Dolos Breakwater
Dolos Breakwater
Dolos Breakwater
ABSTRACT
The dolos armour unit has been used all over the world and, although most
projects have been successful, there have also been some major failures.
When moved around, armour units in general and the rather slender dolosse
in particular are prone to structural damage and when dolosse break through
the shank, one is left with very unstable pieces of rubble. It is shown in
this paper that a safe and economic dolos structure can be obtained if the
correct design process is followed. The "optimum" design is based on a
reasonable degree of dolos movement which must be established in detailed
and representative model tests.
To ensure that the dolosse can withstand these movements, prototype dolos
behaviour must be monitored, and such monitoring must be supplemented by
representative structural tests, analytical studies and special prototype mea-
surements.
To increase the structural strength of dolosse, the waist to height ratio can
be increased and some (simple) form of reinforcing can be included.
1. INTRODUCTION
Much thought has been given to the design of rubble mound breakwaters
and considerable effort has gone into obtaining a better understanding of
the processes at work and the design techniques after the initial major
failures of the Bilboa breakwater in 1976 (35 m depth, 65 t concrete blocks)
and the Sines breakwater in 1978/79 (up to 5D m depth, 42 t dolosse;
Zwamborn, 1979). In the ten years since these failures progress has been
made, particularly in identifying the relevant parameters and in defining the
many problems which remain to be solved regarding wave climate, model
studies (wave structure interactions), material strength and geotechnical
aspects (PIANC, 1985).
Much research will still have to be done on these aspects before a fully
reliable design procedure can be developed. In the meantime, however,
breakwaters have to be designed with the techniques that are available and
particular attention will have to be given to sensitivity analysis. This means
that the design of the structure should be checked for realistic variations in
the relevant parameters. The results of this analysis will provide data on the
risk of failure or major damage and, at the same time, give an idea of the
cost involved in reducing/increasing this task.
2420
DOLOS ARMOUR DESIGN 2421
2. DESIGN APPROACH
g) three-dimensional effects.
Because the "no movement" criterion basically mean that the design must
be based on H_ , the result could become rather uneconomical,
max'
"No Breakage" Design
The other extreme would be to ensure that the dolosse are unbreakable
under prototype loading conditions. In this case the design can be based on
conventional hydraulic model tests which have to prove that armour displace-
ment will be within acceptable limits, for instance, Figure 1 indicates K-.
factors between 25 and 30 for 1 to 2 per cent displacement. Detailea
tests, as described above, will be necessary to ensure a safe design. The
results of these tests could also be used to optimise the design, that is to
minimise the total cost (capital investment plus maintenance cost).
This approach is the easiest with regard to model testing but there are two
major problems, namely, to determine the prototype loading conditions and
to make the dolosse unbreakable for these conditions without losing the
coast advantage of the units' high stability.
Extensive tests have been done with different types of reinforced dolosse
(Burcharth, 1981 and Grimaldi and Fontana, 1984). The test results showed
limited improvement in impact strength with from 30 kg/m3 up to 120 kg/m3
(0,4 to 1,6 per cent by volume) steel fibres, that is, an increase in drop
heights from about 20 to 150 per cent at "failure" (major damage and/or
breakage). Conventional steel reinforcement of 77 to 138 kg/m3 (1 to 1,8
per cent by volume), however, was found to make the dolosse virtually un-
breakable. Although first crack formation occurred at drop heights only
about 50 percent higher than for unreinforced units, serious damage (major
cracking and spalding which exposed the main reinforcing bars) occurred for
drop heights 4 to 8 times those of the unreinforced units (0,8 to 1,6 m for
30 t dolosse at Gioia Tauro). Moreover, tests at Gioia Tauro, where a 30
t dolos with a waist ratio of 0,37 and reinforced with conventional steel
reinforcement (77 kg/m3 or 1 per cent by volume) was dropped on the break-
water core, showed no serious cracks up to a drop height on 10 m. Al-
though the in situ loading is not known, one would intuitively consider this
dolos to be strong enough (mechanically) to withstand the in situ forces
caused by movements/rocking.
"Optimum" Design
As early as 1972 it was suggested that the waist-to-height ratio (r) of larger
dolosse be increased according to:
DOLOS ARMOUR DESIGN 2423
r = 0,34/W
7 20
where W is the mass of the dolos in tons, to compensate for the higher
stresses occurring in larger dolosse (Zwamborn and Beute, 1972). A simple
analysis showed that, when using this formula, dolos stresses would remain
about the same with increased dolos mass (Zwamborn, et al, 1980). The
more rigid structural analysis by Burcharth (1981a) supports this finding
(Zwamborn, 1985). The beneficial effect on the structural strength of the
dolos was also confirmed by prototype tests on 15 to 30 t units at Gioia
Tauro (Grimaldi and Fontana., 1984).
Single central scrap rail reinforcement was used in the original East London
dolosse, mainly to lift the units out of the mould. In the redesign of the
Gioia Tauro breakwaters (Grimaldi and Fontana, 1984) it was decided (1979)
to introduce single-scraprail reinforced 30 t dolosse in the more critical
areas on the breakwater heads for extra safety and to reduce maintenance
(27,4 kg/m5 steel or 0,35 per cent by volume). Subsequently, the designers
(Polytecna Harris of Milan) developed the so-called double-V rail reinforce-
ment which consists of a frame with four scraprails in the dolos trunk and
one scraprail each in the flukes (53 kg/m3 steel or 0,7 per cent by volume).
This solution proved to be both very effective and economical; the critical
drop heights were found to come fairly close to those of the conventionally
reinforced units while the possibility of corrosion was minimized and the extra
cost for the reinforcing was reasonable (extra cost for double-V reinforced
dolosse being about 60 per cent in Italy and about 26 per cent in South
Africa).
model wave height for different degrees of dolos movements, that is, dis-
placements and rocking. For easier use of the data, a scale for the Hudson
stability factors (K,-,) has been added.
DESIGN
1 30 •
i; / -
12
>-
Sno
' UMAHY OF ALL 0(1,00 (OLD AND NEW) TESTS (301 1 .0 =!
•> '1 OPTIMUM PACKING DENSITY $ i 0,87 IN BACKGROUND O) 00
fM~-s.
(60 gr MODEL DOLOSSE)
cn
1
DISPLACED OOLOSSE (i «)
AND
( 3
DISPLACEMENT/ROCKING (%)
Details of the behaviour of dolos structures around the world, including ten
South African structures, are included in a report entitled "Survey of Dolos
Structures" (Zwamborn and Van Niekerk, 1981) which was used extensively
for the later survey carried out for PIANC (PIANC, 1985). Further data,
for selected South African projects, covering the period 1979 to 1982, are in-
cluded in Zwamborn (1985) while an update of these projects is given below.
DOLOS ARMOUR DESIGN 2425
•Chart Datum
Only storms with significant wave heights exceeding 4 m have been included
in this table. The wave heights (H ) and the wave periods (T ) were re-
corded by waverider anchored in the 20 m water depth, about r,5 km sea-
ward of the south breakwater head. Wave directions were recorded by
wave clinometer. HH . values are the wave heights directly in front of the
breakwater head, del
e^ermined from actual measurements made in the origi-
nal physical model during three-dimensional breakwater stability tests.
Because the wave height measurements apply to a 6-hour period, H
1,9 H , (Longuet-Higgins, 1952). Most of the storms occurred aFnigh
tide. 1"ne depth at the breakwater head decreased from the original -17 to
-12 m CD about 300 m from the breakwater head. This means that at
high tide (+1,8 m CD) the maximum breaker height can be about 0,9 x
13,8 = 12,4 m (Jackson, 1968).
summed up as follows ("damage" is taken as the sum of the lost and broken
units):
28-6-79 24-7-79 8
17-4-80 10
18-6-81 17-8-81 9 0,6 0,8 0,8 1,4
5-12-81 - - 0 0,2 0,2 0,2
5-6-82 - .- 0 0 0 0
24-6-83 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,8
17-2-84 10
9-4-84 5
10-4-84 8
27-4-84 10
4-7-85 30-5-84 10 0,8 0 0 0,8
24-6-86 12-7-85 5 0 0 0 0
Gansbaai Harbour
The following data on conditions since completion of the repair work were
made available to the Fisheries Development Corporation (no local wave
data available after 1982):
May 1984 1,2 0,7 15-5-84 10,8 15,5 (Slangkop) 8,5 1,5
*Some repair work was done after the 16th May 1986 storm.
DOLOS ARMOUR DESIGN 2427
The breakwaters forming the Koeberg intake basin are protected with 6 t,
15 t and 20 t dolosse placed at a slope of 1 in 1,5 (Zwamborn and Van
Niekerk, 1981). Some 2 295 20 t dolosse were used to armour the main
breakwater from chainage 750 to 912 m, which includes the head. The
entire main breakwater has depth-limiting design conditions; the depth at
its head is -8 m CD and waves with H > 3,2 m were assumed to start
breaking on the head (H = 6,4 m). this means that the design waves
(6,4 m breaking waves) occur on average 15 days per year, which was taken
into account in deciding on acceptable damage criteria.
The following data have been collected since the previous review (Zwamborn,
1985):
Concluding Remarks
The newly placed 20 and 25 t dolosse at Gansbaai (waist ratios 0,34 and
0,35 respectively) have withstood four storms with waves reaching 8,5 m
with only 1,4 and 1,05 per cent breakages respectively (including the under-
water part). For this wave height, Figure 1 indicates 2,5 and 2 per cent
"total damage", or 1,5 and 1 per cent excluding occasional rocking, for the
20 and 25 t units respectively.
The 20 t dolosse at Koeberg (waist ratio 0,34) showed little damage (only
0,44 per cent for the "100 year" storm of May 1984) over a period of
three years when 6 and 7 m breaking waves attacked the breakwater on 58
occasions. For these wave heights, Figure 1 would indicate 1 per cent
"total damage" or 0,5 per cent excluding occasional rocking.
These observations, together with experience in the USA (Markle and David-
2428 COASTAL ENGINEERING-1986
son, 1984), provide evidence that well-designed dolos structures (that is,
considering different dolos movements) can withstand severe and sustained
wave action with nominal damage. However, considerable damage has occur-
red in certain cased which emphasizes the need for a special and detailed
design effort for major dolos projects.
The standard drop test is carried out on a rigid base and failure is virtually
due to impact loading only. In a breakwater armouring, a dolos will either
drop on underlayer stone or on another dolos, both of which will probably
move under the impact. A dolos breakage test which more closely represents
conditions on an actual breakwater, should, therefore, include a realistic
yield comparable to movement of the underlaying dolos and/or stone. Further
drop tests and free fall tests were, therefore, done at Gioia Tauro onto a
50 to 1 000 kg rock fill bed and onto the breakwater core (Figure 2).
Failure or
Damage
Age No. Type of Test bed Reinforcement
(months) Repeat test material type (kg/m5)
Fall Impact
Tests
Height Velocity
L (m) V (m/s)
The most significant result of these tests is that the critical fall heights
with a realistic yield are about 10 times greater than for the rigid-base
case which means that unreinforced dolosse should be able to withstand
considerable movements/rocking without breakage, a fact which is born out
by prototype observations.
Because tests on rubble are difficult to control fully and because the in-
clusion of a certain yield is essential to get results more directly comparable
with the actual breakwater situation, a test technique by which the impact
deceleration is controlled by a given yield has been developed for full scale
tests on 9 t dolosse at Cape Town. The test configurations shown in Figure
3 were used for the Table Bay tests, that is, the swing test configuration.
IMPACT
'ANVIL
YIELD
WITH CONTROLLED
VELOCITY OP G FOLtOWS
\
\ r \\\\ dolosse was 2,9 m and the
waist-to-height ratio was
FROM:
\\ \ 0,30. The units were
v vfaotT
\ \ made of 40 MPa concrete
\ (28 days). The tests
\ \ included dolosse without
\ \
reinforcing and with three
\ \ types of 43 kg/m scrap
~3
..VRIGlb^MASi^i •" 1. •• RIGW'r MASs'Sj&l 1 rail reinforcing, that is a
\TOWN«««V««-
single central rail, the
so-called double-V reinfor-
TEST LAYOUT 1. TEST LAYOUT Z.
cing designed by Grimaldi
and Fontana (1984) and
the X-type reinforcing
developed by the NRIO
Figure 3: Dynamic Impact Test Arrangements (see Figure 4).
2430 COASTAL ENGINEERING-1986
The purpose of the tests, carried out in co-operation with the South African
Transport Services, were:
Because the impact on rock will depend largely on the rock packing and will
thus be variable (see spread of points in Fig. 6 for large impact time values),
swing test were done using a representative "cushioning device". Considering
that, in reality dolosse could either fall onto underlayer rock or on parts of
other dolosse, a "cushioning device" consisting of three collapsible "yield
pipes" (Fig. 7; 3 pipes: 89 mm OD, 4,5 mm thick and 250 mm long) was
designed to give approximately
twice the initial deceleration of
the free drop-on-rock case but
with a similar ultimate impact
time of 40 to 60 ms. In this
way, a conservative test condition
was developed representing
breakwater conditions quite
realistically.
7 ~> ^
Burcharth (1984) has shown that repeated impact loading rapidly weakens
the dolosse. For instance, impact failure will occur after three repeat
loadings causing stresses of 10 per cent of the ultimate impact strength
compared with 20 loadings in the case of a "pulsating" load/normal fatigue,
see Figure 10.
DOLOS ARMOUR DESIGN 2433
<5~N
p— (Note: CTN.| impact = l,4(rN=| pulsating)
The results of the first series of fatigue tests done on the 9 t dolosse are:
These tests were done with a fall height of 80 per cent of the failure
height and the results are plotted in Figure 10*. As expected, considering
the inclusion of the cushioning device, the results fall between the pulsating
and "rigid" impact lines which means that, in the breakwater situation the
dolosse should be able to withstand about twice the number of impact loads
predicted by the rigid impact test.
6. CONCLUSIONS
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The assistance of the Harbour Engineer and staff (Cape Town) with the
prototype tests is gratefully acknowledged.
•Burcharth (1984) assumed stresses proportional with square root of drop
height, thus, for 80 per cent case, 0|\j _ ,/0~8~~= 0 9
oN=f
2434 COASTAL ENGINEERING -1986
8. REFERENCES