Characteristics of Breakwaters

TECHNICAL REPORT CERC-87-17
CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF BREAKWATERS

by
John
P.
Ahrens
Coastal Engineering Research Center
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631
December 1987
Final Report
Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
Prepared for
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

of Engineers
US Army Corps
Washington,
under
DC
20314-1000
Unit 31616
Civil
Works Research Work
When
this report
is
no longer needed return
it
to
the originator.
The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so
designated by other authorized documents.
The contents
of this report are not to
be used for
advertising, publication, orpromotional purposes.
Citation of trade
official
names does not constitute an endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
Woods
Hc!e Ocsanographic
Institution
Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Form Approved OMB No 0704-0188 Exp Date Jun30, 1986
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1a
REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
DECLASSIFICATION
1b.
RESTRICTIVE
MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a
.
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
2b.
/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
5.
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
4.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
Technical Report CERC-87-17

6a NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION USAEWES, Coastal Engineering Research Center
6c.
6b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable)
7a.
NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
ADDRESS
(Oty, State,
and
ZIP Code)
7b.
ADDRESS
(City, State,
and
ZIP Code)
PO Box 631 Vicksburg, MS

8a.
39180-0631
8b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable)
9.
NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING

ORGANIZATION
PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
US Army Corps of Engineers

8c.
ADDRESS
(City, State,
and
ZIP Code)
10.
SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS
Washington, DC
20314-1000
WORK
UNIT
ACCESSION NO
31616
11.
TITLE (Include Security Classification)
Characteristics of Reef Breakwaters

12.
PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
TYPE OF REPORT
13b.
Ahrens, John P.
13a.
TIME COVERED
14.
DATE OF REPORT
{Year,
Month, Day)
15
PAGE COUNT
Final report
16
FROM
December 1987
62
Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
COSATI CODES
18
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
SUBJECT TERMS {Continue on reverse
if
necessary
and
identify by block
number)
Breakwaters Water waves

19
(LC) (LC)
ABSTRACT (Continue on
reverse
if
necessary and identify by block number)
A laboratory study was conducted to determine the stability, wave transmission, wave reflection, and energy dissipation characteristics of reef breakwaters. Reef breakwaters are low-crested structures comprised of a homogeneous pile of stone with individual stone weights in the range of those ordinarily used in the armor and first underlayer of traditional multilayered breakwaters. The study included over two hundred tests, all using irregular wave conditions.
Results of the study are discussed and summarized through the use of equations fit to The equations fit the data well, are consistent with the physics of the various phenomena as they are currently understood, and approach logical limiting values.
the data.
(Continued)
20
fill
DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT SAME AS RPT UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED
21
ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DTIC USERS
Unclassified
22b TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
22c OFFICE
22a
NAME OF
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
83 APR edition
All
SYMBOL
DD FORM
1473, 84 mar
may be used
until
exhausted
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
other editions are obsolete
Unclassified
Unclassified
tCUFITY CLARIFICATION OF THIS FAQI
19.
ABSTRACT (Continued).
Important findings include:
a.
A reef stability model which can predict the degree of degration of the structure as a function of severity of irregular wave attack.
b.
A wave transmission model capable of predicting the amount of wave energy transmitted over and through the structure for both submerged and nonsubmerged
reefs.
c.
A wave reflection model which makes accurate predictions of energy reflected from the reef for a wide range of wave conditions and structure heights. A model which predicts the amount of incident wave energy dissipated by the reef.
d.
Unclasp fip.d
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS FAGE
PREFACE
The study reported herein was authorized by the Office, Chief of Engi-
neers (OCE)
US Army Corps of Engineers, and funded through the Coastal Engi-
neering Functional Area of Civil Works Research and Development, under Work
Unit 31616.
The project was monitored by Messrs. John H. Lockhart, Jr., and
John G. Housley, OCE Technical Monitors.
The study was conducted at the
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) of the US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES).
Dr. C. Linwood Vincent, CERC, is Program Manager of
the Coastal Engineering Functional Area.
This report was prepared by Mr. John P. Ahrens, Research Oceanographer,
Wave Research Branch (CW-R)
Wave Dynamics Division (CW)
CERC.
Assisting
Mr. Ahrens in conducting the study were the following CERC employees:
Ms. Karen P. Zirkel and Messrs. Louis Myerele and Martin F. Titus, Engineering
Technicians; Messrs. John Heggins, Computer Assistant, and Leland Hennington,

Summer Aide, who helped to analyze the data; and Eng. Gisli Viggosson on temp-
orary assignment from the Icelandic Harbour Authority, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Work was performed under direct supervision of Messrs. D. D. Davidson,

CW, and C. Eugene Chatham, Chief, CW; and under general supervision of
Dr. James R. Houston and Mr. Charles C. Calhoun, Jr., Chief and Assistant
Chief, CERC, respectively.
This report was edited by Ms. Shirley A. J.
Hanshaw, Information Products Division, Information Technology Laboratory,

WES.
Commander and Director of WES during publication of this report was

COL Dwayne G. Lee, CE.
Technical Director was Dr. Robert W. Whalin.
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE
PART
INTRODUCTION
Background Scope
PART II:
3 4 5
7
LABORATORY SETUP AND TECHNIQUES USED
Stability Tests Previous Damage Tests Profile Surveys

PART III
:
10
11 11
STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE RESULTS
Stability to Irregular Wave Attack Wave Transmission Wave Reflection and Energy Dissipation
PART IV:
28 36
CONCLUSIONS
43
45
REFERENCES
PHOTO
1
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B: APPENDIX
C:
TABULAR SUMMARY OF STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE DATA

REGRESSION ANALYSIS USED TO DEVELOP FIGURE 29 SHOWING ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN VICINITY OF REEF
Al
Bl CI
NOTATION
CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF BREAKWATERS
PART
I:
INTRODUCTION
A reef breakwater is a low-crested rubble-mound breakwater without

This type of breakwater is little
the traditional multilayer cross section.
more than a homogeneous pile of stones with individual stone weights similar
to those ordinarily used in the armor and first underlayer of conventional
breakwaters.
2.
In recent years a number of low-crested breakwaters have been built
or considered for use at a variety of locations.
Most of these structures are

Other
intended to protect a beach or reduce the cost of beach maintenance.
applications include protecting water intakes for power plants and entrance
channels for small-boat harbors and providing an alternative to revetment for
stabilizing an eroding shoreline.
In situations where only partial attenua-
tion of waves on the leeside of a structure is required, or possibly even
advantageous, a low-crested rubble-mound breakwater is a logical selection.

Since the cost of a rubble-mound breakwater increases rapidly with the height
of the crest,
the economic advantage of a low-crested structure over a tradi-
tional breakwater that is infrequently overtopped is obvious.
Because the
reef breakwater represents the ultimate in design simplicity, it .could be the
optimum structure for many situations.
Unfortunately, the performance of low-
crested rubble-mound structures, particularly reef breakwaters, is not well
documented or understood.
Background
3.
A number of papers have noted that armor on the landside slope of a
low-crested breakwater is more likely to be displayed by heavy overtopping

than armor on the seaward face (Lording and Scott 1971, Raichlen 1972, and
Lillevang 1977).
Raichlen discusses the characteristics of overtopping over

Walker, Palmer, and
the crest and the inherent complexity of the problem.
Dunham (1975) give a carefully reasoned discussion of the many factors influencing stability of heavily overtopped rubble-mound breakwaters. They also
show a figure which suggests what armor weight is required for stability
on the backside of a low-crested breakwater.
Unfortunately, the data scatter
shown in the figure undermines confidence in the suggested armor weights.

4.
In Australia, the breakwater at Rosslyn Bay was damaged severely
during Cyclone David in 1976 (Bremner et al. 1980).
The crest height of the
structure was reduced as much as 4 m but still functioned effectively as a
submerged breakwater for over
years until it was repaired.
Based on the
surprisingly good performance of the damaged Rosslyn Bay breakwater and the
findings from model tests, a low-crested design was chosen for the breakwater
at Townsville Harbor, Australia.
This breakwater is unusual because it was
built entirely of stone in the 3- to 5-ton* range (Bremner et al. 1980).
Reef
breakwaters, as described in this paper, are very similar to the Townsville
breakwater except a wider gradation of stone was used in the model breakwater
tests discussed herein.
5.
Seelig (1979) conducted an extensive series of model tests to deter-
mine wave transmission and reflection characteristics of low-crested breakwaters, including submerged structures.
From these tests Seelig concluded
that the component of transmission resulting from wave overtopping was very
strongly dependent on the relative freeboard (i.e., freeboard divided by incident significant wave height).
Recent work by Allsop (1983) with multi-
layered, low-crested breakwaters shows that wave transmission is strongly
dependent on a dimensionless freeboard parameter which includes the zero-
crossing period of irregular wave conditions.
Allsop did not find substantial

He indi-
wave period dependency in his evaluation of breakwater stability.
cates, however, that since wave transmission (which largely results from over-
topping) is dependent on period, then possible stability of the backside slope
would also be a function of wave period.

Scope
6.
A study currently being conducted at the US Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station's Coastal Engineering Research Center is intended to document the performance of low-crested breakwaters.
This paper discusses labora-
tory model tests of reef breakwaters and provides information on their stability to wave attack, wave transmission and reflection characteristics, and wave
energy dissipation.
Metric ton.
PART II:
LABORATORY SETUP AND TECHNIQUES USED
7.
To date, 205 two-dimensional laboratory tests of reef breakwaters
have been completed.
These tests were conducted in a 61-cm-wide channel
within CERC's 1.2- by 4.6- by 42.7-m tank (Figure 1).
All tests were
5(m)
o DENOTES WAVE GAGE LOCATION
WALL OF WAVE TANK

TO WAVE
1
I
ON 15
GRAVEL WAVE ABSORBER BEACH

:
GjAVJLJAJiEJiBS^R|EOEACHd "
EFlftANNEL
""wauT
ABSORBER "MATERIAL]
SHOALING SLOPE
oo
REEF
^_
-iEEj
_P0N0!NG, REL IEF CHANNEL
BREAKWATER

AUXILIARY CHANNEL
WALL OF WAVE TANK
PLAN VIEW
Figure
1
.
Plan view of wave tank and test setup

The spectra used had wave periods of peak
conducted with irregular waves.
energy density
the structure
d
T *
ranging from about 1.45 to 3.60 sec, and water depth at

ranged from 25 to 30 cm.
Signals to control the wave blade
were stored on magnetic tape and transferred to the wave generator through a
computer data acquisition system (DAS)
.
For this study four files were stored
on the tape which could produce a spectrum with a distinct period of peak
energy density.
each file.
8.
Table
gives the nominal period of peak energy density for
If there were no attenuation of the signal to the wave generator,
the files used were intended to produce a saturated spectrum at all frequences
above the frequency of peak energy density for the water depth at the wave
blade.
For frequencies lower than those of the peak, the energy density de-
creased rapidly.
This procedure produced a spectrum of the Kitaigorodskii

The amplitude of the signal to the wave
type as described by Vincent (1981).
generator was attenuated by a 10-turn potentiometer in a voltage divider
For convenience, symbols and unusual abbreviations are listed and defined
in the Notation (Appendix C)
Table
Period of Peak Energy Density

for Each Tape File
Tape File
1
Approximate
T 2
,
sec
2 3
1.45 2.25 2.86 3.60
In addition, the waves were generated in a water depth 25 cm greater than at the breakwater and shoaled to the water depth at the structure over a 1-V on 15-H slope (see
network which allowed control of the wave heights generated.
Figure
2)
This setup ensures that severe conditions can be developed at the

SCALE
1
TRAINING
WALL
-19
WAVE GAGES
WAVE GAGES
METERS TO WAVE GENERATOR FROM END OF TRAINING WALLS 15

1
T)
6
7
REEF
BREAKWATER
CONCRETE PLATFORM
5 8 9 10
i^ T\
11
12
DISTANCE ALONG CHANNEL (M)
Figure 2.
Cross section of test channel

H
structure site.
to 18 cm.
9.
Incident zero-moment wave heights
mo
ranged from about
Three parallel wire-resistance wave gages were used in front of the
breakwater to resolve the incident and reflected wave spectra using the method
of Goda and Suzuki (1976)
,
and two wave gages were placed behind the structure The location of gages is shown in
to measure the transmitted wave height.
Figure 2.
During data collection gages were sampled at a rate of 16 times per
second for 256 sec by the same DAS which controlled the wave generator motion.
10.
Two types of model tests were conducted during this study:
stabil-
ity and previous damage tests.
Each type followed a prescribed sequence.
Stability Tests
11.
For a stability test the following test sequence was used:

a.
Rebuild the breakwater from the previously damaged condition.

Survey the breakwater to document its initial condition.
b.
.
d. e.
f.
g_.
Calibrate the wave gages.

Select the tape file and signal attenuation setting.
Start the wave generator and run waves.
Collect wave data (several or more times).

Stop the wave generator.
h.
Survey the breakwater to document its final condition.

1
The duration of wave action was from 1-1/2 hr for a test using the File
spectrum to 3-1/2 hr for a File 4 spectrum.
Generally, the technicians
observing the tests thought that most of the stone movement occurred during
the first 10 or 15 min of wave generation, so the final survey is regarded as
an equilibrium profile for the structure.
In rebuilding the breakwater the
technicians rarely touched the stone but merely pushed it around by foot until
the shape conformed to the desired initial profile.
This procedure was a con-
scious effort to avoid overly careful placement of the stone.
Outlines of the
desired initial profile were fixed to the walls of the testing channel, and a
moveable template was used to ensure that the initial profile was reasonably
close to the desired profile.
Initial configuration of the breakwater for a
stability test was a narrow, trapezoidal shape with seaward and landward
slopes of IV on 1.5H (Figure 3).
Crest widths were three typical stone dimen-
sions wide, using the cube root of the volume of the median weight stone
as the typical dimension
d
_
.
Figure
also shows a typical profile after
moderately severe wave attack during a stability test.

reflection also were measured during a stability test.
Wave transmission and
'
II
nn
1 1
n
I
CONCRETE PLATFORM'
I I
I
L
i
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
90
100
110
120
DISTANCE ALONG CHANNEL, CM
Figure
Cross-sectional view of initial and typical damaged reef profiles (swl denotes still-water level)
Previous Damage Tests
12.
Previous damage tests were conducted to answer the question of how
the breakwater would perform for moderate wave conditions after it had been
damaged by very severe wave conditions.
For previous damage tests there was
very little readjustment of the damage profile from test to test; consequently, the breakwater was not rebuilt at the end of a test.
No stability
information was obtained from these tests, and the duration of wave action was
only half an hour; however, wave transmission and reflection were measured.
Previous damage tests were performed in the following sequence:

a.
Survey breakwater for last test which becomes initial survey for current test.
b.
Calibrate wave gages.

Select wave file and signal attenuation setting. Start generator and run waves for half an hour.
.
d. e.
f_.
Collect wave data (two or three times)

Stop wave generator.
g_.
Survey breakwater as noted above in Step
1.
13.
All 205 of the completed tests of this study can be divided logi-
cally into 10 subsets or test series.
Because of the test plan, stability
test series have odd numbers, and previous damage test series have even num-
bers.
Table
14.
lists the basic information about each subset.

For sub-
Two different sizes of stone were used during this study.

6
sets
through
an angular quartzite with a median weight of 17 g was used,
Table
Jasic Data for Each Subset
Subset
No.
1
No. of
Tests
27
3
Water Depth d cm ,
s
Crest Height "as built" h cm

1
Median Stone Weight
Area of Breakwater Cross Section
50
17
cm
25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
25
1,170
1,170
2
3 4 5 6
7
NA*
30
17 17 17 17 17 71 71
71
29
12
1,560 1,560
NA
35
41
11
2,190
2,190
1,900
1,900
NA
32
38
26
13
5
8
9
NA
32
30
30
1,900 1,900
10
NA
71
NA denotes not applicable to previous damage test series.
and for subsets
through 10 a blocky to angular diorite with a median weight

Photo
1
of 71 g was used.
depicts the stone, and Table
summarizes informa-
tion about it.
Table
Stone and Gradation Characteristics
Characteristic
2% weight
(g)
Quartzite
7.0
Diorite
14.0
Median weight,
98% weight (g)
3
)
50
(g)
17.0
71.0 139.0 2.83

44
28.0
2.63
45
Density (g/cm
Porosity
(%)
Profile Surveys
15.
Initial and final profiles of the reef were obtained by survey.

For the
The survey rods had feet attached with ball-and-socket connectors.

small stone used for subsets
1
through 6, the foot of the survey rod had a

7
diameter of 2.54 cm; and for the somewhat larger stone used in subsets
through 10, the foot of the survey rod had a diameter of 3.81 cm.
files were used to establish an average profile for the reef.
Three pro-
One profile
line was exactly in the center of the wave channel, and the other two profile
lines were 15 cm on either side of center.
The survey interval along the
channel was 3.05 cm.
10
PART III:
STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE RESULTS
16.
The report herein consolidates findings from all of the data sub2
sets identified in Table
into general conclusions about the stability and
performance characteristics of reef breakwaters.
Specific characteristics in-
clude the stability of reef breakwaters to irregular wave attack, wave trans-
mission over and through the breakwater, wave reflection from the breakwater,
and dissipation of wave energy.
A mathematical model is developed for each
characteristic which provides a simple method to summarize findings from this

study and a convenient way to furnish results to potential users.
These math-
ematical models are intended to work together with the stability model fur-
nishing the equilibrium crest height to both transmission and reflection

models which together are used to estimate the amount of energy dissipated by
the reef.
Stability to Irregular Wave Attack

17.
The stability of reef breakwaters will be quantified by damage or
lack of damage during a test, the most important aspect of which is the reduction in crest height caused by wave attack. This aspect of stability is
important because the performance of a reef breakwater will be judged largely

on its wave transmission characteristics.
Wave transmission is very sensitive
to crest height relative to water level.
Crest height reduction factor

18.
One of the most effective methods to evaluate damage to a reef
breakwater is to use the ratio of the crest height at the completion of a test
to the height at the beginning of the test before waves have been run.
This
For
ratio,
h /h'
c c
will be referred to as the crest height reduction factor.

h /h'
comparing damage within a subset,
is effective because it inherently
accounts for the random variation of one to two centimeters in the constructed
crest height from test to test within a subset.
Another advantage of the
crest height reduction factor is that all stability subsets have the same
natural limiting values of 1.0 and 0.0.
Stability number and spectral stability number comparison

19.
Experience with the stability of traditional rubble-mound break-
waters to monochromatic waves suggests that one of the most important

11
variables to explain damage would be one similar to the stability number used
by Hudson and Davidson (1975).
The following definition is used for the
stability number for tests with irregular waves:
H N
=
w^2 1/3
\ 50\
,
CD
where
is the density of stone and
w w
is the density of water.

-L
Since
w stability tests of reef breakwaters are concerned, it was apparent that tests
with a higher period of peak energy density did more damage than similar tests with a smaller period of peak energy density.
This finding is consistent with
these tests were conducted in fresh water,
=1.0 g/cm
As far as the
the results of a study conducted by Gravesen, Jensen, and Sorensen (1980) on

the stability of high-crested, rubble-mound breakwaters exposed to irregular
wave attack.
According to the stability analysis of Gravesen, the spectral
stability number is defined
N*
(h V mo \ "T
lY /3 p/ Y'
,
(2)
50
_, _ w w
where
L
P
is the Airy wave length calculated using

d
s
T
P
and the water depth
at the toe of the reef

20.
Figures
through
show comparisons of the effectiveness of the
stability number and the spectral stability number in accounting for damage to
reef breakwaters.
In Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 the crest height reduction
factor is plotted versus the traditional stability number and the spectral
stability number for stability subsets
1,
3,
5,
7,
and 9, respectively.
The
figures show that there is less scatter in the damage trends when they are
plotted versus the spectral stability number.
They also show that there is
little or no damage for spectral stability numbers less than about six but
that damage increases rapidly for spectral stability numbers above eight.
the following analysis the spectral stability number will be used to define
In
12
D
3
D
tl
0.9-
a
a
a
D D
8a D
0.7-
a
D D a n
51
STABILITY NUMBER, Ns
a.
Crest height reduction factor versus the stability number
D
C
1
J
C 3
D D
1
0.6-
0.56
10
12 Ns*
14
SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER,

b.
Crest height reduction factor versus the spectral stability number
Figure 4.
Stability comparisons for subset
13
rn D
&
D
D b D c
a
a
&
a
33
STABILITY NUMBER, Ns

l.O-
3
[
3s
C
n
1
c
3
0.54
10
12
Ns*
14
SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER.

b.
Figure 5.
14
1.0-
a-m ^3
a a
a a
u.y-
D
a
a
a a
a
U.8-
a a a
a a
a a a
=fa
U.b-
a
a
0.5-
STABILITY NUMBER. Ns
a.
1.0-
*
I
I-*
TD
n o
Sa
c
a
a
a
q 3
s
a
On
B
i 1
10
12 Ns*
14

b.
Figure
6.
15
1.0-
B^Tg
ditfg
3 -*
n
Ca
D
U.9
n n n a
a
u.8-j
0.7-
0.6-
O.b- \
STABILITY NUMBER, Ns a.
1.0-
b-Dg, TBJ-EI
5^ acq3*
%
D D
3
a
3
0.9
P3
3
0.7
0.6
0.5
-J
i
'
10
12
14

b.
Ns.
Figure
7.
16
1.0-
no
c
a
n
sz
Z O H
Q
111
0.9-
ii
_3
0.8-
or
1-
LU
o
<
LU
0.7
0.6"
DC
U.b 2
STABILITY NUMBER. Ns
a.
B-
flfl-
-1
D:
o
0.9-
F.
0.7'
10
12
14
16

b.
Ns.
Figure 8.
17
the relative severity of wave attack on reef breakwaters.
Secondary stability factors

21.
Data analysis and observation of the laboratory tests indicate that
several factors other than the spectral stability number have a quantifiable
influence on the stability of reef breakwaters.
Figure
will help identify

In
what will be referred to as secondary stability factors or variables.
Figure
the damage trends for all five stability subsets are shown using sub-
jectively drawn curves.
Figure
shows the relative crest height
h /d
(see
Figure 3) as a function of the spectral stability number. damage trends between subsets, the variable
h /d
c s
For intercomparing
h /h'
c
.
is better than
When various subsets are plotted using

on top of each other, especially for N*
h /h'
c
<
c
.
the data trends tend to fall
Using
h /d
to show damage
trends spreads the data out so that subsets can be distinguished and provides
better orientation by showing the swl.

22.
Relative exposure to wave action.
One secondary stability factor
is the relative exposure of the structure to wave action.
Submerged break-
waters are much less exposed to wave attack than breakwaters with crests above
the water level.
Water overlying a submerged crest greatly dampens wave

This fac-
impact forces and attenuates the lift and drag forces on the stone.
tor is illustrated in Figure 9 where structures with the greater initial rela-
tive height
h'/d
have their height reduced more rapidly with increasing
N*
than structures with lower initial relative height.
In Table 4, which can be
used with Figure
to evaluate the influence of secondary stability factors,
the average value of initial relative crest height
h'/d
is given by subset
along with two other secondary stability factors, the bulk number and the "as
built" effective reef slope
C'
which are discussed below.
Subsets
and 5,
which represent tests using the same stone size and water depth, illustrate
the influence of
h'/d
c
on stability.
s
Figure
shows that the wide difN*
ference in initial relative height of these structures is maintained until

is about 6.0: however, when noticeable stone movement starts at about '
= 6
,
N*
s
the difference in relative heights for the reefs of the two subsets
tends to decrease with increasing value of
N*
For the most severe condi-
tions at about
N* = 17
s
the difference in relative height between the two
subsets is not very large.
Based on analysis of all the data, it is concluded
that the greater the initial height of the reef the more vulnerable it is to
wave attack.
18
SUBSET 5
APPROXIMATE THRESHOLD OF STONE MOVEMENT
SUBSET
1
Bn
337 450
631
3 5 7
222 222
SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER, N
Figure 9. Damage trends of the relative crest height as a function of the spectral stability number for the stability subsets 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9
Table
Average Values of Secondary Stability Variables by Subset

Relative Crest Height "as Built" h'/d
c
s
Subset
No.
1
Reef Size
B *
Ef tective Reef Slope "as Built" c'**

1
0.99
1.18
1.41
337
.90
3
5
7
450
631
80
.76
1.27
222 222
88
.88
1.06
bulk number, defined by Equation
3.
4,
**
effective reef slope, "as built," defined by Equation
19
23.
Influence of reef bulk.
Subsets
and
can be used also to
illustrate the influence of size or bulk of the reef on stability.
Even
though the difference in relative height for the two subsets narrows with
increasing
N*
the crest heights of the reefs of subset

1.
always are higher
than those of subset
In fact, Figure
5
shows that the relative position of
the trends for subsets 1, 3, and
are maintained such that the larger struc-
ture always has a greater crest height than the smaller structure for a given
value of
N*
In order to intercompare the stability of all subsets, a
general measure of breakwater size is needed which will be consistent with the
data trends shown in Figure
9.
Within this context, the variable which best

B
characterizes the size of the reef breakwater is called the bulk number
and is defined as
A
B "
~
T73
50\
"
"f
So
(3)
where
= area of breakwater cross section, cm

= unit weight of stone g/cm
3
w
d 24.
_
= dimension of stone,
cm
Bulk number can be described as the equivalent number of median

Equivalent is
stones per median stone width in the breakwater cross section.
used because
n 45 percent for the two stone gradations used in this study.
does not include the influence of porosity which is about

The value of the
bulk number lies in its ability to explain the rather straightforward behavior
of the relative location of the damage trends for subsets
1,
3,
and
in Fig-
ure 9.
It also explains the rather anomalous behavior,

9
such as that of the
trend for subset
crossing the trend for subset

9 9
1.
At first it seems sur1,
prising that the reefs of subset

sidering that the reefs of subset
Table 2).
degrade faster than those of subset
con-
have the greater cross-sectional area (see
However, when the bulk number is used to measure the size of the
reef rather than the cross-sectional area, the relative behavior of the damage
trends for subsets
1
and
seems more plausible.
Subsets
and
have bulk
1
numbers of 337 and 222, respectively, indicating that the reefs of subset
20
have more stone in the cross section than the reefs of subset 9.
All the data
appear to indicate that when the relative severity of wave attack is based on
the spectral stability number the stability of the reef correlates better with
the number of stones in the cross section than with the absolute size of the
cross section.
Other factors being equal, a reef with a large bulk number is
more stable than a reef with a small bulk number because there are more stones
to dissipate wave energy and to shelter other stones from wave forces.
25.
Effective slope of the reef.
The remaining secondary stability
factor is a combination of the first two.
This factor, referred to as the
effective slope of the reef, is obtained by dividing the cross-sectional area
by the square of the crest height.

cussed in this report:
(a)
Two effective slope variables will be dis-
the effective slope of the structure "as built,"
defined as
c*
~
A
and (b) the response slope for the reef breakwater to wave action, defined as
A
C =
-|
h
c
(5)
These variables are considered a cotangent function since dividing
by
one time produces a variable which can be regarded as a horizontal length, and
dividing this length by
creates a cotangent-like variable.
For low-
crested, or submerged reefs, these variables provide a simple way to charac-
terize an average slope or shape for what is sometimes a rather complex shape
(e.g., see Figure 3).
Table
shows that the average values of the effective
structure slope "as built" are in a relatively narrow range.
Since the land6
ward and seaward faces of the reef were built to a slope of IV on 1.5H (cot
= 1.5),
the difference between the values of
in Table
4 and 1.5 result
from the crest width of the trapezoid which increases the effective slope, as
illustrated in Equation
6.
The "as built" cross section of the reef is a narFor this study
row trapezoid with a crest width three stone diameters wide.

21
the cross-sectional area of the reef is given approximately by
= (h;)
cot
K (^j
6
(6)
where
cot
is the cotangent of the angle
between the "as built" seaIf the severity of
ward and landward breakwater slopes and the horizontal.
wave attack exceeds a value of the spectral stability number of about six, the
reef deforms.
A convenient method to quantify the deformation is to use effecIn Figure 10
tive response slope for reef breakwaters defined by Equation 5.

the response slope
C
is plotted as a function of
N*
This figure is simi-
lar to Figure 14.17 presented by Wiegel (1964) showing the relationships among
the grain size, beach slope, and severity of the exposure of a beach to wave
action.
26.
C'
Because of the narrow range of the effective "as built" reef slope
(Table 4), it was not possible to quantify the influence of this variable
It is assumed that the flatter the initial slope of the reef
on stability.
the more stable it will be.
Future laboratory tests may expand the range of
this variable so that the influence of the initial slope can be determined
definitively.
27.
Figure 10 suggests that a logical form for a reef breakwater sta-
bility equation would be
= exp
N
i
J7
s)
(7)
where
is a dimensionless coefficient.
C,
1
Regression analysis was used to

N*
s 7 >
determine the value of

C
for tests where

C
,
6.0
the value obtained was
= 0.0945.
With this value of

C
Equation
explains about 99 percent of

N*
s
>
the variance in
for the 109 stability tests with
6.0
Equation
approaches logical limits with
->
oo
as
,
N* * N* *
oo
and
C > 1.0
as
22
SPECTRAL STABILITY NUMBER
Ns
Figure 10. Reef breakwater response slope versus the spectral stability number for stability subsets 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9
since the natural angle of repose for gravel is about 45 deg, giving
for a triangular reef cross section with side slopes of IV on 1H.
C = 1.0
7
Equation
can be compared to the observed data in Figure 10.
It is surprising that the
response slope of the reef, stone size and density, and severity of wave
attack can all be linked with a relation as simple as that in Equation

is difficult to add secondary stability
7.
It
variables to an equation like Equa7
tion
and improve the ability to predict the response slope over Equation
At the same time it is clear from Figure
9
very much.
that secondary stabil-
ity factors have some influence on reef stability.
After trial and error the
following equation was developed which includes one secondary stability variable and does a better job of predicting the response slope of the reef:
h' C =
7y
= exp
N*
0.0676 + 0.0222
(8)
where the relative "as built" crest height of the reef

equation like Equation
7
h'/d
c
was added to an
to improve the predictive ability.
Equation
23
explains 99.5 percent of the variance in

28.
for the 109 tests with
N*
s
>
It was found that when using Equation 8 to predict the relative
crest height
h /d
for values of
N*
near or below six, illogically high

6
values could result.
Higher values are to be expected since Equation

N*
>
was
developed for tests where
and there was enough rock movement to form
an equilibrium reef profile and not for wave conditions where the "as built"
reef slope was too stable to be deformed.
Since it would be useful to have a
stability model which predicts reasonable response crest heights over the
entire range of test conditions, another stability equation was developed to
predict crest heights for values of
N*
<
10
8
This range provides a con-
venient overlap with the range of Equation
and allows an equation to be
developed which will be simple enough to serve as a rule-of-thumb relation for

zero to relatively low damage situations.
This equation is given by
h'
= exp f-0. 00005
(N*)
'
(9)
Equation
provides a simple relation which follows the trend of the data

N*
<
well, albeit somewhat conservatively in the range
10
as can be seen in
Figure 11.
The small levels of damage predicted by Equation 9 for
N*
<
represent settlement and consolidation of the reef under wave action and not
conspicuous stone movement.

29.
Equations
and 9 are used together to compute the response crest
height of the reef over a wide range of wave severity.
This approach will be

s
referred to as the stability model.

>
The procedure is to use Equation 8 for N*

If we let the solution for
10
and Equation
9
for
/ \ c
N*
S
<
h /h'
C C
in
Equation
denoted
be denoted
,
[h /h'
\ cj
]
and the solution for

l
h /h'
c
in Equation 8 be
|h /h'J V /u
then the following equation
10 - N*\ /h \ 10 - 6 / \h'
/N* -
+
/
T^ ? CT \10 - 6/ \h'
c
(10)
can be used in the transition region
6 <
N*
<
10
to compute the response
crest height
To judge the effectiveness of this procedure,
24
Ns-
Figure 11.
Crest height reduction factor versus spectral stability number for stability subsets 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 were prepared to compare observed data for subsets
1,
3,
5,
7,
and 9, respectively, with synthetic data trends generated by
the stability model.
Figures 12 through 16 show
h /d
versus
and
d
N*
with
2
synthetic trends for each subset generated using

and
of
from Table
h'/d
c
s
from Table 4.
N*
Values of
h /d
c
s
were generated at integer values
N*
for a range of
about the same as observed within each subset.
Synthetic damage trends comprise the type of information that could be generated by a user of the stability model.
In general, synthetic trends follow
observed data trends very well.
Discrepancies between predicted and observed
values appear to occur because the stability model does not include the bulk
number.
25
Ns
Figure 12. Comparison of data and the synthetic damage trends generated by the stability model for subset 1
^on
sJOD
a
LEGE ND
OB SERVED DAT A
T 5\. SYNTHETIC DAMAGE

^tK
^^
Ns-
26
<?1
DO
sJ
.
SYNTHETIC DAMAGE
TREND
*
LEGEND
QO BSERVEDDA TA
k: L \.
Ns-
?n
V aiL
3
-*i ft
kj
SYN rHETI CDAK 1AGE
<\ !
3
TR
-.ND
D
LEGEND
1
SERVED DA
rA
Ni.
27
1.3
1.2
5
h'
o
I
tr
-H-5-
SYNTHETIC DAMAGE TREND

n*'
<
0.8
LE( 5END
3SERV ED DA TA
0.7
0.6
0.5
'
Ns
Wave Transmission
30.
For the tests mentioned above the wave transmission coefficient
is defined as
t=iT c
H
c
(ID
where
H
t
is the zero-moment transmitted wave height, and 6
is the zero-
moment wave height at the transmitted gage locations with no breakwater in the
test channel.
Although this is not the most commonly used definition of
it has some advantages over the traditional definition which is given by the
ratio of transmitted to incident wave height.
Equation
11
can be stated as
the ratio of the transmitted wave height to the wave height which would be
observed at the same location without the breakwater in the channel.
This
definition eliminates wave energy losses occurring between the incident and
transmitted gages in the absence of a breakwater in the testing channel.
28
These losses were observed to be considerable for the most severe wave conditions during calibration of the channel.
In effect,
measures attenuation
of wave energy because of the presence of the breakwater and eliminates addi-
tional energy losses caused by natural wave breaking processes occurring between the incident and transmitted wave gages.
Using the above definition of
will allow evaluation of wave energy dissipating characteristics of reef

Because of the definition used,
breakwaters in the next section.
should
be somewhat conservative, i.e., higher than the more traditional definition of
the transmission coefficient.

31.
Wave transmission has proved to be a very difficult characteristic
of reef breakwaters to predict partly because this study includes both sub-
merged and nonsubmerged rubble-mound structures.

relative freeboard parameter
F/H
Seelig (1980) found that the
was the most important variable in ex-
plaining wave transmission of submerged and overtopped breakwaters, where

freeboard
F
is equal to crest height minus water depth, i.e.,
F = H
- d
However, a confusing trend will be obtained using this variable when there is
a transition in the dominant mode of transmission from that due to wave runup
and overtopping to that due to transmission through the structure.
Figure 17
identifies the dominant mode of transmission as a function of the relative

freeboard and shows a schematized data trend.
The difficulty in parameteriz-
ing the wave transmission process can be appreciated partly by considering the
influence of the wave height.
When a reef breakwater is submerged, the pri-
mary mode of transmission results from wave propagation over the crest and,
generally, the smaller the wave the greater the
When the crest is just
above the water level, the dominant mode of transmission results from wave
runup and overtopping, and the larger the wave the larger the
If the
relative freeboard is greater than about one, the dominant mode of transmission is through the structure; and the smaller the wave the greater the
A number of other factors tend to further confuse the above generalities.

32.
The easiest way to discuss development of a general wave transmis-
sion model for reef breakwaters is to first consider relatively high struc-
When the dominant is greater than one. F/H mo K is a function largely of one reef, mode is wave transmission through the
tures where relative freeboard
variable which is the product of wave steepness and bulk number.

shows a plot of
K
Figure 18
d
versus the reef transmission variable

F/H
mo
>
(L
5o)A H mo
t^
for the 37 tests where
1.0
This one variable caused the wave

29
13
z
GO to
n.
0O.
o
cc
I I
LU ^ 3 > ^ z D O < LL Q cc >- z ^ \l 1- OJ ^

!
TRANSMISSION
THROUGH
REEF
-*~
TRANSMISSION
,*'
_l
OVER CREST
-'''
1
00
-3-2-10123
a
1
RELATIVE FREEBOARD, F/H mo
Figure 17. Conceptual sketch showing the dominant modes of wave transmission for a reef as a function of the relative freeboard
0.65
D
j
n
Vol/ ,4770/v
72
z
o
n
D D
y -nP D
I z
(C
'"o
LEGEND
O OBSERVED DATA
D
n/n
r
REEF TRANSMISSION VARIABLE,
0.15
0.1
Figure 18. Wave transmission coefficient as a function of the reef transmission variable to illustrate the ability of Equation 12 to > 1.0) predict transmission of relatively high reefs (F/H mo
30
transmission data to coalesce into one well-defined trend.
A prediction equa-
tion was fit to the data shown in Figure 18, and the following relation was
obtained:
t=
1.0 +
''\
H
HO
A
t
,0.592
\
for
f->..0 mo
Equation 12 explains about 97 percent of the variance in
considered.
for the range
It is apparent from the composition of Equation 12 why the rela-
tive freeboard
F/H
was not a good variable for explaining wave transmis-
sion through relatively high breakwaters.

33.
For conditions where transmission is not dominated by wave energy
propagating through the reef, relative freeboard

tial variable.
F/H is the most influenmo Part of the value of the variable is in being able to account
for the changing influence of wave height as the dominant mode of transmission shifts between wave propagation over the crest to wave runup and overtopping. For submerged reefs the relative freeboard correctly indicates the interesting
property of being able to dissipate energy of large waves more effectively

than that of small waves.
For reefs being overtopped, the relative freeboard
correctly indicates that larger waves have higher transmission coefficients.

In spite of these assets, wave transmission for low and submerged reefs is far
too complicated to be formulated adequately in terms of F/H alone partly mo because wave energy is still propagating through low and submerged reefs even
though transmission may be dominated by either overtopping or propagation over

the crest.
In addition, energy going over the reef is quite dependent on
crest width and bulk of the structure which introduces the influence of other
variables.
Considering the multitude of confusing influences and the complex-
ity of the phenomenon, the following regression relation was fit to the
167 tests with relative freeboards less than one:
31
K^ =
t
1.0
C
l
(13)
:jiWc' 3\H
mo/
/
n <i?
'
"4\ ,2 _ L \d
5Q p/
for
mo
where
C C C
= 1.188 = 0.261 = 0.529
C. = 4
0.00551
K
for the 167
< 1.0 . Equation 13 is the result of a considerable amount tests where F/H mo of trial and error effort to find an equation which fits the data well, makes
physical sense based on current understanding of the phenomenon, approaches

the correct limiting values, and is reasonably simple.
sis for Equation 13 is shown in Appendix B.
34.
The regression analy-
If Equations 12 and 13 are used, the transmission coefficient can
be predicted over the entire range of conditions tested in this study.
Pre-
dicted values of
tion 13 for
were made using Equation 12 for

.
< 1.0 F/H mo wave transmission model.
> 1.0 F/H and Equamo This prediction method will be referred to as the
Figures 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 show predicted and

as a function of
observed values of
5
K
t 9
and 6,
and 8, and
for subsets 1 and 2, 3 and 4, F/H mo and 10, respectively. Figures 19 through 23 indicate
that the wave transmission model does a good job of predicting individual test
results and produces trends very similar to those of the observed data.
35.
In addition to investigating the attenuation of wave energy passing
over and through the reef, it is also possible to determine the relative shift
in wave energy caused by the structure.
The shift in wave energy is measured
by the ratio of the period of peak energy density of the transmitted wave to
the period of peak energy density of the incident wave.
Figure 24 shows the
shift in peak period as a function of relative freeboard.

32
What is surprising
+
+
UD
n
HJ
"ftp
u."
0.6
* ifi
LEGEND
D OBSERVED
c
K,
+ PREDICTED K t
RELATIVE FREEBOARD,
F/Hrr
Figure 19. Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transmission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 1 and 2
+ +
?A"Jp
9
+
EL 3
~i L?
3V
;
>
+ +
LE GEND
O OBSERVED
+ PREDICTED
Kt
K,
RELATIVE FREEBOARD,
F/Hrr
33
1.0
0.9
0.8
+
LEGEND
0.7
+ Q OBSERVED
K, K,
0.6
"IS
+ PREDICTED
o g
u z
0.5
z <
0.4
+
0.3
-H-
a
+
0.2
0.1
RELATIVE FREEBOARD. F/Hn
D
iff
It,
D
+
h
+ +
tSSt
pH
a D
a
LEG END
p
c
D OBSERVED
+ PREDICTED
K,
K,
RELATIVE FREEBOARD. F/H
34
1.0-
0.9
0.8
0.7
ipi
0.6
V
+ +
_
LEGEND
D OBSERVED
K,
o u
z o
0.5
z
<
z.
0.4
+ PREDICTED K t
0.3
0.2
0.1
T"
RELATIVE FREEBOARD,
F/H,,,,,
Comparison of data and predicted values of the wave transFigure 23. mission coefficient using the transmission model for subsets 9 and 10
-
2.0
a
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
P
2
1.5
O OBSERVED DATA
~
Q 1
14 "
1.3
b
i
z
<
jE
1.2
D
1.1
D
1.0
Dryf
B
-
P um
'
a cPlr n
0.9
m
D
D
&
(P^m n D
a
-,
n D
0.8
a D
0.7
Figure 24. Ratio of the transmitted period of peak energy density to the incident period of peak energy density as a function of the relative freeboard, all subsets
35
about this analysis is that the reef does not produce much shift in the peak
period of the spectrum.

10 percent.
In fact, in only a few tests was the shift as much as
Wave Reflection and Energy Dissipation
36.
The method developed by Goda and Suzuki (1976) to resolve the wave
spectrum into incident and reflected components is the method used in this
study to calculate the reflection coefficient.
the reflection coefficient is defined as
According to Goda and Suzuki,
where
and
are the reflected and incident wave energy of the spec-
trum, respectively.
37.
One variable, the reef reflection parameter, was found to be con-
spicuously better than others for predicting wave reflection and is formulated
as
This parameter can be thought of as approximately the ratio of wave length to
horizontal distance between the toe of the reef and the swl on the reef.
Since, for many tests, the reefs are deformed and/or submerged, the quantity
(A /h
\ t
c/ s
)d
is sometimes only indicative of this horizontal distance.
When
is plotted versus the reef reflection parameter, a very strong data trend re-
sults (Figure 25)
Such a strong trend seems surprising considering the com-
plex nature of irregular wave reflection and the wide range of conditions
represented in Figure 25.
A regression equation was fit to the data shown in
Figure 25 to provide a convenient rule-of-thumb method to estimate reflection
from a reef and to provide insight relating to wave reflection from coastal
structures in general.
The equation is given by

36
1.0
(14)
1.0 + C
where
= 8.284
and
= -0.951
are coefficients.
Equation 14 explains
about 80 percent of the variance in r
for the 204 tests considered, follows
the trend of the data well, and approaches the correct limiting values.
REEF WAVE REFLECTION PARAMETER,
AT ds
Figure 25. Wave reflection coefficient versus the reef reflection parameter illustrating the ability of Equation 14 to predict reflection, all subsets
38.
While the analysis was being conducted to develop Equation 14, it
was clear a relation could be developed which could explain considerably more
of the variance in
if more dependent variables were used.
Better esti-
mates of reflection from reefs would be valuable since wave reflection causes
navigation problems, increases potential for toe scour, and can cause erosion
at nearby shorelines by increasing the severity of wave conditions. In addi-
tion, knowledge of wave reflection provides a way to estimate the amount of
wave energy dissipated by the reef.
The ability of low and submerged rubble
structures to dissipate wave energy has long been appreciated, but only in
37
recent years has it been possible to quantify this property.
Quantification
of energy dissipation by a reef is the property that justified consideration

of rubble-mound construction since both wave reflection and transmission are
usually undesirable.
The basic conservation of energy relation for rubble
structures can be written as follows:

2
K^ + K
t
+ dissipation = 1.0 r
(15)
where dissipation in Equation 15 refers to the fraction of the incident wave

energy dissipated by the structure.
39.
The following regression equation will provide an accurate estimate
of wave reflection from a reef breakwater:
= exp
V,L
+
VI
/
4^ +
_
S^V \ c/
a(t mo
\
(16)
where
C C
2
= -6.774 = -0.293 = -0.0860

4
C
C.
= +0.0833

tests considered.
for the 204
The dependent variables and the signs of their coefficients
are consistent with current understanding of wave reflection.
All the depen-
dent variables in Equation 16 affect reflection in a monotonic manner such

that, other factors being equal,
increases. However, some care F/H t c mo should be exercised in using Equation 16; for example, reflection will inincreases,
A /h
increases as
d /L
sp
decreases,
h /d
cs
decreases, and
crease with increasing crest height only until the crest height approaches the
limit of wave runup which for a reef would be
> 1.5 F/H mo ~
Since all terms
in Equation 16 are negative for submerged reefs, the equation approaches the
correct limiting value of
for decreasing structure height.
On the
other hand, Equation 16 was fit to a data set where reflection was strongly
correlated to height of the reef which suggests that the equation might not be
satisfactory for reefs with crest heights above the limit of runup.
38
This
problem is demonstrated in Figure 26a where the difference between predicted

K
r
and observed
are plotted versus relative freeboard K
ure 26a shows that Equation 16 predicts
F/H Figb mo usually to within 0.05 with lit. .
> 2.5 F/H tle systematic error except for high relative freeboards, i.e., mo Because of the possibility of systematic error for high relative freeboards,
it is recommended that if the relative freeboard exceeds 2.5, a value of 2.5
be used in Equation 16.
When this procedure is applied to the data of this
study, it removes the systematic error as shown in Figure 26b.

40.
It is intended that the prediction equation for
Equation 16,
in the
be used with the wave transmission model (discussed in paragraph 34)
energy conservation relation given by Equation 15 to compute energy dissipated

by the reef.
This approach was used to prepare Figure 27 which shows a scat-
ter plot of predicted energy dissipation versus "observed" energy dissipation
caused by the reef.
Figure 27 shows that the procedure outlined above can
make good predictions of energy dissipation and the rather surprising fact
that, for some conditions, the reef can dissipate up to 90 percent of incident
wave energy.
Generally, greatest energy dissipation was observed for shortThe lowest
period waves on reefs which were high enough not to be overtopped.
observed energy dissipation of about 30 percent occurred for the few reefs
with a relative crest height less than 0.7, i.e.,
h /d
c
<
0.7
For sub-
merged reefs, energy dissipation increases with increasing steepness

and with increasing relative reef width
A /d L
t s
H /L mo p Reefs with their crest
near the swl will dissipate between about 35 to 70 percent of incident wave
energy, and dissipation is strongly dependent on relative reef width as shown
in Figure 28.
<
For reefs with moderate to heavy overtopping, i.e.,

,
F/H
<
1.0
energy dissipation is strongly dependent on the relative
reef width but not on wave steepness.

41.
Since wave energy dissipation characteristics of reef breakwaters
are so important, a special analysis was conducted to illustrate the influence

of the most important variables in a simple way that would still be consistent
with the data.
This analysis used the most effective two variables in pre-
dicting
K
t
and the two most effective variables for predicting K

t
K
K
r
with the
so that
provision that one of the variables be common to both

the predicted values could be plotted on a common axis.
and
Fortunately, the reGood predictions

B
lative crest height
h /d
provides a good common variable.

h /d
c
s
are obtained for transmission using the variables
and
and for
39
0.2 -,
u)
0.14
a D
a
I
n a
bg5f
D
0.02
TA
Dfl
c
U U
u a
D
D
J
B D D
iff
n
U
Dn
S SfiaSH '}*
0.02
^ n^ rfl ff| ft' *

rp
^O
a a
o
0i
^ DQ
3
0.08 -0.1
a
c
-0.12 -0.14
-0.16
u
n
a.
No upper bound for
F/H
3 00 D
t
D u o*
fciJJSJj
D
Zft u^V
D n
c
D U n D D U D
Tn
B
D
'n
D
n
3
n
D
D
D
^
flSfe,^]
cP
1 D b
n D
Pi
DO
r-J C
n
u
b.
As upper bound,
= 2.5 F/H mo
Figure 26. Error in predicting the reflection coefficient using Equation 16
40
OBSERVED ENERGY DISSIPATION REEF
Scatter plot of the predicted energy dissipation by Figure 27. a reef using the dissipation model versus the observed energy dissipation, all subsets
0.85
0.8
a
0.7
cfl
n
z <
D
D a n
rj
>
z
0.45
m
-
0.35
a u
RELATIVE REEF WIDTH.
Figure 28.
Energy dissipation by reefs with crest near the swl

as a function of the relative reef width
41
wave reflection when
h /d
c s
and relative depth
d /L
s
are used.
p
Regression
analysis was used to develop the curves for
and
shown in Figure 29.
The equations used to compute the curves in Figure 26 explain about 82 percent
and 98 percent of the variance in
and
respectively.
Appendix B
gives the equations used in Figure 29 and other information related to the
regression analysis.
the data quite well.
The curves shown in Figure 29 fit the general trends of
However, the real value of Figure 29 is that it is a
compilation of information about wave transmission, wave reflection, and wave

energy dissipation of reef breakwaters.
Figure 29 is an improvement over Fig-
ure 8 in Ahrens (1984) because Figure 29 is based on an analytic model;
whereas Figure
is based on subjective curve fitting to the observed data.
u o
CE LU a.
111
_l a.
0.8
1.0
h
c
1.2
1.4
RELATIVE CREST HEIGHT,
/d
Figure 29.
Distribution of wave energy in the vicinity of a reef breakwater
42
PART IV:
CONCLUSIONS
42.
This report summarizes the results from 205 laboratory tests of
reef breakwaters conducted using irregular waves.

can be categorized as follows:
(a)
Findings from this study
the stability of the structure to wave
attack,
(b)
wave transmission over and through the structure, (c) wave reflecThese
tion from the structure, and (d) energy dissipation by the structure.
findings are largely summarized through the use of equations fit to the data
which can be used to predict various breakwater characteristics with sur-
prisingly high accuracy.

43.
The important conclusions from this study are:

a.
A stability number was defined by Equation 2 and named the spectral stability number which was found to be the single most important variable influencing the stability of reef breakwaters.
There is very little stone movement or damage for spectral stability numbers less than six, but stone movement and damage can be clearly seen for values greater than eight. For values of the spectral stability number above six, the influence of other variables on stability can be identified. Other factors being equal, the stability of the reef increases the lower the relative crest height h /d as its size de;
b.
fined by Equation 3 increases; and as the slope of the structure, as defined either by Equation 4 or 5, gets flatter.
d.
Wave transmission over and through a reef is a very complex process. Part of the complexity relates to the confusing influence of some variables; e.g., for breakwaters with positive freeboards transmission over the reef is directly proportional to wave height, while energy transmitting through the reef is inversely proportional to the wave height. For conditions where transmission is dominated by wave energy propagating through the reef, a simple relation, Equation 12, was found to predict the transmission coefficient very well. When the dominant modes of transmission resulted from wave overtopping or wave propagation over the crest of a submerged reef, a rather complex relation, Equation 13, was required to make reasonable estimates of transmission coefficients.
Wave reflection is easier to predict than either stability or wave transmission. A simple relation using only one variable, Equation 14, was able to explain about 80 percent of the variance in the reflection coefficients. A more complex relation, Equation 16, was developed which explained about 99 percent of the variance in the reflection coefficient. Other factors being equal, reflection coefficients increase with increasing wave length and increasingly steeper reef slopes. Reflection
e.
43
h /d
coefficients also increase with increasing relative reef height until the and increasing relative freeboard F/H mo c s crest height reaches the upper limit of wave runup.
Wave energy dissipation characteristics of a reef are difficult to summarize briefly because of the complexity of the phenomeOne surprising finding was that for short-period waves non. > 0.12 which do not overtop the crest the reef will disd /L
s
sipate 80 to 90 percent of incident wave energy. For reefs with the lowest relative crest height tested 0.63 < h /d
c s
0.70 the structure would dissipate about 30 percent of incident wave energy. Reefs with their crests near the stillwater level will dissipate between 30 to 70 percent of incident wave energy depending on the relative reef width A /d L
<
,
s p
The model developed in this study was found to make good estimates of energy dissipation.
44
REFERENCES
Ahrens, J. P. "Reef Type Breakwaters," Proceedings of the 19th 1984 (Sep). Coastal Engineering Conference, Houston, Tex., pp 2648-2662.
Allsop, N. W. H. 1983 (Mar). "Low-Crest Breakwater, Studies in Random Waves," Proceedings of Coastal Structures 83, Arlington, Va., pp 94-107.
Bremner, W. D., Foster, N. Miller, C. W. , and Wallace, B. C. 1980. "The Design Concept of Dual Breakwaters and its Application to Townsville, Australia," Proceedings of the 17th Coastal Engineering Conference, Sydney, Australia, Vol 2, pp 1898-1908.
,
Goda, T., and Suzuki, Y. 1976. "Estimation of Incident and Reflected Waves in Random Wave Experiments," Proceedings of the 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 828-845.
Gravesen, H. Jensen, 0. J., and Sorensen, T. 1980. "Stability of Rubble Mound Breakwaters II," Danish Hydraulic Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.
,
Hudson, R. Y. , and Davidson, D. D. 1975. "Reliability of Rubble-Mound Breakwater Stability Models," Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Modeling Techniques, San Francisco, Calif., pp 1603-1622.
Lillevang, 0. J. 1977 (Mar). "A Breakwater Subject to Heavy Overtopping: Concept, Design, Construction, and Experience," Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference, Ports '77, Long Beach, Calif., pp 1-33.
Lording, P. T. and Scott, J. R. 1971 (May). "Armor Stability of Overtopped Breakwater," Journal of Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol WW2, Paper 8138, pp 341-354. Raichlen, F. 1972 (May). "Armor Stability of Overtopped Breakwater," Journal of Waterways, Harbors, and Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol WW2, Discussion of paper 8138, pp 273-279.
Seelig, W. N. "Effect of Breakwaters on Waves: Laboratory Tests 1979 (Mar). of Wave Transmission by Overtopping," Proceedings of Coastal Structures '79, Alexandria, Va., Vol 2, pp 941-961. Seelig, W. N. 1980 (Jun) "Two-Dimensional Tests of Wave Transmission and Reflection Characteristics of Laboratory Breakwaters," CERC Technical Report No. 80-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
.
Vincent, C. L. 1981 (Nov). "A Method for Estimating Depth-Limited Wave Energy, Coastal Engineering Technical Aid 81-6, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Walker, J. R. "Breakwater Back Palmer, R. Q., and Dunham, J. W. 1975 (Jun). Slope Stability," Proceedings of Civil Engineering in the Oceans/Ill, Newark, Del., Vol 2, pp 879-898.
,
Wiegel, R. L. Oceanographical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.
Wiegel, R. L. "Breakwater Damage by Severe Storm Waves and 1982 (Mar). Tsunami Waves," Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Berkeley, Calif.
45
UARTZ
Photo
1.
(As a scale,
Representative samples of the stone used in this study labels in figure are 12.2 by 2.3 cm.)
APPENDIX A:
TABULAR SUMMARY OF STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE DATA
Median
File
Density
Of
Area
Of
BH,ftt
Hater Decth
ds
cc.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
INC.
P
AVE.
Structure Danace:
Cal
Area
Of
Height
H50
gr.
Trans.
Hbo
c c.-
Height
as Built he ct.
Structur
Height
he en.
Subset
NO.
Test
NO.
Test
Ani
Stone
t.
Hie
cs
AVE.
Kr
Hoc
CD.
Dasage
Ad
ci!*
Type
6ain
CB 2
sec.
1.100
17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
17
2.630 2.630 2.630

2.630
1170
1170 1170 1170 1170
25
11.010
1.450 1.460 1.430 1.450 1.440
6.450
0.242
0.231
10.250
24.900
24.720 24.110
21.920
49.520
2 3
4 5
1.080
1.060
25 25 25 25 25 25
25
10.140
5.6B0
4.460 3.270
1.660
9.500
7.560
23.010
23.500
24.440
42.920
17.740
8.000
5.730
0.3B7 0.210
1.040
1.020
5.4B0
2.760
25.390 24.260 24.410

24.840
10.590 4.830 77.200
1 1
2.630
2.630
2.870
13.430 11.500
9.070 6.090
0.20'
0.332 0.217 0.379
0.401
23.930 20.700 21.460 23.770 24.600
6
7 B
2.100 2.0BC 2.060 2.040
1170
1170
2.230 2.230 2.250

2.270
8.230 7.210 5.B00 3.460

1.580
11.620
10.750
8.
1
1
2.630
2.630 2.630
75.990 34.750
13.390
1170
1170
860
25.480 25.090 24.990

25.050
1
!
9 10
11
25
25 25 25
6.070 2.910
11.540 11.970
2.020 2.100
3.100 3.0BC
17
17 17 17 17 17
2.630 2.630 2.630
1170 1170
1170 1170 1170
2.910
13.130 15.7B0 14.350 11.380
7. BIO
2.280
2.230
0.413 0.327
0.311
24.540
19.990 16.980
17.590
B.640
91.790
1
1
7.890 9.360 8.500

7.200
13
14
3.000 3.000 2.760
25.730
24.780 24.440 25.270
213.030
16B.530 100.610
2.630
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630
2.630
25
25
0.296 0.299 0.337
11.630 10.260 7.510
15 It
3.060
3.040 3.020 3.100 4.020
4.040 4.060 4.070 1.100 l.oee
19.840
1170
25
2.760
2.750 2.950 3.530 3.520 3.600 3.640
1.450
5.040 2.360 9.170

3.400 6.840 8.B90
22.560 24.440
17.100
39.560
2.040
17
18
17 17
17 17 17 17 17
1170
1170
25
25
3.890 15.720 5.460

10.070 14.250 16.100 11.450
0.425 0.303
0.461
3.830
11.960 5.310 9.220
11.690
24.660
24.690
70.010
5.950
111.860
181.720
20
2!
1170
1170 1170
1170
25 25 25 25 25 25
25
24.140
24.7B0 25.120 24.840 24.230 24.570 25.090
23.800
18.B70
0.354 0.322
0.331
22 23
2.630
2.630
16.490 15.BB0
9.470
6.330
12.330
212.360
25 26 27
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630

2.630
1170
1170
0.240 0.229 0.483

0.312
10.620
9.450 8.670
10.370
21.920 21.B80
35.770
40.040
17
17
10.080 B.830
11.550
1.460
5.730
5.650
2.060
3.
1170 1170 1170

1170
2.240
2.
21.820
19.290
43.290
102.660 131.180
2E
29
060
17
17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
25
25
BOO
7.540 7.130 9.080

5.180
24.990 24.B1C
24.810
4.040
4.060
1.100
10.3B0
14.980
3.590 3.630
1.470
1.450
0.336
9.440 11.980 10.540
1B.260 16.700
30
31
2.630
2.630
25
25
0.330
0.234
204.110
119.380 105.720
3 3 3
1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560
11.360
29.170
30.460
29.600
24.720
26.430 28.040
32
33
34
1.080 1.060
1.040
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630

2.630
25
25 25
9.460 7.820
4.040
2.420
1.280
0.237
0.299 0.319
B.900
7.430 5.270 2.170
11.950
1.440 1.440
1.440
41.870
3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5.500
2.820
15.630 13.760 10.980
29.630 29.630 29.810 29.170

29.440
29.360
29.500
19.260
5.650 7.340
299.890
35
36
1.020
25 25 25 25 25
25
0.720
0.338
0.303
3.100 3.0B0
3.060 3.040 3.020 2.100
2.980
8.220 7.960 6.180

3.760
1.240
37 36 39
40
41
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630

2.630
1560 1560
1560 1560 1560 1560 1560 1560
1560 1560
3.000
2.
0.288 0.319 0.430

0.584
0.311
11.480 10.000
19.780
303.420
155.890
BIO
22.340 25.eeo 2B.530 21.730 24.020 26.000 27.9B0 29.290 28.070 20.850 21.400
13.350 17.370
7.490
3.680
13.360 11.170
2.820
2.790
7.220 3.620
11.610
29.260
67.730 23.230
175.400 122.260
17
17 17
29.B40
29.290 29.3B0 29.B10 29.290 29.440
25
25 25
2.230 2.270
7.180
6.100 4.140 2.070
42 43
44
2.0B0 2.060
2.040 2.020 4.020
4.040
2.630 2.630
2.630 2.630 2.630
0.331 0.411
10.540 8.230 5.710
17
17 17
17 17
8.350 5.720
2.890 5.510
10.610 10.170 14.610 15.B2C
2.250
2.290 2.260 3.560 3.580 3.520 3.570 3.600 3.520 2.250 2.900
77.760
34.000
25
25
0.510
45
46
0.860 2.160
7.030
0.532
0.597
2.890 5.350
9.610 9.290
11.840
2.690
29.640
3
3
25 25
25 25 25
29.630
29.500
47 49 49 50
51
2.630
2.630
1560
1560 1560 1560
0.339
0.344 0.328
244.610
208.010 341.420 345.880
3
3 3
3
4.040
4.060 4.070
1?
17 17
6.300
8.330 9.140 0.890
29.690 30.080 29.3B0
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630
0.332
0.615
12.250
4.010 2.100 3.100

4.070
17 17
17
1560
1560
25 25
25
2.610
13.230
2.570
11.570
28.990
29.690
28.740
28.800 22.070
19.450
1B.010
5.390
177.540
3 3 3
52 54 56
7.200
B.290
6. BOO
0.320
0.305 0.317
1560 1560
15.590
15.840
11.950
12.260
258.270 332.960
17
25
3.520
29.230
Note:
Area of
Inc.
BW = cross-sectional area of breakwater; Inc.

T
P
mo
H
= incident Cal,
= incident
Trans.
transmitted
calibrated
mo
A3
Median
Density
Di
Area
Df
Hater
Depth
ds
CI.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
Structun Daiaged
Cal.
Area
Df
File
Subset
NO.
Height
HSO
gr.
Trans.
Height
as Built he ci.
Structur B
Height
he ci.
Test
NO.
Test
And Bain
Stone
t.
BH,At ci*2
Hio
CI
Tp
sec.
Hio
CO!
AVE.
Kr
Hio
CI.
Daiage
Ad ci"2
Type
3 3 3 3 3
67 te
69
1.0B0
1.100
17 17 17 17 17
2.630
2.630 2.630
1560 1560
1560 1560
25 25 25 25 25 25
25
10.420
1.430 1.460
4.610
0.242 0.248
9.740
10.290
29.140 29.020
29.440 29.230 28.860
24.110
119.660
t
1 1 1
1
11.060
4.950
4.110
25.910 26.610
92.530
66.430 66.390
15.140
2.060 3.060
4.010
1.100 1.080 1.070 1.060 1.040
B.430
10.890
2.250 2.910
0.410
0.317 0.600
8.310
9.940 2.550
10.120
70
71
2.630 2.630 2.630

2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.63C 2.630
6.200 0.920
22.010
2B.100
1560
2.590
10.B60
3.590
1.460 1.450 1.420
1.460 1.410
5
5 5
72
17
17
2190
2190 2190 2190
2190
2.520
1.680 1.150
0.279 0.272
0.298
0.289
34.870
29.440
219.440
113.160
13B.700
73
74 75 76 77 7B 79 BO
Bl
9.3B0 7.910 7.520 5.460

15.720
B.B30
7.510 7.150 5.230
12.220
B.330
34.3B0
35.050 34.780 34.560 34.7B0
35.450
32.190
33.890 34.560 34.550
17
17 17
25
25
5
5
1
1
0.990 0.720 7.690

1.560
83.430 23.880
644.190
163.970
25
25
0.285
0.322
5 5
1 1 1
1
4.070
1.070
17
17 17
2190 2190
3.580
1.410
20.120 33.560 35.260

24.200
25
25
8.820
2.750
12.960
10.890
0.2B5
0.354 0.303
5
5 5 5 5 5
5
1.020
2190 2190
2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190
2190
1.440
0.570
5.770 4.320 3.460
1.440
2.650
11.4B0
35.270 36.060 35.170 35.050 35.270 34.410 34.990

35.910 35.540 35.230 35.140
3.900
2.100 2.0B0
2.060
17
17 17 17 17 17
25
25
2.270
393.260
345.970
2.2B0 2.300
2.300 2.300 3.000 2.960
0.335
0.384
10.340
26.610
28.6B0
B2
25
25
25
9.640
6.790 4.030
15.340
9.370 6.790 4.030

11.910
235.700
116.690
4.090
B3 84
85 B6 87
1
1
2.040 2.020
0.4B9 0.538 0.312

0.311
33.590 34.400
2.630
2.630
2.630
0.B40
7.230 6.900 6.320 2.680
3.100 3.0B0
3.070
25 25
25 25
21.610 22.160
23.040
514.590 53B.370
429.580 324.140
184.970
5 5 5
5
17
17 17
17
14.0B0 12.750
11.160
11.590
11.040 10.400
2.630
2.860 2.840 2.850

2.7B0
0.314
88 89 90
91
3.060 3.040 3.020 4.060 4.040 4.020

4.010 1.030 1.050 1.080
1.100
2.630 2.630
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630
2.630
0.352
0.477
0.581
24.870 29.720
35.350
2190 2190
2190 2190 2190 2190
25 25
25
7.580 3.780
14.290 10.130
2.6B0
0.990 6.B90 5.350
2.320
7.310
3.720
11.710
5 5 5
5
17
17 17
17
35.360
35.170
6.970
3.560
3.570
0.364
0,383 0.524 0.64B
0.341
21.030
23.560
27.010
555.190 3B9.080 231.330

5.020 8.360
56.860
1B7.200
92 93
94 95 96 97
25 25 25 25
25 25
9.260 5.190 2.540

4.110 6.690
34.590 34.810 35.870 35.570 35.540

35.170
5.330 2.580 4.2B0
3.560 3.570
1.440 1.440 1.330 1.450
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
0.760
35.B60 35.420 35.330
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630
2190
2190
0.650 0.900
1.930
7.020
9.990
11.350
0.288 0.290
0.297
2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190

2190
9.370
10.540
31.760
29.540 34.440 30.270
98
99 100
101
25 25
25
3.060
1.030
34.960 35.480
34.630
231.050
2.030
2.060
5.480
8.
2.290
2.290
0.509
0.450
5.470
B. 110
51.560
170.380
2.630
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630
220
2.400
4.410
1.340
2.0B0
2.050 2.100 3.010
25
25
11.030
2.280
2.
0.363 0.490
0.318 0.590
0.521
10.440
35.300 35.910 35.0B0 35,eiC 35.750 36.090 35,630 34.930

35.910 35.540
27.340
31.330 24.050
35.690
293.850
131.360
5
5
102 103 104 105 106

107
6.910
13.020
1.810
290
6.870
11.500
1.790
25 25 25 25
25
2.2B0 2.780
6.070 0.620
1.590
329.250
5,670
146.600
5 5 5 5 5
2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190

1900
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
3.030
3.050 3.080 3.100 4.010
1
2.630
2.630 2.630 2.630
5.6B0 9.310
13.870
15.610
2.810
2.850
5.550
8.770
11.520 11.950
31.760
27.160
4.110
6,500
0.413 0.357 0.335 0.624 0.526 0.335

0.327
271.370 502.700
531. B70
2.B60 2.910 3.560

3.560
22.190
108 109 110

111
25
25
7.340 0.7B0 3.170 7.330 7.880 3.910
21.280
35.900
2.630
2.630 2.630 2.630
2.560 8.060
14.460
15.790
11.440
2.520
7.630
11.780
2.690
4.030 4.060
25 25 25
25
26.970 20.360
19.7B0
247.400
5B8.170
17
17 71
71
3.540
3.5B0
1.450
1.450 1.440 1.430 1.430
35.360
36.030 31.460
112 124 125 126 127 128

129
4.070
1.100
12.300
10.610
656.820
42.460
2.830
2.830 2.830
0.354
31.210
1.080
25 25 25
25
10.020
2.940
2.000
1.330
0.335 0.352 0.378

0.430 0.455
0.471
9.400 7.620 5.360 2.500

11.500
31.700 31.360
31.700 31.670 31.670 32.340
31.550 31.350
31.610
26.570
20.070
1.770
1.060
1.040
71 7! 71 71 71
71
8.030
5.600
2.B30 2.830 2.830 2.B30 2.B30 2.830 2.830
1.020
2.600
13.030
11.110
0.820
4.950 4.060
31.660
31.660 31.970
31.670 31.730
3.530
2.100 2.080 2.060
25
25 25
25
2.226
37.440
18.950
130
131
2.300 2.2B0
2.280
2.260
10.500
1900
1900 1900
B.630 5.580
2.720
2.980
1.720
1.000
0.508 0.537 0,570
8.490 5.570 2.720
31.910 32.060 31.670
24.900
9.660
1.390
132
2.040
2.020
71
71
133
25
31.550
A4
1edi an
Jensrty
0<
Area
Of
Hater Depth
OS
ca.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
Structure Daiaged
Cal.
Area
Df
File
(eight
Trans.
Height
as Built
he ci.
Structure
Height
he ci.
Subset
NO.
Test
NO.
Test
And
HSO
gr.
Stone
lit.
BH,At
ci 2
A
Hio
CI
Tp
sec.
Hio CD!
AVE.
Kr
Hid
ci.
Daiage
Ad ci*2
Type
Gain
7 7
7
134
135 136
3.100 3.0BO 3.060
71 71
71
2.830 2.830 2.B30

2.830
1900
1900 1900 1900
25 25 23 25 25
25
15.660
14.030
3.040
6.770 6.120 4.390
0.426 0.409 0.449 0.502
11.960
31.640
29.720 29.750
'3.740
106.840
1 1 1 1 1
1
2.880 2.790 2.B20

2.780
11.580 10.130
32.160
32.520
31.670
11.170
30.540 31.540
31.120 24.320
45.240
7 7 7
137 13B
139
3.040
3.020
4.070 4.060 4.040 4.020 4.010
1.030 1.050
71
71 71 71 71
7.420
2.850
1.350
7.160
7.900 2.970
2.830 2.330 2.e30 2.830

2.835"
19C0 1900
1900
3.550
15.860
14.230
0.556
0.409
3.500
12.260 11.680
31.300 31.390 32.250 31.390
3.530
3.520
3.550
8.010 6.420 4.490

1.830
258.360
100.610
HO
7 7 7 7
25 25
25
0.466
0.511
29.140
30.210 31.210
141
1 1
1
1900 1900
1900 1900
10.330
9.440
4.970
50.450
IB.
42 143 144 145
71
71 71
5.100 2.350
3.570 3.600
1.420
0.5B6
0.596
32.220 31.670 31.970 31.850

31.B20
210
2.B30 2.B30 2.B30
25
25
0.980
1.070
1.590
2.320
31.660
31.640
'010
3.980
6.740
0.382 0.356 0.330

0.379
3.820
6.430
U10
3.160 9-290
71
71 71 71 71
71
1900
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
1900
25 25
25 25
1.390
1.450 1.450
31.790 31.810 31.730

31.640
146 147
1.030 1.100
2.830
2.830
2.B30
9.980
11.420 4.070
2.870 3.620
1.310
9.360
10.590
32.000
31.820 31.610 31.490 31.610 31.700
23.230
7 7
148 149 150

151
2.030 2.050
2.290
2.290 2.260
2.230 2.780 2.790
0.554
0.526 0.482
0.461
4.070 7.030
10.630
*<>
5.330
23.040
40.8B0
2.830 2.330
2.
25 25
25
7.070
11.320
13.110
1.650
2.340
4.250
31.460 31.360
30.510
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
7
2.030
2. 100
71 71 71 71 71
330
5.100
0.800
11.530
1.630
152 153 154 155

1
3.010
3.030
2.330 2.830 2.B30

2.830 2.830
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

1900 1900
25
25
0.593 0.554
0.481
31.690 31.030 31.000

29.630 23.590
0.930
5.660 9.750
14.240 15.420
2.020
4.230 6.040 6.960
1.000 2.910
3.540
9.110
11.650 11.930
31.820 31.300
31.240 32.130
20.250
27.870
3.050
25
25
2.800
2.810
3.0B0
3.100
4.010
0.423 0.418
56.300
106.650
156
157
71
71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71
25 25 25 25 25
25 30 30
2.380 3.580
3.600 3.550 3.580
2.B30
2.830
2.830
2.350 7.810
14.510 16.040 14.420 10.540
0.588
0.564 0.452
2.320
7.410
11.800
32.800
32.740 32.220 31.940 31.660 "2.000 31.320
32.770 32.460 26.970

26.380
1-300
13.560
15B
159 160
161
4,030
4.060
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

1900
6.840 7.680 6.630 6.700 3.140 6.030
146.420 142.420
4.070
4.060
2.830 2.330 2.830

2.830
0.430
0.471
12.310
11.760
3.540 3.560
1.430
28.250 .129.510 29.810 47.660
186
9
9
4.040
1.040
0.422
9.870 5.520
10.320 11.800
189
190
191
5.760
10.940
0.256
0.301
31.790 31.540
31.240 31.520
8.530 7.620
7-840
1-390
1.080
1.100
2.830
2.830 2.830 2.830
30
30
1.500 1,500
31.550
31.730
9 9
9
12.630
6.950 3.210 7.130

B.370
0.235 0.443 0.383 0.357 0.436 0.34B 0.344
192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199
2.040 2.080 2.100 3.040
71 71 71
71 71 71
1900
1900
30
30 30
5.800
12.020 14.460
2.200 2.190 2.220

2.990
5.790
11.620
31.580
31.670
31.060 29.660
31.760 26.610 25.510
17-230
9 9
9
2.830
2.B30
1900 1900
1900 1900
13.2B0
31.580
32.000
42.550
30 30 30 30 30 30 25 25
25 25
8.200
16.090 13.170
5.090
9.590
7.960
13.610
7.250
156.260
3.080 3.100
4.020
2.830 2.B30 2.830

2.330
3.080
3.060 3.370 3.310
31.610
32.060 32.130 32.000 31.610
19.990
17.100
9 9 9
10.330
2.900
14.250
191-290
71
71 71 17 17 17 17 17
17 17
1900
1900 1900
1170 1170 1170 1560
5.220
13.380 17.600
0,497
0.405 0.362
0.321
0.271
5.110
11.970
32.060
2B.640 25.210
19.991
3.160
4.050 4.070 2.040 2.040
B.3B0
10.470
99.310
198.630
1-770
1-580
200
12 19
2.830
2.630
3.280 2.240
2.230 2.230 2.260 2.240
14.230
2
2
5.870 5.870 5.950

5.510
4.170
4.610
5.860 5.860 5.930 5.500

2.720
2.630
2.630 2.630
2.630
16.860
15.910 19.390
24
55 57
2
2
2.040
2.040 2.020 2.040
2.
4.690
0.243 0.215
0.160 0.210
15.880 19.450 18.010 17.980 17.330 17.300 17.360
0.650 2.420
1-020
3.930
2.120 4.210 6.030 7.330
2
2 2 2
1560 1560
1560
25
25
2.720 5.450 3.350

11.180 13.270
17.980
17.830
58
59 60
61
2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630 2.630
2.220 2.230
2.230 2.230
1.440 1.440
5.440
8.230
10.540
0.740 0.560 "0-650
060
25 25
25 25
0.238
0.261
17.800
17.860
2.080 2.100
1.020 1.040 1.060 l.OBO 1.100 1.020
17 17
17
1560 1560 1560 1560 1560

1560 1560
2 2 2 2
2
8.040
2.120
0.272
11.580
18.010 17.890 17.740

17.680 17.560 17.710
19.810
0.190
1-490
62 63
64 65 66
3.170 5.560
7.990
0.125 0.150
0.178
3.050
5.320
18.010
17.890
17 17
17 17 17
2.630
2.630 2.630
2.630
25
25 25 25 25
3.980
5.220 6.110 6.660 2.010
0.840 0.190 0.460

-1.110 -0.340
1.440
1.440
7.580
9.310
10.400
17.740
17.630
9.920
11.190
0.213 0.229
0.151
2 2
1.460
1.430
17.560 19.780
113
2.630
2190
2.840
2.730
A5
Median
Density
Of
Area
Of
Hater
Depth
ds
CI.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
INC.
AVE.
Structure Daiaged
Cal.
Area
Of
File
Subset
NO.
Height
HSO
gr.
Trans.
Height
as Built he ci.
Structure
Height
he ci.
Test
ND.
Test
And
Stone
t.
BH,At
ci 2
A
Hio
CI
Tp
sec.
Hio coi
AVE.
Kr
Hio
CI.
Daiage
Ad ci 2
A
Type
Gain
114
115
2 2 2 2
2 2
1.070 1.040
17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17
2.630
2.
2,
2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190 2190

2190
25 25 25
25
9.040
1.430 1.400 1.440 1.440 1.450
4.870
0.214
B.530
19.810 19.600 19.630 19.540 19.630
19.600
4.370
6
h
630 630
630
5.590
8.120
3.500
4.510
0.159
0.201
5.350
7.700
19.630 19.540
19.630
0.370 2.140
NA
116
117
1.060
1.080
6
i
2,
9.980
11.470
5.240
0.235
0.245 0.185 0.180 0.206
9.360
10.640
118 119
120
12!
1.100
2. 630 2. 630
2,
25 25 25 25 25
25
5.680
1.840 3.660 4.990
19.960 19.780 19.810

19.811
4.740
6
6 6 6 6
2.020
2.490 5.180 7.960

10.660
2.220 2.230
2.220
2.490 5.170 7.870

10.180 11.450
1.050
19.960
19.780
0.370
1.300
2
2 2 2 2 2
2.040
2.060 2.080 2.100
1.010 1.020
630
2 630
2.
19.810 19.810
19.960
1.490
122
17
17
630
2190 2190
1900
1900
2.250 2.230
1.430
1.430
6.100 6.690
0.570 0.960
1.420 1.910
0.233
0.260
0.351
19.960 19.750
3.440 3.160
1.580
123
162
2 630 2 830 2 830

2 330 2 830
12.880
1.090
8 8
8 8 8 a
71
71 71 71 71 71 71 71
71
25 25
25
2B.250 28.3B0
28.380 28.190 28.250 28.220 23.190
163
164
2.430 3.990 5.380
0.284 0.247 0.238 0.249 0.272

0.299
2.340 3.330
5.150
0.560
NA
2
2
1.030
1.040
1900 1900 1900 1900
1.440 1.440 1.450

1.460
23.190
28.250
165 166
167 168 169 170
171
25 25 25 25 25
25 25
0.560
1.760
1.110 1.670 1.760
2
2 2
1.060
1.080 1.100
2 830
2 830
7.800
9.7B0
11.030
1.160
2.770 3.740
4.360
7.410
9.190
10.270
1.160
28.220
28.190 28.350 23.160 23.160 28.250
28.350 28.160
28.161
8 a a a a 8
a
2 830
2 B30
1900
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
1.450
2
2 2
2.010
2.280
2.270 2.260
0.700
1.190
1.760
0.483
0.454 0.437 0.436 0.40B
2.020 2.030 2.040 2.060 2.080 2.100 3.010 3.020 3.030

3.040
2 830 2 830 2 830
2.550 3.940 5.440

B.730
11.260
13.310
1.620
2.550
3.940
28.250
28.190 28.220
28.22!
0.650 0.460
1.670
1.110
71
71
172
173
2
2
25
25
2.300 2.260 2.280 2.240 2.780

2.800
2.500
3.980
5.150 6.320 0.920
1.630
5.430
8.580
10.600
11.590
1.600
28.190
28.220 28.220 2e.290 27.650
71 71 71 71 71 71 71
2 830
2 830
174
175
2
2
1900
1900 1900 1900
25 25 25 25
25
0.395
0.391
28.290
0.190 6.040 0.650

-0.650
1.110
a
8
2 830
2
27.650 27.610 27.580 27.610

27.650
27.651
176
177 178 179 180
181
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
830
0.493 0.463 0.440 0.400 0.393

0.391
8
3
2 830
3.550
3,500
27.610
27.580
2 830 2 830 2 830

2 830
1900
1900
1900 1900 1900
5.600 7.590
11.340
2.800
2.830
2.840 2.800
1.800
2.630
5.4B0 7.310
10.240 11.620
11.160
a a
8 8
25 25 25 25 25
25
3.810
5.460
27.610 27.650
27.650 28.010 27.550 28.010 27.580
3.160
2.040
0.370
3.060 3.080 3.100 4.010

4.020
71
71
71
14.160
13.320
6.680
5.950
1.130
28.010 27.550
28.010
182
2 830
0.350
0.515
2.600
a
8
183 184
71 71 7; 71
2 830
2 830
1900 1900
1900
2.250 5.010
7.500
9.930
3.580 3.590
3.560 3.540 3.540 2.210 2.220
2.220 4.8B0
7.150
0.370
2.420
1.110
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2.510
0.493 0.474
0.457
27.580
27.680 27.580
e
8 a
185
186 187 201
4.030
4.040 4.050
2 .830 2 .B30 2 .830

2 .830 2 .830
25 25 25
30 30
3.940 5.120 6.040 2.230

4.310
1900
1900
9.120
10.680
27.680
27.5B0
3.810
7!
71 71 71
71
12.260
0.445
0.295
27.490
25.211
2.600
1.860
10 10
2.020 2.040 2.060 2.080 2.100
1900
1900
2.580
5.570
8.750 12.250
2.580 5.560 8.690

11. BOO
25.210 25.210
25.180
202 203 204 205
0.290 0.286 0.299 0.306
25.1B0
2.230
0.056
10
10
2 .830
1900
1900
30 30
30
2.220
2.220 2.220
6.330
25.120
24.960 25.020
.830
2 .830
8.000
8.920
25.120
24.960
2.970 2.230
10
71
1900
14.410
13.260
A6
APPENDIX B: REGRESSION ANALYSIS USED TO DEVELOP FIGURE 29 SHOWING ENERGY DISTRIBUTION IN VICINITY OF REEF
1.
For the energy dissipation figure (Figure 29) the following equation
was used to predict the wave transmission coefficient:
=
t
1.0
uo + c i(t)
()'
where
C
]
,
= 0.02945
= 3.329
C.
= 0.585
= 0.859
F = 611
2.
The wave reflection curves shown in Figure 29 were calculated using
the following equation:
= exp
l\d
\ s/
+C 2lh- +C 3\L
\
c/
\ p/_
where
C C
2
= 0.2899
= -0.7628 = -7.3125
2
= 0.984
F = 4,175
B3
APPENDIX
C:
NOTATION
A,
Area of damage (cm
2
)
A
B
Cross-sectional area of breakwater (cm
2
)
n
C
Bulk number, defined by Equation
Response slope of reef to wave action, defined by Equation

Effective "as built" reef slope, defined by Equation 4
C
C
Dimensionless coefficient
d
s
Water depth at toe of breakwater (cm)

.
sf
(W
sn
/w
1/3
)
,
typical dimension of the median stone (cm)
h
c
- d
freeboard of structure which for reef can be either positive
or negative (cm) h
c
Crest height of breakwater after wave attack (cm) Crest height of breakwater "as built" (cm)
h'
Zero-moment wave height at transmitted gage locations with no breakwater in channel (cm) Zero-moment transmitted wave height (cm)
Incident zero-moment wave height (cm)
H
H
mo K
r
Reflection coefficient of breakwater as defined and calculated by method of Goda and Suzuki (1976)
H /H
,
K
L
wave transmission coefficient

T
P
1
Airy wave length calculated using

P
s
and
d
s
(cm)
N N*
T
P
r
Stability number, defined by Equation
Spectral stability number, defined by Equation
Wave period of peak energy density of spectrum (sec)
Density of stone (g/cra
3
)
Density of water, tests conducted in fresh water,
=1.0
(g/cm
3
)
50
Median stone weight (subscript indicates percent of total weight of gradation contributed by stones of lesser weight) (g)
C3

Characteristics of Breakwaters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characteristics of Breakwaters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characteristics of Breakwaters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT CERC-87-17

CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF BREAKWATERS

Coastal Engineering Research Center

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Works Research Work

no longer needed return

of this report are not to

advertising, publication, orpromotional purposes.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF REPORT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)

Technical Report CERC-87-17

6b. OFFICE SYMBOL (If applicable)

NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION

PO Box 631 Vicksburg, MS

NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING

PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

US Army Corps of Engineers

SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS

TITLE (Include Security Classification)

Characteristics of Reef Breakwaters

SUBJECT TERMS {Continue on reverse

Breakwaters Water waves

necessary and identify by block number)

DISTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT SAME AS RPT UNCLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED

ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

other editions are obsolete

US Army Corps of Engineers, and funded through the Coastal Engi-

John G. Housley, OCE Technical Monitors.

The study was conducted at the

Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) of the US Army Engineer Waterways

Experiment Station (WES).

Dr. C. Linwood Vincent, CERC, is Program Manager of

the Coastal Engineering Functional Area.

This report was prepared by Mr. John P. Ahrens, Research Oceanographer,

Wave Research Branch (CW-R)

Wave Dynamics Division (CW)

Technicians; Messrs. John Heggins, Computer Assistant, and Leland Hennington,

orary assignment from the Icelandic Harbour Authority, Reykjavik, Iceland.

Work was performed under direct supervision of Messrs. D. D. Davidson,

Chief, CERC, respectively.

This report was edited by Ms. Shirley A. J.

Hanshaw, Information Products Division, Information Technology Laboratory,

Commander and Director of WES during publication of this report was

Technical Director was Dr. Robert W. Whalin.

LABORATORY SETUP AND TECHNIQUES USED

Stability Tests Previous Damage Tests Profile Surveys

STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE RESULTS

TABULAR SUMMARY OF STABILITY AND PERFORMANCE DATA

CHARACTERISTICS OF REEF BREAKWATERS

A reef breakwater is a low-crested rubble-mound breakwater without

the traditional multilayer cross section.

In recent years a number of low-crested breakwaters have been built

or considered for use at a variety of locations.

Most of these structures are

intended to protect a beach or reduce the cost of beach maintenance.