100 views

Uploaded by S Collins

- Analizador Hallikainen 1077
- S P M 1984 Volume 2-1
- Pressure Drop Evaluation Along Pipelines
- Design of Groins
- Accropode II Brochure
- 5 - Effects of Reynolds Number
- 3. SNPPT 2017 Revisi 4.docx
- brkfld_krebsKU2
- Ajsute Vlp
- CFD 101 Plus Opt
- 6-Reability Analysis on PVT Correlations de Getho , Paone y Villa
- 201655177
- Reynolds Transport Web
- Wang rotor
- A O Smith Meter 2 Inch Steel Model C2
- 1. Surveyors 1
- Skin Friccional
- 2D Temperature Analysis of Energy and Exergy Characteristics of Laminar Steady Flow across a Square Cylinder under Strong Blockage
- PackedBeds(11).pdf
- Factors Influencing Optimum Ball Sealer Performance

You are on page 1of 10

Paulo Freitas

Abstract

The primary aim of the study is to experimentally investigate the stability performance of antifer block armour layers on a

1:1.5 slope, under the effect of irregular waves, for different placement methods. A literature review on the armour layer

stability, as well as 2 different stability formulas for different armour units, is firstly presented. The rubble mound structure

scaling requirements, scale effects in these models and the material used in rubble mound construction are discussed. The

results demonstrate that the best performing placement method corresponds to the regular placement method. However, in

this method, the reflected significant wave heights are higher than in the semi-irregular placement method.

Key words: Rubble Mound Breakwater; Antifer Block; Hydraulic Stability; Placement Method; Damage Assessment.

of it is reflected.

Several evidences of the influence of placement

method on the stability of antifer block armour layers A rubble mound breakwater is usually constituted by a

are well known and studied. The problem of rubble core of quarry run and an under layer of random

mound breakwaters stability involves a large number shaped and random-placed stones, protected with an

of parameters. As a consequence, the studies of armour layer of selected armour units.

hydraulic armour layer are very complex due to the

interaction between these parameters. 2.1. Antifer block

This extended abstract is divided into six chapters. In The antifer cube is a massive armour unit that was

the second chapter the armour layer stability is created as a result of laboratory research conducted for

discussed, such as the stability formulas for different the breakwaters of Antifer Harbour in France. So,

armour units. their first use was on the Antifer breakwaters and later

they have been used in the repair works of the west

On the third chapter, the required theory to design and

breakwater of Sines harbour (Fig. 1).

operate a scaled physical model of a rubble mound

breakwater is presented, as well as the materials used

in rubble mound construction.

In chapter four the model construction is discussed

together with the different placement methods.

On the fifth chapter, the results and the values

downscaled to the prototype are presented.

The last chapter contains the conclusion remarks and

suggestions for future work. Fig. 1: Use of antifer blocks in repair works of the west breakwater

in Sines harbour (Portugal)

2. RUBBLE MOUND BREAKWATER they present four grooves and a slightly tapered shape

Rubble mound breakwaters can be found along the (Fig. 2) [1].

coastline, to either protect the coastal area against

wave action or create sheltered areas where vessels

can navigate and berth safely. The wave energy in this

1

Nowadays the most widely used equations in the

design of some concrete armour units are the Hudson

equation and Van der Meer equations.

Hudson formula can be described by equation (3) for

concrete armour units [2]. Here the first term

corresponds to the stability parameter and the second

represents the slope angle and the KD factor.

( ) (3)

Fig. 2: Geometrical characteristics of Antifer Cubes (m), KD is the Hudson stability parameter (-) and is

the slope angle ().

2.2. Hydraulic stability

The value of KD depends mainly on the type of armour

The hydraulic stability of the armour layer on the front

layer adopted. However, this value also depends on

slope has been widely investigated for many years. To

the wave steepness, ratio of depth to wavelength, ratio

understand the breakwaters performance against wave

of wave height to depth, thickness and porosity of

action, it is necessary to describe some physical

cover layer, armour unit surface roughness, incident

processes.

wave angle, shape of armour unit, slope of bottom

seaward of structure, crest width, method of placing

Generally, the common failure mode of the armour

the breakwater materials, and damage level. In Table

layer is failure of singles units when the wave

1, suggested KD values are presented.

dislocating force is greater than the stabilizing force.

The instability of these units is caused by wave forces,

which tend to move the blocks once a critical value is - the use of regular waves only;

exceeded. Those wave-generated forces are known as - no description of the damage level;

drag and lift forces that are withstood by the

interlocking effect and/or block weight. - the use of non-overtopped and permeable structures

only.

(1)

( ) ( ) Table 1: Suggested KD values

the density of water (kg/m3), D is the nominal

KD Manual

diameter (m), g is the gravitational acceleration (m/s2), Armour

cotg

unit H

v is the flow velocity (m/s), FD is the drag force, FL is Breaking Nonbreaking

wave wave

the lift force and FG is the gravitational force.

Tetrapod 7.2 8.3

Assuming that the velocity of a wave on the slope is SPM

Modified 1.5 1975 [3]

proportional to the celerity in shallow water, equation 6.8 7.8

cube

(1) can be shortened, and the stability parameter is to

SPM

Modified 1984 [4]

6.5 7.5

cube

(2) Rock

( ) Antifer

7.0 8.0 2 Manual

Cube

2007 [2]

where H is the characteristic wave height (m), is the

relative densiy (-) and Ns is the stability parameter.

2

2.4. Van der Meer equations In Table 2, the damage levels associated to the

structure damage classification are presented.

To overcome the limitations of Hudson formula, Van

der Meer conducted an extended research on the Table 2: Damage level by Nod and S for double layer armour

stability of breakwater. For armour layers composed Armour unit

Initial Intermediate

by cubes in a double layer on a 1:1.5 slope with / Damage Slope Failure Manual

damage damage

parameter

3m6 (m surf similarity parameter), based on non-

USACE,

depth-limited wave conditions, Van der Meer Rock / S 1:1.5 2 3-5 8

2011 [6]

proposed the equations (4) and (5) [5].

USACE,

0 - 2

2011 [6]

Modified

( ) (4) cube / Nod

1:1.5

CIRIA

0.2-0.5 1 2 et al.,

2007 [2]

USACE,

0 - 1.5

( ) (5) Tetrapod/

2011 [6]

1:1.5

Nod CIRIA

0.2-0.5 1 1-5 et al.,

where Hs is the significant wave height (m), Nod is the 2007 [2]

number of displaced units related to a width of one

nominal diameter, for displacements higher than 2Dn

(-), No,mov is the number of displaced units related to a

3. MODEL SET-UP

width of one nominal diameter, for all type of

displacements (-), sm is the mean wave steepness (-) This chapter presents the theory to design and operate

and Nz is the number of waves (-). scaled physical models of a rubble mound breakwater,

as well as the materials used in the rubble mound

2.5. Damage construction.

The damage in armour layers is related to the specific 3.1. Scaling requirements and scale effects

conditions and duration of a sea state. It can be

Physical modelling is based on the idea that the model

characterized by counting the number of displaced

behaves in a similar way to the prototype that intends

units or measuring the eroded surface profile of the

to represent. Thus, a validated physical model can be

armour slope.

used to predict the prototype's behaviour under a

specified set of conditions. However, there is a

The damage can be expressed in terms of a relative

possibility that the physical model may not represent

displacement D, which is defined as the ratio between

the prototype behaviour due to scale effects and

the number of displaced units and the total number of

laboratory effects [7].

units within a specific zone (usually the area between

Hs around Still Water Level is used) [4]. Gravity forces predominate in free surface flows and

thus most hydraulic models can be designed using the

(6) Froude criterion [8].

(8)

The KD values suggested for Hudson formula are

obtained for a level of damage smaller than 5%, (9)

measured between Hs around Still Water Level.

where Nt is the time scale (-), Nl is the length scale (-)

Broderick defined the damage (S) as the relation and NM is the mass scale (-).

between the eroded surface profile and the square of

the nominal stone diameter [6]. In equation (9) it is assumed that relative density

relationship is the same for model and prototype.

follows from Froude scaling may lead to viscous

where Ae is the eroded area. forces, corresponding to small Reynolds numbers.

3

This means that the flow regime in the breakwater least, 3Hs (318cm=54cm) to avoid breaking

armour units of the model is laminar, instead of conditions before the structure. However, due to issues

turbulent, to avoid viscous scale effects. related with glasses safety, a value of 45cm was

chosen [2].

However, this scale effect can be neglected if the

Reynolds number is greater than 30000, obtained by

3.3. Materials used in the construction and

equation (10) [7].

structural parameters

where Re is the Reynolds number (-), is the

of the breakwater armour layer. The antifer blocks are

kinematic coefficient of viscosity (m2/s) and Hs,i is the

made available by LNEC (National Laboratory for

incident significant wave height (m).

Civil Engineering) (Fig. 4). The blocks are made of

concrete, filled up with small spheres of metal and

The results obtained in this study were downscaled

were painted to avoid friction scale effects and to

according to Froude similitude criterion using a length

observe more easily their eventual displacement.

scale of 1:60.

The proprieties and dimensions of the block are

3.2. Facilities

presented in Table 3 and Table 4.

The experimental research was performed in the wave

Table 3: Block proprieties of used antifer cubes

flume of the hydraulic and environment laboratory of

Instituto Superior Tcnico. After building the model, c Dn15 Dn50 Dn85 M15 M50 M85

the placed antifer layers were tested for a peak wave (kg/m3) (cm) (cm) (cm) (g) (g) (g)

period of 1.4s with different significant wave heights, 2450 4.30 4.33 4.36 195.25 199 203.3

i.e. 10cm, 12cm, 14cm, 16cm and 18cm.

The channel has a length of 22m, a width of 0.7m and

Table 4: Block dimensions of used antifer cubes

a height of 1m and has a system of wave generation

with dynamic wave absorption (Fig. 3). H V A B C D r

(cm) (cm3) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

In this work, the irregular waves were produced by the

4.30 81.47 4.67 4.32 0.41 0.10 0.52

HR WaveMaker wave generation software, adjusted to

JONSWAP spectral shape.

The waves were measured with four probes and the

data was recorded and analysed by HR Data

Acquisition and Analysis software.

One camera was used to capture video of every tests

and take pictures before and after each test. Fig. 4: Example of used antifer blocks

M85/M15 is 1.041.

breakwater under layer (granite stones) (Fig. 5). The

standard Froude scaling method for the under layer is

based on the relation between the armour layer weight

ant the under layer weight. The typical value

Fig. 3: Wave flume recommended to the weight ratio is around 10 [6].

The duration for each test was defined for 2000

waves. The water depth in the flume should be, at

4

The proprieties of the graded rock are presented in 4. MODEL CONSTRUTION AND

Table 5. PLACEMENT METHODS

Table 5: Graded rock proprieties of used stones

Knowing the elevation of the crest and the slope, the

r Dn15 Dn50 Dn85 M15 M50 M85 model dimensions were drawn on the glass of the

(kg/m3) (cm) (cm) (cm) (g) (g) (g)

flume. The material of the core was placed in stages to

2600 1.63 1.78 1.97 11.29 14.6 20 allow the settlement of the core (Fig. 6). During the

construction of the core, irrigations were made in

order to facilitate the settlement.

M85/M15 is 1.772. The nominal diameter of the rocks

should be around 19.9g, however the value obtained Fig. 6: Core of the model

after the sieve selection was smaller, corresponding to

After placing the core, the graded rock of the under

14.6g.

layer was placed one by one. Firstly, the first layer of

3.3.3. Core under layer was placed and then the second layer (Fig.

7).

Quarry run is used as core material. Generally the top

weight pretended in rubble mound breakwaters core is

1000kg and the bottom weight is 1kg. The lowest

value is recommended to avoid geotechnical

instability [9]. Therefore, the material of the core was

constructed using 5 types of gravel with different

gradations. The proprieties of the quarry run are

presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Quarry run proprieties

(kg/m3) (cm) (cm) (cm) (g) (g) (g)

2600 0.23 0.68 0.89 0.029 0.807 1.902

The gradation Dn85/Dn15 is 3.925 and the gradation Fig. 7: Under layer of the model under construction

M85/M15 is 65.586. The porosity of the core is around

30%. After placing the core, the under layer and the

concrete blocks of the toe in a stable way, the antifer

3.3.4. Toe and superstructure blocks were placed one by one, for each test.

Rectangular concrete blocks with an edge of 10cm has In Fig. 8, the sketch of the breakwater cross section, as

been applied in the construction of the breakwater toe well as, material characteristics used in the model, are

protection, as well as in the superstructure. In this presented.

way, the instability of the armour layer induced by the

possible movements of the toe is avoided.

5

different for some placement methods, leading to

different thickness of armour layer.

In this study 3 different placement methods of armour Fig. 9: Configuration of the first layer of armour layer (regular

layer were analysed. Each placement method was pattern)

designed to have porosity of around 50%. For values The techniques of the placement are defined as row by

above 50% the stability may be insufficient and for row or layer by layer, see Fig. 10 and Fig. 11,

values below occurs a paving action (consequently respectively.

grater overtopping) [10].

The geometry of the placed antifer for each placement

method, was calculated using the formulas described

in Table 7 [9].

Table 7: Basic geometric design formulae and parameters for placed

armour units

Fig. 10: Row by Row Fig. 11: Layer by Layer

Based on the armour layer

First thickness (t), the Layer The assessment of the damage was measured between

step coefficient (K) was Hs around Still Water Level for each test.

calculated

Classification of the movements of the armour units is

Based on the

required in the counting method. Such classification

dimensionless upslope

Second distance (y=1,08), the

was based on the displacement of each block,

step dimensionless horizontal measured in units of nominal diameter. In this work

distance (x) was distances lower than 1Dn were not considered as

calculated damage.

The horizontal and

Third upslope centre to centre 5. RESULTS

step distance between blocks

was calculated In the reflection analysis, reflection coefficients for

The packing density fast Fourier transform (NFFT) with 256, 512 and 1024

Fourth coefficient (n of blocks / points obtained in the reflection routine were analysed

( )

step n of possible blocks) was and the incident significant wave heights were

calculated calculated. To check the accuracy of the results, the

The numbers of antifer reflection coefficients were determined using the

Fifth

blocks per unit area was incident and reflected wave spectral energy in order to

step

calculated obtain the incident significant wave heights and

The value of packing compare the results.

Sixth

density coefficient was

step

verified

5.1. Semi-irregular placement method

The value y=1.08, means that the spacing between For this experiment the antifer blocks of the first layer

blocks along the upslope does not exist. are placed by the regular pattern (Fig. 9). After every

The configuration of the first layer of the armour layer 4-5 rows of the first layer, the second layer is placed

is the same for all placement methods (Fig. 9). by dropping the blocks above the holes (Fig. 12). The

However, the horizontal centre to centre distance is

6

thickness of armour layer is defined as the nominal In the Fig. 13, damage ratios for the displacements are

diameter plus the height of the antifer cube. presented, for 2 different references areas.

Fig. 13: Damage for semi-irregular placement method

The properties of the armour layer and the wave series

are presented in Table 8 and Table 9. The reflection The Hudson stability parameter was calculated for a

coefficients and Reynolds number are presented in damage of 5%, for the first wave series were the first

Table 10. displacements were observed. From this follows

KD=2.1. This value is similar to the value found by

Table 8: Layer properties for semi-irregular placement method

Frens [11] (KD,Frens=2.3).

x (-) 1.86 tmeasured (cm) 8.60

y (-) 1.08 P (%) 49.8 5.2. Regular placement method 1

X (cm) 8.06 K (-) 0.993

The antifer blocks are placed row by row (Fig. 10).

Y (cm) 4.67 (%) 49.8

The blocks in the first layer are placed with their

tcalculated (cm) 8.63 Nc (blocks/m2) 531.3

grooves perpendicular to the slope (Fig. 14). The

blocks of the second layer are placed diagonal for the

Table 9: Wave series for semi-irregular placement method first row directing to the left and for the second row to

Hs,input the right and so on (Fig. 15).

Hm0,i (m) Tp (s) Tm (s) sm (-) Ns (-)

(m)

0.10 0.081 1.38 1.18 0.037 1.28

0.12 0.102 1.41 1.25 0.042 1.63

0.14 0.115 1.41 1.32 0.043 1.84

0.16 0.128 1.41 1.38 0.043 2.04

0.18 0.139 1.38 1.41 0.045 2.22

placement method

Fig. 14: Regular placement method 1 (X=8.1cm)

Hs,input Reflection Re (-)

(m) Cr (-) NFFT (points) eq. 9

0.10 0.335 512 38084

0.12 0.319 512 42936

0.14 0.300 512 45588

0.16 0.306 256 48063

0.18 0.294 256 50055

Analysing the video, is visible that in the first wave

Fig. 15: Thickness of armour layer (t=H+Dn)

series, the blocks are displaced around SWL. In this

placement method the effect of interlocking is low. The properties of the armour layer and the wave series

Consequently the hydraulic stability is mostly are presented in Table 11 and Table 12. The reflection

guaranteed by the weight of the block. coefficients and Reynolds number are presented in

Table 13.

7

Table 11: Layer properties for regular placement method 1 for the last test (Ns=2.06) where the displacements

x (-) 1.86 tmeasured (cm) 8.60 observed was low, almost null. From this follows

KD=5.8. This value when associated with the value

y (-) 1.08 P (%) 49.8

found by Frens is almost equal, KD,Frens=6.4 [11].

X (cm) 8.06 K (-) 0.993

Y (cm) 4.67 (%) 49.8 5.3. Regular placement method 2

tcalculated (cm) 8.63 Nc (blocks/m2) 531.3

The placement of the antifer blocks is similar to the

Table 12: Wave series for regular placement method 1 regular placement method 1 (Fig. 17). However the

packing density is lower, and the horizontal centre to

Hs,input

Hm0,i (m) Tp (s) Tm (s) sm (-) Ns (-) centre distance is higher (Fig. 18).

(m)

0.12 0.095 1.41 1.26 0.038 1.52

The antifer blocks are placed row by row (Fig. 10).

0.14 0.114 1.43 1.33 0.041 1.82

The blocks in the first layer are placed with their

0.16 0.122 1.43 1.38 0.041 1.94 grooves perpendicular to the slope (Fig. 17). The

0.18 0.131 1.41 1.41 0.042 2.08 blocks of the second layer are placed diagonal for the

0.18 0.129 1.43 1.41 0.041 2.06 first row directing to the left and for the second row to

1000 waves

the right and so on (Fig. 18).

method 1

(m) Cr (-) NFFT (points) eq. 9

0.12 0.388 512 41466

0.14 0.355 256 45392

0.16 0.373 256 46876

0.18 0.379 256 48488

0.18 Fig. 17: Regular placement method 2 (X=8.8cm)

0.370 512 48238

1000 waves

The first blocks were displaced only in the last test for

Hm0,i=0.129m. In this test, the blocks were not

replaced. As a result, the displacement occurs for a

total of 2000 waves plus 1000 waves. In this

placement method, the effect of interlocking is

efficient, providing a high hydraulic stability.

In Fig. 16, damage ratios for the displacements are

presented for references area 18cm. Fig. 18: Thickness of armour layer (t1.85H, increase of 20% in the

distance between blocks when compared with regular placement

method 1)

are presented in Table 14 and Table 15. The reflection

coefficients and Reynolds number are presented in

Table 16.

y (-) 1.08 P (%) 49.9

X (cm) 8.75 K (-) 0.917

Fig. 16: Damage for regular placement method 1

Y (cm) 4.67 (%) 45.9

The Hudson stability parameter was calculated for a

tcalculated (cm) 7.96 Nc (blocks/m2) 489.7

damage of 0.8%. Therefore that value was determined

8

The scaling of the design units and time series was

Table 15: Wave series for regular placement method 2 adjusted using the equations (8) and (9) (Froude

Hs,input similitude criterion). A length scale of 1:60 has been

Hm0,i (m) Tp (s) Tm (s) sm (-) Ns (-)

(m) applied for the breakwater model, and the unit sizes

0.12 0.097 1.41 1.27 0.039 1.55 and design storm were determined for the prototype

0.14 0.114 1.41 1.34 0.041 1.82 (see Table 17, Table 18, Table 19 and Table 20).

0.16 0.125 1.43 1.38 0.042 1.99 Table 17: Armour Unit specifications for the prototype

0.18 0.128 1.41 1.42 0.041 2.04 Antifer cubes Dn,50 M50

Prototype 2.50m 42.98ton

Table 16: Reflection and Reynolds number for regular placement Model 4.33cm 199g

method 2

Hs,input Reflection Re (-) Table 18: Graded rock specifications for the under layer

(m) Cr (-) NFFT (points) eq. 9 Grades Rock Dn,50 M50

0.12 0.390 512 41825 Prototype 1.07m 3.15ton

0.14 0.356 256 45375 Model 1.78cm 14.60g

0.16 0.359 256 47467

0.18 0.386 512 48028 Table 19: Quarry run specifications for the core

The first blocks were displaced in the third wave Quarry Run Dn,50 M50

series for Hm0,i=0.125m. In the last test (Hm0,i=0.128m) Prototype 0.41m 174.31kg

the blocks were not displaced. Consequently, the Model 0.68cm 0.81g

reflection visualized in the basin was higher and

therefore greater reflected significant wave height was Table 20: Design Storm for the prototype (Semi-irregular placement

obtained, around 5cm (wave breaking along the basin method)

lower when compared with regular placement method Hs,input (m) Hm0,i (m) Tp (s) Tm (s)

1. 6.0 4.9 10.7 9.1

In Fig. 19, damage ratios for the displacements are 7.2 6.1 10.9 9.7

presented, for 2 different references areas. 8.4 6.9 10.9 10.2

9.6 7.7 10.9 10.7

10.8 8.3 10.7 10.9

Analysing Table 9 and Table 20, the incident

significant wave height of 0.139m and the peak period

of 1.38s obtained in the model corresponds to a

Hm0,i=8.3m and a Tp=10.7s in the prototype.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

Fig. 19: Damage for regular placement method 2 Among the various conclusions drawn from this study,

The Hudson stability parameter was calculated for a the following ones deserve to be specially mentioned:

damage of 0.6%. Therefore, that value was determined In the semi-irregular placement method, the

for Ns=1.99, which is associated to the lowest reflection coefficients are smaller than the

displacements, almost null. From this follows KD=4.0. coefficients obtained in regular placement

This value when compared with the value obtained by methods. This value tends to decrease when

Frens is almost equal, KD,Frens=4.1 [11]. increasing incident significant wave heights,

since the damage and porosity are greater for

5.4. Study values Froude-scaled for a prototype higher Hm0,i.

with a geometrical scale of 1:60

9

The regular placement methods are more 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

stable and the reflection coefficients are

higher. However in the regular placement

method 2, the values of reflection coefficients [1] Pita, C., Memria N 670 - "Dimensionamento

are greater when compared with the regular Hidrulico do Manto de Quebra-mares de

placement method 1, due to the fact that the Talude", LNEC, Lisboa, 1986.

first layer is more exposed to wave breaking.

The settlement of the core in the reference [2] CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF, "The Rock Manual. The

area for wave action in the regular placement use of Rock in hydraulic engineering", 2nd ed.,

method 2 was higher. Ch. 5, C683, CIRIA, London, 2007.

In physical modelling, tests should be

repeated in order to check the accuracy of the [3] Coastal Engineering Research Center, "Shore

results. However in this study the tests have Protection Manual", 2nd ed., Vol. 2, Ch. 7, U.S.

not been repeated. Nevertheless, the Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,

comparison between the Hudson stability 1975.

coefficients, obtained in this work with the

results found by Frens in 2007, allow to [4] Coastal Engineering Research Center, "Shore

verify that the values are similar. Protection Manual", 4th ed., Vol. 2, Ch. 7, U.S.

For the semi-irregular placement method Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,

KD=2.1 is suggested for a damage of 5%, 1984.

since in this placement method is easy to

[5] Van der Meer, J.; Heydra, G., Journal of Coastal

repair the armour layer by placing a new

Engineering - "Rocking armour units: Number,

block in the revealed hole.

location and impact velocity", Elsevier Science

For regular placement methods 1 and 2, the

Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 1991.

values KD=5.8 and KD=4.0 are suggested,

respectively. These values were obtained for [6] U. S. Army Corps of Enginners, "Coastal

damage almost null, due to the fact that the Engineering Manual", Part VI, Ch.5,

armour layer cannot be repaired by filling up Washington, DC, 2011.

the holes, because the upper blocks tend to

slide down (chain reaction). [7] Hughes, S., "Physical Models and Laboratory

In conclusion, the regular placement method 1 appears Techniques in Coastal Engineering", World

to have the best stability performance. However this Scientific, Singapore, 1993.

method, when compared with regular 2, has a bigger

[8] Quintela, A., "Hidrulica", 10 ed., Fundao

consumption of concrete on manufacturing of antifer

Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 2007.

blocks, due to the higher numbers of antifer blocks per

unit area. [9] CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF, "The Rock Manual. The

There are some changes and studies that could be done use of Rock in hydraulic engineering", 2nd ed.,

to consolidate the trends here presented. Ch. 3, C683, CIRIA, London, 2007.

Construct a model with armour layers [10] Maquet, J., Developments in Geotechnical

composed by antifer cubes in a double layer Engineering, 37 - "Design and construction of

on a 1:2 slope, for all placement methods mounds for breakwaters and coastal protection -

tested in this study. Port of Antifer, France", P. Bruun, Ed., Elsevier

Test the placement methods studied for Science Publishers B. V., Amsterdam, 1985.

different peak wave periods and reduce the

number of waves to 1000. [11] Frens, A., "The impact of placement method on

Use a small scale crawler crane and pressure Antifer-block stability", Delft University of

clamp in the construction of the armour layer. Technology, Delft, 2007.

Study other placement methods on a 1:1.5

and 1:2 slope, as the regular placement with

smaller horizontal centre to centre distance.

10

- Analizador Hallikainen 1077Uploaded bysanchezfnx
- S P M 1984 Volume 2-1Uploaded bydavid
- Pressure Drop Evaluation Along PipelinesUploaded bysachin
- Design of GroinsUploaded bySatya S Atluri
- Accropode II BrochureUploaded byPn Ekanayaka
- 5 - Effects of Reynolds NumberUploaded byCharles Portner
- 3. SNPPT 2017 Revisi 4.docxUploaded byFRAB
- brkfld_krebsKU2Uploaded byAndre Santiago
- Ajsute VlpUploaded byMarcelo Ayllón Ribera
- CFD 101 Plus OptUploaded byMohamed Elshahat Ouda
- 6-Reability Analysis on PVT Correlations de Getho , Paone y VillaUploaded byYamal E Askoul T
- 201655177Uploaded byIulia Alina Anton
- Reynolds Transport WebUploaded byAaron Holzaepfel
- Wang rotorUploaded byHugh Manta
- A O Smith Meter 2 Inch Steel Model C2Uploaded byRomanko
- 1. Surveyors 1Uploaded byshilparab
- Skin FriccionalUploaded bySérgio Roberto Dalha Valhe
- 2D Temperature Analysis of Energy and Exergy Characteristics of Laminar Steady Flow across a Square Cylinder under Strong BlockageUploaded byNgọc Vi Cao
- PackedBeds(11).pdfUploaded bybriankulet
- Factors Influencing Optimum Ball Sealer PerformanceUploaded byRamanamurthy Palli
- 06 Pressure LossesUploaded byBrahim Letaief
- CHAPTER 1 PROPERTIES OF FLUIDS.docxUploaded byAhmad Ikhwan
- IGI Wax_ Paraffin, Microcrystalline, Petrolatum, Wax Blends - Wax TestsUploaded bywjawich
- drag-laws.pdfUploaded byRelining Minerals
- 101_1_5Uploaded byhimagiri2011
- Caking PhenomenanUploaded bySYahira HAzwani
- Pages From Flow of Fluids Through Valves Fittings Pipe - MetricUploaded bypotatoteddy
- D4539Uploaded byrimi7al
- 603-ENUploaded byRui
- Rudolf K. Allemann, Nigel S. Scrutton-Quantum Tunnelling in Enzyme-Catalysed Reactions (RSC Biomolecular Sciences) (2009)Uploaded byMarcos R Galvão Batista

- Jensen Core Permeability Accropode StabilityUploaded byS Collins
- Safety of Breakwater Armour Layers With Special Focus on Monolayer Armour UnitsUploaded byRaed Naim Khammash
- Rocla a-Jacks Concrete Armour UnitsUploaded byS Collins
- 2005_cementing_future- cwement industry report.pdfUploaded byS Collins
- ACCROPODE™_Design_GuidelinesUploaded byAlireza
- Allsop Bradbury Armourstone Durability 1986Uploaded byS Collins
- Port of Mackay Port Handbook 11.01.16Uploaded byS Collins
- Qld Resources MapUploaded byS Collins
- API -Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis & Maintenance of Moorings for Floating Production Systems1993Uploaded byS Collins
- EurOtop-2007 Wave Overtopping (en)Uploaded byCatalin_Fusa
- Arizona riprock protection.pdfUploaded byS Collins
- Arizona riprock protection.pdfUploaded byS Collins
- Wave Loads on Vulnerable Deck Structures- Model Testing, Analysis and Mitigation SolutionsUploaded byS Collins
- Chapter 12 - Wave Forces on Slender CylinderUploaded byJuan Carlos González
- GSDM Extreme Rainfall MethodUploaded byS Collins

- Guided VehicleUploaded byganesh
- CarlingSW_V4_5Uploaded byYakov Villaverde
- External Data Preprocessing for Efficient SortingUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- RO Water Maker ManualUploaded byAnonymous IwqK1Nl
- Foggi Pump-Probe and Data AnalysisUploaded bythe135master
- User Guide SymphonyxUploaded byAzael Ovalle Castillo
- Legality of Predatory TowingUploaded bysrogers99
- Use of Dividing HeadUploaded byandhab1
- Investigation Into the Inherent Variability of Pharmaceutical ExcipientsUploaded byWing Sin Chiu
- Malwarebytes 3.0 User GuideUploaded bythepsalmist
- Rationale Number of Personnel in Clean Rooms CM 20131023 (1)Uploaded byBrian Williams
- Arduino DateUploaded byMircea Timisoara
- TL1451AUploaded byjose4445
- 6.1. millingUploaded byWahyudiPrasatia
- Public CV 2016Uploaded bySeth J. Gillespie, PhD
- fluid mechanics equationsUploaded byBhushan Verma
- Pharmaceutical Technology_ Challenges and Strategies for ImpleUploaded byVinicius Barros
- More Newton's LawsUploaded byPaulo De Lira Oledan
- Fireface UFX Time to RecordUploaded byAlexandru Şerbu
- roll_conditions.pdfUploaded byBedry Nurhadi
- As 3787.1-1997 General Requirements for Single-use Sterile Plasticized Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Packs for HumUploaded bySAI Global - APAC
- rca-ctc185_[ET]Uploaded byLuis Quiñones
- APEX 17 ArticleUploaded bybasanth babu
- Ordinance PoliforUploaded byReem Magpantay
- FID 63A - 500mA 4PUploaded byvvlike767
- Clarification Reply HoneywellUploaded bythillai312
- MacondoUploaded byIsaac Anthony
- 202 Manual Hydra StepUploaded byKC Samantaray
- Zebra Programming Language (ZPL-II)Uploaded bydanzcreation
- RCE_F1 2013_Last of the V8sUploaded byMattH3