando, ASCE, New York, USA.
Angremond, K. d' et al. (1998) "Introduction to Coastal Engineering", Lecture notes
Delft University of Technology, Facuhy of Civil Engineering and Geosciences.
Browder, A.E., Dean, R.G. and Chen, R. (1996) "Performance of a submerged
breakwater for shore protection", Proc. 25yh ICCE, Florida, ASCE New York, USA.
Daemen, I.F.R. (1991) "Wave transmission at low crested breakwaters" MSc thesis.
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Jong, R.J. de (1996) "Wave transmission at low crested structures" MSc thesis. Delft
University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
PIANC (1995), "Criteria for movements of moored ships in harbours" Report of
working group 11-24, PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
Thoresen, C A . (1988) "Port Design, Guidelines and recommendations". Tapir
Publishers, Trondheim, Norway.
Velsink, H. (1987) "Principles of integrated port planning", PIANC Bulletin no. 56,
Brussels, Belgium. ^^
 Inter Institutional Workshop on B R E A K W A T E R S
(Jointly organised by I I T Madras and T.U.Delft)
Madras 9 - 10,2000 • ^
Delft Univetsity ot Technology

D E V E L O P M E N T OF F I S H E R Y HARBOURS IN INDIA

K. Omprakash
Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery
Ministry of Agriculture, Bangalore
Email: cicefko@bgl.vsnl.net.in

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Importance of fishery sector in economy, employment generation, etc.

Fisheries play an important role in the economy of India in augmenting food supply,
generating employment, raising nutritional levels and earning foreign exchange. In order
to increase production and productivity in fisheries, the Fisheries Division of the
Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India have been undertaking various production-oriented schemes, input supply
programmes, infrastructure development projects, etc., either directly or through
States/Union Territories. A number of Institutions have been established for development
of fisheries. According to estimates prepared by the Central Statistical Organisation, the
contribution of fisheries sector to the Net Domestic Product has shown more than six and
half rimes increase from Rs. 14790 million in 1984-85 (base year for Seventh Plan) to
Rs.98260 million in 1994-95 at current prices.

India has a long coastline of 8041 kms covering the east and west coasts of the
peninsula as well as the Andamans, Nicobar and Lakshadweep group of islands with a
continental shelf area of about 0.5 million sq.km. The coastline of India gives an
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covering an area of 2.02 million sq.km. The explohable
marine fishery resources in the EEZ have been estimated at 3.9 million tonnes. India has a
long tradition in fishing with fish constituting the main supply of animal protein as weh as
an important source of foreign exchange earnings.

Fisheries is a very important sector with tremendous potential for income and
employment generation, poverty alleviation and foreign exchange earnings. Continuous
efforts have been made to increase fish production, both for domestic consumption and
export. The total fish production from both inland and marine sector has increased from
2.8 million tonnes in 1984-85 to 5.4 million tonnes during 1997-98, out of which about
2.95 million tonnes have been exploited from the marine resources. India is now sixth
largest producer of fish in the World.

14
 1.2 Fish Production and Exports

There are about 3726 fishing villages all along the Indian Coastline and fish are
being landed in 2337 landing centres. The total fishermen population of India has been
estimated at 6.0 million which include 2.4 million full-time fishermen, 1.5 million
part-time fishermen and 2.1 million occasional fishermen. Out of the total exploitable
marine fishery resources of about 3,9 million tonnes, the Country currently produces
about 2.95 million tonnes leaving a scope for exploiting an additional one million
tonnes of fish.- The State-wise marine fish production during 1997-98 is given at Table¬
I.

There has been tremendous growth in the export of marine products. The
export of marine products has increased from 86,187 tonnes valued at Rs.3843 million
in 1984-85 to 3,85,818 tonnes valued at Rs.46975 million during 1997-98, There are
about 47,000 mechanised fishing vessels (MFVs) and 1,91,200 traditional craft
(including about 32,000 motorised craft) in operation in the country. A statement
showing the fishing crafts in the Maritime States/UTs as in 1994-95 is enclosed at Table
2.

2 Development of Fishery Harbours and Fish Landing Centres

2.1 Landing and berthing facilities - a historical perspective

The main thrust has been to harvest the available fishery potential through
efficient and sustainable exploitation of the EEZ by promoting operation of fishing
vessels. To meet this objective, landing and berthing facilities by way of fishery
harbours with ice plants, chilled storage, workshop, repair facilities, auction hall, net
mending sheds, etc., are the essential infrastructure facilities required by the marine
fishing industry.

At the end of First Five Year Plan, there were 863 mechanised fishing vessels
operating along the Indian coast. By the end of Sixth Plan, this has increased to about
24,000 mechanised boats and at the end of Seventh Plan, the country had about 34,000
mechanised boats and 26,000 motorised craft. During beginning of the Ninth Plan
there are about 47,000 mechanised boats and 32,000 motorised craft operating in the
country. There are over 170 deep-sea fishing vessels having length of 23 m. and
above.

During the Second Five Year Plan, Government of India began to give technical
and financial assistance to State Governments for establishment of fishery harbours and
sought assistance from Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) , for survey and
preparation of feasibility reports for estabUshment of fishery harbours. During the
period from 1955 to 1961, FAO experts identified about 40 sites for development of
fishery harbours and fish landing centres and prepared feasibility reports . During the
Fourth Plan, Government of India with the assistance of FAO/UNDP established the
erstwhile Pre-Investment Survey of Fishing Harbours at Bangalore for pre- investment

15
survey, preparation of teclino-economic feasibility reports and related work in the
fishery harbour construction and development. During the Second, Third and
Fourth Five Year Plans, emphasis was given mainly for construction of minor fishery
harbours and fish landing centres. During the Fifth Plan, construction of major fishery
harbours at Sassoon Dock, Cochin, Chennai, Visaldiapatnam (Vizag) and Roychowk
were sanctioned. The development of fishery harbours and landing centres continued
under the schemes subsequently in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Five Year
Plans.

2.2 , Govt, of India Scheme

The Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India have been implementing a Central Sector Scheme(CS)and
Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) since 1964 with the objective of providing
infrastructure facilities for landing and berthing of mechanised fishing vessels,
traditional fishing craft and deep sea fishing vessels. Under CS, the Port Trusts are
provided with 100 % grant on the capital cost for the development of major fishery
harbours at Major Ports. Besides construction, management and operation of the fishery
harbours after its completion are also the responsibility of the respective Port Tiusts.
Under the CSS, the Maritime State Governments are provided with 50% grant on the
capital cost for development of minor fishery harbours and fish landing centres. The
construction and subsequent management and maintenance of such facilities created
after completion are the responsibility of the respective State Governments. The Union
Territories are provided with 100% grant under the Scheme.

During the Seventh Five Year Plan, an allocation of Rs. 170 million under the
CS and Rs. 180 million under the CSS totaUing to Rs. 350 million was made for the
development of fishery harbours and the funds were utilised in full. In view of the
increased demand from the State Governments/UTs and the fact that large number of
fishery harbours were under construction, besides need for development of more
number of fishery harbours the allocation of funds was considerably increased to Rs.
540 million during the Eighth Five Year Plan in respect of CS and Rs. 470 million for
CSS. Out of the total allocation of Rs. 1010 million, Rs. 950 million were utilised
during the Plan period.

2.3 Total number of facilities sanctioned, completed and under

construction under Central Sector Scheme

Since inception ofthe Scheme in 1964, under the Central Sector Plan Scheme,
100 % financial assistance is provided as grant for the development of major fishery
harbour at Major Ports by the Govt, of India. Till date, the Govt, of India have
sanctioned six major fishery harbours at Cochin Stage I and I I in Kerala, Sassoon Dock
in Maharashtra, Chennai Stage I and I I in Tamil Nadu, Vizag Stage I , I I and I I I in
Andhra Pradesh, Paradip in Orissa and Roychowk in West Bengal. All the five major
fishery harbours except Sassoon Dock have been commissioned. The fishery harbour at

16
Sassoon Dock is almost complete and expected to be put in operation very soon. The
fishery harbour at Chennai Stage I I is under construction.

2.4 Centrally Sponsored Scheme

The objective of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme is establishment of minor

fishery harbours and fish landing centres for landing, berthing, out fitting, repairs and
operation of mechanised fishing vessels and traditional craft. Under the Scheme, the
Govt, of India have sanctioned 45 minor fishery harbours and 153 fish landing centres.
Of these 29 minor fishery harbours and 120 fish landing centres have been completed
and the remaining are under various stages of construction. A statement showing the
present status of fishery harbours and landing centres commissioned/under construction
in both the Schemes is enclosed at Annexure I. The location and name of minor and
major fishery harbours commissioned/under construction under the Schemes are shown
in the drawing enclosed at Annexures I I and I I I respectively.

The landing and berthing facilities are presently available for 1/4* of the total
fishing fleet only. Therefore, there is an imperative need to develop more number of
fishery harbours and landing centres to meet the requirements of fishing fleet operating
in the Country. Keeping the above in view, the outlay for the Ninth Plan has been
increased to Rs. 1400 million against the allocation of Rs. 1010 million during the
Eighth Plan period.

2.5 Outlays earmarked and actual expenditure for

development of Fishery Harbours

The total Plan outlays and expenditure incurred for the development of major
and minor fishery harbours besides fish landing centres upto the end of Eighth Five
Year Plan may be seen at Annexure IV. It may be noted that the outlays earmarked
and the expenditure incurred for the Schemes have increased from Rs. 1.7 million
during the Third Plan to Rs. 950 million during Eighth Plan. During the Ninth Five
Year Plan, the two schemes are proposed to be combined as a Centrally Sponsored
Scheme with a pattern of assistance of 50:50 share for State Government and 100% for
Port Trusts and UTs. An outlay of Rs. 1400 milllion will be provided in the Ninth Five
Year Plan for both the Schemes. The break up of total outlay and year-wise phasing is
given at Annexure V.

3.0 Updating of Master Plan for the development of Fishery

Harbours in India

The Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery (CICEF), Bangalore,

Govt, of India prepared a Master Plan for the development of fishery harbours in the
country during the period 1978 to 1981. A total number of 117 fishery harbour sites
comprising 14 major, 7 medium and 96 minor sites had been identified at that time.

17
This Master Plan was prepared based on knowledge of fishery resources, the size and
draft requirement of fishing vessels operating then, The State-wise details of the sites
identified during 1978 to 1981 together with the fishery harbour facilities
available/under construction are given at Annexure V I , As a step forward in this
direction, the CICEF has reviewed and updated the above Master Plan by identifying
more number of fishery harbour sites in Maritime States/UTs, The Institute has
prepared Master Plan reports for the fishery harbour sites reconnoitred in various
Maritime States/UTs, The potential sites identified by CICEF for development of
fishery harbours and fish landing centres State-wise are furnished at Annexure VII, The
sites found suitable for development of fishery harbours/fish landing centers are
furnished at Annexure VIII, Based on the priorities of the Central and State
Governments, the potential sites identified by CICEF form the basis for taking up
detailed engineering and economic investigations by the Institute during the Ninth Five-
Year Plan and beyond,

4.0 Procedure adopted for sanction of Harbour Pro jects

4.1 Pre-Investment Evahiation Studies

In a developing Country like India where resources available for undertaking

developmental works are limited, the resources are tapped and used judiciously so as to
ensure better returns for investment and better service facility to the industry concerned.
In order to develop a fishery harbour at a particular fishing centre, data regarding the
existing status of the fishery industry of that centre is collected at micro and macro
levels for detailed analysis. The micro level information covers number of mechansied
fishing vessels operating at the centre, annual landings, species composition, vessel
economics, infrastructure facilities, etc. At macro level, information regarding the
quantum of fishery resources available in the waters off the proposed site, potential
markets, disposal of landings, processing facilities available in the region etc., is
covered. After analysing the data collected from the field, a detailed techno-economic
feasibility report is prepared covering engineering and economic aspects. While the
engineering portion provides details regarding survey, sub-soil investigations, designs,
layout and cost estimate etc., of the fishery harbour, the economic evaluation portion
furnishes the projected fishing fleet, annual landings, vessel economics, disposal of
landings, operational costs. Investments, cash inflow and finally the Financial Internal
Rate of Return (FIRR). The FIRR decides the feasibility of the project proposal from
investment view point.

4.2 Investigations and Preparation of Techno-Economic

Feasibility Reports

The Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery (CICEF), Bangalore, a

subordinate office of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of
Agriculture, Govt, of India is responsible for undertaking techno-economic feasibility
studies for the development of fishery harbours in the country under the Schemes.
CICEF formerly known as Pre-Investment Survey of Fishing Harbours was established

18
in January 1968 by the Government of India, in collaboration with FAO ofthe United
Nations with a primary objective to carry out reconnaissance surveys/pre-feasibility
studies to identify potential sites for development of fishery harbours and follow it up
by engineering and economic investigations besides preparation of techno-economic
feasibility reports. The Institute has been entrusted with the task of monitoring the
progress of construction of on going fishery harbours sanctioned under the Schemes and
provide technical advice on the engineering and economic aspects to the State
Governments/UTs. The Institute till the end of January 2000 had carried out
investigations at 64 sites and prepared project reports for 56 sites.

Based on the request from Maritime States/UTs and on approval from the Govt,
of India, CICEF carries out pre-feasibility studies, detailed engineering and economic
investigations and prepares techno- economic feasibility reports in consuhation with the
concerned State Govts. The project reports are sent to Govt, of India for according
Administrative Approval and Expenditure Sanction. The Ministry of Agriculture, on
receipt of the project reports from CICEF/States, scrutinises the reports. An Appraisal
note is prepared and sent to all concerned Ministries namely Ministry of Finance,
Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Surface Transport, Planning
Commission, and other related Ministries for their comments and approval. Based on
the suggestions/comments received from the concerned Ministries, a final note is
prepared and discussed in the meeting for approval of the project. Depending on the
cost of the project, under the delegated financial powers, the Ministries/Departments
expedite investment decisions and approval. Once the project is sanctioned, the
Ministry of Agriculture, accords Administrative Approval and releases funds to the
State Govts./UTs/Port Trusts depending upon the progress achieved for taking up
construction. Further, funds are released to the States on the basis of the physical and
financial progress achieved during construction period.

4.3 Environmental Clearance

Environmental clearance is a pre-requiste and an important factor considered for

sanction of the project. The proposal is referred to the Ministry of Environment and
Forest for assessing the environmental impact. The Pollution Control Board of the
concerned State and Ministry of Environment and Forest examine and assess the
environmental impact analysis. All project proposals located in the Coastal Regulation
Zone area require environmental clearance. The necessary component on environmental
protection works have to be involved in the project proposal.

5.0 Fishery Harbour projects developed by CICEF and concerned

State Governments with particulars emphasis on Design of
Breakwaters

Among the various fishery harbour projects designed and developed by

the CICEF and the State Governments with particular reference to the design of
breakwaters, a few projects are cited below:-

19
1. GUJARAT
Mangrol:

The Fishery harbour at Mangrol is situated in Junagadh District on the South

west coast of Gujarat State. It is about 35 km northwest of Veraval Port. The Fishery
Harbour is located on the open coast. Breakwater designed in 1976. The depth at the
structure of the brealcwater governs the wave height. The breakwater has been designed
the following parameters. Wave height considered in the design of Trunks of the
breakwater is based on the bed contour and depth consideration.
Wave height (breaking) 7m
Period 10 sees
Armour Unit Head dolos 11.141
Trunk dolos 5.57 t and 2.23 t

Veraval

Veraval fishery harbour is situated in Junagadh District in the Southwest coast

of Gujarat and at 35 Ian South of Mangrol. Breakwater designed in 1976. The
Brealcwater has been designed for the following parameters. The trunk position is
designed for the wave height arrived based on the bed contour and the available depth at
the structure.

Wave height(breaking) 7m
Period 10 sees
Armour Unit Head dolos 11.141
Trunk dolos 5.57 t and 2.23 t

IL MAHARASHTRA

Ratnagiri

Ratnagiri fishery harbour is situated in West coast of India in Ratnagiri District

of Maharashtra State. It is about 240 km South of Bombay. The western Breakwater is
designed in 1976 for the following parameters:
Wave height 4m
Period 9 sees
Armour Units: Head tetrapods 5.51
Trunk quarry stones 0,8 t to 3.0 t
The northern Breakwater is designed for a defracted wave developed by
orienting the structure suitably and the armour units are of quarry stones.

20
III. KERALA

Puthiappa:
The Fishery harbour is situated in open coast in Calicut District of Kerala State.
It is linked to the National Highway No. 17. It is at about 4 kms from Calicut Town.
The breakwater is designed in 1983 with following parameters.
Wave height (breaking) 3.5m.
Armour: Head stones 3 to 51
Trunk stones 1 to 2 t

Vizhinjam:

The Fishery harbour is situated in the open coast at a distance of 16 kms south
of Trivandrum in Kerala on the west coast of India. The extension of sea ward
breakwaters have been designed for the following parameters in the year 1976.
Wave height: 4.8 m
Period: 9 sees
Armour Units: Head tetrapods 8t
The leeward breakwater is designed for the distracted wave.
Wave height: 2m
Armour : quarry stones 2 to 3.5 t

IV TAMILNADU

Chinnamuttom

The harbour is situated at 2.5 North-East of Kanyakumari in the open coast in

Tamilnadu. It is about 80 Ions South-West of Tuticorin. The main breakwater is
designed in 1982 for the following parameters.
Wave Height (breaking) 5 m
Armour Units: Head dolos 4.16 t
Trunk dolos 2.841
Western breakwater is designed for a defracted non-breaking wave.
Armour Units: stones 0.6 to 11

Rameswaram:

The project is formulated in 1997. The project site is situated 2 kms South-east
of Fisheries Jetty in Rameswaram. The site is also at a distance of 60 kms east of
Ramanathapuram, the District headquarters.

Breakwater is designed for the following wave parameters generated under

trade wind conditions.

21
 Main brealcwater:
Wave height(breaking) 2.9 m
Period 5.21 sees
Armour Units Head dolos 1.5 t
Trunk dolos 1.5 t
Stones 2to4t

6.0 Issues ill Construction Management and Maintenance

The fishery harbour projects sanctioned by the Govt, of India, are stipulated
with a definite time period for completion. In order to complete the projects on time,
State Govts, and Port Trusts are required to plan the time schedule of the project by
utilisation of Programme Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) and Critical Path
Method (CPM). In certain cases, the projects are delayed due to reasons beyond the
control of the Executing Agency. Some of the reasons attributed to these inordinate
delays in completion of the project on time are land acquisition problems, delay in
getting clearance from the environmental angle, public litigation and multiplicity of
agencies involved in the execution of the project. Most of the projects have resulted in
time and cost over run due to the above reasons. Availability of the right type of
equipment, labour, material, selection of experienced contractor executing marine
projects and timely availability of funds are the basic requirements in completing the
project on time. In many cases, poor approach road, non-availability of electricity,
water supply and natural calamities like cyclones, storms, etc., also contribute to delay
in construction of the projects resulting in cost/time over run. The cost escalation
arises due to:

• time over run on account of natural calamities such as cyclones, prolonged

monsoon, etc.,
• dispute over the contractual work in the Court of Law,
• revision of schedule of rates by the State Govts./UTs/Port Trusts,
• delays in land acquisition, award of contract, delay in proper technical
investigations by the construction department,
® delay in conducting model studies and
• delay in timely availability of funds from the State Budget.

Most of the fishery harbours are not properly maintained due to lack of
management and revenue collection. On completion of construction and
commissioning of fishery harbours, the responsibility of maintenance and management
vest with the user agencies. Only in a few fishery harbours, revenue is being collected
regularly. The revenue collected at some of the harbours is so meagre which makes it
difficult to manage and maintain. In some harbours, revenue has not been collected at
all, thereby resulting in poor maintenance. The availability of adequate funds and
collection of revenue for maintenance of these facilities in general and dredging in
particular is essential. This has significant bearing on the availability of facilities for
productive purposes.

22
 Most of the State Governments and Port Trusts are approaching the Govt, of
India, for extending financial assistance in the management and maintenance of fishery
harbours. No arrangement for extending such financial assistance to the State
Governments in respect of minor fishery harbours and landing centres exists. Harbours
which are more than a decade old need to be rehabilitated. The approach towards
development of new fishery harbours requires specialised engineering designs and need
to be reviewed to meet the requirements of the Quality of Systems such as HACCP and
ISO 9000.

7.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

Planning and development of a viable fishery harbour has a direct bearing on

following few important aspects:-

• Selection of proper site which has a direct access with existing internal
communication systems such as roads, railways availability of construction
materials in close proximity, free from location of very high tidal range,
tidal bore, high current velocity and cyclone prone areas as well as the
locations free from places involving huge capital dredging.
® Collection of adequate field information by way of engineering'
investigations such as topo-hydrographic survey, sub-soil investigations,
Meteoroligical data, Ocenographic data and finally the economic
investigations.
• Adequate fishing activities in selected site to justify the investment on the
project in order to ensure viable returns.
• Need of the testing proposals on model wherever breakwater/training walls
are proposed in order to check the stability, to gather information on
hydraulic performance of the structures, siltation pattern and protection of
shore morphology in the areas adjacent to the project site.

Planning of the fishery harbour should include some of the functional

requirements as follows :-
® Navigational channel
® Harbour basin
• Quays and Jetties
• Breakwaters/training wall wherever required
• Communication facilities and other shore based functional and operational
components required for the harbour

Some of the fishery harbours in operation in India, lack certain requisite

facilities conforming to international standards. As a result, proper management of
harbour is not ensured.

Special design approaches covering layout formation need to be adopted by the

engineers and the organisations involved in formulating new harbour projects to meet

23
the requirements of International Standards laid down by HACCP and ISO 9000 in
order to ensure effective maintenance of the harbour after construction.

Some of the important factors needing impetus in the development of fishery

harbors are:-

i Suitable design approaches for construction of modern auction halls and allied
facilities for hygienic handling offish.
• Adopting effective strategies for rehabilitation of the existing fishery harbours and
development of new fishery harbours at economic cost.
• Maintenance of facilities created in the harbour by periodical maintenance dredging
to ensure uninterrupted vessel traffic in and out ofthe harbours and to enable speedy
landing, handling and disposal of fish catch to markets.
t Collection of appropriate and workable user charges from the user groups using the
facilities is necessary for mobilisation of funds required for keeping the
establishment as a self-sustainable element, and

Finally, it is needless to mention that i f all the points highlighted above are given
proper emphasis and brought into practice in site selection, investigation, planning,
designing, construction and maintenance of the harbour, the fish quality and quantity
can be ensured which in turn contribute to the augmentation of the earnings in the trade.

24
 Table 1

STATE-WISE MARINE FISH PRODUCTION 1997-98

(In Tonnes)

STATES/UTs

1. Kerala 526342

2. Karnataka 189859

3. Goa 88809

4. Maharashtra 453000

5. Gujarat 745706

6. Tamil Nadu 355100

7. Andhra Pradesh 146545

8. Orissa 156081

9. West.Bengal 164000

10. Pondicherry 38420

11. Daman & Diu 18807

12. Andaman & 27225

Nicobar
13. Lakshadweep 10550

14. Deep Sea 30000

Total 2950444

25
 TABLE - 2

FISHING CRAFTS I N M A R I T I M E STATES/UTS AS I N 1994-95

States/UTs Traditional Motorised Mechanised Total

Crafts
Traditional Boats
Crafts
Out of Col.(2)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(2)+(4)

Gujarat 12653 4283 8365 21018

Maharashtra 9988 286 7930 17918

Karnataka 13141 1189 3655 16796

Kerala 40786 12913 4206 44992

Tamil Nadu 32077 5340 8230 40307

Andhra Pradesh 57269 3269 8911 66180

Orissa 10249 2453 1665 11-914

West Bengal 4361 270 1880 6241

Lakshadweep 1078 298 443 1521

A & N Islands 1340 160 230 1570

Pondicherry 6265 365 553 6818

Goa 2000 900 850 2850

Total 191207 31726 46918 238125

26
 Annexure I

Present Status of Fishery Harbours and Landing Centres Commissioned/Under

Construction under the Govt, of India Schemes

SI. State Name of Fishing Harbour

No.
Commissioned Under Construction
A. Major Fishing Harbour
1 Kerala Cochin Stage I&II
2 Maharashtra
3 Tamil Nadu Cheimai Stage I
4 Andhra Pradesh Viszag- Stage I, II & III Sasson Dock
5 Orissa Paradip Chennai Stage -11
6 West Bengal Roychowk
B, Minor Fishing Harbour
1 Kerala Vizhinjam Stage I Chombal
Puthjappa Mopla Bay
Mimambam Kayamkulam
Vizhinjam Stage II Vizhinjam Stage 11
Neendakara Thangasseiy
2 Karnataka Karwar Malpe stage 11
Honnavar Mangalore Stage 11
Tadri Karwar Stage II
Mangalore
Malpe Stage - I
3 Gujarat Veraval Jakhau
Mangrol Mangrol Stage -11
Porbandar
4 Maharashtra Ratnagiri Agrao
5 Tamil Nadu Tuticorin Chinnamuttom
Mallipatnam
Kodiakarai
Vallinokkam
Tondi
Pazhayar
6 Andhra Pradesh Kakinada Machilipatnam
Nizamapatnam
Bavanapadu
7 Orissa Gopalpur Dhamra Stage II
Dhamra
Naugarh (Astrang)
8 West Bengal Fraser Ganj Digha stage - II
Digha stage - I
9 Pondicherry Pondicherry
10 Andaman & Nicobar Phoenix Bay

27
C Fish Landing Centres
1 Kerala Kasaragod Dliannadon Punnappra
Ponnani New Malie Quilandy
Cannanore South Paravoor Mojdali
Beliapatnam Vella5dl Beach Kaddappuram
Neeleswaram Vallikunu Kattoor PoUathai
Thottappally Vizhinjam South
Miinakkadavu Vizhinjam North
Chemvathur Chettuvai
Beypore Arthugai
Palacode Clialil Gopalpettah

2 Karnataka Coondapur GangoUi Kodibengre

Bhatkal Sadasivgad Alvekodi
Kagai Heni Belikeri GangoUi - II
Mulki Belambar Hejmadikodi
Keni Belikeri Stage-II

3 Goa Cortalim Malim

4 Maharashtra Karanja Dalcti-Dalianu Sarjekote

Navalgaon Khardanda Alibagh Koliwada
Borii Maiidla Ekdara Tarkarli
Nandagaon Maiidavi Achara Peenvada
Nurad Mulgaon Taramumbri
Thoorinda Navapnr Rajpuri Koliwada
Ajanala Onne-Bhatti Ekdara Koliwada
Ade-Uttambar Tluimvadi
Agrao Thai
Bonn Uttoon
Burondi Vashi
Bigmandla Wadrai
Datiware Rajpuri
Dahanu Jeevne Bundar
Maliim Causeway

5 Gujarat Navapur Sachana Navabandar

Jalliabad Salaj'a
Umbergaon Vlandvi
Kolak Madliwad
Jalchau Surajbari
Jirakot Jaldiau I
Vansi Borsi Umersadi
Chorvvad Dholai
\4agod Dugari Ra-japara
•vosainba Port Onjal

28
 6 • Tamil Nadu Cuddalore Muttom
Nagapattinam Poompuhar
Rameswaram Vallapallam
Palk Bay Kodimunai
Kottaipatanm Vallavillai
Erawadi

7 Andhra Pradesh Calingapatnam Manglpudi

8 Orissa Chandipur Talchua Tantiapal

Sabelia Jamboo Sorala
Pathara Kharansi Bandara
Chudamani Palaur Khandlapatna
Nairi Chandrabhaga Bhusandpur
Baliapatpur
Panchubisa Kansabans Kirtania
Nairi-ll Rushikulya Talasari
Soran Ponthakata
Gopalpur on sea
Bahabalpur

9 West Bengal Namkhana Bamanagar Madanganj

Jalda Ganeshpur Brajobalavpur
New Jalda Akhoy nagar
Kalinagar Junput
Kharpai Soula

10 Pondicherry Mahe

11 Lakshadweep KaravattI
Minlcoy
Agatti
1

12 Daman & Diu Ghogia

Vanakbara

Summary
C a t e g o r y of H a r b o u r s Commissioned Under Total
Construction
Major F i s h e r y 5 1 6
Harbours
Minor F i s h e r y 29 16 45
Harbours
Fish Landing Centres 120 33 153

29
 C - COMMISSIONED

UC - UNDER CONSTRUCTION

1.

30
 mmmm m-

mmmm. (c)

TSfifCt (Cl

'* vaitfW*«.-- !: (é). ;ö {c}, m cue)

COMMÏSSIONEÖ
UC

31
 ANNEXURE I V

OUTLAYS AND EXPENDITURE FOR DEVELOPMENT

OF M A J O R AND M I N O R HARBOURS (GOVT. OF INDIA)

(Rs.in Million)
Plan Period M a j o r Harbours Minor Harbours
Outlay Expenditure Outlay Expenditure
Third Plan 0.5 1.2 - -

Three Annual Plans 25.3 0.3 29.5 15.7

(1966-67 to 1968-69')
Fourth Plan 135 15.8 60 48.5
Fifth Plan 180 121 120 32.1

Annual Plans
(i) 1978-79 50 30.8 60 39.4
(ii) 1979-80 55 20.6 - 0.1
Sixth Plan 170 132 190 179.5
Seventh Plan 170 168.4 190 216.9

Annual Plans
(i) 1990-91 49.2 49.2 43.2 43.2
(ii) 1991-92 50 54.5 60 60

Eighth Plan
(i) 1992-93 80 127.9 60 60.1
(ii) 1993-94 140 120 70 67.5
(iii) 1994-95 100 100 110 111
(iv) 1995-96 110 75.1 112.5 116.7
(v) 1996-97 91.3 34.5 115 135

32
 ANNEXURE V

Tot?: outlay and year-wise phasing during Ninth Five

Year Plan (Govt, of India)

Year Central Government Financial outlay

(Rupees in Million)

1997-1998 190.3

1998-1999 200.0

1999-2000 300.0

2000-2001 300.0

2001-2002 409.7

Total 1400.0

33
 A N N E X U R E VI

Master Plan for the development of fishery harbours in India

(As prepared during 1978 to 1981)
State/UT Fishery Facilities available/ Sites recommended f o r
Harbour sites Under Construction investigation
Major Medium Minor Major Medium Minor
Gujarat 19 1 1 4 1 - 12
Maharashtra 14 1 1 - 1 - 11
Goa 3 - - - - 1 2
Karnataka 8 1 - 6 - - 1
Kerala 14 1 - 6 - - 7
Tamil Nadu 20 1 1 7 1 - 10
Andhra Pradesh 17 1 - 3 2 . 11
Orissa 12 - 1 1 1 - 9
West Bengal 3 1 - - - - 2
Pondicherry 2 - - - - - 2
A & N Islands 3 1 - - 2 - -
Lakshadweep 2 - - - - - 2
Total 117 8 4 27 6 3 69

34
 ANNEXURE V I I

Potential sites identified by CICEF development of Fishery

Harbours and Fish Landing Centres

State/UT Proposed Harbour Facilities

Minor F H Fish Landing Centre

1. Gujarat 4 3

2. Maliaraslitra 4 -

3. Goa 2 -

4. Karnatalca 7 4

5. Kerala 5 -

6. Tamil Nadu 11 4

7. Andhra Pradesh 1 -

8. Orissa 3 -

9. West Bengal 1 1

10. Daman & Diu 2 1

11. Pondicherry 1 -

12. Andaman & Nicobar Islands - 12

Total 41 25

35
 ANNEXURE V I H

Sites found suitable for development of

Fishery Harbours/ Fish Landing Centres under Master Plan

State/ Proposed
Union Territories
Fishery Harbours Fish Landing Centres
1. Gujarat Rupen Madhavpur
Mangrol Bara Sutrapada
Dholai * Dhamlej
Umbergaon*
2. Maharashtra Deogad *
Sakharinate
Harnai
Agardanda *
3. Karnataka Karwar ** Gangavali
Belambar Belekeri**
Alvekodi * Koderi
Mangalore Stage I I ** Shiroor
NMPT
GangoUi *
Amadalli*
4. Goa Chicalim
Malim **
5. Kerala Ponnani
Muthalapozhy
Kasargode
Neeleswaram
Chettuvai
6. Tamil Nadu Cuddalore Stage I I Portonovo
Pazhayar Stage I I * Tirumullaivasal
Mallipatnam Stage I I Periyatalai
Tuticorin Stage I I Ovari
Poompuhar *
Arcotthurai
Rameswaram*
Veerapandiyanpattinam *
Kulasekharapattinam
Colachel*
Thengapattinam

36
7. Andhra Pradesh Krishnapatnam *
8, Orissa Dhamra Stage I I **
Bahabalpur
Chudamani
9. West Bengal Harwood Point Diamond Harbour
10. U.T. of Daman Nani Daman Ghoghla *
& Diu Vanalcabara *
11. U.T.of Pondicherry Karaikal *
12. A & N Islands Junglighat
Panighat
Guptapara
New wandoor
Havelock Island
Neill Island
Uttara jetty
Yeratta
Rangat Bay
Betapur
Maya bunder
Durgapur

" Sites investigated by CICEF

* * Projects Sanctioned by the Ministry of Agriculture

Fishery Harbours

Fishery Harbour sites proposed for development : 41

Fishery Harbour sites investigated by CICEF : 15

Fishery Harbour projects sanctioned by thê Ministry : 4

Fishery Harbour project reports prepared and awaited / 4
sanction

Fish Landing Centres

Fish Landing Centre sites proposed for development : 25

Fish Landing Centre sites investigated by CICEF : 1

Fish Landing Centre projects sanctioned by the Ministry : 1

Fish Landing Centre project reports prepared and awaited : 1

37
 Inter Institutional Workshop on B R E A K W A T E R S

Delft University of Technology

1. INTRODUCTION

It is complicated to address two completely different subjects in one paper. Still,

an attempt will be made to do so.

When discussing non-rubble breakwaters, one opens the mind for a wide variety
of solutions: all except the breakwaters composed of quarry stone. This is already an
indication for the popularity of rubble mound breakwaters. And such world-wide
popularity must reflect the advantages of that type of design, and so it does.

Of course, there are other types of breakwaters. The best known type is the
monolithic structure, often consisting of a caisson to form the body of the structure. This
type will mainly be discussed in this contribution. Other types of breakwaters that one
finds occasionally described in literature are the floating breakwater and the
pneumatic/hydraulic breakwater. These two types will not be discussed extensively
because of their limited performance. Although it is possible to damp waves by using a
floating object, and although it is possible to damp waves by blowing water or air fi-oin
a submerged perforated pipe, these methods fail to provide adequate protection, in
particular when one attempts to damp long-periodic waves. Study of these types of
breakwaters is in my opinion rather an academic than a practical exercise.

Last but not least, attention will be paid to the economic optimisation of
breakwaters. We know a lot of formulae to assess breakwater stability, but all these
formulae introduce the wave height as decisive load parameter. Non of the formulae,
however guide us in the selection of the numerical value of the design wave height. This
aspect will cover the second part of this contribution.

2. MONOLITHIC B R E A K W A T E R S

The problem of the stability of monolithic breakwaters has not been solved in a
satisfactory and generally accepted way yet. Research efforts are under way, but have
38
not resulted in a generally applicable theory or formula. Nevertheless, monolithic
breakwaters are being buih, and designers do use practical formulae. In this chapter, we
will discuss a theoretical approach and a practical method developed in Japan. As the
stability is a joint effect of wave load and subsoil resistance, some soil mechanics will
be discussed as well.

Because of the intense interest in many countries, a rapid development of the

knowledge of monolithic breakwaters must be expected, compatible with the evolution
around rubble mound breakwaters between 1988 and 1993. For the reader it means that
always the most recent sources of literature shall be consuhed.

3. W A V E F O R C E S AND T H E I R E F F E C T S

3.1 Quasi static Forces

In the linear wave theory, there is a formula for the pressure distribution under a
wave:

cosh[27i(zH-h)/L

•
On the basis of this formula, Sainflou [1928]developed a method to calculate
pressures on a vertical wall by non-breaking waves. Rundgren [1958] carried out a
series of model experiments and concluded that Sainflou's method overestimates the
wave force for steep waves. Rundgren then used and modified the higher order
approach as proposed by Miche [1944]. This Miche-Rundgren method gives
satisfactory resuhs for steep waves, whereas the original Sainflou-method is best suited
for long and less steep waves.

The main and important aspect of the Miche-Rundgren approach is the

definition of a parameter ho, which is a measure for the asymmetry ofthe standing wave
around SWL. This leads to pressure diagrams as shown schematically in Figure 1.

C r e s t of C f o p o t i s Qt W o l l T r o u q h of C i o p o i i j ü i Wuii

Fig. 1 Schematic Pressure Distribution for non-breaking Waves

39
In this figure, wd and pi are given by:

n+r-
wd=pghandpi
\ ^ J cosh

The Shore Protection Manual gives design graphs for the calculation of ho as a
function of wave steepness, relative wave height (H/h) and reflection coefficient. It also
gives graphs to calculate integrated pressures and resuhing turning moments for crest
and trough of the wave.

This leads to a relatively simple load diagram (Figure 2), in which the horizontal
hydrostatic forces on the front and rear wall have been omitted because they eliminate
each other. For stability, one must consider the resistance against translation and the
resistance against rotation. It is stressed here that the resistance against rotation can not
be taken simply as the sum of the moments around point A. Long before the structure
starts rotating, the pressure under point A has reached a value that leads to failure ofthe
sübsoil or failure of the corner of the structure.

Fig. 2 Load and Equilibrium Diagram

Since these formulae have been derived for regular monochromatic waves, it is
necessary to combine them with spectral theory and arrive at a statistical distribution of
wave forces and overturning moments. It can then be* decided what frequency of
exceedance is accepted during the lifetime of the structure. In this way, the design loads
can be established.

The loads defined so far are called quasi-static forces, because they fluctuate
with the wave périod of several seconds and do not cause any (direct) dynamic effects.
Inertia effects need not be taken into account.

3.2 Dynamic forces

In 3.1, we restricted ourselves to the forces by non-breaking waves. When waves

are breaking, we know, however, that impact or shock pressures occur in the vicinity of
40
the water surface. The duration of those pressures is very short, but the (local)
magnitude is very large. The quasi static pressures are always in the order of pgH, but
the impact pressures can be 5 to 10 times higher. An example of a pressure record is
given in Figure 3.

Fig. 3 Example of a Pressure Record

Many researchers have studied the phenomenon in the laboratory, and none have
come with a satisfactory explanation that can predict the occurrence and the magnitude
of a wave impact as a function of external parameters. Bagnold [1939] was the first of
those researchers. He found that the impact pressure occurs at the moment that the
vertical front face ofthe breaking wave hits the wall, and mainly when a plunging wave
entraps a cushion of air against the wall.

Apparently, the deceleration of the mass of water in the wave crest, combined with
the magnifying effect ofthe air cushion, causes the high pressures. Two models can be
used to describe and calculate this effect-.
• The continuous water jet hitting a plane yields a pressure:
41
 p - j i pu^ (u is tlie water velocity in the jet)
• The water hammer effect, resulting in:
p = puc
in which:
u = the water velocity in the conduct
c = the celerity of sound in water (1 543 m/s)

The water velocity in the crest of the breaking wave is equal to the wave celerity (in
shallow water: Vgh)

Substitution of reasonable figures leads to a water velocity in the order of 10 m/s

and impact pressures:
Continuous jet: 55 kPa (5.5 mwc)
Water hammer: 16,000 kPa (1600 mwc)

In reality, we know that the impact pressures reach values between 50 and 150
mwc.

Measurement of the impact pressures in a model is complicated because the

short duration of the load requires a very stiff measuring system to provide proper data.
Moreover, the compressibility of the water (influenced by entrained air) is an important
factor because it determines the celerity of the compression wave in water.
Uncertainties about model conditions endanger upscaling into prototype figures.

Minikin [1955 and 1963] has given a method to calculate wave impact
pressures, but his method overestimates impact pressures and does not lead to
satisfactory results.

From all experiments it has become clear, however, that the duration of the wave
impact is short, and the area where the impact takes place at the same time is small.

This means that the wave impact forces can not be used for a static equilibrium
calculation. The dynamic effects must be taken into account, inclusive mass and
acceleration of the breakwater in conjunction with its elastic foundation and the added
mass of water and soil around it. Preliminary analysis has shown that it is specifically
the momentum connected with the breaking wave that determines the stability or loss of
stability of the breakwater. Care must also been taken of potential resonance
phenomena, when the loading frequency coincides with the resonance frequency ofthe
structure as a whole or for some individual members of the structure.

It would be a sound method of design to establish a physical relation between

the impact pressure, the hydraulic parameters and the structural parameters. On the basis
thereof, one should establish the exceedance curves of certain loads during the lifetime.
Taking into account the response of the structures one can then determine the
probability of failure of the structure during its lifetime. Unfortunately, the physical
description of wave impacts is insufficient to start this approach.

42
 The most important lesson that can be learned from this paragraph is the
uncertainty that is connected with wave impact forces as such and their effect on the
stability of monolithic breakwaters. It is therefore good engineering practice to try and
avoid exposure of monolithic breakwaters to breaking waves. In this context it is good
to point at the fact that even i f no breaking waves are expected at the location of the
breakwater, the breakwater cross section may induce them itself, specifically when the
monolith is place on a high mound of stone (Figure 4).

Fig. 4 Changes to incoming wave Front induced by high Mound Breakwater

It can fiirther be concluded that the risk of local impact pressures increases for
structural elements that entrap breaking waves. I f water can escape sideways from the
impact area, the pressures remain low (compare free jet). I f water can not escape, the
local pressures may become quite high (compare water hammer). In -this way, certain
details of monolithic breakwaters are relatively vulnerable (Figure 5).

Fig. 5 Risk of local impact Forces

3.3 A working compromise: the Goda formula

Where the uncertainties around the design of vertical breakwaters have reduced
the number of such breakwaters in Europe and the USA, in Japan, construction
continued with varying satisfaction. Goda analysed many of the successfiil and
unsuccessfiil structures and came up with a practical formula that can be used to analyse
the stability of a monolithic breakwater. From a theoretical point of view, one can object
that Goda is not consistent in his definition of design load and risk. In practice, the
safety factors he proposes are apparently adequate, as long as one realises that
condhions with breaking waves should be avoided as much as possible. I f this is not
possible, extensive model investigations are to be carried out, followed by a dynamic
analysis of structure and foundation. In that case, one must take into account all inertia
terms.
43
 Goda [1992] has summarised his work in an article published in 1992 at the
short course on design and reliability of coastal structures. Pending further theoretically
based developments, the Goda formula can help to establish a first idea about stability
of a monolithic breakwater.

3.4 Influencing the forces

It has been shown that the quasi-static forces and the dynamic forces have a
trend to translate and rotate the structure, resuhing in displacement of the structure
and/or damage to the foundation and the bottom comers.

The effect of the external forces can be reduced by changing the direction of the
horizontal force, or by spreading the force in space and in time.

The first effect can easily be understood i f one reahses that the water pressure is
always acting along the normal on a plane. When the front wall of the monolith is tihed,
it means that the wave force is no longer horizontal, but dhected towards the
foundation. This reduces the horizontal component and strengthens the vertical
component of the force. Altogether, the likelihood of sliding reduces and the
overturning moment is also reduced, (figure 6).

4v
B

Fig. 6 Hanstholm Caisson

Another method is the creation of a chamber in fi-ont or on top of the structure,

so that the point of application of the force is spread' over two walls, and a time lap is
created between the two forces. This reduces the maximum instantaneous force,
although the duration is elongated. Jarlan (1961) first applied such idea (Figure 7),
partly to reduce forces, partly to reduce the reflection. In Japan, a large number of
similar ideas has been developed and brought into practice. In a number of cases, the
idea is combined with power generation. Many of these designs have been described by
Tanimoto and Takahashi (1994). Some typical design features are given in Figures 8
through 11.

44
 5*£ 1 CP* ,

1\/ ftcV >

- -®;-()3-~.:<0-j j
3'^
J—
•1..
—/)r.q)i„__— 59'-
.

Fig.7 Jarlan Caisson

(Unit;m;

Fig. 8 Breakwater with Power generating unit

45
Fig. 9 Possible Cross-section of semi-circular Caisson Breakwater for extremely
high Breakers

Fig. 10 Cross Section of curved-slit Breakwater at Funakawa Port

Fig. 11 Honey Wall Breakwater

46
4. FOUNDATION

The hydrauhc forces exerted on the caisson plus the weight determine what will
be the local pressures in the interface between the caisson and the foundation. It will be
clear that these pressures must not lead to (soil mechanical) failure. Because the
foundation is flexible to a certain extent, it must be verified whether the mass-spring
system formed by caisson (mass) and foundation (spring) gives rise to resonance
phenomena. Depending on the outcome of that investigation, one may decide that a
static stability analysis is sufficient (as is often the case). Soil-mechanical failure is
nevertheless one of the most likely failure modes.

Even i f it is decided after analysis that a quasi-static approach is justified, the

cyclic effect of the load may not be overlooked. The load will anyway cause an increase
of the total stress level (a) and initiate a compression of the subsoil. In first instance this
will lead to a higher stress level in the ground water (p). Depending on the permeability
of the soil, the excess water will drain and gradually, the effective stress (a') will
increase. This all in accordance with one of the basic laws from soil mechanics:

a = p + a'

Because of the cyclic character of the load, it is possible that drainage of excess
water is not complete when the next loading cycle starts. In this way, the water pressure
may gradually increase due to rocking of the caisson. Eventually, this will lead to a
condition that the effective stress a' becomes very low or even zero. A low eflfective
stress will greatly reduce the resistance against sliding; an effective stress equal to zero
leads to liquefaction or the formation of quick-sand. This is the main reason that care is
recommended when designing monolithic breakwaters in areas that are sensitive for
liquefaction: soil consisting of fine, loosely packed sand as in the SW part of the
Netherlands.

Preventive methods against liquefaction are possible, but expensive. Soil

replacement and compaction of the subsoil are the most common methods. Widening
the base of the caisson is also an effective measure.

Because of the possibility that high ground water pressures occur under the
corners of the monolith, also large vertical gradients are likely. It is therefore necessary
to cover a (fine) grained subsoil with an adequate fiher. Because of the large gradients,
h is recommended that the fiher be designed as a geometrically impervious fiher. Fiher
rules have been treated extensively by Terzaghi.

A granular foundation layer may also be required i f the structure is placed on an

uneven hard seabed. In that case, it is the fimction of the foundation layer to flatten the
seabed and to avoid pressure concentrations and an unpredictable support pattern of the
structure. Alternatively, one may create pre-designed contact areas in the bottom of the
structure, so that the bending moments in the floor plate can be calculated.

47
 To create a perfect and homogenous contact plane between the foundation and
the structure, sometimes a grout mortar is injected. This technique has been developed
in the offshore industry for the foundation of gravity platforms, but the use has spread to
regular coastal engineering projects as well. To avoid loss of grout, a skirt is provided
along the circumference of the bottom of the caisson. This skirt (mostly a steel sheet)
penetrates into the foundation and creates a chamber that can be filled with the grout
mortar.

5 OPTIMISATION

The optimisation process is equally valid for rubble and monoUthc breakwaters.
In the present paper example are given for a rubble breakwater.

5.1 Micro Level

Optimisation at micro level can best be explained in the deterministic design

process. It aims at a design that leads to the minimum total cost for a given strength
level. To achieve this goal, it is necessary that all material in the structure fialfils its
function, and is used in the optimum way.

This can be compared whh designing a frame. It is then attempted to select the
members such that all are exposed to a stress level close to the maximum admissible
stress. In the same way, it can be attempted that all elements in a breakwater are close to
(partial) failure when exposed to the design load.

In a probabilistic design process, it means that one should avoid a very large
contribution to overall failure by a single partial failure mechanism while other
mechanisms do not at all contribute to the probability of failure. It is wise to distribute
the contribution to overall failure over a number of failure mechanisms. In fact, one
should base this distribution on considerations of marginal cost. I f a construction
element is relatively cheap it is not so much of a problem i f it is over-designed. I f it is
relatively expensive, over-designing in comparison whh other elements leads to too
high cost.

It means that the designer shall attempt to make a balanced design. This can
easily be explained when considering the cross section of a rubble mound breakwater. I f
the crest level is designed so high that no overtopping occurs even under severe
condhions, it makes no sense to protect the inner slope whh heavy armour stone. For a
low crested breakwater on the other hand it is essential to carefiiUy protect the inner
slope.

5.2 Macro Level

Also optimisation at macro level can best be explained in the deterministic

design process, when only one failure mechanism whh simple load and strength
parameters is considered. When more mechanisms and parameters play a role, the
48
calculations become rapidly more complicated, and one should be careful not to make
mistakes that lead to completely false conclusions.

The method was developed by Paape and Van de Kreeke [1964] for rubble
mound breakwaters as early as 1964. The method is discussed in the following, and a
sample calculation is given in an Annex. References to Tables and Figures refer to that
Annex.

The method starts whh the assumption that there is a direct relation between one
load parameter (the no damage wave height, FI„d) and a strength parameter (the weight
of the armour units, W). It is further assumed that the wave climate is known and
available in the form of a long-term distribution of wave heights (Table A-1). The
interaction between load and strength is determined on the basis of laboratory
experiments, which indicate that damage starts when a threshold value (Hnd) is
exceeded. The damage to the armour layer increases with increasing wave height until
the armour layer is severely damaged and the core of the breakwater is exposed. This
occurs at an actual wave height H = 1.45 Hnd. It is assumed that damage is then so far
extended that no repair is possible, and that the structure must be rebuih completely. For
intermediate wave heights, a gradual increase of damage is assumed, expressed in a
percentage of the number of armour units to be replaced (Table A-2).
The breakwater is then designed for a number of design wave heights, where a higher
design wave causes a heavier and more costly armour layer, whereas the core remains
unchanged. The cost of construction is I . The cost of rebuilding the breakwater is
assumed to be equal to the estimated construction cost, the cost of repairing damage to
double the unit price of the armour units. It is then possible to hst the construction cost
and the anticipated cost of repair, still split over the three categories of damage (4%, 8%
and collapse). Adding up the three categories of damage for a particular design wave
height yields the average annual risk anticipated for that design i f all damage is repaired
in the year the damage took place. I f it is decided not to repair the breakwater except in
case of collapse, the risk is just the risk caused by the category collapse.

Since the risk is still expressed in a value per annum, h must be ascertained what
amount of money shall be reserved at the moment of construction to be able to pay the
average annual repair cost during the lifetime of the structure. Although money is
regularly spent from this repair fund, it still accrues interest at a rate of 5% per annum.

I f the annual expense is s, the interest rate 5%, and the lifetime of the structure
T, it can easily be derived that the fimd to be reserved (S) is:

S = Je'ioo dt = s l_g 100

for T = 100 years S = s. 100/5, and

for T = 10 years S = 0.35s. 100/6.

The interest rate is generally set in the order of 3.5%.

By adding the imtial construction cost ( I ) and the caphalised risk (S), one arrives at the
total cost of the structure. When this total cost ( I + S) is plotted as a fimction of the

49
design wave lieigiit, it appears ttiat there is an optimum design wave height or an
optimum strength of the structure.
Similar calculations can be made for monolithic breakwaters. The difference is
that the failure behaviour of monohthic breakwaters is more "brittle": the range between
start of damage and complete failure is smaller. That means that in general for
monolithic breakwaters a lower probability of failure is accepted, merely because of
economic considerations.

6. R E F E R E N C E S
Bagnold, R.A. (1939) "Interim report on wave impact research" Journal of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 12, London, UK

Goda, Y. (1992) "The design of upright breakwaters" Proc. Short course on design and
reliability of coastal structures, Venice, Instituto di Idraulica Universka di Bologna,
Italy.
Jarlan, G.L.E. (1961) "A perforated wall breakwater" The Dock and Harbour Authority
41 no. 486, London, UK

Miche, R. (1944) "Mouvements ondulatoires de la mer en profondeur constante ou

decroissante" Annales des Ponts et Chaussees Vol. 114, Paris France

Minikin, R.R. (1955) "Breaking waves; a comment on the Genoa breakwater" Dock and
Harbour Authority, London UK.

Minikin, R.R. (1963) "Winds, waves and marhime structures: Studies in harbor making
and the protection of coasts" rev. ed., Griffm, London, UK.

Kreeke, J. van de and Paape, A. (1964) "On optimum breakwater design" Proc. 9th
ICCE, ASCE, New York, USA.

Rundgren L. (1958) "Water wave forces" Bulletin no. 54, Royal Institute of
Technology, Division of Hydraulics, Stockholm, Sweden.

Sainflou, M . (1928) "Treatise on vertical breakwaters" Annales des Ponts et Chaussees,

Paris, France

Shore Protection Manual (1984) US Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,

Vicksburg, Miss. USA

Tanimoto, K. and Takahashi, S. (1994) "Design and construction of caisson

breakwaters, the Japanese experience" J. of Coastal Engineering Vol. 22 pp 55-77,
Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

50
ANNEX W I T H T A B L E S AND F I G U R E S

Wave Height H Probabilhy of

(m) Exceedance
(times per annum)
4 1.11
5 1.58*10"'
5.2 8.4*10'^
5.5 7.62*10"'-^
5.8 3.8*10"^
6 2.47*10"^
6.5 7.35*10"'
7.15 3.0*10"'
7.25 2.63*10"'
7.8 9.0*10"'*
7.98 8.0*10"'*
8.7 1.5*10"'*
Table A 1, Long-term wave climate

Actual Wave Height H Damage in % of armour

layer
H<H.d 0
H a d < H < 1.3Hid 4
1.3Had<H< 1.45H„d 8
H > 1,45 Hid Collapse
Table A 2, Development of damage

The imtial construction cost I of the breakwater is estimated to be:

$ 8620 for the core and $ 1320.Hnd for the armour layer.

For design wave heights of 4, 5, 5.5 and 6 m this resuhs in inhial construction cost
per Table A 3 .

Design wave Initial cost Inhial cost Amour

height breakwater Layer
Hnd "C" "A"
(m) ($) per running ($) per running
meter meter
4 13900 5280
5 15220 6600
5.5 15900 7280
6 16540 7920
Table A 3, Initial Construction cost per running meter

51
 H„d 1 < H < 1.3H„d 1.3 Hid < H < 1.45 H„d H > 1.45H,d
n = 4% damage n = 8% damage Collapse
Ap Aw Ap.A Ap Aw Ap.A Ap Aw Ap.A
w w w
(m) (1/yea ($) ($/yea (1/yea ($) ($/yea (1/yea ($) ($/yea
r) r) r) r) r) r)
4 1.02 42 430 4.6 860 40 3.8 13900 530
0 10-^ 10-^
5 1.5 53 80 4.7 1060 5 2.6 15220 40
10-' 0 10-' 10-'
5.5 7.4 58 40 2.2 1160 - 8 lO-'* 15900 10
10-^ 0 10-'
6 2.4 63 15 7.5 1260 - 1.5 16540 3
10"^ 0 10-" 10-"
Table A- 4, Annual risk for various values of H,„i per category of damage level

Note:
Ap - p, - pi+i probability of occurrence of the wave height in the indicated
interval
pi = probabilhy of exceedance of the wave height at the lower limit of the
interval
pi+i = probabilhy of exceedance ofthe wave height at the upper limh ofthe
interval
Aw = cost of repah ofthe armour layer (2*n*A) respectively cost of replacement
(C)

This leads to the values of average annual risk s = E(Ap.Aw) as shown in Table A-5.

H.vd s = S(Ap.Aw)
Full repair of Only repair of No repair of partial
partial damage serious damage
damage(>8%)
(m) ($ per year) ($ per year) ($ per year)
4 1000 570 530
5 125 45 40
5.5 50 10 10
6 18 3 3
Table A- 5, Average annual maintenance cost for various maintenance strategies

For a lifetime of 100 years, which is a reasonable assumption for a breakwater,

caphalisation on an interest rate of 3.33% leads to the figures as given in Table A-6.

52
 Capitalised risk S
Full repair of Only repair of No repair of partial
partial damage serious damage
damage(>8%)
(m) ($) ($) ($)
4 30000 17100 15900
5 3750 1350 1200
5.5 1500 300 300
6 540 90 90
Table 6, Capitalised maintenance cost for various maintenance strategies

It is now a simple exercise to add the initial cost I and the caphalised maintenance cost S as
in Table A-7.

H„d Total cost I + S

Full repair of Only repair of No repair of partial
partial damage serious damage
damage(>8%)
(m) ($) ($) ($)
4 43900 31000 29800
5 18970 16570 16420
5.5 17400 16200 16200
6 17080 16630 16630
6.5 17300
Table A- 7, Total cost for various maintenance strategies

The optimum values are printed bold.

53
 Inter Institutional Workshop On B R E A K W A T E R S
(Jointly organised by I I TMadras and T.U.Delft) TU Dölft
March 9 - 10, 2000 Delft Univetsity of Technologv

WAVE E N E R G Y CAISSON B R E A K W A T E R S
S. Neelamani
Ocean engineering centre
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
Email: sneel@pallava.iitm.ernet.in

ABSTRACT

Rubble mound type is the common breakwater used around the world to provide
tranquilhy condhion for the harbours. Arrays of concrete caissons are used as breakwater
in countries (ex: Japan, Italy), when h is viable & cost effective. These caissons can be
modified to provide a system by which the wave energy acting on this caisson can be
converted into usable forms of energy (like electric power). When a part ofthe incident
wave energy on the caisson is converted into electric power, there is ample scope in
reducing the wave load on the caisson. There exists many technically challenging
problems in the conversion of wave power into electric power. Research and
developments worldwide should continue in a fast phase in order to make such non-
conventional energy cost compethive. This paper describes some aspects of the wave
power research & development in India.

INTRODUCTION

Wave energy is one of the promising forms of renewable source of energy which
has received considerable attention. Sponsored by the Department of Ocean
Development, Government of India, a pilot plant to generate electrichy from Ocean
waves has been buih off Trivandrum coast by the Ocean Engineering Centre, I I T ,
Madras. The system consists of (a) Concrete caisson (b) Power module mounted on the
top, comprising of a butterfly valve, an ah turbine and an induction generator: Fig. 1(a)
shows the cross section of the system, 1(b) the plan of caisson, 1(c) the location plan and
1(d) the cross section showing the system and the approach bridge connecting to the
breakwater.

P R I N C I P L E OF OPERATION

The Oscillating Water Column (OWC) concept, chosen for absorption of energy
from waves, consists of a chamber exposed to wave action through an entrance in the
front. Under the wave action, air inside the chamber gets compressed and rarified. The

54
bi - directional air movement is used to drive a special type air turbine known as Wells
turbine (Fig. 1(a)). (Also see Fig. 1(e) for better description of the principle)

FUNCTIONAL R E Q U I R E M E N T S

The OWC chamber dimensions were selected based on extensive laboratory

investigations, to make h resonate whh the incoming wave. Since the wave parameters
vary from time to time and from place to place, h is very important to see that the device
absorbs energy equally well over the range of waves predominant at the she. This means
that the device should have a very broad frequency bandwidth of absorption. The present
device is tuned for an optimum wave period of 10 seconds.

S I T E FOR S E A T R I A L

The choice of she was arrived based on the following crheria;

-The system Power availabilhy: From the analysis of wave data collected at several
places along the India's coastline, h was found that wave power along Trivandrum coast
is promising whh an annual average wave power of about 11 kW per meter length of
coast.

-Extreme Wave Condhions: The OWC caisson must be designed to whhstand the
extreme waves likely to occur at the particular she. The maximum wave recorded for
Trivandrum coast was 6 m between 1983 and 1987 and the design wave is chosen as 7m.
On the other hand, waves upto 9m have been measured on the east coast. It is also known
that during the last 100 years no cyclone crossed the west coast near Trivandrum.

-Constructions faciUties: The finishing harbour at Vizhinjam near Trivandrum offered the
required infrastructural facilhies for the construction and installation ofthe caisson.

-Sea Bed: The sea bed at chosen location consists of dense medium to coarse sand,
densely packed, offering a good base for supporting the gravity structure.

W A V E E N E R G Y CAISSON

The wave energy caisson comprises of a bottom raft 23.2 m x 17.0 m x3.0 m high,
supporting a 12.0 m high chamber with a lip wall in front and guide walls on either sides
to facihtate wave entry (Fig. la & b). Over the oscillating chamber is a double cubic
curve concrete dome 10 m x 7.75 m at bottom, reducing to 2.0 m diameter circle at top
and 3.0 m high to support the power module. The caisson top is at +5.00 m with respect
to still water level (SWL).

55
DESIGN WAVE PARAMETERS
Operating condition
The system is expected to deliver a peak power of 150 K W at a significant wave
height of 1.52 m and design wave period of 10 seconds.

Design extreme condition

Based on the wave data collected o f f Trivandrum coast the design wave height
was estimated to be 7.0 m whh a probable wave period of 10 sees. A maximum of 15°
angle of wave attack to the longitudinal side of caisson is considered for analysis of the
structure.

ESTIMATION O F WAVE F O R C E S
The theoretical estimation of wave forces on such non conventional type of
structures are in general cumbersome. Unlike circular cylinders, the incident wave
direction also has a significant influence on flow pattern around the structure. As the
OWC caisson has an opening on one side, the estimation of wave forces becomes
uncertain because of the complicated fluid flow and wave oscillations inside h.

Non-breaking wave force

Because of the uncertainty for the estimation of non breaking wave forces, all the
known methods have been applied to get the relative magnitudes of the calculated wave
forces. The source distribution technique for rectangular caissons, Isaacson (1979),
Morison's equation (1950) and the linear diffraction theory proposed by MacCamy &
Fuchs (1954) for circular bottom fixed cylinders and Sainflou's method (1928) for
vertical wall are used. The structure was idealised as a closed rectangular caisson while
using Isaacson method; as an equivalent circular cylinder while using Morison's equation
and linear diffraction theory, and as a vertical wall for the Sainflou's method. Even
though the reflection is partial, for the purpose of wave force calculation, 100% reflection
has been assumed to allow for erring on the safe side. The resuhs obtained using these
methods are tabulated below:

Table 1: Non breaking wave force on wave energy caisson

S.No. Method Used Design wave

force k N
1 Isaacson (1979) 14000
2 Sainflou (1928) 14840-
3 Morison's eqn. (1950) 12800
4 MacCamy & Fuchs linear 12000
diffraction theory (1954)

56
 The author is of the opinion that none of these idealization are closer to reahty.
Hence, finally to be safe, the structure has been designed for a non-breaking wave force
oflSOOOkN.

Breaking wave force

For breaking wave force estimation, the empirical methods proposed by Hiroi
(1919), Minikin (1963) and Goda (1974) are used. Hiroi assumed a uniform pressure
distribution from sea bed till a height of 1.5 times the incident wave height above SWL.
A controversy exists in using Goda's method and Minikin's method. Minikin's method
yields more pressure intenshy than Goda's method for a higher relative water depth
(d/L), whereas, Goda's method yields a higher pressure intensity than Minikin's method
for a smaller relative water depth ratio (Yen-his chu, 1989). Goda's method is widely
used in Japan and is recommended for the design of semi-rigid type structures. Since the
present structure is in the intermediate water condhion, a conservative approach given by
Minikin is used. The breaking pressure intensity and the total breaking wave forces are-
given below:

Table 2: Brealdng Wave force on caisson

S.No. Method Used Pressure intenshy at Total force (kN)
SWL (tons/sq.m)
1 Hiroi (1919) 10.8 28700
2 Goda (1974) 6.34 12870
3 Minikin (1963) 118.0 33000

The front lip waU is a critical part of the caisson, since h is expected to be exposed
to direct wave attack. The conservative breaking pressure at SWL obtained according to
Minikin (1963) was chosen and the lip was designed for this. The total magnhude of
breaking wave force is about 33000 kN. Elaborate measurements from the prototype
structure and scale model studies in the laboratory are requhed to estimate the wave
forces accurately. The wave pressure due to breaking on the lip wall and on the innerside
of the OWC Chamber (back wall) are given in Fig.2a. The idealised wave pressure
when the wave is acting whh an inclination of 15° to the longitudinal axis ofthe caisson
is given in Fig. 2b.

S T R U C T U R A L ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

The general arrangement of the caisson is shown in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b). This
consists of a bottom raft of size 23.2 m x 17.0 m x 3.0 m which supports two waUs on
ehher side and one wah in the rear. The outer plan dimension of the chamber is
20.0m X 14.0 m and the height ofthe walls is 12.3 m. The lip is connected to the side
walls. The thickness ofthe guide walls and lip wall was selected based on hydrodynamic
studies for maximum efficiency of wave power absorption. The curvatures at the entry

57
point on the guide walls and lip wall were provided for smooth entry of waves and to
minimise energy losses due to vortex shedding. After considering several possible
ahematives, cellular construction was chosen for the walls, lip and bottom raft. The
cellular structure was adapted to minimise the weight because of the floating mode of
construction and towing and also to minimise the construction cost. The caisson structure
was analysed using finhe element method for global and local forces. M30 concrete and
high yield strength deformed bars of grade 415 were adopted.

Walls and lip

The caisson walls and lip were analysed using thin quadrilateral (flat) shell
elements with 30 degrees of freedom. They are assumed to be fixed on the raft and
consequently all the degrees of freedom at the bottom are arrested. As the wall is
assumed to be thin plate, it is rigid in hs own plane and hence all the degrees of freedom
(rotational) perpendicular to hs own plane are arrested. The wave force distribution on
the structure shoAvn in Fig. 2 is converted into equivalent rectangular pressure blocks
acting normal to the element. The lip was considered free at top and bottom and
connected to the side walls. The maximum bending moments and dimensions ofthe back
walls, side wall and lip are given Table 3.

Table 3: Maximum bending moments and dimensions of the walls

Component Maximum bending moment Overall Thickness Thickness of

Horizontal Vertical wall of vertical horizontal
direction direction thickness panel diaphragm
(KNm/m) (kNm/m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Back wall +318 +297 2500 200 250

Side wall -1440 -616 2000 200 250

Lip +4000 +363 2000 250 400

Raft

The raft is also analysed using thin plate elements and is assumed to be resting on
equivalent soil springs. The reaction from the bottom most elements ofthe wall (due to
wave forces) are also taken as part of the load on the raft apart from the submerged
weight of walls. The maximum bending moments along the length and width of the
bottom raft and hs dimensions are shown in Table 4.

The raft was checked for the stresses during the various stages of construction of
the caisson floating mode.

58
Dome

The dome consists of two cubic parabolas meeting at mid height, the height ofthe
dome being 3.0 m. Thickness ofthe dome is 250 mm. The sectional profile of the dome
varies from place to place and it has a quadrantal symmetry. Finhe element analysis was
carried out using thin plate and shell element

Table 4; Maximum bending moments and the dimensions ofthe Raft

Max. Bending moment Thickness

Overall of Thickness
depths of the horizontal of vertical
box slab ribs
Along the along the Top Bottom
length width
k N m/m kN m/m mm mm mm mm
-553 -208 3000 200 250 200

ofthe SAP I V finhe element library. The dome has been designed for the following load
cases.
-Internal pressure of 1 bar + self weight of dome+ weight of power module.
-Internal pressure of-0.5 bar + self weight of dome + weight of power module.
The maximum meridinal membrane force and moment in the meridinal direction
considered for the design are 500 kN/m and 58 KN-m/m respectively. The percentage of
steel is about 1.5% ofthe cross sectional area ofthe dome in the meridional direction.

STABILITY OF CAISSON

The caisson should be stable against overturning and sliding at hs final location.
Stabilhy is ensured during various stages of construction and towing.

During construction and towing

As the caisson is not symmetrical about hs transverse axis, h tihs as the

construction progresses in floating mode. To correct this tih, predetermined quanthies of
sand were added in the chambers ofthe bottom box. The metacentric height was always
ensured to be greater than 5% of the draught during construction by appropriate
ballasting using sand.

On the prepared sea bed

The structure has adequate factor of safety (F.S. > 1.5) both against horizontal
sliding and overturning for the design non - breaking wave forces. The author is of the

59
opinion tliat tlie breaking wave force need not be considered for overall structural
stability. However, even for this condhion the F.S. is greater than 1.

M A T E R I A L QUANTITIES

Some of the approximate quanthies of the materials used for the construction are
Concrete - 1020 cubic mts.
Reinforcing - 1450 K N
Structural steel -1100 K N
Stones for Sea bed
Foundation - 6200 K N
Stones for scour
Protection around caisson - 8000 K N

CONSTRUCTION ASPECTS

Caisson

The caisson construction and installation are of major importance, particularly in

view ofthe fact that no slip ways or heavy-lift facilhies are available at the she. Keeping
in view, the bathymetry, she condhions and availability of the harbour (Fig. Ic) the
following methodology was adopted. Fig. 3a-d shows the major sequences of
construction.

-The bottom 3 m height concrete box was constructed in a ph 5 m deep, on the beach
inside the harbour. The water table was held down below the construction level by well
point dewatering system.

-The bottom box was made to float by allowing the water table to rise. Subsequently, the
sand bund between the ph and the harbour basin was breached by dredging.

-The box was then towed to deep water are,a near a jetty inside the harbour, where fiirther
construction of walls and other portions was continued in floating mode. Climbing forms
were used for the construction of walls to achieve accurate alignment and speed of
construction. As the construction proceeds, the draught of this asymmetric structure
increases and hence to ensure floating, a temporary steel gate was erected in stages to
close the front opening. The gate has overall dimensions of 10 m x 10 m x 1 m and was
held in poshion by a lock channel arrangement. The horizontal level ofthe structure was
kept by ballasting the different chambers of the bottom box with sand/water.

Dome
Wooden joints were cut to lines and levels to form the basic shape ofthe dome on
which plywood shuttering were fixed. The form work for the dome started from the

60
bottom box slab which is 15 m below. Because of the special shape of the dome, the
shuttering work was expensive and labour intensive.

Sea bed preparation

Scour Protection model studies on circular and square cross sections conducted at
the Ocean Engineering Centre show that scour is predominant in the front of the structure
and the maximum scour occurs at points 45° to the flow direction. Superposhion of
waves on current resuhs in an increase of scour depth by 20% to 62% . The current
velochy was found to be low in magnitude at the location of the caisson. The sea bed
foundation was designed and prepared carefiilly for proper seating of the caisson and for
preventing scour around the base of the structure due to wave action (Fig. 4.). An area of
about 30 m X 23 m was marked on the sea bed and stones of 20 mm to 40 mm size were
neatly packed to lines and levels to form an even horizontal bed. The original plan was to
lay geo-fabric material on the sea bed below the stones. But due to non-availabilhy of
material to meet project schedule, the geo-fabric layer was left out. Stones were dumped
from a pontoon and leveled by divers. The level of the prepared foundation was checked
by depth soundings and taking levels using a mast resting on the bed and projecting above
the water surface. Underwater photographs provided a fairly good indication of the
evenness of the bed.

Towing and seating

The towing and seating operation of the caisson was a very crhical one. The
scope of the work was to tow the completed caisson from temporary jetty she (see
Fig.lc) to the final location outside the harbour and install h on the prepared sea bed.
Inclination test was carried out to assess the metacentric height, G M and controhed sand
ballasting was carried out in order to make the G M greater than 5% of the draught of the
structure. Subsequently the caisson was towed at high tide (tidal height of 1.25 m) with a
drought of 9.9 m and G M of 0.55 m . The caisson was towed out of the harbour to the
final location using powerful tugs at the aft, stem and abreast. Finishing trawlers also
assisted in the operation. The caisson was brought over the prepared sea bed during ebb
tide. Using three transit poles on land, the caisson was aligned and brought in correct
poshion and ballasted continuously to seat h over the sea bed. The exact poshioning was
done by controlling winches on board the caisson connected to bollards on the shore and
anchors on the sea bed.
Subsequently, a steel bridge (45 m long) was erected to span the caisson and
breakwater for the transport of the power module and access to caisson top (Fig. 3d).

Power module

The power module mounted on top of the dome consists of an air turbine of 2 m
diameter coupled to an induction generator of 150 kW rating. The induction generator
system has been selected because it is cheaper and does not require rectification and
inversion normally associated with a variable speed alternator. The induction generator

61
will always be connected to grid, drawing power from mains when the turbine speed is
below synchronous speed and pumping power to the grid when the speed of turbine
increases above the synchronous speed. When the grid fails, or when the wave heights
are higher than the capachy of the turbine, a butterfly valve provided between the turbine
and the caisson automatically closes the passage of air flow to the turbine.

The turbine has been designed to match the bi-dhectional air flow from the OWC,
based on detailed model studies carried out by the project group (refer Ravindran et al.
(1989).

P E R F O R M A N C E MONITORING

The momtoring of the structural performance of the device to understand the

behaviour of the structure and plan for fiiture optimisation has commenced. The caisson
is instrumented and provided with a Data Acquisition and control system for this purpose.

Parameters

The structural performance evaluation consists of measuring:

a) Wave induced pressures on the caisson in various sea states (changing over the
various seasons).
b) Scour around the caisson and tih, i f any, of the caisson at various points of
time.
c) Monitoring the behaviour ofthe materials used (concrete and steel).

The pressure measurements are being done on the lip and backwalls at different
levels by means of transducers, fixed on the caisson. The tilts are being measured by
means of an inclinometer. The scour was observed by taking bed levels around the
structure by means of a dead weight - chain system.

The power module was mounted on the structure and the system commissioned
for trial runs by end October 1991. The performance of the system with regard to the
hydrodynamic behaviours, turbine performance and power generation was encouraging.
During the period November to February, the wave intensity at location was low, the peak
being during May to September . The system will be continuously monitored and
evaluated during the next nine months (till end of December 1992).

F U T U R E PROSPECTS FOR WAVES E N E R G Y

Before venturing into commercial level wave power plants, it is warranted to go

for a field testing with a pilot wave power plant, mainly to understand the technical
feasibility, analyse and solve crhical problems and foresee any major problems during

62
the commercial production of wave power. This had led to the first sea trial with a 150
kW capacity plant. The following are the lessons learned:-
a. It is poshively possible to convert wave power into electric power.
b. Efficiency of convention is very low (to the order of 5 to 20%). Hence further
research must be done to improves the efficiency.
c. Since corrosion is the major problem, the mechanical components must be
designed using materials which are prone for less corrosion.
d. The wave power varies with time and hence a flexible power converting
system should be designed, etc.

The average annual wave power potential around our country varies from 5 to 20
kW/m (Fig.5). This average is less when compared to countries closer to northern latitude
countries. Hence aiming for only wave power conversion may not be cost effective for us.
This has led to proposal for Muhipuipose wave energy caisson system, which consists of
a number of caissons placed one adjacent to others (Fig. 6) to form a part of breakwater.
The advantages in this system are
a. The cost of rubble mound breakwater over the stretch of placement of caisson
can be saved.
b. The rear side ofthe caisson can be used for berthing of vessels. (Fig. 7)
c. A part of the incident wave power can be converted into electric power, hence
the wave looses hs vigor and induces less forces on the caisson.

Based on the experience gained in the design, construction, stabilhy analysis,

towing and seating of the fu-st prototype caisson, many improvements are proposed for
the fiature caissons for breakwaters (Fig.8).
The fohowing are the major improvements:-
a. The integral structure itself is modified to provide sufficient Buoyancy
chambers, improved stability in floating and sufficient space to fill sand
ballast for increased stabilhy against sliding and over turning.(Fig.9)
b. Sufficient width is provided at the rear side of the caisson for the mobilhy of
power vehicles.
c. The power module is kept in an enclosed room to reduce the noise level in the
atmosphere.(Fig. 10)
d. Horizontal axis turbines of smaller capacities and two number for each
caisson is proposed for effective utilisation and conversion of wave power.

This type of Muhiple oscillating water column (MOWC) systems can be used in
India, whenever a new harbour is proposed to be buih as shown in Figure 11, which was
proposed for Thangassery Fishery harbour in Kerala during 1995.

63
F O R C E REDUCTION TECHNIQUE ON T H E ARRAY O F WAVE
E N E R G Y CAISSON

It is always better i f the wave forces on the caisson is reduced by some means.
Wave energy caisson offers a chance for implementing this proposal. I f the ah: pressure
buih into the caisson is released to the atmosphere effectively during severe wave
climate, then the wave force can be reduced significantly. The wave force on the wave
energy caisson array and the wave force on a vertical wall type caisson breakwaters was
studied using physical models. Force reduction to the extend of atleast 20 to 30% was
possible i f an air pressure relief system is provided whh the caisson. It should be
designed such that i f the ah pressure inside the OWC Chamber exceeds a prespecified
value (Threshold pressure), h should open up and release the air pressure automatically
(Fig. 12). This is similar to the pressure relief valve used in the pressure cookers for
cooking purposes in our homes.

SUMMARY

The design, construction and installation aspects of the concrete caisson of overall
size 23.2 m x 17.0 m x 18.3 m for the wave power plant instahed off the South-West coast
of India have been presented. The caisson structure consists of a bottom raft, two side
walls, a back wall, a lip and a dome. It was buih , partly on land and partly in floating
mode in a harbour basin and installed in open sea on a prepared sea bed. The estimation
of wave forces on the structure was quhe uncertain owing to the complex fluid flow and
oscillations inside h. Several known methods for the estimation of wave forces have
been attempted. However being a pilot plant, conservative approaches have been chosen.
The structural analysis was carried out using Finhe Element Method. Because of the
asymmetric shape of the structure, the construction and towing of the caisson was quhe
difficuh and involved meticulous planning. As of now the caisson has whhstood wave
actions for the past one decade. Field observations show that the device is performing
according to predictions. An extensive performance monitoring was being carried out by
NIOT to understand the behaviour of the structure and the power device.

We should go for installation of muhipurpose wave power plants ofthe order of 1

to 2 M W capachy as a part of the breakwater, i f new artificial harbours are proposed.
Such scheme will be cost compethive.

It is'possible to reduce the wave loads on the oscillating water column type wave
energy caissons, by providing proper air pressure relief systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The materials presented here is a part of the work done under a Project sponsored
by the Department of Ocean Development, Govt, of India and implemented by Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras. The author was a part of the project team. Many

64
colleagues, project officers within IIT and many organisations from outside assisted in the
project implementation. The Harbour Engineering Department of the Kerala Government
was responsible for the local infrastructure and construction. The caisson was buih by L
& T - ECC Construction Group. The assistance of all the above is gratefüUy
acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Final report on scientific investigations on wave chmate, wave regulation and

wave power (1987). Report submitted to Department of Ocean Development,
Government of India by the Wave Energy Group, Ocean Engineering Centre, Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras, February.

Goda,Y. (1974). "New Wave pressure formula for composhe breakwaters", Proceedings
of the 14* conference on Coastal Engineering.

Hiroi, I (1919). " On a method of estimating the force on waves". Bulletin of Engg.
Dept^ Tokyo Imperial Univershy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 19

Isaacson,M.de.St.Q. (1979). "Wave forces on rectangular caissons" Proc. Of the Civil

Engg. in the Oceans, IV, ASCE, San Fransisco, Vol I .

MacCamy, R.G and Fuchs, R.A. (1954). "Wave Forces on phes: A Diffraction
theory"U.S. Army Beach Erosion Board, Technical Memorandum No.69,17 pages

Minikin,R.R. (1963). "Wind, Waves and maritime structures". Studies in the harbour
making and protection of coasts, 2"** edition. Griffin, London.

Morison, J.R., O'.Brien, M.P., Johnson, J.W. and Schadf, S.A 91950). :"The forces
Exerted by surface waves on piles" Petroleum transactions, AMIE, Vol. 189,
pp. 149-154

Ravindran, M . , Swaminathan, G , and Koola, P.M. (1989). 'Model Studies for the Sea
Trial of a 150 K W Wave Energy System" Proc. Eighth OMAE (ASME) Conf^
The Hague, Mar. pp. 19-23.

Sainflou, G. (1928) "Essai Sur les diques marhimes verticales" Annales des ponts et
Chausses, Vol.98, No. 1, pp. 5-48

Sea Trial of a 150 K W wave energy device off Trivandrum coast. Project report
submitted to DOD by the Wave Energy Group, Ocean Engineering Centre, Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras, 1987.

65
 7-7|^,,—Generator Side wall

Turbine

Butterfly
valve
Dome
jam
Oscillating Dome
water column -Lip Wave d i r e c t i o n

MSL
I
- Back wall

-Sand tilling

2 3 200

50q2S00 77S0

FIG. la. CROSS SECTION OF

WAVE POWER PLANT
FIG.lb. CROSS SECTIONAL PLAN
OF CAISSON

jam
g horbour

Breokwater (Existing) Sea bed

FIG.ld. CROSS SECTION OF WAVE ENERGY

FIG.lc. LOCATION PLAN DEVICE AND BREAKWATER (SCHEMATIC)

FIG. 1 e. PRINCIPLE OF THE OSCILLATING WATER

COLUMN WAVE ENERGY DEVICE
66
 2t/m^ LIP

STILLWATER LEVEL

FIG.2a. BREAKING FORCE IN ELEVATION

www
12.37 t / n i 2

n STILL WATER L E V E L

z <?
z
_J
11.2H/m'

(!) Pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n s along (il) P l a n of p r e s s u r e

ttie heigtit of ttie back w a l l distributions

FIG.2b. 15° INCLINED NONBREAKING WAVE FORCE

ExisHng G l -j Temporary
gate
Sand bogs Sea
|M5l O.OOl

V, i Catsjon raff ; ,

^44
FIG.3a. CONSTRUCTION OF BOTTOM FIG.Sb. CONSTRUCTION IN FLOATING MODE
BOX AND BUND

r-. A froma

Rubble proUtHon

r m m

FIG.3C TOWING FIG.3d. ERECTION OF BRIDGE

67
 FIG.4. B E D P R E P A R A T I O N F O R W A V E
ENERGY C A I S S O N

a
3 S § gs

F I G . 5 . W A V E POWER POTENTIAL ALONG INDIAN COAST

68
 FIG.6. CONCEPT OF MULTIPURPOSE BARRIER
TYPE W A V E ENERGY S Y S T E M

FIG.7. MOORING & B E R T H I N G O F V E S S E L S A T T H E

REAR O F W A V E E N E R G Y CAISSON A R R A Y S

69
 HARBOUR
SIDE BALLAST
CHAMBER

POWER
HOUSE•

WAVE
^^^^^^^IRECTION

FIG.8. IMPROVED W A V E E N E R G Y CAISSON M O D U L E T O B E P L A C E D

I N A N A R R A Y TO F O R M A PART OF B R E A K W A T E R

CK

FIG.9. A R R A N G E M E N T O F P O W E R M O D U L E ON CAISSON

70
 ol

200 200

. 2050 ,2050 , 2000 2200 ,2200 1 2 200 1 2 0 0 0 , 2 0 5 0 [ 20 50

f • If 1! 11 1

FIG.IO SECTION C - C OF FIG.9

FIG. 11. L A Y O U T OF FISHERY HARBOUR W I T H W E C AND

I R E L CAISSONS PROPOSED BY OEC AND NIOT, 1995

71
 250 M.S.Plate S.S.Shaft- e m b e d d e d
info concrete

200
Dome top
400 >

Air pre s s u r e
IMil C i r c u l a r arc t y p e
end f o r ease of
Rubber beedings r o t a t ion
a l l a r o u n d to a b s o r b (Feasible lubrication
shocks s y s t e m to be designed )

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN mm

OWC AIR CHAMBER

^Rubber beedinh

FIG. 12. A I R PRESSURE RELEASE SYSTEM FOR OWC TYPE

W A V E ENERGY CAISSON

72
 Inter Institutional Workshop on B R E A K W A T E R S ^
(Jointly organised by I I T Madras and T.U.Delft) X I J H p If f
March 9 - 10, 2000 L/CII I
Delft University of Tectinologv

P A R T I A L L Y SUSPENDED POROUS W A L L
BREAKWATER
J.S. Mani
Ocean Engineering Centre
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Email: manijs@hotmail.com

1. INTRODUCTION

Numerous facilities along the coast worldwide such as recreational harbors, marinas,
bays and fishing harbors are threatened by massive waves, resuhing in the loss of human life
and permanent structures. For recreational harbors, coastal swimmers and surfers prefer to
have acceptable wave condhions to suh their sporting activhies and for fishing harbors,
creation of still water conditions is not a necessity. In such cases, expensive rubble-mound
breakwaters may not be the right choice, as they are meant for providing very calm waters.

To control the wave disturbance in these partially enclosed water bodies,

breakwaters like (i) floating (ii) tethered and (iii) submerged types are considered. These
breakwaters can be adopted if the water depths are relatively shaUow and the breakwaters
can withstand the severity of incident waves. However, for relatively large water depths,
pUe breakwaters are suhable. In the recent past, steel-pile breakwaters are recommended
especially for fishing and recreational harbors, wherein moderate wave disturbances are
admissible in the harbour basins.

As the cost of a closely spaced pUe breakwater is directly related to the number of
piles needed for breakwater construction, an attempt is made to develop a partially
suspended porous wall breakwater that is cost-effective, easy to instaU, and capable of
reducing the incident-wave height by 50%. Resuhs of the experimental tests conducted for
the partiaUy suspended porous wah breakwater are discussed in this paper.

73
2. E X P E R I M E N T A L SETUP

Experiments were conducted in a 30-m-long, 2-m-wide and 1.5-m-deep wave flume.

The wave machine installed in the flume is capable of generating monochromatic incident
waves of height Hj varying between 6 and 24 cm with period ranging between 0.80 and 2s.
The details of partially suspended porous wah breakwater are shown in figure 1. The
support pipes, 16 cm in diameter, (representing a pile in nature) were positioned close to the
flume walls and a frame containing a row of 4-cm-diameter pipes spaced whh a b/d ratio (b
= clear gap; d = pipe diameter) was suspended in between the pipes. The fi'ame was made to
slide through vertical slot provided in support pipes, so as to facihtate testing the breakwater
with different y/h ratios ( y = draft of the pipe ; h = water depth). Experiments were
conducted for b/d ranging from 0.11 to 1.0 and y/h ranging from 0.26 to 0.56. Resistance-
type wave gauges were instahed, one each on the wave generator side and on the absorber
side of the breakwater. The transmitted wave height was obtained on the absorber side by a
wave gauge positioned at a distance of 5m from the breakwater. Transmission coefficient
K^, defined as the ratio of transmitted-wave height (H^) to incident-wave height (Hj) was
determined for studying the performance characteristics of the breakwater.

3. E X P E R I M E N T A L R E S U L T S

3.1 Determination of Optimum Value of b/d and y/h

Figure 2 shows the variation of transmission coefficient whh b/d and y/h ratios for
four typical values of Hj/gT^, that is to say, 0.0016, 0.0034, 0.0061 and 0.016. The values
of transmission coefficient K^^ shown in the figure correspond to an average value obtained
after several test repetitions. From the figure it is possible to infer the following :

1. Comparison of K|- values for b/d = 1.00 and 0.44 indicates that by restricting the b/d
value to 0.44, an appreciable reduction (ofthe order of 26%) in transmission coefficient
can be obtained (especially for steep waves). However, i f the b/d ratio is restricted to
0.22 and 0.11, the reduction in K^, would be of the order of 33% and 35%, respectively.

2. For the given range of b/d ratio, increase in y/h from 0.46 to 0.56 has less influence on
transmission coefficient compared to the values for 0.36 to 0.46.

These resuhs imply that further reduction in the b/d ratio and increase in the y/h ratio
may not significantly influence the transmission coefficients. Thus h is concluded that the
optimum values for b/d and y/h should be equal to 0.22 and 0.46 respectively.

74
3.2 Variation of Transmission Coefficient

Figure 3 sliows tlie variation of transmission coefficients with Hj/gT^ and b/d
for y/h = 0.46. The trend curves suggest that for the given range of b/d, the transmission
coefficient decreases for an increase m Hj/gT^. From the resuhs h is evident that
1. By maintaming a b/d ratio of 0.22, the breakwater is capable of reducing the magnitude of
incident-wave height by 50% for a wide range of wave steepness (0.05 < HiL < 0.106).
2. For 0.22 < b/d < 0.66, 40% reduction in incident-wave height is predicted; this is also true
for a narrow range of wave steepness.
3. For 0.66 < b/d < 1.0, incident-wave height is reduced by 20%o only.

3.3 Analysis

The resuhs imply that the following benefits can be derived by adopting the present
type of breakwaters rather than a phe breakwater.

1. As the number of piles needed for construction in drastically reduced, the system assures
a net savings in the cost of material, fabrication, and erection. Cost comparison for a 20-
m length of suspended pipe breakwater whh a similar length of pile breakwater is given
here. (Note that cost estimate was made based on the rates quoted by an Indian
Company engaged in pile driving operations in open sea.)

* Pipe breakwater :
Cost of support piles (1.6-m dia)
= No. of phes X cost per phe
= 2 x $ 12,000 = $24,000
Cost of suspended pipes made of high-density polyethylene pipes (40-cm dia)
= No. of pipes X cost per pipe
= 34 X $1,300 = $44,200
Total cost of suspended pipe breakwater
= $68,200
* PUe breakwater
Cost of pile breakwater (1.6-m dia)
= No. of piles X cost per pile
= 10 X $12,000 = $ 120,000
* Comparison
Reduction in the total cost by using the partially suspended porous wall breakwater
= 43%
2. Time required for instaUation is effectively reduced.
3. Easy replacement of pipes in case of damage or loss to a certain stretch of breakwaters
(which is not possible in case of phe breakwater).

75
4. As the partiaUy suspended porous wall brealcwater blocks only 48% of the vertical sheet
of water, versus 84%) by the conventional pile breakwater, the breakwater would help in
maintaining adequate flow exchange between the partially enclosed water body and the open
sea.
5. As the vertical area blocked by the pipe breakwater is only 48%, the structure would
experience slightly less total hydrodynamic force compared to a conventional pile
breakwater.

3.4 Further development on Porous breakwater

Studies conducted further on partially submerged porous wall breakwater filled with suhable
porous material (instead of pipes) yield promising resuhs. This type of breakwater has been
instahed to protect a jetty on the west coast of India in the year 1997 and the structure has
whnessed two monsoons seasons including a severe cyclone. The performance of the
breakwater is shown in figure 4.

4. CONCLUSIONS

(1) Partially suspended porous wall breakwater (with a row of pipes) is an economical and
promising substitute for a pile breakwater and is as efiicient as a pUe breakwater in
attenuating incident waves,
(2) A gap to diameter ratio b/d of 0.22 and draft to water depth ratio y/h of 0.46 are
recommended for suspended pipes to achieve a transmission coefficient of 0.5.
(3) For Hj/gT^ > 0.008, the present breakwater can attenuate incident waves by 50%.
However, for 0.005 < Hi/gT2 < 0.008, incident waves are reduced by 40%.
(4) Partially suspended porous wah breakwater (with suitable hght weight porous material)
whh 30% submergence, can restrict wave transmission between 10 and 67% for Hj/gT^ >
0.003. In practical range of H;/gT2 (0.006 < Hi/gT^ < 0.020), maximum value of Kt is
0.45.
(5) Wave force estimated based on average pressure distribution over partially suspended
porous waU breakwater (with suhable light weight porous material) indicates force reduction
of the order of 50% compared to an equivalent impermeable breakwater.

5. R E F E R E N C E S

Grune, J., and Kohlhase, S. (1974). "Wave transmission through vertical slotted walls", 14th
Coast. Engrg. Conf., ASCE, New York, N.Y., Vol.III, 1906 - 1923.

Hayashi, T., Hattori, M . , and Shirai, M . (1968). "Closely spaced pile breakwater as a
protection structure against beach erosion, "Coast. Engrg, in Japan, 11, 149 - 156.

76
Hayashi, T., and Kano, T. (1966). "Hydrauhc research on the closely spaced phe
breakwater, "10th Coast. Engrg. Conf., ASCE, New York, N.Y., 873-884.

Khader, M.H.A., and Rai, S.P. (1981). "Wave attenuation due to closely spaced circular
cylinders, "Int. Assoc. for Hydr. Res., X I X Congrg. New Delhi, India, 95-102.

Mani, J.S. (1989), "Wave damping characteristics of pile breakwaters." Proc. Third Nat.
Conf. on Dock and Harb. Engrg., Dept. of Appl. Mech. KREC, India, 181-188.

Wiegel, R.L. (1960). "Transmission of waves past a rigid vertical thin barrier." J.Wtrwy. and
Harb. Div., ASCE, 86(1), 1-12.

77
 200

Frame f o r f i x i n g pipe

Vertical
slot-

Support
pipe
Suspended pipes

Figure 1 Partially Suspended Porous Wall Breakwater

Figure 2 Variation of Transmission Coefficient with b/d, y/h,

and I l j / g l ^ Ratio
78
 0-00
1.00
T

0.60'

a..-.o
(..1.6
r, /u
0-20 o r. ?..;?
« 11 .!.:•

c- ^1
,).v.
! . -J 3

0 0
0-0 o.aos o-oio 0.020

I'lgur*" 3 'V'nri.itioiJ of l'rvij5;r!Hs;;-iv>n tiociSc^eat mth Wave y»,('enness

Km

For p?pc ö a r r i e r
& 39 % oorosih

0,60

0.40

rr

0.20

Ü.ÜO ^ s — P - ™ ^ — ^ — ^ — J

0.000 ihOOS 0.010 0.015 0.020

H i / g T''-2
fixture 4 V r r i a ü t m ofTrrtma^ivrltni C o e ü i c k n t for PartiaHy
.Suvpentk'ti P c v o o h sS'f.W Broa!w,^ter (whit i^iiUabk' light

79
 Inter Institutional Workshop on B R E A K W A T E R S
(Jointly organised by I I T Madras and T.U.Delft) T i l D g I f t
March 9-10,2000
Delft Univetsity of Technologv

CASE STUDIES ON S T A B I L I T Y OF B R E A K W A T E R S

V.Sundar, R. Sundaravadivelu, and M.R.Pranesh

Ocean Engineering Centre
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Email: vallamsundar @hotmail.com
Email: dr_veIu@hotmail.com
Email: mrpranesh@hotmail.com

LO INTRODUCTION

The design of cross section of a rubble mound breakwater is quhe weU known.

KD(Sr-l)^cote
The size ofthe individual armour block is arrived using the Hudson's formula.
Where W is Weight of individual armour block in ton, y is mass denshy of armour block
in ton/m^ H is design wave height in m, K d is Stability coefficient, Sr == y/y„ , Yw is mass
density o f sea water in ton/m'', and 9 is slope of breakwater.

Though, the design of a breakwater cross section is straight forward, h is essential

to carry out physical model tests to verify the stabilhy ofthe primary layer as weh as to
arrive at the crest elevation considering the overtopping of waves. A number of studies
for several harbours in India have been carried out in Ocean Engineering Centre (OEC),
Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT Madras) and details of few ofthe studies are
highlighted. In addhion, studies related to recent concepts of breakwaters being carried
out in OEC herein have also been considered and salient resuhs of such studies are also
reported.

2.0 E X P E R I M E N T A L F A C I L I T I E S

Most ofthe tests are carried out in a 72.5m long, 2m wide and 2.7m deep wave
flume. A wave maker is installed at one end of the flume and other end of flume is
provided whh an absorber which is a combination of a parabolic perforated sheet and a

80
rubble mound below it for deep water waves and shallow water waves respectively. In
this flume, water depth can be varied from 0.5m to 2.0m. The details of the wave flume is
shown in Fig. 1. Whhin the mechanical, geometric and hydrodynamic limhations of the
system the wave generating system is capable of generating regular waves or random
waves of any pre-defined spectral characteristics. The wave maker can operate in two
different modes: (a) in piston mode for generation of shallow water waves, or (b) in
hinged mode for generation of deep water waves.

The maximum water depth in the flume must never be exceeded less than or equal
to 1.0m and less than or equal to 2.0m for the piston mode and hinged mode operations
respectively. Wave generator generates waves through a servo actuator with remote
control system. One personal computer to servo actuator is used to give input wave signal
to the wave generator and the same computer is used for data acquishion.

3.0 TESTING PROCEDURE

The testing procedure was followed as discussed by Owen and Allsop(1983). The
damage to the breakwater will be in terms of the number of armour unhs, which have
been totally dislodged from the armour layer. This number may be expressed as a
percentage of the total number of units on the armour face.

The movement of the armour unhs can assess the damage and four categories of
armour unit movements are given below:

P - Unit seen to be rocking, but not permanently displaced

Q - Unh displaced by upto 0.5 D
R - Unh displaced between 0.5 and 1.0 D
S - Unh displaced by more than 1.0 D
Where D is the equivalent diameter of the armour unit.

The damage level is ascertained by adding the percentage of damage in Q, R and

S categories. The performance of the armour layer is continuously monhored by an
underwater video camera.

4.0 M O D E L L I N G OF B R E A K W A T E R AND WAVE C L I M A T E

The modelling of present wave interaction problem consists of modelling of wave

climate and breakwater cross section. For the reproduction of the ocean waves, wave
heights are modelled according to the basic model scale, X and wave periods as X^''^. The
weights of individual unhs are modelled as X^.

81
5.0 S T A B I L I T Y FOR B R E A K W A T E R SECTION
5.1 Breakwater section for proposed port at Ganeshgule, India

The stabihty tests on breakwater (both trunk and round head portion) proposed to
be constructed along the coast of Maharastra at Ganeshgule was carried out. The layout
of the harbour is shown in Fig.2. As per the stability analysis, the core layer of both
southern and northern breakwaters consists of stones varying from 0 to 80 kg . The
secondary layer consists of 1.0 to 2.0 ton stones having a thickness of 1.5 m on the sea
side, the primary armour layer consist of 12ton tetrapods of thickness 2.5m, whereas, the
armour layer of the round head section is formed by placing 18ton tetrapod of thickness
4.0m. The cross section was designed for a design wave height of 4.5m and wave period
of lOsec. The cross-sections of the trunk and head portions to be tested for hs stabilhy are
shown in Fig.3 and Fig.4 respectively.

A model scale of 1:17 and 1:20 was adopted for the trunk and round head section
respectively. According to the model scale, the core layer of the trunk section consists of
stones varying from 0 to 120gm. The secondary layer consists of 0.192 to 0.383kg stones
having a thickness of 90mm on the seaside. The crown plate (L shaped) has been
fabricated whh mild steel channel sections and plates. The primary armour layer consists
of 2.3kg tetrapods of thickness 144mm, whereas, the armour layer of the round head
section is proposed by 2.3 Tetrapod of thickness 200mm.

The tests were carried out for three water depths i.e.. Highest High Water Level
(HHWL, Prototype: +3.05m and model: 0.90m), Mean Higher High Water (MHHW,
Prototype: +2.30m and model: 0.85m) and Mean Sea Level (MSL, Prototype: +1.50m
and model: 0.81m). The experiments were carried out by increasing the wave heights
from 50% to 120% of design wave height in steps of 25%. For each wave height, the test
was carried out for 500 waves.

Based on the Hydrodynamic tests on trunlc section of breakwater, h was observed

that the maximum damage of 2.05% occurred for the water depth of 0.90m(HHWL)
when the trunk section is subjected to 120% of the deign wave height (i.e., 0.32m). The
wave breaking conditions was observed for the design wave height of 0.32m (120% of
the design wave height) in a water depth of 0.85m(MHWS) and 0.90m(HHWL). The
observation made in the flume is shown in Fig.5. Significant overtopping was observed
for a 120% of design wave height for a water depth of 0.90m(HHWL).

In the case of head section, h was observed that the maximum damage to the
round head section is of about 1% when h is subjected to design wave height of 0.30m in
a water depth of 0.86m(IIHWL). The observation made in the flume is shown in Fig.6.
Based on the hydrodynamic tests, it was concluded that both the trunk and head section
for the proposed breakwater at Ganeshgule are safe, since, the damage to the trunk and
head sections are well whh in the permissible damage level o f 5%. Similar model studies
were carried out for other proposed breakwaters along the coast of Maharastra at Redi,
Jaigad and Vijaydurg.

82
5.2 Stability of horizontal composite breakwater at Mormugao port, India

Mormugao Port situated on the west coast of India in the state of Goa has been
serving as a major port for the last 100 years. The layout of the Mormugao port is shown
in Fig.7. The harbour works consists of breakwater of length of about 550m. The caisson
wall is constructed with 8ton laterhe concrete blocks sitting on the rubble mound at low
water level. On the sea side of the caisson wall, two types of wave breakers that is,
laterhe blocks of 12ton and ISton are placed over on the rubble mound in order to protect
the caisson against the severe attack of waves. The bed level is at an elevation o f - 9 . 0 m
to the chart datum. The top ofthe breakwater is at +4.5m. The wave height and period for
the design of breakwater adopted are 5.7m and 10 sec respectively. The elevation of
Highest High Water Level (HHWL), Mean Sea Level (MSL) and Low Water Level
(LWL) are +2.3m, +1.3m and +0.0m respectively. The cross section of the existing
breakwater is shown in Fig.8(a). The port authorities reported that, a few wave breaker
blocks overtopped and thrown onto the leeside and few of them rolled towards the
seaside during the monsoon period. This necesshated examining the means of
strengthening the armour layer.

The breakwater is considered as a caisson and has been fabricated with mild steel
plates and angle sections, which is equivalent to the weight of the caisson for 2m length.
A model scale of 1:16 was adopted for the physical model studies. The laterhe blocks of
Bton adopted for the rubble mound below the caisson and wave breaker blocks of 12ton
and ISton have been fabricated according to the model scale corresponding to 2.04kg,
3.07kg and 4.60kg blocks respectively. The damage to the existing section after being
subjected to the waves is shown in Fig.8(b). Since the breakwater could not withstand the
wave attack and a damage of about 20% was observed for the existing section, h was
necessary to revise the design.

Three modifications were made to the existing horizontal composhe breakwater

and they were studied. They are

1. Flattening the seaward slope to 1:2 providing a berm of 3.0m at HHWL (+2.3m) with
armour layer formed by 9ton tetrapods of thickness 3.0m. The details of the cross
section of the composhe breakwater strengthen with tetrapods is shown in Fig.9. A
model scale of 1:16 was adopted for the model study.
2. Since h was feh that the Mormugao port has gained considerable expertise in
handling laterite cubes, this modification was suggested. This encompasses usage of
ISton concrete cube blocks. A berm width of about 4m is provided at HHWL (+2.3m)
whh a slope of 1:2. The concrete cubes of weight 15ton are used for the primary layer
of thickness 3.6m. The details of the cross section of the composhe breakwater
strengthened with concrete cubes is shown in Fig. 10. A model scale of 1:16 was
adopted for the model study.
3. While planning for these tests, representative of SOGREAH, France suggested the
usage of accropods for improving the stabilhy of the existing breakwater. The cross
section was suggested by SOGREAH, France. The details of the cross section of the
composhe breakwater strengthen whh accropods is shown in Fig. 11. For the testing

83
 an accropod alternative, a model scale of 1:29 has been adopted to suh the accropod
unh (395gm) which was air lifted from France.

The tests were carried out with wave height of 50% ofthe design wave height and
increased gradually in steps of 25% upto the design wave height. The duration ofthe test
is for 500 waves, that is, twenty one minutes for the model and one hour twenty four
minutes for the prototype.

The observations made in the 2m wide flume on the existing section, existing section
strengthened whh tetrapods, concrete cubes and accropods are shown in Fig. 12. Based
on the hydrodynamic model tests carried out on the existing breakwater section and that
strengthened whh three different armour blocks, that is, tetrapods, concrete cubes and
accropods, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Damage of about 20% was observed for the existing breakwater section.
2. Tetrapods and concrete cubes are found to be stable in protecting the existing
breakwater. Damage in both the cases is less than 3%, which is well whh in the
permissible damage level of 5%.
3. Accropods are more ^able in protecting the existing breakwater section whh 0%
damage and a significant overtopping is observed continuously.

5.3 Restoration of the breakwater of fishing harbour in Thangassery, Kerala

The fishing harbour at Thangassery in Kerala west coast of India is formed by a

breakwater of length 2.1 km. The layout ofthe Thangassery harbour is shown in Fig. 13.
The breakwater is formed with armour layer of 3ton to 5ton quarry stones upto a water
depth of 9m, beyond which the armour layer consists of 8ton tetrapods. The breakwater
had served effectively for two years after construction. The monsoon in the year 1998
lead to serve damage of the armour layer resuhing in total displacement of armour unhs,
wash away ofthe leeside of the breakwater especially at chainages 1612m to 1622m and
1642m to 1652m. A detailed study had to be taken up immediately to look into the
methods for restoring the damaged portion ofthe breakwater.

The average slope of the existing breakwater after damage by carrying out a
survey as on January 31,1999 was found to be 1:1.1 as against a slope of 1:2.5. The
details o f t h e cross section is shown in Fig. 14. Physical model tests were carried out
initially to check the stabilhy of the cross section as per design when h is subjected to a
significant wave height of 3.75m occurring during the monsoons as reported by the
harbour authorities. The stabilhy tests were carried out for the two most frequently
occurring wave periods of 8 and 10 sec. A model scale of 1:9 was adopted for the
physical model study. The damage of the section was found to be more than the
permissible level to the extent of 6.15% for 8 sec wave and 17.4% for 10 sec wave. The
tests were followed up with suggestive measures of strengthening the armour layer. This
consisted of provision of a berm at mean high water level of width of 4m by adopting the
same size of rubble stones of 3ton to 5ton. The details of the existing cross section
strengthened whh 3ton to 5ton rubble stones is shown in Fig. 15. The tests were repeated

84
and the damage to the modified cross section was found to be less than 2% which is less
than permissible damage level of 5%. The section was found to be stable. The tests were
also carried out for the trunk section beyond 9.0m water depth and head section, both the
trunk section and head section are formed with 8ton tetrapods as primary layer. The trunk
and head section were found to be stable since the damage is less than 2% which is well
whh in the permissible damage level of 5%. The details of the trunk section beyond
1685m chainage (that is beyond 9.0m water depth) is shown in Fig. 16 and that of head
section is shown in Fig. 17. Observations made on the breakwater cross sections after
being subjected to waves is shown in Fig. 18.

5.4 Stability tests carried out for other ports in India

S.No. Name of the project Primary layer

1. Stabhity of breakwater models for Colachel Tetrapods

port, Tamilnadu

2. Stability of rubble mound for approach jetty Tetrapods

in Gujarat (L&T)

3. Stabilhy of rubble mound breakwater for Quarry stones and Tetrapods

Muthalapozhy, Kerla.

4. Stability of rubble mound breakwater for Quarry stones and Dolos

Rameswaram, Tamilnadu.

5. •Experimental studies on stabilhy of Tetrapods and Accropods (M.Tech

breakwater and pressures induced on them Thesis)
due to regular and random waves

6. Stabihty of Frustrum Concrete Blocks for A new armour block (Twin

Breakwaters and Coastal Protection Works Frustum Concrete Block)

6.0 ONGOING R E S E A R C H WORK

6.1 Semicircular breakwater (SBW)

This is an Indo-German project. Semicircular breakwater is a recent concept

evolved to meet the requirements of ever increasing marine traflTic. The first ever SBW
was constructed in Miyazaki Port, Japan. The submerged breakwaters have been
constructed in Coastal zone for shoreline or harbour protection or to prevent beach
erosion. On the other hand the submerged breakwaters will enhance the scenery. To
achieve the combined advantages of these two types of breakwaters a model of

85
 submerged semicircular breakwater was fabricated and a detailed experimental study was
carried out in a wave flume in Ocean Engineering Centre, Indian Institute of Technology,
Madras. The details ofthe SBW model is shown in Fig. 19.

The objectives of this project are as follows:

1. Measurement of Hydrodynamic pressures along the surface of the semicircular
breakwater model(SBW) model due to regular and random waves.
2. Investigations of Hydrodynamic forces due to both regular and random waves. •
3. Investigation of reflection, runup and transmission characteristics due to both regular
and random waves.

The semichcular breakwater model was subjected to the action of regular waves
of heights ranging from 0.03m to 0.21m at intervals of 0.03m with e^ch of the wave
height having wave periods ranging from O.Ssec to 2.2 sec at intervals of 0.2 sec. The
horizontal, vertical forces, hydrodynamic pressures and the runup and rundown on the
model alongwith the variations of wave elevation in front of the model at the three
different locations as stated eariier were acquired simuhaneously through the same
personal computer that is used to drive the wave maker. The tests have been carried out
for the six different water depths based on hw/ht ratios, that is, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 and
1.4 where hw is the water depth and ht is the total height ofthe model, to study the effect
of water depth keeping hs/hr ratio constant. The definhion of the variables is given in
eariier figure. The tests were also carried out for three different hs/hr ratios that is 4.6, 2.5
and 1.67 to study the effect of height of the rubble keeping hw/ht ratio constant, where hr
is the height of the rubble and hs is the height ofthe caisson.

The SBW model subjected to random waves generated from Pierson-Mosknowitz

spectrum. The significant wave height ranging from 0.03m to 0.2fm in interval of 0.03m
and peak wave period ranging from O.Ssec to 2.2sec in the interval of 0.2sec were
adopted for the above said spectrum. Similar tests were carried out for random waves as
discussed for regular waves.

The analysis of regular waves involved the determination of reflection

characteristics, shoreward peak pressures, forces for all the frequencies and amphtudes
tested. The salient features of the analysed resuhs due to regular waves are given below.

Exposed SBW

• For the SBW protruding above the free surface for hs/hr = 4.6 and for hw/ht = 0.6, 0.7
and 0.8, the reflection coefficient varies from about 0.5 to about 0.9 for the scattering
parameter ranging from 0.7 to 3.2. As hw/ht increases the reflection coefficient
decreases.
® The transmission coefficient is negligible, this is due to fact that for waves generated
in lesser water depths, a significant amount of incident wave energy is reflected by
the caissson and part of the energy is spent in the wave running over the curved
surface facing the seaside. i

86
• The dimensionless pressure, {(Pc)max/YH} [where, (Pc)max is peak shoreward pressure, y
is mass density of water and H is the incident wave height] decreases with increase in
scattering parameter for a constant hs/hr of 4.6 for different hw/ht = 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8.
Similar trend is seen for different hs/hr = 4.6, 2.5 and 1.67 for constant hw/ht = 0.8.
® The variation of the horizontal dimensionless force {(FH)max/(ya^H/2)} [Here (FHVBX
is total horizontal force] and dimensionless vertical force {(Fv)max/(ya^H/2)} [where,
(Fv)max is total vertical force]decreases with increase in scattering parameter for
different hw/ht = 0.6, 0.7 and 0.8 for constant hs/hr = 4.6. The resuhs indicates that
higher hs/hr resuhs in larger vertical forces and lesser horizontal forces. The effect of
hs/hr is found to be greater for higher values of scattering parameter.

Submerged SBW
For the submerged SBW, for hs/hr = 4.6 and for hw/ht = 1 . 0 , 1.2 and 1.4, the
reflection coefficient varies from about 0.15 to about 0.25 for the scattering parameter, ka
(ka=27ca/L) ranging from 0.7 to 3.2. As hw/ht increases the reflection coefficient
decreases.
® The transmission coefficient is found to be ranging from about 0.3 to 0.95. As hw/ht
increases the transmission coefficient increases.
• The loss coefficient is found to be decrease whh increase in scattering parameter.
• The dimensionless pressure, {(Po)max/YH} decreases whh increase in scattering
parameter for a constant hs/hr of 4.6 for different hw/ht = 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4.
• The variation of the horizontal dimensionless force {(FH)max/(Ya^H^2)} and
dimensionless vertical force {(Fv)max/(Ya^H/2)} decreases with increase in scattering
parameter for different hw/ht = 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4 for constant hs/hr = 4.6.

6.2 Pile supported quadrant front face breakwater

A new type of structure pile supported front face breakwater was formulated by
Ocean Engineering centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, a detailed
experimental study was carried out in a wave flume in Ocean Engineering Centre, Indian
Institute of Technology, Madras. The details of the cross section is shown in Fig.20. The
quadrant front face of radius of 500mm supported on piles of height 550mm and diameter
59mm were subjected to both regular and random waves in three different water depths
of 0.8m,0.9m and 1.0m. The effect of spacing between the piles was also studied. The
wave period was varied from 1 to 2.4sec in intervals of 0.2sec. For each wave period,
atleast five wave heights were tested. The wave steepness ranged from about 0.004 to
0.12m and a relative water depths ranged from 0.15 to 0.4m. The reflection, transmission
and loss coefficient were computed and reported as a function of wave steepness for
different relative water depth values. In addition, the wave elevation on the quadrant front
face was measured and the dimensionless runup and rundown were also computed and
reported as a function of wave steepness for different relative water depth values.
Hydrodynamic pressures and forces were also measured. The salient results based on the
hydrodynamic model tests analysed till now are represented below.

87
For Regular waves

® The reflection coefficient decreases slightly whh increases in wave steepness and is
found to vary from about 0.2 to 0.5. The reflection coefficient decreases with increase
in h/d where h is the height of the pile and d is the water depth.
® The transmission coefficient decreases whh increase in wave steepness and varies
from about 0.2 to 0.4. The transmission coefficient increases whh increase in h/d.
® The loss coefficient increase whh increases in h/d and increase whh increase in wave
steepness and ranges from about 0.8 to 0.9.
® For lesser relative water depths, the dimensionless runup (runup/wave height) is
found to be also greater than 1 and varies from about 0.3 to 1.1. The dimensionless
rundown (rundown/wave height) varies from 0.1 to 0.6.
® The dimensionless force ( F H O F v /yr^) in the vertical and horizontal direction increases
with increase in wave steepness, where F H or v is force in horizontal or vertical
direction, y is the unit of water and r is the radius ofthe quadrant face.

7. R E F E R E N C E S

Owen, M.W and Allsop, N.W.H(1983) "Hydraulic Modelling of rubble mound

breakwaters", Proceedings of conference of Institution of civil engineers, London,
pp 71-78.
 VAMIKBER FOR
SHALLDW VATER
«JJHINI1M F m .
SECTIONAL VIEW

Fig.l Details ofthe 2m wave flume

Fig.2 Layout ofthe Ganeshgule harbour

89
90
 Model scale 1:17

No Overtopping No Overtopping Spilling over the Splashing and

section overtopping

B
p
S 1-
p
'•i
^'
P Q R S P Q R S Q R S Q R S
••

H = 0.14m H = 0.21m H = 0.27m H = 0.32m

(50% of Design (75% of Design (100% of Design (120% of Design
wave height) wave height) wave height) wave height)
(a) Water depth = 0.81m (MEAN SEA LEVEL)

e
D
1.5

H = 0.14m H = 0.21m H = 0.27m H = 0.32m

(50% of Design (75% of Design (100% of Design (120% of Design
wave height) wave height) wave height) wave height)
(b) Water depth = O.SSm (MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER)

H = 0.14m H = 0.21m H = 0.27m H = 0.32m

(50% of Design (75% of Design (100% of Design (120% of Design
wave height) wave height) wave height) wive height)
(c) Water depth = 0.90m (HIGHEST HIGH WATER LEVEL)

Fig. 5 Observations made on Trunk section (Ganeshgule)

91
 Model scale 1:20

H = 0.12ra H = 0.18ni H = 0.24 m H = 0.30m

(50% of Design (75% of Design (100% of Design (120% of Design
wave height) wave height) wave height) wave height)

(a) Water depth = 0.78m (MEAN SEA L E V E L )

a
o

H = 0.12m H = 0.18m H = 0.24m H = 0.30m

(50% of Design (75% of Design (100% of Design (120% of Design
wave height) wave height) wave height) wave height)

(b) Water depth = 0.82m (MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER)

O
<
<
a
0.95
O

H = 0.12m H = 0.18m H = 0.24m H = 0.30m

(50% of Design (75% of Design (100% of Design (120% of Design
wave height) wave height) wave height) wave height)

(c) Water depth = 0.86m (HIGHEST HIGH WATER L E V E L )

Fig. 6 Observations made in the flume for Head section (Ganeshgule)

92
 Fig, 7 Layout of the Mormugao port

Lee side
9150 Sea side

H H Wl. «7 30
Wave \ ^TWS.S.T • QOCl.
breakers

9.0

All dimeasions are in mm

Fig. 8(a) Existing cross section of the breakwater (^ormugao pprt)

93
 Notes
All dimensions are in nun

R: 4.60kg concrete cubes

B: 3.07kg concrete cubes

m
m
EXISTING
CAISSON SLOPE 1:1
A WAVE BREAKERG
OF EXISTING
SECXID(i_ 1^- ^ 1
SLOPE
'Jim SLOPEl
1:1 11 1:1
aAT SU5FE]
0 E

w 153

PLAN SCALE 1:20

g. 8 (b) Damage due to the existing cross section after being sübjected to waves

94
 HA55-Vf)ftK'
HHWL t2.3ni

^1 r-,_ I

SI L A T E R ITK BLOCKS

ALL DIMENSIONS A R E IN mm
Q.) reiRAPOD OF 9T P L A C E D RANOOIrlLV IN TWO LAVERS
® SECONOARV LAYER - 600 To 900Kg OUARRY 5T»IES
© TOE - 900 Kg aUARR'V STOMES

Fig.9 Cross section of the caisson breakwater strengthened with tetrapods

9150
LEE SIDE
SEA SIDE

ALL DIMENSIONS A R E IN mm
® CONCRETE CUBES OF 15 TON PLACED
RANDOMLY IN TWO LAYERS
© SECONDARY L AYER - (1-0 - 1 -5)TON QUARRY STONES
(3) TOE - 1.5 TON QUARRY STONES

Fig.lO Cross section ofthe caisson breakwater strengthened with concrete cubes

SEA SIDE

(ALL DIMENSIONS AREINmm)

F i g . l l Cross section of the caisson breakwater strengthened with accropodes

95
 model scale:-1:16
20-, Severe overtopping
Overtopping Overtopping

H = 0.18m H = 0.27m H = 0.36m

(a) Observations made on existing section

model scale:-1:16

Overtopping Overtopping Severe overtopping

H = 0.18m H = 0.27m H = 0.36m

i
(b) Observations made on existing section strengthened vfith Tetrapods

H = 0.18m H = 0.27m H = 0.36m

(c) Observations made on existing section strengthened with Concrete cubes

/ — _

model scale:-1:29
signiflcant overtopping Significant overtopping
Signiflcant overtopping
0.5

P Q R S P Q R S P Q R S

H = 0.10m H = 0.15m H = 0.20m

(d) Observations made on existing section strengthened with Accropods

Fig. 12 Observations made in the Flume

96
 Fig.13 Layout of Thangassery Fishing harbour

O Arnour layer-3 To 5ton Stones ^' <="'^^"='°"9 are In Metres

G) Secondary layer - 300 Kg To 500 Kg Stones

Fig.l4 Cross section at the breached section as on 31.01.1999

97
 G) A r n o u r layer - 3 i o 5 ton stones
1. All dimensions a r e In M e t r
0 Secondary layer - 300 t o 500 Kg s t o n e s
Q) Proposed renedlal measure ( 3 - 5 ton stones)

(5 A r n o u r l a y e r - 8T T e t r a p o d s
^ on.^i?"'^'^'"^ ^'^y^'^ ~ To leooKn " " ' " e " s l ° n s a r e In n e t r e '
(5 300Kg To 500Kg s t o n e s "
& 3T TO 5T s t o n e s

0 A r n o u r l a y e r - 8T T e t r a p o d s
(5 S e c o n d a r y l a y e r - 800 To ISDOKg s t o n e s
0 3T To 5T s t o n e s
O 300 To 500 Kg s - t o n e s All dimensions a r e In metres
 d = 0,78m d = 1.0ni
18 Severe Severe
Overtopping Overtopping

0
P QRS PQR S P QRS P QR S

T=2.7 sec T=3.7 sec T=2.7 sec T=3.7 sec

N = 374 stones, H = 0.416m and Number of waves = 500 (Model Scale 1:9)
(a) Breakwater cross section at 1620ni chainage
d = 1.0m
d = 0.78m yr
3 Occasionally Occasionally
sUght severe
Overtopping Overtopping

0.2S l.S

P QR S P Q R S P Q R S
T=3.7 sec T=2.7 sec T=3.7 sec

N = 654 stones, H = 0.416m and Number of waves = 500 (Model Scale 1:9)

(b) Modified Breakwater cross section at 1620ni chainage

8- Occasionally Occasionally
Occasionally Occasionally slight slight
sUght slight Oveilopping Overtopping
Overtopping Overtopping

P QR S P QR S P QR S P QR S
T=2.0 sec T=2.8 sec T=2.0 sec T=2.8 sec
d = 0.63m d = 0.73m

N = 326 tetrapods, H = 0.3m and Number of waves = 500 (Model Scale 1:15)
(c) Breakwater cross section at 9m water depth

Occasionally Occasionally
sUght slight
Overtopping Ovei-topping

1.5

0
P Q R S P Q R S
T=2.0 sec T=2.8 sec
N = 561 tetrapods, d = 0.73m, H = OJm and Number of waves = 500 (Model Scale 1:15)

(d) Round Head Section

Fig.lS Observations made in the wave flume

99
 p l to plO - PriBssiire Transducers
Bic p9

Stm\vaier level
^ SEASQtB

Fig. 19 Cross section of the Semicircular breakwater

100 nnp "tOOnn— I —500 nn—

L- n n-r-r-^ H.S. angle 50x50x6 nn

GI pipes 39 nn dia
H U c/c

QI pipes 59njn
2D c/c — 413 nn— . ~(13 „ n -

FRDNT ELEVATION
S E C T I O N AA

ISHC IQOnnxSGnn

S n f lune wall ^
/

23 na_|

ISHC lOOnnxSQnn -

Fig.20 Details of the Quadrant front face pile supported breakwater

100

I
I
 Inter Institutional Workshop on BREAKWATERS
(Jointly organised by I I T M a d r a s and T.U.Delft) T I J H p I f t
March 9 - 10, 2000 • %^ L / C 11 I
Delft University of Technologv

INTRODUCTION ON ENNORE C O A L PORT PROJECT

L.A. Meyboom
Haskoning
Chennai
Email: hasko_ch@satyam.net.in

INTRODUCTION

The requirements of the new Ennore Port have been formulated in a feasibility
study performed by HASKOMNG - RITES in 1988 - 1990 and subsequent reviews
performed by the Government of India, Asian Development Bank and Madras Port Trust.
The New Port will initially serve incoming coal transportation in bulk carriers up to
Panamax size (65,000 DWT) for the benefit ofthe Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB).
The design capacity for incoming coal is 16 million tonnes per year. To meet this capacity
requirement two fiilly utilized berths are foreseen at the Southern end of the new outer
port. The movements of ships and the coal unloading of coal from the ships at the berth
shall in principle be a round the clock activity during all seasons. The Port and its coal
handling facilities shall be operable round the clock and all year, except for some odd
hours or days per year, when extreme conditions occur.

During HASKONING's Feasibility Study a port layout has been developed with an
entrance from East to West. A Northern and a Southern breakwater of about equal length
were designed to give the harbour the necessary protection. A dredged entrance channel
outside the breakwaters would provide a straight access by ships heading Westwards.
Drawbacks of this layout were identified within the present Consultancy work and
therefore alternative layouts have been formulated, studied and compared.
Apart from the feasibility layout with an Eastern entrance there seems to be only
two other options feasible on the basis of relevant criteria.
One alternative layout has an approach route with a compass angle of initially 250°
and before entry 225°; consequently the harbour mouth is towards the Northeast. The sea
entry of this port layout is close to the Ennore shoals. This is the so called layout with
North-East entrance (Fig. 1).

The other alternative layout has a straight approach route with a compass angle of
345° and a harbour mouth between South and SSE. This is the so called layout with
Southern entrance (Fig. 2).
In order to arrive at a conclusion for the nautical safety of the two alternative
layouts, the following observations are made in addition to the fast time simulation
results, for the layout with a NE-entrance:
101
 The last stretch ofthe approach route before entering the mouth is straight allowing
for easy entry of the critical passage through the narrow harbour mouth.
The last stretch of the approach route before entering through the mouth is very
close to the Ennore shoals. The danger of grounding by a ship with slight
manoeuvring problems is real, but the occurrence of manoeuvring problems is only
very small. To reduce this risk the entrance channel has been widened to 250 m. I f
however one ship is lost on the shoals once in ten years it is at a cost which can not
be ignored.
The last stretch of the approach route is parallel to the depth contour lines, which
Mariners dislike and Port planners try to avoid.
The following observations are made in addition to the fast time simulation results,
for the layout with a Southern entrance:
A straight entrance is projected from deep sea in to the outer harbour along an
initially 180 m wide channel, widening to 250 m near the head of the Eastern
breakwater and into the outer port. This will facilitate a safe entry, while the
shiphandler can conveniently adjust his course for local changes in current, wind
and wave effects.
The straight approach channel outside the breakwaters makes a convenient angle of
30° with the prevailing depth contour Hnes. This is a good port planning practice
and Mariners will appreciate this when approaching Ennore. The chatmel is
consequently shorter than for the other alternative.
The stopping manoeuvre of single screw vessels with right hand turning propulsion
tend to deviate to starboard. Allowance has been made for this deviation just after
the passage of the harbour mouth and consequently the Eastern breakwater
alignment has been bowed seawards.

It is concluded that the criteria for safe navigation are met in both the layouts,
however the Southern entrance is still preferred because of

a straight and shorter entrance channel, which has convenient potential for
expansion to allow safe negotiation by larger ships in the fliture,
the presence of a shoal adjacent to the last stretch of the NE-entrance channel,
which might be a threat to Mariners in very exceptional cases.

Table 1 Comparison of construction costs

S Entrance NE Entrance

Item Description Crores US$ Crores US$

Rs million Rs million

1 Rock quarrying and transport 192.96 64.32 205.20 68.40

•2 Breakwater
- construction 150.33 50.11 174.18 58.06
- allowance for soil 30.00 10.00 30.00 10.00
improvement

102
 S Entrance NE Entrance
3 Dredging works 120.60 40.20 153.90 51.30

4 Coal berths and small craft 74.95 24.98 74.95 24.98

Jetties

5 Groynes and shore protection

- groynes 10.35 3.45 0.00 0.00
- slope protection 3.75 1.25 3.75 1.25

6 Onshore facilities:
- priority works 18.28 6.09 18.28 6.09
- other works 17.48 5.83 17.48 5.83
7 Tugs and other craft 79,50 26.50 79.50 26.50

8 Navigation aids 1.77 0.59 2.64 0.88

9 Contingencies 10% 70.00 23.33 75.99 25.33

TOTAL COST 769.97 256.65 835.87 278.62

Exchange rate ; 1 US $ = 30 Rs

Table 2. Multi-criteria analysis

Port layout with North East Port layout with Southern

Entrance Entrance
1 Nautical • Bend in channel (-) •Straight entrance channel (+)
Safety along • Channel parallel to depth con- •Channel at 30° with depth contour
Entrance tour lines (-) lines (+)
Channel • Channel very near to shoal (-)
• Negative impacts of above,
reduced through wider (250 m)
channel
2 Nautical • Coal berth at end of •For stopping ships deviating to
Safety inside entry/stopping course (-) starboard, extra manoeuvring
harbour • Fast time simulation results space provided (bend in north-
good(+) eastern breakwater)
• N o berth at end of entry/stopping
course (+)
•Fast time simulation results good
(+)
103
 Port layout with North East Port layout with Southern
Entrance Entrance

3 Tranquillity at • Largest persistent wave attack •Tranquillity at berth good (++)

berth from NE and ENE, causing very •Hs at berth is 10% of Hs outside
poor tranquillity conditions at harbour
coal berths (—) Hs outside = 2.0m^Hs berth =
• Hs at berth is 60% of Hs outside. 0.2m
Hs outside = 2.5m^Hs berth =
1.5m
• Penetrating waves attack at the
side of the ship, causing rolling
of ship (-)
• Downtime due to unrest at coal
berth - 30 days per year (~)

4 Tranquillity at • Tranquillity is poor, (-) •Tranquillity is acceptable, (+)

turning basin Hs turning basin = 50% of Hs out- Hs turning basin = 25% of Hg out-
side harbour side harbour

5 Accretion • Accretion at south side of •Accretion at south side of harbour

Siltation harbour will be controlled by will be controlled by requirement
requirement to keep Ennore to keep Ennore creek open.
creek open. Ample storage Storage capacity between creek
capacity of accreted sandy and harbour limited - 3 small
material south of harbour (+) groynes required (-)
• Siltation in harbour and entrance •Sand fill in entrance 0.10 million
channel due to fines suspended mVy
in water - about 0.45 million •Siltation in harbour and entrance
mVy channel due to fines suspended in
• Maintenance dredging by trailer water - about 0.35 million m''/y
hopper - 0.9 million m^ once in •Maintenance dredging by trailer
2 years. hopper 0.9 million ni^ once in 2
years.
6 Coastal • Erosion conditions equal to •Erosion conditions equal to other
Erosion at the other layout. Dispose 2.0 layout. Dispose 2.0 million m''
Northern side million m'' sand north of harbour sand north of harbour during
ofPort during construction, will construction, will counteract
counteract erosion for about 10¬ erosion for about 10-15 years.
15 years.
7 Future expan- • Major terminals in basin •Major terminals in basin complex
sion potential complex and compromise and compromise terminals (4)
terminals (3) along north along the present coastline (+)
breakwater (+)
8 Comparable • Total construction cost is 100%. •Total construction cost is 92% of
cost dif- other alternative.
ferences

104
105
10B
 Inter Institutional Workshop on BREAKWATERS
(Jointly organised by I I T Madras and T.U.Delft) T I J H p I f f
March 9 - 10, 2000 • V L / C 11 I
Delft University of Technologv

DESIGN OF B R E A K W A T E R S
FORENNOREPORT
R, Haggie
Haskoning
Chennai
Email: hasko_ch@satyam.net.in

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Setting

The site of the New Port of Ennore is approximately 20 km north of Chennai

(formerly Madras), on the Coromandel Coast in the State of Tamil Nadu. At the coast
some small sand dunes have formed to a height of approximately + 3.5 m Chart Datum
(hereafter referred to as CD). Behind the dunes the land drops slightly to a marshy area at
approximately + 3.0 m CD and continues west to the Buckingham Canal (approx.2 km).

The site is bordered to the south by the North Madras Thermal Power Station
(NMTPS). A cooling water outlet of the power station marks the Southeast corner of the
Port site. On the West side, the Buckingham Canal borders the Port area and the NMTPS.
A number of salt pans are located to the west of the Buckingham Canal which vary in
size, have an average bottom depth of + 0.0 m CD and at present are not in use.

South ofthe NMTPS, the Ennore Creek (outlet ofthe river Kortaliyar) discharges
into the Bay of Bengal. To the Northeast of the Port site are the Ennore Shoals. The
distance between the Ennore Shoals and the Ennore Creek is approximately 5 km. The
coastline between the Eimore shoals and the Ennore Creek is orientated in a North-
northeast (NNE) direction. The general Port layout is shown in Figure 1.

1.2 Functional Requirements

A breakwater normally fiilfils a number or all of the following fimctions:

• providing tranquillity in the harbour entrance and Basin;

• blocking littoral drift and thus avoiding sedimentation of the Entrance Channel and
the Port Basin;

107
' protection of the Entrance Channel and Port Basin against waves and current and thus
providing safe manoeuvring and berthing conditions for vessels;
• providing safe and/or operational berthing conditions for ships;
" providing land access to berths;
= providing visual guidance (enhanced by navigation beacons) for ship traffic.

The breakwaters of the Ennore Port will have to fiilfil all these functions except
for the safe berthing conditions during heavy cyclone conditions, since the Port will not
be designed as a survival port for these conditions.

The most important function of the breakwaters is to provide a sufficient level of

tranquillity in the Entrance Channel and in the Port Basin. The tranquillity in the Port is
not only governed by the wave penetration through the entrance but also influenced by the
wave energy that is transmitted by overtopping and flow through the breakwaters. The
level of transmission depends on the crest level, porosity and width of the breakwater.

The tranquillity required for normal operational conditions should be achieved

during a sufficiently high percentage of the time, otherwise too much down time of the
port operation will occur. The tranquillity in the Port during heavy cyclone conditions
should also be controlled and should have a sufficient low level to prevent unacceptable
damage to the waterfront structures. Safe berthing conditions during heavy cyclones is not
a design condition because the Port will not be designed as a survival port.

A breakwater should fulfil its flinctions during a certain pre-set period of time,
called the lifetime of the structure. This lifetime is normally set at 50 or 100 years. The
longer the design lifetime of a breakwater the higher the probability it will be subject to
extreme wave conditions and consequently the stronger the structure has to be. The 1/100-
years conditions have been selected as design conditions for the breakwater, being in-line
with the practice in India. The difference between the 1/50 and 1/100-years event for the
wave conditions is very small due to the fact that the waves are depth limited. The
expected fliture level of maintenance is a functional requirement and also a design
parameter.

1.3 Design Approach

The preferred design for the breakwaters has been defined as the design that fulfils
the above functional requirements for the lowest cost. During the Preliminary Design a
cost comparison was executed for the following four alternative designs of the primary
armour of a rubble mound breakwater:

• Natural rock, S-shaped berm;

• Concrete Cubes for the deepest sections of the breakwaters;
• Concrete Tetrapods for the deepest sections of the breakwaters;
• Concrete Accropode units for the deepest sections of the breakwaters.

The comparison showed Accropodes to be the cheapest solution. Based on the

argument of lowest cost and on the fact that all four alternatives showed an equal degree
of stability and functionality, the alternative with Accropode armouring was believed to

108
be the most promising solution. This alternative was subsequently developed on a
Preliminary Design level.

The Designers recommended carrying out three-dimensional testing on the basis

of the Preliminary Design and, based on the test results, to further elaborate on the
Preliminary Design during the Final Design. The Client, Chermai Port Trust, confirmed
this recommendation and subsequently the three-dimensional model test was executed.

After the model test, the Preliminary Design was altered, as found necessary based
on the test resuhs, leading to the Final Design of the breakwaters. The Final Design is and
the design process, as presented hereafter, is not only based on breakwater requirements
(functional/stability) but also on feasible construction techniques.

2.0 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

2.1. Site conditions

The southern part of India experiences two monsoon seasons separated by transi-
tional periods of calm weather:

• Southwest monsoon (mid-April to mid-August);

• Transitional (mid-August to mid-October);
• Northeast monsoon (mid-October to mid-January);
• Transitional (mid-January to mid-April).

The impact of the Northeast monsoon is more pronounced than that of the
Southwest monsoon. Tropical depressions and cyclones are a recurrent phenomena,
usually occurring in the months of October through to November. The location of the
future Port of Ennore is aflfected by cyclonic activity every year. Cyclonic disturbances
originating in the Bay of Bengal track westwards towards the Indian coastline. Wave
heights associated with these cyclones can be as high as 5 to 8 m.

During the Northeast monsoon (mid-October to mid-January) the current is

directed southward and in the Southwest monsoon (mid-April to mid-August) the current
is directed northwards. Currents in the coastal zone are approximately 0.15 to 0.25 m/s

The tides experienced at the Port of Chennai are semi-diurnal with mean spring
tide ranges of 1.0 m and mean neap tide ranges of 0.4 m (MHWS is + 1.10 m CD and
MLWS + 0.10 m CD). The coast is sandy and the coast gradient is gentle; it is exposed to
a continuous moderate surf.

2.2 Wave conditions

2.2.1 Normal wave conditions
The normal wave conditions for the location of the Ennore port have been
derived from a Global Hindcast Study [14] which used available data showing the
probability of occurrence of the resultant sea and swell in given height and period
109
classes. These resuhs are presented in Figure 2 and show the percentage of time per year
that a certain wave height will be exceeded. These resuhs have been used as a basis for
assessing feasible construction methods in relation to the design requirements.

From Figure 2 it can be seen that a significant wave height, Hs, of 1.0 m will be
exceeded 10% of the time per year. For exceedence percentages of 1% and 0.1% the
significant wave height becomes 1.60 m and 2.15 m respectively. The once per year
wave height (= 1/1-year return period) can also be determined from Figure 2. I f one
assumes a storm duration of 6 hours the exceedence percentage becomes 6 hours/(365
days X 24 hours) x 100% = 0.0685% which corresponds with a significant wave height
of 2.25 m.

2.2.2 Extreme wave conditions

a) Deep water

Extreme wave conditions for the location of the Eimore Port have been derived
from a Cyclone Hindcast Study [15] and involved the statistical evaluation and
extrapolation of cyclonic storm records along the east coast of India within the Bay of
Bengal. The deep water wave conditions were established at 18 grid points near to
Ennore and the average significant wave height and the standard deviation for different
return periods were calculated (see Figure 2).

As a check on the results of the extrapolation, the Cyclone Hindcast Study also
hindcasted two very severe cyclones along a shifted track approaching the Ennore site.
At the peak of these storms a maximum significant wave height of 12 m was calculated.

Comparison of these two very severe events with the hindcasted resuhs, in
combination with an evaluation of the return frequency of very severe events occurring
at the Ennore site, gives the final estimation of the extreme wave conditions at deep
water. The resuhs are slightly higher than those based on hindcast heights only.

The 1/1-year wave height was based on the normal wave conditions and
amounts to 2.25 m. Normal wave conditions give a gentle sloping line up to and slightly
beyond the 1/1-year wave height. For larger return periods the line steepens sharply as
these conditions are generated by cyclones.

b) Shallow water
Before any accurate determination could be made of inshore wave heights, the
water levels at various points along the alignment of the breakwater were determined
within the Cyclone Hindcast Study. These levels can be summarized as follows:

• + 1.57 m CD for a sea-bed level of - 15 m CD;

• + 1.68 m CD for a sea-bed-level of - 10 m CD;
• + 1.80 m CD fora sea-bed level of - 5 m CD.
From physical scale model testing of breakwaters it is well known that on a very
gentle foreshore (1:50 or gentler) the ratio of HJh (breaker index) is very close to 0.50
(where Hs is the significant wave height at the local water depth h). This fact is also

110
proven by the CIRIA/CUR-Manual [1] where graphs are given to establish the
maximum significant wave heights on uniform sloping beaches.

The maximum significant wave height at various bottom levels was calculated
for the 1/100-year event. The breaker index and corresponding wave height (Hs max)
varied from 0.64 and 3.1 m at - 3 m CD to 0.50 and 6.6 m at - 11.5 m CD. The wave
conditions at -11.5 m CD are shown in Figure 2.

These maximum significant wave heights at various bed levels were used to
determine the required primary armour unit weights for the breakwaters at various water
depths. However, before these wave heights could be used they needed to be adjusted to
allow for modifications in the wave height distribution during breaking.
When waves break on a beach the highest waves break first, thus changing the wave
height distribution, which is a so-called Rayleigh distribution at deep water. The
stability of structures, and particularly breakwater armour layers, is determined by the
highest waves in a sea state. The significant wave height represents the sea state at deep
water fairly well however, it does not represent the highest waves. For stability
calculations of armour layers the H20/0 is a better wave height to use. The ratio of Hao/^/Hs
is 1.40 for deep water. For severe wave breaking this ratio can decrease to 1.1 to 1.2.

The reduction of the ratio H2o/</Hs has been established for a 1:100 slope by
physical model tests and can be described by:

r,=l-0.03x[4.(A)f
Hs

For a water depth of 13 m and a depth limited wave height of 6.6 m the
reduction coefficient becomes yh = 0.88. The significant wave height can be reduced by
this factor for stability calculations of armour layers. The corresponding H2o/yHs ratio
becomes 0.88 x 1.40 = 1.23. For armour weight calculations a minimum ratio of H2»/„/Hs
= 1.25 has been adopted.

2.3 Soil conditions

As part of the Feasibility Study onshore and offshore geotechnical investigations

were carried out. The ofifshore investigation comprised of borings and Cone Penetration
Tests (CPT) at seabed levels of - 5 m and - 10 m CD that corresponded with the.
proposed locations of the berths and breakwaters.

The borings showed a soil profile with an upper layer of coarse dense sand
decreasing in depth in a seaward direction. The bottom level of this layer varies between
- 6 and -8 m CD which coincides with the seabed level at a distance of 500 to 1000 m
from the shoreline. Underlying this sand layer is a loose to very loose silty sand layer
with a thickness of approximately 5 m. The loose sihy sand layer is exposed on the
seabed seaward of the - 6 m to - 8 m CD seabed level.

Soft clay layers of 3 to 5 m thick are present between the shoreline and the - 6 to
-8 m CD seabed-level under the loose sihy sand layer. Stiff clay and dense cemented

111
sand layer is encountered under these soft layers, with a top level between - 15 and - 20
mCD.

3.0 PRELIMINARY B R E A K W A T E R DESIGN

3.1 Alternatives

During the feasibility stage of the project the rubble mound breakwater was
selected as the most economically and technically sound option for construction of
breakwater at Ennore. The main reasons leading to this choice were the wide and
relatively cheap availability of rock, the ease of construction and need for the structure
to be flexible to account for settlements and consoUdation of the poor subsoil
conditions.

Quarry investigations [7 & 8] were initiated during the prehminary design phase
in order to establish the quarry yield and the maximum size of rock feasible. However,
because the results of quarry investigations and the economics of producing large rocks
were unknown at the time of the Preliminary Design, it was necessary to consider the
use of concrete armour units for the deep water section of the breakwater (seabed level
- 9.5 m CD and deeper). The following three concrete armour units were considered:

^ Cubes;
• Tetrapods;
^ Accropodes.

Cubes are considered to be strong and massive units, which are easy to construct.
The stability of the units of the same weight is slightly lower for cubes when compared to
Tetrapods. Tetrapods are more slender but have better interlocking, resulting in higher
stability compared to Cubes. Both units are placed in a double layer on the outer face of
the breakwater. The Accropode is a single layer system developed in the early eighties.
The units have good interlocking capabilities and have to be placed on a steep slope of
1:1.33; steeper than that used for Cubes and Tetrapods.

3.2 Armour layer design

3.2.1 Concrete units as primary armour

The program BREAKWAT [2], which was developed on the basis of the resuhs
of many physical tests, was used during the Preliminary Design to determine the
required mass of the primary armour layer using the design formulae of van der Meer for
armour layers with concrete units [12].

The required mass of each type of concrete armour unit was established for the
wave conditions occurring at the head of the northern breakwater at a seabed level of CD
- 11.5 m (see Figure 3). Based on the 1/100-year design significant wave height (Hs) of
6.6 m (depth limited) associated with a mean wave period of 9.6 seconds, a structure
slope of 1:1.5 and a damage level of Nod of 0.5, the required mass of each armour unit is:

112
• 20 tonne for the Cubes;
• 15 tonne for the Tetrapods;
• 15 tonne for the Accropodes.
For shallower water (less than - 1 1 . 5 m CD) the unit weights can be reduced. A
reduction in the maximum significant wave height gives a similar reduction in the
nominal diameter Dn. The weight of 15 tonne can be reduced to 10 tonne at a seabed level
of -9.5 m CD.

Based on a cost comparison of each concrete armour unit, in which two different
seabed levels (-11.5 and - 9.5 m CD) were considered, the Accropode alternative required
the lowest quantity of rock and proved to be the most economical solution. The
Accropode ahernative was consequently recommended for further study in next design
phase.

It should be appreciated that all the ahernatives considered are of an equal degree
of stabihty and from a technical point of view there was no overruling argument to select
another ahernative.

3.2.2 Rock as primaly armour

The program BREAKWAT was also used to design the rock primary armour for
the sections ofthe breakwater with seabed levels shallower than - 9.5 m CD. The input
for the calculations consists of maximum wave heights at a certain water depth and the
corresponding mean wave period for the 1/100 year return period. The input required to
perform the calculations and to represent the resuhs graphically, by means of damage
curves for rock armour is very similar to that presented in Figure 3. The formulae of Van
der Meer [12] for establishing the rock armour size in shallow water conditions are:

For plunging waves the formula is given as:

,0.2

- H 2 ^ = 8.7p0i«
A D „ ,

For surging wave the formula is given as:

H2 ' s ^
= 1.4p •0.13 Vcotan(a)^;^
A D nSO

where: H2% wave height exceeded by 2% ofthe waves [m]

H2o/„ 1.4 Hs (Rayleigh distribution)

A relative buoyant denshy ( ) [.]

Dn5o nominal diameter [m]

P permeabihty [.]
S damage level [_]
N number of waves [.]

113
 tan(a)
^„1 surf similarity parameter, ^ [-]

a structure slope [rad]

Tm mean wave period [sec]
The required rock weights were determined at various seabed levels. The
Preliminary Design of the breakwaters resuhed in the required mass of the primary
armour (M50) varying between 3 tonne at - 3.0 m CD to 10 tonne at - 7.5 m CD for
structure slopes of 1:1.5.

In addition to convention armour layers (straight slopes) the designers also

considered an ahernative S-shaped breakwater which comprised a steep upper and
lower slope of 1:1.5 and a gentle intermediate slope of 1:4 around the waterline. The
Preliminary Design of this ahernative gave a required M50 of 4 tonne at - 8 m CD and 7
tonne at-11.5 m CD.

It was finally recommended to adopt the conventional design for armour layers
in the next stage of the design because it required the least amount of rock and was
more economical when compared to the S-shaped berm.

3.3 Breakwater dimensions

3.3.1 Relation crest height - wave transmission

The required minimum crest height of the breakwater is determined by the

allowable wave overtopping and wave transmission. Ennore Port is not considered a
survival port, which means that considerable wave transmission could be allowed under
severe cyclonic conditions. The acceptable maximum significant wave transmission by
overtopping has been established at 2 m and the port facilities have been designed to
withstand this wave.

The crest height has been established + 5.0 m CD, resuhing in crest freeboards of
Rc = 3.0 and 3.5 m (with a water level elevation of + 1.5 m). The required crest height
was determined using the program BREAKWAT which can calculate the wave
transmission for low rock structures with an armour layer of rock on seaside, crest and
rear [12]. The wave transmission application of BREAKWAT is based on many physical
tests executed at Delft Hydraulics. Calculations were made with 15 tonne rock (the same
nominal diameter as Tetrapods and Accropode units) and with a crest width of 12 m.

3.3.2 Crest width

The crest width is normally determined by fimctional requirements (road/crown

wall on top), hydraulic requirements (minimum 3 to 4 stones on the crest) or
constructioh methods used (access on the core by trucks or cranes).
The breakwaters at Ennore were to be constructed with a concrete crown
wall/road to facilitate fiiture maintenance and it was envisaged that the breakwater
would be constructed by a combination of both marine and land based equipment. The

114
requirement for the maintenance road on the breakwater at + 4 m CD was 9 m and this
resuhed in a core width at + 3 m CD in the order of some 6 - 8 m which would facihtate
2-way access on the core for cranes and trucks during construction.

3.3.3 Secondary armour

The secondary armour layers are designed as 1/10 to 1/15 of the mass of the
primary armour layer [3]. A further consideration given to the required rock size was the
normal wave conditions to be expected during construction because the secondary armour
layers would be exposed for some time before being covered by the primary armour. The
layer thickness was determined by applying a 2 x D50 thickness and a reduction factor of
0.8.
3.3.4 Toe berm

The toe berm is the lower support for the armour rock. The stability of the toe
berm has been checked for different design storm water levels because the crest ofthe toe
will be ehher submerged or above the water level.

For conditions where the toe is above the design water level the rock stability has
been determined using BREAKWAT for a statically stable struchire whh non-
overtopping. A reduction factor is then applied for overtopping considering a low crested
structure.

For conditions where the toe is submerged in relation to the design water level,
rock stability has been assessed using the resuhs of recent research of Delfl Hydraulics
[ 12] and the Danish Hydraulic Institute:

AxDnso h

where: Hs = significant wave height [m]

A = buoyant mass density of rock [kg/m"']
D„5o = nominal rock size [m]
ht = depth of toe [m]
h = water depth [m]

The selected rock grading for the toe varies from 0.3 - 1.0 tonne from the
shoreline to a bed-levels of - 4 m CD, 0.5 - 2.5 tonne between - 5 and - 7 m CD and 1.0
- 5 . 0 tonne from the - 7 m CD to the head ofthe breakwater for the northern breakwater.

3.3.5 Filter

The granular fiher under the toe berm of the breakwaters on the seaside and under
the primary/secondary armour on the portside of both breakwater was designed as a 1.5 m
thick layer of well graded material, e.g. 25 % of 2 -10 kg and 75 % of 10 - 50 kg.

115
3.3.6 Head

The design of the head requires special attention as the sphericity of the head
leads to a reduced interlocking of the rock/armour unhs. The detailing of the head ofthe
breakwater was carried out at the beginning of the Final Design.

3.4 Geotechnical aspects

The geotechnical stabihty of the brbakwater was analysed during the Preliminary
Design Phase and was based on the limhed offshore soil information collected in the
framework of the FeasibiUty Study. The poor subsoil conditions led the Designers to
concluding that special attention would be required whh respect to the stabihty,
settlements and erosion of the loose sandy soil in front of and beneath the breakwater.

3.4.1 Stability

Slip circle calculations showed that stabihty of the subsoil against slope failure
was less than is normally acceptable for this type of structure. Considering the poor
strength of the subsoil it was decided to identify soil improvement measures that could be
taken to improve the soil conditions;

1) Remove the loose and soft material and replace by better material;
2) Vertical drains;
3) Apply a very strong geotextile on the seabed;
4) Design a breakwater whh flatter slopes;
5) Raise the breakwater in stages.

Based on an assessment of the above improvement measures for the conditions

prevailing at Ennore h was concluded that a phased implementation consisting of pre-
loading the subsoil appeared to be the most practical and economical solution. The
method would involve placing the lower part of the breakwater by floating equipment
about one year prior to placing the upper part.

3.4.2 Settlement

The subsoil conditions at Ennore indicated areas of loose sand and soft clay
which, i f not removed, would result in settlement of the breakwater during and after
construction. Based on the information available at this stage of the project the total
settlement was estimated to be between 0.45 and 0.75 m. An addhional quantity of rock
for compensating for this settlement was estimated to be in the region of 100,000 m"*.

3.4.3 Erosion of bed material

Erosion of subsoil material from beneath the breakwater and ultimately settlement
of the breakwater might happen i f the fiher properties of the base material of the
breakwater are unable to prevent the loose underlying sand from washing out under wave
and current action. In addition, erosion in front of the breakwater ( often termed scouring

116
[17] ) can undercut the toe berm, which could resuh in a slip failure of the toe berm or
much worse a flow slide of any loose sand encountered adjacent to this area.

It was finally decided to adopt one granular filter ( 1 - 5 0 kg) under the breakwater
to provide a fiher between the core material of the breal<water (1 - 1000 kg) and the
underlying sand, in addhion, the length of the filter was extended seawards of the
breakwater in order to keep scouring away from the toe berm.

4.0 FINAL B R E A K W A T E R DESIGN

4.1 Detailed Investigations

Four extensive investigations were carried out to assist in the process of

detailing and fine-tuning the design of the breakwater:

• 3-dimensional physical modeling;

• near shore wave heights studies;
• wave penetration studies;
• offshore soil investigation.

4.1.1 3-D physical model

The 3-D physical model test [9] was carried out in September and October 1995
in the laboratories of Delft Hydraulics, located in the Voorst, the Netherlands. The head
and an adjacent section of the trunk of the breakwater were tested with a model built at
a scale of 1:35. The basin is equipment equipped whh a wave generator that can
produce random distributions of waves following a specified energy-density spectrum.
The test was executed in two series, the first (Series A) with the model constructed
according to the Preliminary Design and the second (Series B) whh some .adaptations to
the model, established on the basis of results of the Series A (see Photographs 1 and 2).

The objective of the test was to confirm the apphed design philosophy and
verify the validity of the design formulae used in the Prehminary Design [6] with
respect to wave transmission/overtopping and the stability of the primary armour and
toe berm. The resuhs of the test confirmed that the Preliminary Design concept with
Accropodes was a suhable solution and that the results could be used to finalize the
design.

4.1.2 Near shore wave height and wave penetration studies

The near shore wave height study and the wave penetration study were carried
out by Delft Hydraulic using their mathematical models HISWA-2D and PHAROS [4]
respectively. Both studies provided detailed information of the wave heights to be
expected on the sea and port sides of the breakwaters. The results of these tests
indicated that the design criteria for determining the primary rock armour on the head
and trunk of the southern breakwater could be better defined.

117
4.1.3 Offshore soil investigation

An extensive offshore soil investigation [5] was executed by Hydro Soil

Services from Belgium using a jack-up barge. Work started in January 1995 and was
completed in May of the same year. Boreholes and cone penetration tests (CPT) were
executed together whh extensive disturbed and undisturbed sampling. The resuhs of the
laboratory testing on the soil samples collected during the investigation became
available in July 1995. The resuhs of these investigations provided the basis upon which
a comprehensive geotechnical design comprising aspects of stabihty and settlement of
the subsoil was carried out.

4.2 Modifications to the Preliminary Design

The following modifications to the Preliminary Design were incorporated in the

Final Design based on the outcome of the physical model tests. Examples of the final
breakwater cross section for the northern breakwater are presented in Figure 4.

4.2.1 General Modifications

o The first fiher layer under the seaside toe was reduced from a thickness of 1.5 m to
1.0 m. The second fiher layer was too thin for practical construction purposes and as
a resuh hs thickness was increased from 0.5 m to 1.0 m. The total thickness of both
fiher layers remained 2 m. The grading of the first filter layer was changed to
between 10 cm and 100 kg. The second layer was changed to 100-500 kg and
provides an improved fit to the grading of the overlying toe. The toe hself remained
unchanged because it proved to be stable for all tested condhions.
• On the basis of engineering judgement, the layer thickness coefficient of 0.8 that
was adopted in the Preliminary Design was increased to 0.9 in order to facilitate
construction. As a resuh all rock layers in the breakwater which were 2 x Dn thick,
were increased in thickness.
• The model tests whh the toe elevated by 1 m showed that the toe (and the rest of the
breakwater) remained stable. Consequently, elevating the toe by 1 m above the
original seabed by backfilling with sand was acceptable but had to be limited to a 1
m thick layer at the location ofthe seaside toe.
" The first fiher layer under the head of the breakwater was extended to prevent
erosion of the bed material near to the head of the breakwater. On the head of the
northern breakwater, the fiher layer was extended an addhional 10 m outside the
profile whh a thickness of 0.5 m. On the head of the southern breakwater, the
extension was 5 m with a layer thickness of 0.5 m.

4.2.2 Modifications to Accropode primary armour

• Accropode armour unhs of 15 tonne are acceptable for the head of the northern
breakwater provided an increased head radius of 20 m is adopted.
' Accropode armour unhs with a mass of 12 tonne (layer thickness 2.20 m) will be
stable at the deepest part of the breakwater. The mass of the Accropode could also
118
 be reduced to 9.6 tonne (layer thickness 2.05 m) as from the transhion of the strait
section, almost parallel to the entrance channel, to the curved section.
• Raising of the crest at the head from an elevation of + 5.40 m CD to + 7.40 m CD
(as proposed and tested) was not been adopted in the Final Design because h was
believed that the increase in the radius has by far the largest poshive effect on the
stabilhy. Lower breakwaters are in principle not less stable than higher ones, mainly
the rear side is more heavily attacked however, Accropodes are placed all around the
head. Raising of the head will decrease overtopping and wave transmission, but as
only the Entrance Channel, and not the Basin would benefit from a higher crest, this
was not incorporated into the Final Design.

4.2.3 Modifications to rock primary armour

• The southern breakwater is protected from easterly wave directions by the northern
breakwater. The most critical directions for the design conditions are from a bearing
of 110° to 150°. The near shore wave height study [4] showed these directions
changed at the structure to 114° to 131° due to refraction. The head of the southern
breakwater is more protected from these directions than the section from the head to
- 8 m CD seabed level.
• Based on the wave penetration studies [4] it was concluded that the head of the
southern breakwater hself could be designed with a wave height, which is 60% of
that at the head of the northern breakwater. It was also concluded that a section of
the trunk between 200-300 m from the head of the southern breakwater could be
designed with 75% of the design wave height at the head of the northern breakwater.
' For the sections of the breakwaters where the direction of the design waves are very
oblique to the structure a different approach was adopted. Recent research has shown
that rock stabihty increases when waves become more oblique (> 45- 60 degrees) to
the structure. This means that calculations using the formula of Van der Meer for parts
of the rock structure subjected to oblique waves are conservative as they consider
perpendicular wave attack. Based on research work carried out in the framework of
MAST, fiinded by the European Community [11] the following formulae was adopted
for determining the required weight of rock for the sections of the breakwater
subjected to oblique waves:

Hs
Dn50 ^*i20*2

where:
Hs = significant wave height [m]
A = relative buoyant density of material [-]
1.20 = ratio H2"/yHs [-]
2.00 = stabihty number [-]

In addition to the effects of oblique waves, one should also consider the effects of
wave overtopping on the required rock weight. When the crest of the trunk is
relatively low a part of the wave energy will pass over the top of the structure. In these
situations the required armour mass can be reduced in accordance whh the amount of

119
 wave overtopping. The reduction factor [12] is a function of the wave steepness and
the relative crest height Rc/Hs. The reduction factor for low crested structures has been
calculated whh BREAKWAT.

4.2.4 Modifications to the Geotechnical design

Stabilit}>
Based on the detailed subsoil data which was obtained during this phase of the
Project, the Designers identified two ahernative solutions to improve the soil strength
and hence the stability of the brealcwater:

1. Vertical drains in combination with geotextiles;

2. Removal of soft material, backfilling whh sand and compaction.

After detailed geotechnical studies both ahernatives proved to be technically

feasible however, the second option proved to be more economical. Furthermore, the
second ahernative gave additional advantages, the main one being that pre-dredging,
back-filling and compacting involved less risks in achieving the required accuracy and
reliability during construction.

The addhional subsoil information which was collected during the major offshore
soil investigation [5] in the first half of 1995 led to the recommendation that soil
improvement was only required over the deeper part of both breakwaters.

A suhable borrow area for sand backfill was inhially identified whhin the Port
Basin which comprised fine sand. Based on this type of sand h was decided that
compaction of the backfill material would be required by means of vibro-flotation or
dynamic compaction and this would be controlled by static cone penetration tests.

During the latter stages of the Final Design a more suhable borrow area was
identified some 10 km south of the Project area in a water depth of 20 m. The sand
originating from this new location was relatively coarse (D50 = 850 microns) and free
of fines. As a resuh of the improved characteristics of the sand backfill the compaction
requirements were revised and compaction was not required.

Raising ofthe seabed

With the aim of economising on the quanthy of rock required for the breakwater
construction and counteracting soil settlements, , the designers studied the possibility of
depositing addhional sand back-fill in order to raise the seabed level along the
alignment of the soil improvement.

During the 3-dimensional physical model test the stabilhy of the toe was
checked against the raising of the seabed level. It was concluded that the maximum
level by which the seabed could be raised would be 1.0 m. Based on the foregoing, h
was decided to place back-fill to a height of 0.5 m above the original seabed level plus a
variable addhional height based on the settlement expected to occur during construction.

120
Settlement
Settlement of the sand fill and consolidation of the sub-soil were analysed for
various cross-sections of both the northern and southern brealcwaters. The results of the
analyses provided essential information about the level to which the brealcwaters needed
to be constructed in order to compensate for short and long term settlements.

The results of these analyses showed that settlements under the crest and toe
berm would be in the order of 0.60 - 1.00 m and 0.25 - 0.45 m respectively for the
northern breakwater and 0.20 - 0.30 m and 0.45 - 0.70 m for the southern brealcwater.
Construction and post construction settlements were estimated to be 40% and 60% of
the total settlement respectively.

It is interesting to note that due to the soil improvement recommended above the
settlements of the brealcwaters were reduced to 40 to 50% ofthe values predicted for the
situation without improvement.

5 J LIST OF REFERENCES

Manual for the use of rock in coastal and shoreline engineering', CIRIA Special
publication 83 / CUR Report 154, 1991.

Breakwat Program, Copyright Delft Hydraulics, 1990

'Shore Protection Manual' Volume I & I I , US Army Coastal Engineering Research

Centre, 1984

'Ennore Coal Port Project - Report on PHAROS and HISWA-2D calculations'. Delft
HydrauHcs, December 1995

'Ennore Coal Port Project - Offshore Soil investigations - Final Report (Field investigation
and laboratoiy test)'. Hydro Soil Services, September 1995

'Ennore Coal Port Project - Preliminary Design Report', HASKONING Royal Dutch
Consulting Engineers and Archhects, April 1995

'Quarry Investigations Karikkal - Reports on Trial Blasting, Laboratory Tests. Core

Drilling', Larsen and Toubro, August 1995

'Ennore Coal Port Project - Rock for Brealcwater Construction, Rock Quahty and Quarry
Yield Analysis - Kariklcal Quarry', HASKONING Royal Dutch Consuhing Engineers and
Archhects, October 1995

'Ennore Coal Port Project - Breakwater Model Investigation, Three Dimensional Model
Tests', Delft Hydrauhcs, January 1996

'Environmental study Constiuction of Ennore Port', M T I - Insthute for Environmental

Technology, the Netherlands, in association whh Mantec Consuhants, India, August 1995

121
'Rubble mound breakwater stability under oblique wave attack', J.C. Galland (EDF,
France), MAST G6-S Coastal Structures, Proceedings of final workshop, Lisbon,
November 1992

'Conceptual design of rubble mound breakwaters', J. v.d. Meer, Delft Hydraulics,

December 1993.

'Ennore Coal Port Project, Risk Analysis and Probabilistic Modelling, Final Report', Delft
University of Technology, December 1995.

'Ennore Coal Port Project, Global Hindcast Study', Delft Hydrauhcs, December 1994.

'Ennore Coal Port Project, Cyclone Hindcast Shidy', Delft Hydraulics, February 1995.

'On the comparison between the threshold of sediment motion under waves and
unidirectional currents with a discussion of the practical evaluation of the threshold',
P.D. Komar and M.C. Miller,Journal Sedimentary Petrol, 1975

'Scour around the head of a vertical wall breakwater', T. Gokce, B.M. Sumer and J.
Fredsoe, HydroPort '94, International Conference on Hydro-Technical Engineering for
Port and Harbor Construction, 1994.

'Wave Runup and Overtopping at Dikes', J.W. van der Meer and J.P.F.M. Janssen,
included in ASCE publication 'Wave Forces on Inchned and Vertical Wall Structures',
edhed by N. Kobayashi and Z. Demirbilek, 1995.

122
123
 NORMAL WAVE CONDITION

Cyclones (est.
2.5^

2
0)
SI
0)

I 1.5

c
ë 1
'c 1/1 year wave height,
Dl
C/3 based on 6 hours duration
0.5H

Q-l 1 1—I I I h 11 1—\—I I I I I 11 1—I—I I I I I 11— r-i I I I i?P

0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Percentage per year exceeded

-e— Exceedance curve Hs

EXTREME WAVE CONDITION

Ref; Dellt Hydraulics H1974, Jan. '95

10
9
)
8
.D) 7
6
0)
>
5
c 4
yX "
u 3
c
D) 2
CO
H
0
10 100 1000
Return period (years)

• average Tab. 2.3 ^ 95% 95%

- A " est. deep Tab. 2.3 shallow, .11,5 m ta 1/1 year

Chennai Port Trust NORMAL AND EXTREME

Ennore Coal Port Project WAVE CONDITIONS AT ENNORE

HASKONING in oaaoc'ratlon with IBÖÜGB Project No 9Ql9Ji552«.21

ConaulHng Engineers DRWO. No
ond Arehit«ct» of India
Fig.2
124
 0 6 : 3 9 AM T h u r s d a y 2 6 J a n u a r y 1 9 9 5 . p r o g r a m = B R E A K W A T Version 2 . 0 1
Licensed user: for internal use oiily Copyright DELFT H V d R A U L I C S 1 9 9 0

Damage c u r v e s c o n c r e t e u n i t s
3. 5
qube
3.Ö
0 tetrapod

u
1 2.0
-
/ / acc3]nopode
accropode
3
j / safety f a c t o r 1.5
C
I) 1.5
tn /
' ,/
/ design
•
.5 4 - ^ accropode
I 1
I I l i t
.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Wave l i e i g l i t Us (tn)

For H j , ; / H , = 1 . 2 5

Stability curves concrete units;

Combined graph: Cubes, Tetrapods and Accropod?

Input :

mass o f u n i t M = 2 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 (kg)
mass d e n s i t y of unit rho-a = 2400 (kg/m3)
mass densi'ty of water rho-w = 1 0 2 5 (kg/in3)
wave s t e e p n e s s sm = . 0 4 0 (-)
number o f waves N = 2 5 0 0 (-)

Chennai P o r t T r u s t
DAMAGE CURVE FOR 20 TONNE ACCROPODE
Ennore Coal Port Project
'"""jflte"

HASKONING
Consulting Ejiglnaere
'I'n QBiociatton wHh
mm Projaet-No 80tOJa5M.Il
of indio DRtSO. No
and Archfl«cta
Fig, 3
125
 CL
BREAKWATER
J.OO 4.00 ,, PEFIH 1 no 7,50 4.00 .. 5.00 ,. i.OQ 2.00. 4.00 2.00.

PORT SIDE SEA SIDE

10.50 1 3-00
RAISED BED LEVEL-

TYPICW. CROSS ^CDON OF NORTH BRMWATER

RDR TRUNK ^CIWN ROM HEAD TO -10.40 CD (EXISTING BED LEVa)
CROSS SECTION A-A

a
BREAKWATIR
3-03 . VARIES WriVI OEPm . 4.00 .. 4.00 ,. 4.00 2.00, 4.00 J.OO

PORT SEE SEA s\m.

TYPICAL OÏOSS SECTION OF NORTH BREAKWATER

FOR TRUNK SECTION FROM -7.CK) CD TO -5.00 CD (EXISTING BED LEVa)
CROSS SECTION l-l

LEGEND:

SEA SIDE A ROCK, 5.0-12.0 TONNE

B) ROCK, 2.5-7.0 TONNE
C) FWCK 1.0-5.0 TONNE
D) ROCK 0.5-2.5 TONNE
E) ROCK. 0.3-1.0 TONNE
F) ROCK. 100-600 Kg
GJ ROCK, 1-50 Kg
EXISnUG BEO LEVEL
H) QUARRY RUN, 1-1000 Kg
I) CONCRETE CREST

CL » CENTER UNE

TYPKW. C R O ^ SECTON OF NORTH BREWCWATTO

FOR imiNK ^CmON FROM -4.CX) CO 10 -3.00 C0(EXBnN8 BED LEVa) mms
1. ALL DIMENSIONS AWD LEVELS ARE IN METRES
CROSS SECTION F-F 2. LEVEIS ARE REUTED TO CHART DATUM
3. THIS DRAWING TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION
WHH OWO. -No: 04-301 AND C4-302

Chennai Port Trust NORTH BREAKWATER

Ennore Cool Port Project CROSS SECTIONS

HASKONING in osBociatton with IMJIiD Project No 9019JÖ52B.21

Conaultlng Engineers DRWG. No
ond Architacta
Fig, 4

126
 Photograph 2 Breakwater m o d e l , series A. before test

Chennai Port Trust

Ennore Coal Port Project

SCALE M-tM
J ^ . HASKONING ,n » « n « i o i i M O Ö O H J
Pm)*,t;t No 9Ól9A552a.21
^ ^ ^ a Cmitjuiting EngVioorB
mWG. No
Photographs 1 & 2

127
 Inter Institutional Workshop on BREAKWATERS
(Jointly organised by 11 T Madras and T.U.Delft) " T | I H o l f t
March 9 - 10, 2000 " ^ '' ^
Delft Univetsity of Technologv

CONSTRUCTION OF BREAKWATERS
FOR ENNORE PORT
S. Pearson
Haskoning
Chennai
Email: hasko_ch@satyam.net.in

MAIN E L E M E N T S OF B R E A K W A T E R CONSTRUCTION

I) Rock Quarry, Transport and Stockpile at Ennore.

II) Soil Improvement beneath breakwaters.
III) Place rock in Breakwater by sea and land.
IV) Accropodes as primary armour.
V) Concrete crest and wave walls.
VI) Upper layers of Armour and Accropodes behind wave walls.

I . Rock Quarry, Transport and Stockpile at Ennore

The quarry, of Gneissic Granite, was located 120 km west of Ennore. The quarry
Contractor, produced 3 million tonnes of various grades of rocks from September 1996
to November 1999, as below.

Type grading tonnes

A 5.0 to 12.01 68,000

B 2.5 to 7.01 120,000
C 1.0 to 5.0 t 166,000
D 0.5 to 2.5 t 166,000
E 300 to 1000 kg 235,000
F 100 to 500 kg 245,000
G 1.0 to 50 kg 508,000
H (Quarry Run) 1 to 1000 kg 1,655,000

The rock was loaded into skips which for the first 20 km were trucked to a rail-
head at Melpakkam. The skips were then loaded by gantry onto rakes of wagons, and

128
taken by rail, for a further 100 km, to the Ennore Site, where the rocks were stockpiled.
Fig. 1 shows the layout of breakwaters and rock stockpile for Ennore coal port project.

n . Soil Improvement beneath Breakwaters

Over parts of each breakwater where the sea bed material was deemed to be
unsuitable it was dredged out and deposited off shore. The resultant trench was
backfilled to just above original seabed level with suitable sand dredged from a source
on the seabed S.E. of Ennore. Fig. 2 shows the location of areas to be dredged and
backfilled.

Typical Grading of dredged sand backfill

Sieve Size mm % Passing

2 94
1 54
0.500 10
0.250 2.5
0.125 1.0
0.063 0
0.020 0

D (20%) = 0.62mm > 0.300mm specified requirement.

Dredging and backfill was carried out by 2 trailer suction dredgers "Volvox
Hansa" (bottom doors), capacity 8000t, and "Orwell"(split), capacity 2500t, from 16
March 1998 fo 23 August 1998 and involved the dredging of approx. 2.5 million cu
metres to excavate the trenches and a similar amount to refill them.
The dredgers positions during operations were controlled by D.G.P.S.
(Differential Global Positioning Systems).
Sea bed surveys were carried out before, during, and after operations by
"Kamal" the survey vessel, also with D.G.P.S. and Atlas Deso 15 echo-sounder.

i n . Rock Placement

The placement of rock was done in two separate operators.

a) By marine operations from 4 July 1998 to 20 April 1999, using the side stone dump
vessel "Frans", capacity lOOOt, to place the rock from seabed up to - 4 CD level:
approx. 1,200,000 tonnes. Fig. 3 shows S.S.D.V. "Frans" for diagram of vessel.

Surveys before during and after rock placement by the "Frans" were carried out
by the "Kamal" survey vessel with D.G.P.S and echo-sounder.

b) The rest ofthe rock, approx. 1,400,000 tonnes is placed by land based operations
using dump trucks, cranes, excavators etc, this started April 1998 and is still in progress.
129
 Total (marine & land) rock placement is as Table below:

Type grading tonnes

A 5 57,000
B 2.5 to 7.0t 76,000
C 1.0 to 5.0t 130,000
D 0.5 to 2.51 110,000
E 300 to 1000 kg 147,000
F 100 to 500 kg 145,000
G 1.0 to 50 kg 298,000
H (Quarry Run) 1.0 to 1000 kg 1,569,000

IV. Accropodes

On the sea side of the North Breakwater for almost 2 km Accropodes of 4,5, and
6.3m'' are used as primary armour. Fig. 4 shows the view of stored accoropodes.
The Accropodes are of unreinforced concrete cast in special moulds, on site.
Concrete used is M25 with 50/50; GGBFS/OPC ratio and low w/c ratio.
4360 (4m^), 3200 (Sm'') and 610 (6.3m"') Accropodes are cast using 9 moulds for
3 3 3
the 4m , 6 moulds for the 5m and 2 moulds for the 6.3m . Casting started in June 1998
and is still in progress.
The Accropodes are placed using a lOOt crane with an "Ascorel" positioning
system. The crane operator is able to exactly position each Accropode with the
assistance of the computer controlled "Ascorel" system using the slew angle of the
crane and the angle of elevation of the boom, relative to the known position of the
crane.

V. Crest Concrete and Wave Walls

The top of the rock breakwaters are capped off with either a lOOOmm
unreinforced slab, in deeper water, or a 250mm reinforced slab, in shallower water, with
a wave wall on the seaside.
The Concrete for thfse crest was M.30 using GGBFS/OPC at 66/34 ratio and a
low w/c ratio with a retarder platicizer addative. Concrete is batched on site and
transported in transit-mixers, quantities required as below.

NBW SBW

Reinforced m' Unreinforced m' Reinforced m' Unreinforced m''

1900 22000 500 8000

VI. Upper layers of Armour and Accropodes behind wave wall

After the construction of the concrete crest and wave wall the upper layers of rock armour
and Accropodes are placed, by crane, behind the wave wall.
130
Chennai Port Trust LAYOUT OF BREAKWATERS AND
Ennore Cool Port Project ROCK STOCKPILE
SCALE 1:20000

^^^^
HASKONING
ConauHinq Engineers
in oHsociation with
mm Project No 9019A5528.21
DRWG. No • CSC4-A4Layout
and Architects of India
28-01-2000 jR.K.Reddyl \ Fig.l
131
Chennai Port Trust LOCATION OF AREAS TO BE DREDGED
AND BACK RLLED
Ennore Coal Port Project
SCALE 1:12500
HASKONING
Consulting Engineara
in asHOciotion with
mm Project No
DRWG. No
9019^5528.21
CS-aOIA-t
ond Architects
Fig.2
132
Chennai P o r t T r u s t
SIDE STONE DUMP VESSEL 'FRANS'
Ennore Coal Port Project
dots drawn revision cheeked SCALE M-sita
^ HASKONING i„ o ^ c c i o n «lu, mm Project Ho 90^0^5525.21
DRWG. No C4-CSÓ1

Fig. 3 ,
133
Chennai Port Trust
VIEW OF STORED ACCROPODES
Ennore Coal Port Project
HASKONING h M SSUSS dots
P T ^ ^ Bo ^ l e j M m a i
^^^Mf and AreWissta of bwlia
02-oa-aKK) \ Fig. 4
134
 PROFILE
OF
CO-SPONSORS
i A unique
Port with 24
alongside berths
with facnities for han-
ding a l types of cargo. Highlights of -
i Chennai Pott was the ürsrto con- 1SSS-2000
stnict modern container terminals
• matching to intemalional standard. Han- (For the. period upto Sept. '99)
ding of csntalnar Is totally mechanised.
<!. TiK world dace container Ismiinal woila 24 hrs. An overall traffic of 18.48 Million Tonnes;
a day, even during recess time by introducing certain
handled
incentives to the wbtMorcs at the temilnai, this has been
made successful.

J . Chennai Port was the flrst in India to Introduce the concept ol single
Container traffic handled -159770 TEUs
window dearanco and It Is functioning effectively.

X Providing safety and security to vessels qn arrival. "Customer care and iron Ore traffic handled - 2.86 million tonnes
Cargo caie" Is our motto. CHENNAI PORT On Website
J . 13 feeder Unas am operating dedicating feeder services to Singapore / Co- www.chennaiporttrust.com Containerised Cargo traffic handled -1.69 million tonnes
lombo / Port Kelang / Bangkok offering everyday aallinga. Providing an ex-
Ttia site contains infomiatton on Port lacilltles. son/Ices, tariff, developmenl projects, besides dally
cellent opportunity for exportois to avail and keep upto their committed de- updated berthing / sailing / waiting details of vessels. Railway traffic handled - 7.76 million tonnes
livaty schedule.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PHOVIDED ON OUR WEBSITE
i Port of Chennai acts as the Gateway Port to ICDs, with excellent tadlltles
offered by way of intomiodal transportation. Rxed day dedicaled container
HanmrMsp hiaittime Map Pros RettBSe Record handling of 2831 tonnes of Steel on 21.04.1999
trains era nm between Chennai and Bangalore & Chennai and New Delhi. discharge from the vessel m.v. Golden Glint-in a single shift
J , Cabotage U w is relaxed lor Mother Container Ships as well as Lash Barge with a single gang
vessels to call at the Port.

X The Port has a deep hart}our basin which helps handle Panamaxand Suezmax Record tonnage of 15300 tonnes of Baiytes was lpaclsd -
into the vessel m.v. Asian Glory on 04.06.1999 s f f n ^ n g
.t. Dedicated terminals for Dry Bulk and Liquid Bulk.
ihe previous record of 12299-tonnes handled on 03.04,1938
i A Port committed for efficiency through innovation and continuous
modonSsatlon.
Single day record tonnage of 201984 tonnes wes handled
,1. !=ort has hosted Wabsüe www.chennaiporttrustcom for access to Port
Usais' worldwide. on 22.06.1999 surpassing the previous recoitf of ,201914
j , T w o rail-mounted gsnliy cianes at Ihe temilnai can handle 4lh tonnes handled on 31.01.93
gensaHaipost Panamax conlainervessele of 140 feet beam width
and adequate 14m draft Is avallablo to handle these vessels. Monthly record performance pf 30382
.!. EDI connectivity has been established, pilot projects TEUs of containers were handled during.
succsesfully tested and message transfer has
been dona with 12 Mainline Operators. the month of August 1999 surpassing
.1. H i e Green Channel facility Is available the previo.us record of,2957?
inthoPortandCustomshave Iden- TEUs hafidl^d ., ^uiifig
tified certain Industries for ex-
July 1998.
tending'this facilities.

CHENNAI PORT T R U S T
Rajaji Salai, Cheniiai - 600 001.
Phone: (044) 5362201-(044)5360151 Telex: 041-8331 Fax:044-5361228 Grams :'PORTRUST
Website : www.chennaiporttnJsLcom É-nnall: minsohpt@md3.vsnl.net.in

YOUR GLOBAL LINK TO THE WORLD MARKETS

 CHILIKA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
A Govt of Orissa Agency

• To protect the lake eco-system with all its genetic diversity.

• To survey, plan and prepare the project proposal for integrated resource
management for all round development in an around the Lake.

• To co-operate and collaborate with other institutions of the state. National and
international institutions for all round development ofthe Lake.

• To promote long term multidisciplinary research, prepare environment status

report and establish educations center for the Lake.

CHILIKA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

BJ-45, B.IB NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR 751014, T E L : 91-674-434044,435374, FAX : 91-674-434485

I (

ro

lllll

n 9 '8

"If

nlv-
—1

Mxx,.%
WITH BEST COMPLIMENTS FROM

HOCHTIEF
HOCHTIEF (INDiA^
PRIVATE UMiTED

No. 33, Khader Nawas Khan Road

3rd Flror, Muogamtekkam
Chermai 6C» 0)6.
Tel. +44 - 821 0420/21/22
Fax +44 - 822 2379
0v
. (Sri aiaiiö ojiigijSu, iJitncsr GiDcorreïHCTOii OffiLirflQGaiin'iil

f « •
u r f f w r Gi0soiT€»T«»m uuSlprfl ^ « f l ^ ^ » ) .

U(r»«r jSr affifiuta®) h^IU Q.-aa-j^®) ^Jtlu ft-B^®«>6rré «wjiiüia^^i- ^j,<lei5tf.'3'«8)ö*r

Q f f i i i ^ L - uu3p^luJ6»fl^Jl, u(T0«r ffrai«»i«6nr ^ « » i a « i S t -

552603
' ' ''^ ' ' ' ^ ~ ^ O. ' Ctiruchy I
Phone: y ( Do20d3
.TIRUVARUR 23236
: jX-O': 3 i-50C G-

i r r i g a t i o n m a n a g e m e n t

t r a i n i n g i E s t i t m t e - t a m i l n a d u
(Sponsored by the Government of Tamil Nadu)
"CAUVERY VALAGAM" THUVAKUDY. TIRUCHY-620 015.
ö FOR]
r m KORTI-i-V/iiSTHRN G A T K W A Y OF I N D I A

Number One Port Among the Eleven Major Ports Of India with huge Traffic
handled
SPECIAL FEATURES

O STRATEGIC location with vast hinterland

^ MOST ECONOMICAL rates with lowest cost per tonne
O MINIMUM turn around time
O CORDIAL AND PEACEFUL industrial relation
•=> HUGE storage and back-up area for dry and containerised cargo
O UNIQUE weather port with tranquil sea state condition
O HIGH GROWTH rate of 9.8 % per annum
O VADINAR handles one-third oi^ country's imported a ude oil by single buoy mooring
O TRANSPERANT ADMINISTRATION and well streamlined procedures for customer
facilitation
•=> TRADER FRIENDLY port

ECONOMICAL FEATURES

^ Demuuage rates nominal

®° Stevedoring and cargo handling costs are economical

For Details, Please Write or contact

TRADE PROMOTION & PUBLICATION & PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER

P.B..50, A.O Building, Gandhidham (Kutch ), Pin 370201, INDIA
Phone : 91-2836-33001 , Telex No. 0105 208 KPT IN
Fax No. 91-2836 32040

www.kandlaport.com
 K V A E R N E R C E M E N T A T I O N INDIA L I M I T E D
(Formerly Trafalgar House construction Limited)

A N ISO 9002 COMPANY

for
Construction of Port and Harbour structures

OUR FOCUSSED MARKET :-

Turnkey Construction of Marine Projects, Harbours, Jetties & Port Construction.

^ Engineering & Construction of Industrial Projects including Bridges.

Specialist works such as Drilling & Grouting, Pipe/Box Jacking, Diaphragm Walling, Piling, Soil
Stabilization, Vibroflotation, Rehabilitation & Anchoring including Tunnelling and Mine Development.

BUILDINS AN EVEN BETTER NAME FOR OURSELVES

CORPORATE OFFICE - BOMBAY REGIONAL OFFICE - CALCUTTA

I "APEEJAY HOUSE" "ANAR CHAMBERS"

5, CHOWRINGHEE APPROACH
I DINSHAW VAHHA ROAD
CALCUTTA - 700 072
I MUMBAI - 400 020
(3) : [033] 225 3050/5034/35
I Q ) : [022] 202-3201/7055 /.282-0738 / 283-6164/6165 Fax: [033] 225 8148/215 0376
I Fax 285 5032/2855446
 r n
I

: 7 ' \ ; l ; j ; ] ! n f l i ^ K ) ; ] i f f l M »

With 1700 topflight engineers, a network of 30 offices spread over the country,
experience in handling over 2300 consultancy assignments and EPC contracts
worth Rs. 20 billion, an annual turnover of Rs. 2500 million and registration
with WB, ADB. EBRD, MECON is one of the frontline design, engineering,
consultancy and contracting organisations.

Engineering, Consultancy,
Supply & Turnkey/EPC Execution
• Power Projects • Continuous Casting Plants
• Oil & Gas, LPG/LNG • Gas Cleaning Plants
• Water Treatment & Supply • Refractories
• Roads & Highways • Non-ferrous Metals
• General Engineering • Environmental Engineering
• IT, Industrial Automation • Ocean Engineering
• Computer Applications • Architecture & Town Planning
• Materials Handling/Ports & Harbours
• Mining, Mineral Beneficiation
• Ferrous Metallurgy
• Coke Oven Batteries
• Blast Furnace
• Rolling Mills & Processing Lines

MECON LIMITED
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Ranchi - 834 002, Bihar. India
Phone : 065 J-501002. 501216 Fax : 0651-502214, 502189
E.Mail: niecon-mch@hub.nic.in
 Ëxpanitiiig Capa€itles>
Modernising FaeÜities
It has been a particularly satisfying year for tonnes achieved in 1997-98, registering a
t h e M o r m u g a o P o r t T r u s t . Satisfying growth of 70 %.
because, despite a slump in t h e iron ore
• • ***
markets of Japan and South East Asia - the CONTAINERISED C A R G O TOUCHES
largest importers of iron ore — that affected NEW FIGURE
t h e t h r o u g h p u t o f t h e p o r t , t h e (VIPT 114 Despite t h e s l u m p , t h e M P T h a n d l e d
m a n a g e d to n o t o n l y p r e s e n t a g o o d Y E A R S OF containerised traffic o f 36,022 tonnes, a
ACHIEVEMENT
performance but also create n e w efficiency record level, the previous high being 33,223
records. In addition, it also proceeded with tonnes reached in 1996-97.
determination to complete the many
developmental projects with a view to transforming MOHP C R E A T E S NEW P E R F O R M A N C E
the MPT from a mono-commodity to a multi- LEVEL
commodity port. Even the Mechanical Ore Handling plant (MOHP)
set a new record o n January 15 this
L I C E N C E A G R E E M E N T ON B O O T BASIS year by loading a quantity of 1,13,361 tonnes of
On April 11 this year, the MPT entered into a path- iron on a single day. It also unloaded a record
breaking agreement w i t h an Indian private sector figure o f 53,054 tonnes o n a single day on
firm for construction and operation of t w o berths January 14 this year.
on build, o w n , operate and transfer basis. The
Rs 224 crore project is the second of its kind to EFFICIENCY PARAMETERS HIGHER
be undertaken by any major port in the country. A v e r a g e p r e - berthing/waiting time (days) down
According t o t h e a g r e e m e n t , t h e private to 1.40 from 1.87; average
sector firm, ABG Goa Pvt Ltd will build the turn-round time (days)
t w o berths in 30 m o n t h s ' t i m e and d o w n f r o m 5.80 t o 4.81;
operate it for a period of 30 years and average o u t p u t per berth
thereafter t h e assets will be day (tonnes) u p to 11,076
transferred to the MPT free of cost. from 10,446.

GENERAL CARGO RECORDS E Y E ON T H E F U T U R E

A L L - T I M E HIGH As a part o f its mission for
During the year 1998-99, general quality improvement, the MPT
cargo traffic reached a record 1.53 is preparing itself t o attain the
million tonnes, as compared t o ISO 9000 series certification by
t h e earlier high o f 0.90 m i l l i o n December 1999.

M O R M U G A O P O R T T R U S T
H E N A T I O N • S P R I D E
HEADLAND SADA, GOA 403 804 INDIA PH.: 0834-512911-16 FAX: 0834-513065

Advertisina Associates
 4'^ 7)\
4'^ 7,N ^'il
7 ( S •(S
. i ' i i ' i . i ' i . i ' i I s ' i . i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i i ' i v'i
7)^ 7(^ 7(^ 7(^ 7(^ 7(^ 7(^ 7(^ 7(^ 7)^ 7('r 7(^ 7(^ 7)^ 7)^ 7)N 7(V 7(^ 7(^ 7(\- 7,N 7|S
v(x v|y x|y

'i
1^
vix
'i it>f.

^ With best compliments from : 7)^

i'i

i'i

i'i

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited

V'/
G E O TECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION E N G I N E E R S 7l^
7)\

x(/l D e s i g n 85 C o n s t r u c t i o n o f :

Diaphragm Walls upto 1200 m m thick. ^ji

B o r e d Piles ( 3 0 0 m m 0 t o 2 0 0 0 m m 0 ) 7(x
i'^
Well Foundations ^'^
i'i
Soil D e n s i f i c a t i o n Worlts y)y
7|x

• D r i l l i n g 85 G r o u t i n g i j i

1^
1/ • Rock Anchors 7|€
xb
M a r i n e W o r k s : J e t t i e s , W h a r v e s , Piers, Sea W a t e r I n t a k e S y s t e m s , etc. ^[^

• Industrial Structrues v).

^(f Bridges ij^.

4 8 - 9 - 1 7 , D w a r a k a n a g a r , V i s a k h a p a t n a m - 5 3 0 0 1 6 (A.P). \U

^ j ^ Tel.': + 9 1 - 8 9 1 - 5 5 4 6 0 2 / ' 5 4 7 3 3 5 vix

Fax: + 9 1 - 8 9 1 - 5 4 7 3 6 2 / 5 7 4 0 5 6 ^[^

E-mail: nec.vizag@rmx.sprintrpg.ems.vsnl.net.in ^[
J

*
*************************** *
 Marine and Dredging
Contractors

Manno and Dredging conlraoior Van Oord ACZ have evolved, in half a Cenlun- of Head oflicc

existence, trom the individual companies to a fully integrated organisation. Having Ihe Ni'llieilands
worked from Arctic lo the tropics, the company is renowned around the world VaiiOiiidAC/B.V.
for its know-how, specialised services and versatile equipments. Ian Blankenwnq 2
They offer design, engineering and execution of work for private and public sector I'DJiox-triB '
in three areas of expertise. 4200 Al CORINCIII.M
I'hoir i3118:iG.i™
DREDGING MARINE CONSTRUCTION OFFSHORE SERVICE lax i31 1(!3fi2ö?l:i
Capiliil Diedging Polls & I larbniifs f'ipe lino iiitoiviüHion
t-itiail voac/("'v(iac/,i:nin
Miiiiilen;iMi;fi Dtcdging Break walec Sea Pi(.'pariilioi) 1. DP Riiykï Area Managei • Ian /wail • Area Repiesenlalive
Pioswiioping Oiillalls Pipelines / Ciililns Pinleclinn
Biiiicli Noiirishmonis Shoie Approaclies PliiKnrni Slaliili/alioii India Ollice
Land Rotliiiiialion SInpi! / Bollom I'loloclion tlplioiival Btitkiiig I'K.'WMiliii flal No, M-l, 2iid Floni,
Trench Bni:k Hlliiiy Riviii Tiitiiiiiig Ballnslicof Sliiicliiie
Arlilidal Islands Amiiai;hal Biiililiiifi,
Dykes/I nibiiiikiiiiinls Pipellni! / Ifislallnlinii
OK('.\) Siui Pledging Oiiaywalls/Concrcle Woik 1 fondling
Haiakliaiiiha Road,
New Delhi 110(101
Van Ourd A C / takes piiilii inllieii coHpi'ialive ,ippi(indi lowaids rlieiits, liiiiding lii a lei, : 11 xibimoim
desiiwl iiivolvwiienl and moie iicoiminical soliilkiiis. lax; 11 •ahim
Service nic pwloimwl on a Migle '.('ivio^ aiiili.ii:!, luiiiki.'v, lumpsum in ,illiaiii:i.' r mail: vaiiiiord("'Mda.vsiil,ii iiii
basis and may liiclwky priijucl Imaiiciiig A. f. Siivaslava Din'i:liii
List of Participants for the Inter Institutional Course on Coastal Engineering and
Workshop on Breakwaters, 6-10 March, 2000, I I T Madras

Abel, H.J. Bose, D.

Hochtief (India) Pvt. Ltd. DE (Ports), MH Section,
30, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, MECON Ltd.,
III floor, Ranchi - 834 002.
Chennai - 600 006.
Ph : 0091-44-821 0420 / 0421 / 0422 Budda Yerranna,
Fax: 0091-44-821 0377 Van Oord India,
No. 204, floor,
Anjaneyulu, V.S.R. Arunachal Building,
Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Barakhamba Road,
Engineering Department, New Delhi.
Visakhapatnam - 530 035. Ph: 3357980/81
Ph: 564841 Fax: 3357982

Balasubramanian, T. Dhinakaran, G.
Manager Research Scholar
Elcane Survey (Pvt.) Ltd. IIT Madras
D-222/30 T.T.C. Industrial Area Chennai.
New Mumbai - 400 706
Ph: 7632348 Dhillip Ku. Nayak,
Junior Engineer,
Cliilk;) i i(;vok)pment Authority,
Bas Van Dijk BJ 'i.'s !5Jii Nagar,
Department of Civil Engineering and Bhub;\iicf;war-751 014,
Geo Sciences, Orissa.
T.U.Delft, Ph : 434044/435374
The Netherlands. Fax: 434485
Ph: 2785754
Fax: 2785124 Dhiraj Gondane,
Van Oord ACZ India,
Bhattacharjaya, P. Delhi.
Kvaemer Cementation India Ltd, Ph: 91 11 33 57980/981/982
Anar chamber, Fax: 91 11 33 57982
5, Chowringhee Approach,
Calcutta -700 072 Geeta Arya,
Engineer (P & H),
Water and Power Consultancy services
Bhaskar Rao, (India) limited.
Haskoning Consulting Engineers No. 9, Community Centre,
and Architects, Saket, New Delhi - 110 017.
NCTPS Post, Ph :6852025, 6560103
Post Box No. 3, Fax: 6867930
Chennai 600 120.
Ph: (04119) 69858 / 69859 / 69834 James, S.
98400-76900 Mormugao Port Trust,
Fax: 98400-65901 Administrative Building,
Headland sada, Goa - 403 804
Email: Prem-goa(a)hotmail.com
 Josanto, V. Murthy, D.V.S.
Scientist E-II, Engineer (P&H),
National Institute of Oceanography, Water and Power Consultancy services
Vidyanikethan Annene Building, (India) limited.
Provience Road, No. 9, Community Centre, Saket,
Emalailam, Cochin 682 018. NewDelhi- 110 017.
Email: sic@csnioc.ren.nic.in.
Nagaraj, C.
Krishnamoorthy, M.R. Hochtief (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Senior Design Engineer (civil), No. 30, Khadar Nawaz Khan Road,
Fichtner Consulting Engineers 3 rd floor, Chennai.
(hidia)Pvt. Ltd., Ganesh Chambers,
143, Eldams Road, Chennai - 600 018. Nagaraju, K.
Ph : 4359158 Project Associate Gr.l,
Fax : 4344579 Ocean Engineering Centre,
Email: fichtner@.gia smdO 1. vsnl .net. in IIT Madras,
Chennai.
Madhusudhan, ch.
Research Scholar, Nanda, S.K.
Ocean Engineering Centre, Chilka Development Authority,
IIT. Madras, Chennai. BJ-45, BJB Nagar,
Bhubaneswar-751 014,
Mani, P.R. Orissa.
Executive Engineer (Civü) Ph : 434044/435374
Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin - 628 004. Fax: 434485
Ph : 0461 - 352290
Fax : 0461 -352301 Natarajan, J.
Email: tutport@md2.vsnl.net.in RITES, Ennore Coal Port Project
NCTPS Post P.O Box 3
Martokm Van Rijsewijk Chennai 600 120
Department of Civil Engineering and Email: hasko_ch@satyam.net.in
Geo Sciences,
T.U.Delft, The Netherlands. Patel, C.N.
Ph: 2785754 Dy. Executive Engineer,
Fax: 2785124 Gujarat Maritime Board,
Office ofthe Dy. Ex. Engineer (C),
Mehta A.K. Fisheries Harbour Project Sub-Division,
Assistant Engineer(Civii), Porbandar Port,
Gujarat Maritime Board, Porbandar-360 575.
Sector 10-A, Gandhi Nagar,
Gujarat-382 043 Pati, L.K.
Ph : 02712-38346-47-48 Civil Engineer,
Fax : 02712-34703 Darti dredging limited,
Email: gmb@adl .vanl.net.in 3''' floor, Khaleeli Centre,
149, Montieth Road. Chennai - 600 008.
Mehta, V.K. Ph: 8553040/8553042
Engineers India Limited, Fax: 8553655
1, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi 110 066. Phani Kumar,
Ph : 331143 Water and Power Consultancy services
Fax : 320774/331134 (India) limited, Pune.
Email: amm@eilmd.emet.in Fax: 020-4392004
Prasad, P.S.R. Rao, M.V.
Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd. Dredging Corporation India Ltd.,
48-9-17, Dwarakanagar nagar, Dredge House, Port Area,
Visakhapatnam - 530 016. Visakhapatnam - 530 035.
Ph: 554602/547335 Fax: 44-2350509
Fax: 547362/574056
Ravi Kumar, B.
Prema Kumar, J, Civil Engineer,
Assistant Executive Engineer, Dharti Dredging and Construction Limited,
Mourmagoa Port Trust, Admn. Building, 3"* floor, KhaleeH Centre,
Headland Sada, Goa -403 804. 149, Montieth Road,
Ph : 512911-16 Chennai - 600 008.
Fax: 513065,512721
Roopsekhar, K.A.
Purushotham. S, Project Associate Gr. I
Research Scholar i Ocean Engineering Centre,
Ocean Engineering Centre, nT Madras,
IIT Madras, Chennai. Chennai.

Raghuveer, S.S. Sahadevan, P.V.

Dy. General Manager (OPS), Joint Chief Engineer,
Dredging Corporatkjn India Ltd., (Plan Formulation),
Dredge House, Port Area, Pubhc Works Department,
Visakhapatnam - 530 035. Chepauk, Chennai.
Fax NO. 44-2350509.
Sarma, D.H.S.A.
Rambabu. M. Visakhapatnam Port Trust,
Research Scholar, Visakhapatnam - 530 035.
IIT Madras, Chennai. Fax: 0891-565023

Ramanathan, R. Satyanarayana Rao, T.V.S.

Haskoning, Post Box - 3 Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd.,
Chennai - 600 120 48-9-17, Dwarakanagar nagar,
Ph : 69858/69859/69834 Visakhapatnam - 530 016.
Fax : 98400-65901 Ph : 554602/547335
Email: hasko_ch@satyam.net.in Fax : 547362/574056
Email: nec.vizag(@rmx.sprintrpg.ems.vsnl.net.in
Raijada, M.P.
Assistant Engineer(Civil), Sengupta, P.S.
Gujarat Maritime Board, Kvaemer
Construction Division, Calcutta.
Near S.T. Stand, Chowpati Road,
Porbandar-360 575. E-mail: PS.SENGUPTA@kcindl 1 .kvaemer.co.in
Ph : 02712-38346-47-48
Fax : 02712-34703 Sing, B.K.
Assistant Project Manager
Rao, G.S. PMU.CCE(R&D)MW
Hydraulic Engineer, Kandia Port Trust Balasore
Port colony, At'po: Gopalpuri Fax: 06782-62104
Gujarat-370 240 Sri Veda Kumar, K.
Ph : 02836-70338 Research scholar.
Fax : 02836-70338 Ocean Engineering Centre,
Email: kpt(fl)guil.gui.nio.in IIT Madras, Chennai.
 Subba Rao, B.V.V.
Research scholor. Verma, R.K.
Ocean Engineering Centre, DE (Ports), MH Section,
IIT Madras, Chennai. MECON Ltd., Ranchi - 834 002.
Ph: 0651 -501002/501216
Suresh, P.K. Fax: 0651-502189/502214
Assistant Engineer, W.R.O.,
Pubhc Works Department, Vijayasimhan, S.
I.H.H., Poondi. Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil)
Tuticorin Port Trust
Torsten Dose, Tuticorin - 628 004
FBll, Ph : 0461-352290
Bergische University of Wuppertal, Fax: 0461-352301
Pauluksirch Street 7, 42285 Wuppertal, Email: tutport@md2.vsnl.net.in
Germany.
Email: dose@mail.urz.uni-wuppertal.de
Ziauddin Bin Abdul Latif,
Torsten Schlurmann, Senior Engineer,
University of Wuppertal, Department of Irrigation and Drainage,
Germany. Bahagian Kejuruterran Pantai,
Ibu Pejabat,
Email: schlurma@uniwuppertal.de
JPS Malaysia.
Vedgiri, K. E-mail: jps31@pop.moa.my
Engineers India Limited,
1, Bhikaji Cama Place
NewDelhi 110 066.
Veluchamy, T.
Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil)
Tuticorin Port Trust
Tuticorin - 628 004
Ph : 0461 -352290
Fax: 0461-352301
Email: tutport@md2. vsnl .net. in

Venkatachar, M.B.
Central Institute of Coastal
Engineering For Fishery,
64, Palace Road
Bangalore.
Ph : 2267841
Fax : 080 2258945
Email: cicefko@bgl.vsnl.net.in

Venkatesh Prasad, N.
Central Institute of Coastal
Engineering For Fishery,
64, Palace Road
Bangalore.
Ph : 2267841
Fax : 080 2258945
Email: ciceflto@bgl.vsnl.net.in