Stability of Breakwater Reefs
Stability of Breakwater Reefs
Stability of Breakwater Reefs
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Coastal Research
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SI
61-75
Spring 1990
abstract mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
AHRENS, J.P. and COX, J.., 1990. Design and performance of reef breakwaters. Journal of
Coastal Research, SI#7, 61-75. Fort Lauderdale (Florida). ISSN 0749-0208.
Reef breakwaters are potentially one of the most effective types of shore protection. In spite of
this potential, there is very little quantitative information on the design and performance char
acteristics of reefs. This paper discusses some of the practical considerations in choosing armor
stone size as well as size and quantities of bedding material. The expected performance of reefs
is presented in terms of wave transmission and reflection properties, energy dissipation char
acteristics, and shoreline response caused by the reef. Numerous references are cited which can
provide additional information.
In some situations, it is cost effective to use a reef in tandem with either another conventional
breakwater or revetment. This strategy uses a low crested reef to reduce the incident wave
heights on a conventional structure. Some examples of the tandem reef approach are cited.
ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Reef breakwaters, low-crested rubble mounds, breakwater sta
bility, wave transmission, shoreline protection.
INTRODUCTION
Submerged reefs have been recognized
main structure.
As the trend in shoreline maintenance moves
away from hard shore attached protection sys
tems, which limit beach access, shore protection
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Armor Gradation
designed using stone gradations wider than etment (MARKLE, 1981). AHRENS' (1987b)
ordinarily used for armor in conventional, mul
tilayer breakwaters, as discussed in the the stone gradations were typical of those used
VV 50
ally use a stone gradation which reflects what where "x" indicates the percentile of armor
is anticipated will be used at some site on a pro stone less than the given weight. The dimen
totype reef.
sionless stone weight given by Eq. 1 is also tab
SEELIG'S (1980) laboratory tests were of a ulated, in parentheses, in Table 1.
segmented reef breakwater system which was From the extensive studies of breakwater and
planned to protect the shoreline at Imperial riprap stability conducted in the Netherlands,
Beach, California. GIVLER and SORENSEN have come two well-defined stone gradations
(1986) studied submerged reefs to function as (VAN DER MEER and PILARCZYK, 1987),
toe structures for perched beaches being consid which will be referred to as the Dutch wide and
ered as a shoreline defense for the New JerseyDutch narrow gradations. The Dutch wide gra
coast. Tests conducted by GRACE (1989) were dation is given by,
to determine the stability of reefs to protect a
Wx' = [exp(0.01157x - 0.5785)]3 (2)
long sand spit at Presque Isle, Pennsylvania, on
Lake Erie. Model tests designated Warzyn/Vul and the Dutch narrow gradation by,
Table 1. Armor gradations used in laboratory studies of reef breakwaters.
Givler
by weight_OftV)_CNV)_WV)_Wx)_Wx)_Wx)_(WV)
7
14
1100
300
223
(175
33
2500
700
256
204
71
4900
1600
21
106
7600
6100
28
139
7700
8000
15
356
322
29
466
457
40
516
518
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
various values of W'x. The two Dutch gradadynamic rubble-mounds and revetments, there
tions are also shown in Figure 1, and can be has been a corresponding concern that earlier
seen to almost provide upper and lower boundscriteria for stone quality may not be sufficient
for the various lab stone gradations. The Dutchfor structures where the armor stone is
wide gradation has a size distribution similar
expected to be moved about, at least during
to the riprap armor used by AHRENS (1975) storms. Armor durability under dynamic con
which had a porosity of about 40 percent andditions is discussed by ALLSOP and LATHAM
the Dutch narrow gradation has a size distri (1987).
bution similar to that used in the reefs tested
There are no simple, generally applicable
by AHRENS (1987b), which had a porosity of
guidelines for the selection of armor stone even
about 45 percent. This indicates that the bound
for statically stable rubble-mounds. A good way
aries provided by the Dutch wide and narrow
to start the selection process is to identify the
porosities of about 40 and 45 percent, respec sources of stone which have proved satisfactory
on earlier projects. This approach is not fool
tively.
proof, however, since stone quality can vary
greatly from a single quarry. Also the time of
Armor Durability
year the rock is blasted and the length of time
Conventional statically stable breakwater
the stone is stockpiled before placement can
and riprap armor stone quality and durability
influence the performance of the stone from a
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
63
Elk Neck.
REEF STABILITY
Crest Height
ENGINEERS, 1988).
The ratio of the median armor stone size
Removed
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
65
8.5'
, 10.0'
- - 2 iJO.O'_ ,
JU^ARMOR STONE?| 1 P \ EL 56*e (+1 L.W.D.)
3.0'
\lOOji 2 2 , 10.0'10.0'.
r 1 ip^ARMOR STONED*
h-j ?L 5666 (
J | EL 564.6 (-4 L.W.D.)
StdNEjC*^
561.6
(-7 L.W.D.)
~P^?4JbEDDING LAYER - 1 INCH
TOEL15
INCH
t?4.0'
TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE
10 o 10 20 FT
I_I_I_I
EL -4.5
h--" EL 1.5
W1
12'
EL -6.5
EL -T^r -^^^^t EL
FILTER CLOTH
c. REDINQTON SHORES
ARMOR STONE
3 MLW
1.6
BEDDING STONE
0.0 MLW
d. ELK NECK
Figure 2. Cross sections of existing reef breakwaters; important characteristics given in Table 2.
d50 = (W50/wr)
(5)
N* W60\
= -?^Ff^-r
(6)
w,
wr / \w.
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
66
Range
Site/Reference
Bedding
Stone
Size
Armor
Weight
Kg
d50(B),cm
Usace(1984)
Elk Neck
284-510
Ratio
d50(A)/
d50(B)
Armor
Thickness
Over
Bedding
Bedding
Layer
Thickness
cm
Crest
Width
m
Apron
Width Side
m Slopes
5-25
7.0
3.0
91 2.6
4.9 1 ON 2
3-38
6.1
3.7
91 3.4
5.5 1 ON 2
39-48
2.7
2.4
91 3.7
4.4* 1 ON 1.5
23-27
2.1
1.1
5* 31 1.5
0.9 1 ON 1.5
Usace (1988)
*Seaside apron, landside apron 2.9 m wide, apron stone weight range 304-522 kg.
I i_i_I_I_I_I_l_I_i-1_i_I
Figure 3. Typical reef profile, as built, and after adjustment to severe wave conditions.
(7)
where h'c is the crest height of the reef before
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
C0 = 0.0578
Cx = 2.42
C2 = 3.70
Eq. 7.
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
67
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS
Estimating Transmission Coefficients
The most comprehensive, recent study of
wave transmission over and through rubble
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Wave Reflection
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
70
2.0
? 1.8
c
CD
T3 1.6
U
c < A
-3-2-10
Relative
Freeboard,
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
-f
-+
-+
-+
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
of Ahrens (1987b).
and
waveis
tank
calibra
In AHRENS (1987b),
there
a model,
equation with extensive
ficultdiscussion,
to parameterize
to pr
period
waves, d
There is not a lot ofshort
specific
information
a
about dissipating
70 to 80 percent
able on the wave energy
char
waves d8/Lp
0.05, w
istics of rubble structures,
even <
though
t
percent.
(2) advantage
Reefs wit
regarded as one of their
major
water
level
dissip
alternative structure
types.
Thewill
reason
fo
the
wave
energy
if
the
situation is that energy dissipation cann
and must
about 30
if
measured directly but
be percent
inferred
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
71
4 ^4,
*-~-t
3gi
34
^4
%3 31
13?
3
-4?K
2
0.08
Figure 6. Influence of relative depth and relative reef height on wave reflection from reefs. Integers are the product of the
tion coefficient and ten (10).
ranges
stone size, d50/Hmo, in the range, At/HmoLp < 0.5.
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
72
attached to the breakwater to 5.0 for beaches between breakwater segments. Data collected
with no sinuosity behind the breakwater, see by SEIJI et at. (1987), based on a survey of over
Table 3. Regression analysis was used to fit an 1500 detached breakwaters in Japan, gives the
equation to predict the beach response index, I8, following approximate relationships: (1) Lg/X <
based on the data of Pope and Dean; the result 0.8, no erosion opposite gap, (2) 0.8 < Lg/X <
ing equation is
1.3, possible erosion opposite gap, (3) 1.3 < Lg/
laboratory studies.
For some locations, it is important to deter
mine if there will be erosion opposite the gap
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reefs offer an attractive alternative to a con
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
73
Ave. Ave.
Segment Gap
No.
2
3
4
5
6
Project
Winthrop Beach
(Low Tide)
Winthrop Beach
(High Tide)
Lakeview Park
Length Length
Coast Ls(m) Lg(m)
Location
Effective Predicted
Mass.
Atlantic
91
30
80
Mass.
Ohio
Atlantic
Lake Erie
625
62
0
49
205
85
3
4
1.6
4.1
Penn.
Lake Erie
38
75.5
20
2-3
2.6
(High Water)
Penn.
Lake Erie
38
75.5
30
3.3
(Central Beach)
Va.
Chesapeake
61
45
20
1.6
1
5
5
1.1
4.8
5.0
Presque Isle
(Low Water)
Presque Isle
Colonial Beach
Colonial Beach
Atlantic,
Atlantic,
7
8
9
(Castlewood Park)
Lakeshore Park
East Harbor
Ohio
Ohio
Va.
Chesapeake
Lake Erie
Lake Erie
77
38
46
33
60
105
20
100
170
10
Holly Beach
La.
Mexico
50
91
61
Gulf of
3.5
4.0
tial advantages of a reef over conventionalFULFORD (1985) indicates that reefs are effec
(1) Reefs are simpler and can use armor stone line; Type 1?low bank fronted by a narrow
with a wide gradation so they are less expensive beach; Type 2?high bank fronted by a narrow
beach; Type 3?narrow beach with no bank,
to build.
(2) Reefs have high porosity and no core so they
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Choule Sonu,
xxxp.
LITERATURE CITED
ASCE Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Automated Coastal Engineering System, User
Ocean Engineering, 115(2), 221-234.
Guide, Version 1.03. Vicksburg, MS: Coastal Engi
AHRENS, J.P., 1987a. Reef breakwater response to
neering Research Center, Waterways Experiment
wave attack. Proceedings ASCE Conference on Berm
Station.
LEINHART, DA. and STRANSKY, T.E., 1981. Eval
Breakwaters (Ottawa, Canada), pp. xxx-xxx.
AHRENS, J.P., 1987b. Characteristics of Reef Break uation of potential sources of riprap and armor
323-332.
energy dissipation by reef breakwaters. Proceedings LUTTON, R.J.; HOUSTON, B.J., and WARRINER,
of the Oceans '88 Conference (Baltimore, Maryland), J.B., 1981. Evaluation of Quality and Performance
of Stone as Riprap and Armor. Geotechnical and
pp. 1244-1249.
AHRENS, J.P., 1975. Large Wave Tank Tests of Structures Lab, TR-GL-81-8, Waterways Experi
Riprap Stability. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Coastal Engineering Research Center TM-51, VicksMADSEN, O.S. and WHITE, S.M., 1976. Reflection
and Transmission Characteristics of Porous Rubble
burg, MS.
Mound Breakwaters. MR-76-5, Coastal Engineer
ALLSOP, N.W.H. and LATHAM, J.P., 1987. Rock
ing Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
armouring to unconventional breakwaters: The
MARKLE, D.G., 1981. Breakwater and Revetment
design implications for rock durability. Conference
Stability Study, San Juan National Historic Site,
on Berm Breakwaters (Ottawa, Canada), pp. 41-54.
ALLSOP, N.W.H.; BRADBURY, A.P.; POOLE, A.B.;
San Juan, Puerto Rico. Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S.
DIBB, T.E., and HUGHES, D.W., 1985. Rock Dura
Army Waterways Experiment Station Technical
bility in the Marine Environment. Hydraulics
Report HL-81-11, Vicksburg, MS.
Research Limited Report No. SR-11, Wallingford,
POPE, J. and DEAN, J.L., 1986. Development of
Oxfordshire, England.
design criteria for segmented breakwaters. Proceed
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
131-141.
This content downloaded from 137.122.8.73 on Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:23:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms