Structural design of rubble mound groins/ breakwaters

S.A. Sannasiraj Professor, Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600 036, India. Email: sasraj@iitm.ac.in

Abstract Groins play an important role in the shore protective measures. In comparison with other protective measures such as sea walls or artificial beach nourishment, groins initiate the natural beach development. In this paper, the structural design of groins is detailed. The main criterion in the design is the stability of armour blocks for the design wave climate. The importance of various characteristic layers of a typical groin is discussed.

1.0 Introduction The shoreline is a dynamic line which frequently changes its course due to the action of waves and near shore currents. The change in the shoreline profile is mainly due to the alongshore or cross-shore sediment movements. The cross-shore sediment movements only influence a particular region and would stabilize the coasts soon. However, the alongshore sediment movement is a perennial problem. For an equilibrate shore, the net sediment transport would be insignificant. If the net sediment transport along any shore line is either positive or negative, then that shore line would be subjected to either erosion or accretion. If the boundary between the land and sea shifts towards seaward with time, then the process is accretion. If the shift is towards landward, the shoreline recedes due to erosion. The rate of erosion or deposition depends on composition of shore zone and exposure to erosive forces. There are two basic causes which initiate erosion. One is due to the forces of nature acting along the shoreline and the next, due to the actions of man-made coastal development activities. The most significant natural erosive force is wind-driven wave action in combination with water level changes due to tides, wind set-up and sea-level rise. The man-made activities can interfere with the continuing shore processes such as interruption of littoral drift patterns, deflection of shore current patterns, removal of sediments by dredging and modification of wave regimes through reflection from and diffraction around structures.

There are many types of coastal protection measures such as sea walls/ dikes, mound breakwaters, groins, detached breakwaters and sand nourishment.The size, type and location of coastal protection depends on the actual needs, benefits expected from the methodology, effect on adjacent shorelines and more importantly economy. In this paper, groin as an effective shore protective measure is considered. A row of groins constructed on an eroding part of the coast would locally reduce the longshore sediment transport capacity and thus the coastal erosion. In this process, basically the erosion areas are shifted to less harmful situations or spreaded into longer distances so that the erosion effect would not be felt. The design on the layout of groins with particular reference to our Indian coasts are presented in this workshop. In this paper, the structural design of groins is presented. Although the proper structural design of groins would not guarrentee the functional achievements of the groins, it requires great attention. This is because many of the groins and breakwaters have failed due to the defective design in this respect.

2.0 Structure of groins Groins like breakwaters can be constructed using rubble stones, pre-cast concrete units or blocks, rock-filled timber cribs and gabions, steel sheet pile, timber sheet pile, and grout filled bags and tubes. A typical rubble-mound groin cross section is shown in Fig. 1. An armour layer at the top protects the other layers beneath it from washing away. Thus, the armours have to be designed to withstand under severe environmental forces. And, an inner core layer of smaller size stones prevents any sediment to seep through the groin section. Depending upon the requirements, there may be few (none to two) under-layers between armour and core layers. The stones in the under-layer are chosen in such a way that it will not fit through the voids of its immediate overlaid layer. The groins are often provided with rubble toe protection that serves as a scour blanket to prevent undermining and thereby a reduction in lateral stability. Unlike in the breakwaters, the toe protection for the groins would be provided on both sides of its section. This is because the wave attack would be from any direction. The entire cross section would be placed over the filter layer blanket, which is laid on the seabed. The filter layer evenly distributes the entire weight of the structure into the seabed and hence, it is the foundation for the groin super structure. And also, the filter layer prevents the seabed materials seeps into the core layer and bigger stones to settle into soft sands.

Limit of wave runup Design high water

Crest width Armour layer Secondary layer Core layer

Design low water Toe layer Filter layer sea bed

Fig.1 Conventional rubble mound groin 3.0 Structural design 3.1 Forces acting on Groins 3.1.1 Wave forces. The rubble mound groin is preferably used at exposed sites because of a rubblemound structure's ability to withstand severe wave loads and to decrease wave reflection. Moreover, the risk of scouring and formation of strong rip currents along rubble groins is reduced. Most rubble mound groins are designed with quarry stone as armor and it is heavy enough to be stable under a selected design wave height.

3.1.2 Current forces Currents can exert forces on rubble-mound groins both as longshore currents flowing over low groins and as seaward flowing rip currents along a groins flank. However, current caused forces are usually small when compared with the forces due to waves. Normally the stone weight necessary for stability against currents will be much less than the stone weight necessary for stability against wave action.

3.1.3 Buoyancy forces The effective weight of rubble stone would be reduced due to the buoyancy force in proportional to the submerged volume of the stone.

3.1.4 Frictional resistance Frictional resistance induces parallel to the slope, either upward or downward, but contrary to the direction of the wave force. The condition of instability occurs if the friction is insufficient to neutralize the other forces parallel to the slope. 3

3.1.5 Other forces A groin might experience impact forces due to wave-carried debris and small craft collisions. The magnitude of these forces is difficult to predict because the cause of the impact and the mass of the impacting body are not known a priori. If debris is suspected to be a problem, appropriate levels of conservatism should be included in the design. A groin may have to be designed to withstand forces that might occur only during construction; e.g., the groin may have to carry construction equipment or there may be surcharge due to temporary fill. These forces may be critical and exceed forces due to other more routine causes such as waves and currents.

3.2 Armour layer The outermost armour layer protects the entire structure from the wave action. It dissipates the wave energy through its porosity. This armour layer can be formed either using natural rock debris or concrete blocks depends on the size of the armour units required to withstand against the wave action, the availability rocks and its quality. The concrete blocks can be from simple cube forms to highly interlocking tetrapods, accropods and core-locs. The armor unit size thus depends on the design wave characteristics.

3.2.1 Stability criteria There are hardly any standards available for the design of armour units except an attempt from European standards. However, the design of armour units has been carried out from the experiences of physical model studies and the field observations. Some empirical formulae have been developed from experimental work to find the suitable size of unit which allows the block to withstand the wave-induced forces. The main governing parameter of the armour layer stability is the stability number (Ns) which is defined by,

Ns =

H ( s w 1) Dn 50

(1)

where H is the design wave height; s is the unit weight of armor stone; w is the ratio of unit weight of water and, Dn50 is the nominal median diameter of the stones. The nominal median diameter is related to the median weight W50 by,
3 W50 = s Dn 50

(2)

From Eq. (1),

sH 3 W50 = ( s / w 1) 3 N s3

(3)

The stability (amount of movements) of the armour unit is related to the value of Ns. Stone motions are, in general, not expected on conventional rubble mound groins. For stable groins, the value of Ns ranges between 1 and 4. The armour unit size can then be estimated using either Hudsons formula (Hudson, 1958) or from the findings of Van der Meer (1988).

3.2.2 Hudsons formula

The size of the armour stones is commonly estimated using the widely accepted Hudson formula and the same is recommended by CERC (1984). Hudson (1958) established the stability coefficient (KD) for different types of armour units from physical model tests under regular waves. These values are given as a function of the damage. For the design of rubble mound groins, a damage percentage of 0-5% is acceptable to have no motion of stones. The stability coefficient thus can be correlated to the weight of the armour units and the slope (angle, with the horizontal) in which the units are laid. The suggested KD values for different structure slopes, in general, satisfies the stability criteria of Ns in the range of 1~2.

N s3 = K D cot

(4)

In this method, the weight of the individual stones (W) is proportional to the cubic power of design wave height (HD) for a given structure slope () and the type of stones/ blocks and is given by from Eq. (3) and (4),
W=
3 sHD

KD s 1 cot w
3

(5)

Table 1 provides the stability coefficient for different types of stone/ concrete blocks for use in a trunk section. The corresponding coefficients for head sections are more conservative because head sections directly face the wave action from all the directions.

3.2.3 Van der Meers formula: Van der Meer (1988) suggested stability criteria as function of more parameters than in the Hudsons formula based on physical model tests using irregular waves. This would make it more difficult to apply. A stability criterion is estimated using the damage level S, relating the erosion area in a cross section (A, m2) and the mean diameter of stones (Dn50, m) [van der Meer and Heydra (1991)]. S= A 2 Dn 50 (6)

For the rubble quarry stone, the stability criteria under the action of breaking waves are given below. For plunging waves ( < c):
H s 1 D n 50 w = 6.2 P 0.18 S N
0.2

(7)

For surging waves ( > c):

H s D n 50 w 1 = 1.0 P 0.13 S N
0.2

cot P

(8)

In the above formula, many variables were introduced such as the number of waves, N, the permeability (P) of the surface and the surf similarity parameter, which relates the slope to the wave steepness H/L.

tan H L

(9)

And, c = 6.2 P 0.31 tan

1 P + 0.5

(10)

The condition of no damage introduced by S in the van der Meers formula leads to a value of Ns nearly 1 ~ 2. If one notice the differences in both Hudsons formula and van der Meers formula, they differ only in extreme wave condition. On comparing Eq.(5) and Eqs. (7 & 8), KD defined by Hudsons formula is explicitly defined in terms of the permeability coefficient and wave steepness in the van deer Meers formula. As the wave intensity increases from surging to plunging, the importance of slope was given due consideration by increasing its power of influence. The armour layer slope should be equal or greater than 1V:1.5H. Hudsons formula [Eq. (5)] is applicable for armour units of nearly uniform size and the overtopping of waves is not allowed. For graded riprap armour stone, in the modified Hudsons formula, the weight of the armour stones, W50 represents weight of 50% size in the gradation. In the graded armour layer, the maximum weight of graded rock is 1.25 W50 and the minimum weight of graded rock is 0.75 W50. And, the stability coefficient has to be modified on conservative side and the recommended values are 1.3 and 1.6 for depth at the toe of the structure less than 6.0m and greater than 6.0m respectively. These coefficients were chosen based on allowable 5% damage criteria. However, graded stones are not recommended if the design wave height exceeds 1.5m.

Table 1. Recommended KD values for the estimation of armour unit size Armour units Rough angular quarry stone Graded rough angular stone Tetrapod Dolos Cube (modified) N 1 2 >3 ---2 2 2 BW NR 2 2.2 1.3 7.0 15.8 6.5 KD NBW 2.9 4 4.5 1.7 8.0 31.8 7.5 Slope Cot 1.5 3.0 1.5-3.0 1.5-3.0 1.5-5.0 1.5-3.0 2.0-3.0 1.5-3.0 Porosity (P) % 37 40 37 50 63 47

Note: BW breaking wave; NBW non breaking wave.

3.3 Under layer

The purpose of one or more under layers in between the armour and core layers is to prevent smaller stones in core seeps through the voids of armour units. This criterion is met if 7

the first under-layer stone weighs W50/10 to W50/15 where W50 is the median weight of the armor stone. This criterion assumes that the stone in the under layers has approximately the same unit weight as the armor stone. By this criterion, the second under-layer stone should weigh approximately W50/100 to W50/150. For the groin system, one under-layer is recommended. To prevent smaller stones in the under-layer escape through the pores of armour layer, the following filter design criterion need to be followed for graded stones. D15 (cover) 5 D85 (under) (11)

where, D15 (cover) is the diameter exceeded by the coarsest 85% of the layer immediately above the underlayer and, D85 (under) is the diameter exceeded by the coarsest 15% of the underlayer.

3.4 Core layer

The core layer supports the protective armour cover and any other additional under layers. It prevents sediments passing through the groin. The size of stone in core layer would be W50/200 to W50/4000 (CERC, 1984) following single underlayer. If there is more than one underlayer, the weight of core stones may further be reduced.

3.5 Toe layer

The stone weight needed for stable toe protection can be determined from the stability against the scour arise under the armour stones. This requirement dictates that the weight of toe layer stones should be equal to the weight of underlayer stones, ie. W50/10. The minimum width and height of the toe berm is about 3kDn50 and 2 kDn50 respectively. Here, k is the layer coefficient and approximately, it can be taken as 1.0. A scour apron in addition to the above toe layer width is required if the wave down rush reaches the toe layer. An additional toe-berm should be provided if the bearing failure is possible.

3.6 Filter Layer

The massive rubble stone structure should be stable against disintegration due to excessive settlements due to leaching, undermining or scour due to wave and current induced

turbulence and quick soil conditions, particularly on sandy beds. Filter or bedding layer is required to retain the groin structure while passing large volumes of water through it. The filter layer should satisfy, D15 (filter material) 5 D85 (foundation soil) (12)

The filter layer thickness should not be less than 300mm to ensure that the bottom irregularities are completely covered. Geotextiles can be considered instead of filler materials. The lower limit of filter materials normally is specified by its median size to avoid placing very small stones comparable to the sediments. The stone size gradation of each layer as a percent of the mean stone size is given in Table 2. Table 2. Stone size gradation in a graded rubble design Layer Armour layer Underlayer Toe layer Core Filter layer Stone size W50 W50/10 to W50/15 W50/10 to W50/15 W50/200 to W50/4000 100mm to W50/6000 Gradation (%) 75 to 125 70 to 130 70 to 130 30 to 170 30 170

3.7 Thickness of armour/under Layer

The thickness of a single armour or under layer, t is equal to the mean diameter of stones in that particular layer. However, if there are n number of layers, then the thickness is, t = nk Dn 50 (13)

where, k is the layer coefficient in the range of 1.0 (for dolos) to 1.15 (for rough quarry stone). The placing density of rubble stones is expressed in terms of required number of armour units (Nr) for a given surface area, A.
N r n k (1 P / 100) = 2/3 A Dn 50

(14)

where, P is the average porosity of the armour layer given in Table 1. 9

3.8 Crest width

The crest width, r is the maximum of the following: First depends on the minimum number of stones (ns) required. CERC (1984) suggests minimum number of stones as 3. Next, the width depends on the degree of overtopping and the groins are designed as nonovertopping structure to avoid sediment by passing. The last criterion demands from the functional aspect during the construction and after use. For groins, the access on the top of the groins is not mandatory after construction. Hence, the minimum required crest width would be equal to the wheel base of the crane used for the construction to place the stones in the slope. r = max(n s k D n 50 , construction requirement ) (15)

3.9 Crest elevation

The rubble mound groin height or the crest elevation is an important parameter in the groin design. It depends on the maximum possible wave height (Hmax) that would come across during the lifetime of the groin, wave run-up (R), the free board (FB) requirement and the permissible overtopping of water. Hence, crest elevation above the maximum high water line = Hmax+ R + FB (16)

The free board is an additional safety provided to the groin to avoid overtopping of waves and temporary water level setup submerges the groin during the storm cyclones. A typical value of 1.5m may be assumed for groins. If suitable storm data were available, FB should suitably be increased from the storm-surge data.

3.9.1 Wave run up The wave run-up over the groin slope is calculated from the design wave height (H) and the structure slope ().
R=H

(17)

The wave run-up according to van der Meer and Stam (1991) is given including the frequency of the wave.

10

R = 0.83 H

(18)

3.10 Design Procedure

Fig. 2 presents the overview of the design procedure of groins. For the preliminary groin design under the stability criterion, the following steps needed to follow for an adequate groin section. a. Determine the water level range for the site. b. Determine the wave heights. c. Select suitable groin configurations. d. Select suitable armor unit type and size (rubble mound/ concrete units and toe protection). e. Determine the potential run up to set the crest elevation. f. Determine the amount of overtopping expected which should not be more than the allowed. g. Develop cost estimate for each alternative. The most critical design elements are a secure foundation to minimize settlement and toe protection to prevent undermining. Both of these are potential causes of failure of such walls apart from the main cause of stability of armour units against waves.

>>>> Wave history

>>>> Hs, Tp, Hmax wave spectra Characteristic wave parameters

Transform offshore wave climate into shallow water Long term extreme wave statistics Design wave climate Preliminary design calculation of armour stability and other layers Model tests of preliminary design Final design
Fig. 2 Design procedure of groins

11

4.0 DESIGN OF GROINS AT KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

PWD, WRO, Madurai division, proposed the construction of seven groins at different sites in the Kanyakumari district following the shore erosion affecting the fishing villages at Simon Colony, Vaniyakudi, Kurumbanai, Periyakadu, Kovalam, Arokiapuram and Enayam. The design of various structural components such as armour stone, toe mound and filter bed layer are detailed below. The core layer and under layers, if any, were also been suggested based on the design of armour stones. The main parameters in the design of groin cross section are the water depth and the design wave height. The various cross sections need to be designed in different water depths from the shoreline to the tip of the groin. As the general alignment of the groin is along shore normal, the offshore tip of the groin is subjected to severe wave action from all the possible directions. Thus, the armour slope of a head section (offshore tip) is adopted flatter than (1V:2.5V or higher) a typical trunk section. The following sections present typical designs in water depths of 4.0m and 6.5.

4.1 For a water depth of 4.0 m

Design wave The design water depth can be calculated from the mean water depth, tidal level and the water level set up during the storm. Design water depth = 4m + 0.5 m for storm and tide corrections = 4.5 m The maximum possible sustainable wave height in a particular water depth is, Maximum wave height, Hmax = 0.78 x water depth = 0.78 x 4.5 = 3.51 m In the calculation of armour weight, the design wave height, represented by significant wave height is needed to be established. Significant wave height, Hs = Hmax / (1.6~2.0) 1.95 m

Armour unit (rubble) Hudson formula was used for the estimation of the stable weight of armour rubble stone, W50 from Eq. (5). The following rubble characteristics were assumed. The unit weight of sea water, w was 1.025 t/m3. The stone available in the near by quarries were rough and

12

angular stones with a unit weight, s of 2.65 t / m3. Hence, the stability coefficient, KD was adopted to be 2.0 from Table 1. This coefficient is for the severe wave climate existing at the site, i.e., wave breaking on the groin. For trunk section, an armour slope of 1V:1.5H (cot =1.5) was suggested. From Eq. (5), W50 = 1650 kg

The nominal median diameter of stones corresponding to the armour rubble stone weight can be calculated using Eq. (2). Dn50 = (W50/ s) 1/3 = 0.86 m say 1.0m. Then, the thickness of armour layer (t) can be calculated using Eq. (13). The suggested number of armour layers was two (n = 2) and the layer coefficient was 1.0. t = 2.0 m

Hence, 1.25t to 2.0t armour stones in two layers of thickness 2.0 m was provided.

Under-layer The under-layer stone weights should be one-tenth of armour stone weight (W50/10). Hence, the under-layer was provided with the stone weighing about mean weight of 125 to 200 kg. From Eq. (13), for two layers of similar under-layers, the layer thickness was 1.0.

Core Core layer comprises the core part of the groin. Only one under-layer was proposed for the groins. Hence, the core layer which is below the under-layer should be one-tenth of under-layer stone weight so that the rubbles in the core would not penetrate through the top layers. A stone weight of W50/100 can be used which is about 12.5 to 20kg. However, for practical limitations as well as to serve the purpose of core to avoid silt to pass through the groin sections, a wider range was usually suggested.

Filter layer Filter layer or bedding layer acts as a foundation to support the entire structure. The stones of 10mm to 50 kg were provided as bedding layer to a thickness of 0.5 m.

13

Toe mound A toe mound is to be placed on both sides of the groin for preventing the sliding of the stones and protecting the groin from slope failure. A toe mound of 3.0 m top width and 2.0 m height with 1:1.5 side slopes was provided. The toe mound can be built using the stones similar to under-layer as the armour was supported by the toe mound.

4.2 Design details of groins

Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 present typical cross-sectional details of the groin designed for Kanyakumari coast in the water depths of 3.0m and 5.0m. Table 3 provides the design details at various water depths up to 5.5m. For a water depth above 6.5m and up to 8.0m, the concrete cubes as armour stones were suggested as shown in Fig. 5. Later, based on the constructional difficulties and the operational expenses, it was decided to use rough angular stones. Fig. 6 presents the redesigned groin section in a water depth of 7.5m. Fig. 7 depicts a typical head section of the groin. The head section directly faces the wave action and hence, the slope was made flattened compared to the trunk sections. Table 4 presents the design details of the head section using concrete cubes and using random rubbles as armour units. In the revised design using rubble stones, the slope was flattened to 1:2.5 compared to the concrete cubes in 1:1.5 slope.

Fig. 3. Typical cross section of groin in a water depth of 3.0m

14

Fig. 4. Typical cross section of groin in a water depth of 5.0m

Table 3. Typical design details for trunk section up to a water depth of 5.5m Trunk section 0m to 1m water 1m to 3m water 3m to 5.5m water depth depth depth

Wave Height Crest elevation (m) Crest width (m) Armour layer

up to 0.7m + 3.5 4

Up to 1.0 m + 3.5 4

Up to 2.5 m + 3.5 4

300-500 kg (2 layers 3001000kg(2 layers 500-2500kg(2 layers of thickness 1.1m) of thickness 1.5m) 1:1.5 Nil of thickness 2.0m) 1:1.5 50-250 kg (thickness 1.0m)

Slope Under layer

1:1.5 Nil

Core layer Filter layer (thickness 0.3 m) Toe Toe width (m) Toe height (m)

1 to 150 kg 1 kg - 50 kg

1 to 150 kg 1 kg - 50 kg

1 to 150 kg 1 kg - 50 kg

50 100 kg 3.0 1.0

150 50 kg 3.0 2.0

250 to 1250 kg 3.0 2.0

15

Table 4. Comparison of design details of a head section using concrete cubes and rubble stones as armour units Head section Concrete cubes Concrete cubes

Crest elevation (m) Crest width (m) Armour layer Slope Secondary layer Core layer Filter layer Toe Toe width (m) Toe thickness (m)

+ 4.5 4.0

+ 4.5 4.0

2500 kg in 2 layers of 2000 to 3000 kg in 2 layers of thickness 2.0m thickness 2.0 m 1:1.5 50-250 kg of thickness 1.0m 1 150 Kg 1to50 kg of thickness 0.30 m 250 to 1250 kg 3.0 2.0 1:2.5 50-250 kg of thickness 1.0 m 1 150 Kg 1 to 50 kg of thickness 0.30 m 250 to 1250 kg 3.0 2.0

Fig. 5. Typical cross section of groin using concrete cubes in a water depth of 8.0m

.50 .50 .50 00 MSL

00 00 50

3.0
:1 11.0 .5

ARMOUR LAYER OF 2.0 m TK, 2000 Kg to 3000 kg STONES IN TWO LAYERS (75% shall be 2500 Kg to 3000 Kg and 25% shall be 2000 Kg to 2500 Kg) SLO SECONDARY LAYER OF 1.0 m TK, 50 Kg TO 250 Kg STONES 5 PE 1 . :2 : 2.5 (75% shall be 150 Kg to 250 Kg and 25% shall be 50 Kg to 150 Kg) PE 1 O L S MSL CORE MATERIAL TOE MOUND OF (1 Kg TO 150 Kg STONES) 250 Kg TO 1250 Kg 3.0

4.0

BEDDING LAYER OF 1 Kg TO 50 Kg OF STONES

0.75 3.0 3.0

23.5

4.0 66.5

23.5

3.0 3.0 1.0 0.75

SEA BED

Fig. 6. Modified cross sectional detail of groin using rubble stones in a water depth of 6.5m to 7.5m

16

A R M O U R L A Y E R O F 2.0 m T K , 2000 K g to 3000 kg ST O N E S IN T W O LA Y ER S (75% shall be 2500 K g to 3000 K g and 25% shall be 2000 K g to 2500 K g) SLO SE C O N D A R Y L A Y E R O F 1.0 m T K , 50 K g TO 250 K g ST O N E S PE 1: (75% shall be 150 K g to 250 K g and 25% shall be 50 K g to 150 K g) 2 .5

M SL
C O R E M A T E R IA L (1 K g T O 150 K g STO N E S) B E D D IN G LA Y ER 1 K g TO 50 K g O F ST O N E S

3.0

TOE M OUND OF 250 K g TO 1250 K g SE A B ED 1.0 0.75

4.0

23.5 35.25

3.0

3.0

Fig. 7. A typical head section of a groin in a water depth of 7.5m

4.0 Concluding remarks

The fundamental to the design of groins is the determination of topography, hydrography, still water characteristics and wave characterisitics. The structural parameters include the properties of armour units such as shape, dimensions, specific weight, weight of individual units, porosity, thickness and interlocking qualities etc. The determination of still water level includes tidal elevation at the site, storm surges and subsequent wind setup. The ability of a groin to withstand environmental loads is based mainly on the wave climate, the rock density and the size of armour stone. The size reduction of individual pieces due to abrasion or breakage may lead to damage of the structure and possibly even failure. It has been observed that the volume loss of armour stone due to abrasion during the life time of a groin can be quantified and that material properties can be related to the wave climate and the structure consideration into a damage model. However the problem of armour stone breakage due to in service motion is not yet tackled and the determination of stone movement, stone velocity and the probability of stones breakage still need further work. Last but not least, even though the sectional design has been carried out using stability criteria using the widely adopted Hudsons formula, it is however suggested to verify the stability of the armour layer from a physical model study. None of the empirical model would be equivalent to the stability test using scale down models.

17

References

Hudson, R. Y. (1958). Design of Quarry-Stone Cover Layers for Rubble-Mound Breakwaters; Hydraulic Laboratory Investigation. Research Report No 2-2, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. CERC, Coastal Engineering Reseach Centre (1984). Shore Protection Manual, vol. I & II. Department of Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC, USA. Van der Meer, J. (1988). Rock Slopes and Gravel Beaches Under Wave Attack. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Ph.D. Dissertation. Van der Meer, J. W., and Heydra, G. (1991). Rocking armour units: Number, location and impact velocity. Coastal Engineering, 15, pp 21-39. Van der Meer, J.W., and Stam, C.-J.M. (1991) Wave runup on smooth and rock slopes. Publications no. 454, Delft hydraulics, Netherlands.

18