3666-RAM-MBW-00-REP-CW-005 Rubble Mound Design Report Rev 0

Intended for
Nador West Med
Document type
Report
Date
July 2017
PORT NADOR WEST MED

MAIN BREAKWATER:
RUBBLE-MOUND DESIGN
REPORT
PORT NADOR WEST MED
MAIN BREAKWATER: RUBBLE-MOUND DESIGN
REPORT
Revision 02
Date 04/08/2017
Made by Karishna Bunwaree
Checked by Melinda Odum
Approved by Martin Duke
Description For Comment
Ref 3666-RAM-MBW-00-REP-CW-005
MAIN BREAKWATER: RUBBLE-MOUND DESIGN REPORT
Revision History
Revision Date Purpose / Status Document Ref. Comments
3666-RAM-MBW-00-
- 10/07/2017 For Comment
REP-CW-005
3666-RAM-MBW-00- Incorporating STFA
01 11/07/2017 For Comment
REP-CW-005 Comments
3666-RAM-MBW-00-
02 04/08/2017 For Comment
REP-CW-005
Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By
Karishna Bunwaree Melinda Odum Martin Duke

Engineer Principal Engineer Project Director
Ramboll
Carlton House
Ringwood Road
Woodlands
Southampton SO40 7HT
United Kingdom
tel +44 (0)23 8081 7500
fax +44 (0)23 8081 7600
southampton@ramboll.co.uk
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of Design Report 1
1.2 Scope of Work 1
2. Codes, Standards and Reference Documents 2
2.1 Codes and Standards 2
2.2 Guidance Documents 2
2.3 Project Reports and Drawings 2
3. General Layout 3
3.1 Layout Description 3
3.2 Materials 3
3.3 Rubble-mound Breakwater – PM 0 to PM 1495 4
3.4 Rubble-mound / Caisson Junction 4
3.5 Caisson breakwater – PM 1495 to PM 4233 5
4. Hydraulic Stability 7
4.1 Wave Parameters 7
4.1.1 Review of available data 7
4.1.2 Wave data selected for the design 7
4.1.3 Wave parameters in the harbour 8
4.2 Rubble-mound breakwater – Sea Side 9
4.2.1 Accropode II - Trunk 9
4.2.2 Accropode II - Roundhead 9
4.2.3 Underlayer 10
4.2.4 Core and filter layer 11
4.2.5 Toe design 11
4.3 Rubble-mound breakwater – Harbour Side 12
4.3.1 Rock Armour Units 12
4.3.2 Core material and Filter layer 12
4.3.3 Toe design 12
4.3.4 Propeller wash check 12
4.4 Caisson Rubble-mound Foundation 13
4.4.1 Caisson base at -17.3 mZH 13
4.4.2 Caisson base at -24.3 mZH 13
4.4.3 Toe design 13
4.5 Scour 14
4.5.1 Scour due to waves 14
4.5.2 Scour due to propeller wash 14
4.5.3 Scour protection 14
5. Geotechnical stability of the rubble mound 16
5.1 Rubble Mound Breakwater 16
5.1.1 Load Combinations and Partial Factors 16
5.1.1.1 Load combinations 16
5.1.1.2 Partial factors 17
5.1.2 Seismic analysis 18
5.1.3 Design Approach 18
5.1.4 Calculations 19
5.1.4.1 Modifications 19
5.1.5 Results 20
6. Review of Physical Model TestS Results 22
6.1 Objectives 22
6.2 Review of the models 23
6.3 Review of Model Test Results 25
6.3.1 Rubble-mound breakwater 25
6.3.2 Caisson on rubble-mound breakwater 26
7. CONCLUSIONS 27
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Design Report
The Main Breakwater: Rubble-Mound Design Report details the following:
 The verification of the design of the components of the rubble-mound including the
concrete armour, rock armour, filter layer and core material.
 The verification of the hydraulic design of the components of the rubble-mound

supporting the caissons.
The design verification is based on the report 3666-RAM-00-BOD-CW-001 Main Breakwater –

Rubble Mound Basis of Design.
1.2 Scope of Work
The following checks were carried out:
 Analysis of the hydraulic stability of the rubble-mound breakwater and rubble-mound

beneath the caissons, including checks for the armour layer, underlayer, filter layer and
toe.
 Assessment of the geotechnical stability of the rubble-mound breakwater. .
 Review of the results of the physical test models (Model M1, Model M3, Model M4 and
Model M5)
Note that the hydraulic stability of the caissons was not analysed as part of this report. For
caisson stability, refer to document 3666-RAM-MBW-00-BOD-C-002, Caisson basis of design.
For the geotechnical stability of the rubble mound below the caissons refer to document
3666-RAM-MBW-01-REP-CG-009 Main Breakwater Caisson Geotechnical Design Report.
Port Nador West Med Page 1 Ramboll UK

Main Breakwater: Rubble Mound Design Report
2. CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

2.1 Codes and Standards
The review has been carried out to the following international codes and standards:
BS 6349: Maritime Works
EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
EN 1998 - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance
2.2 Guidance Documents
CIRIA C683, The Rock Manual – The use of rock in hydraulic engineering, 2007
CIRIA C742, Manual on scour at bridges and other hydraulic structures, 2015
EuroTop, Wave Overtopping of Sea Defences and Related Structures: Assessment Manual, 2007
PIANC WG 28 Breakwaters with vertical and inclined concrete walls, 2003
PIANC WG 34 Seismic design guidelines for port structures, 2001
PIANC Report no. 180, Guidelines for protecting berthing structures from scour caused by ships,
2015
Thomas Telford Port Designer’s Handbook 2010
US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Manual
2.3 Project Reports and Drawings
Rubble-mound basis of design report, 3666-RAM-MBW-00-BOD-CW-001
Climatologie des états de mer sur le site de Nador West Med. Nador West Med July 2014
Rapport d’essais sur modèles physiques – Modèles M1 et M1b - Section de la Digue Principale à
caissons, MANPP-DE-REP-04003-DP-01-FR
Rapport d’essais sur modèle physique – Modèle M3 Jonction DP talus / DP Caissons, MANPP-DE-
REP-04002-DP-FR
Rapport d’essais sur modèle physique hydraulique – Modèle M4 - DP Caissons, MANPP-DE-REP-

04004-DP-00-FR
Rapport d’essai sur modèle physique hydraulique – Modèle M5, MANPP-DE-REP-04005-DPDS-00-

FR
Vue en plan des ouvrages de protection y/c banquettes de traitement des sols. Nador West Med.
No. 201300401-6-P-09.TRAITEMENT.DWG. December 2015

3. GENERAL LAYOUT
3.1 Layout Description
The Main Breakwater (MBW) is formed from a combination of rubble mounds and pre-cast
concrete caissons. The rubble-mound breakwater extends from PM 0 to PM 1495 and the caisson
breakwater (comprising caissons submerged onto a founding rubble mound) extends from PM
1495 to PM 4233. The MBW extends from PM 0 to PM 4233, which corresponds to the centre of
the roundhead.
From the foreshore to a depth of approximately -35 mZH, the breakwater is oriented towards the
North-North-West, perpendicular to the coast. The breakwater then follows the East-North-East
direction, almost parallel to the bathymetric line at -35 mZH. A roundhead protects the end of
the breakwater.
To ensure the stability of the rear slope of the breakwater and to meet the overtopping criteria,
the crest of the rubble-mound breakwater is positioned at + 8.50 mZH and that of the caisson
breakwater at + 9.50 mZH in the section between PM 1495 and PM 3620 and at +7.0 mZH for
the section between PM 3620 and PM 4233. A bullnose is added to the wall in some areas to
reduce overtopping.
The rubble-mound breakwater includes a traffic lane, 11 m in width, from PM 0.00 to PM 1495.
9.20 m additional width is planned for the pipe rack and 20m for the PVS Conveyor Belt.
The caisson breakwater is a minimum of 22 m in width at its crest up to the roundhead. This
width includes the additional width required to meet the traffic needs, the pipe rack and for the
installation of the quick-release hooks on the MBW.
3.2 Materials
The properties of the materials of the rubble-mound breakwater and caisson foundation are listed
in the Rubble-Mound Basis of Design report.
Table 1 Material properties
Bulk Bulk
Young’s
Density  Density * Friction Cohesion, Dilation,
Material Modulus
(dry) (submerged) Angle c’ (kPa) y (°)
(MPa)
(kN/m3) (kN/m3)
Sea Water 10.25 - - - -
Plain Concrete 24.0 14.0 - - -
Reinforced
25.0 15.0 - - -
Concrete
Vibro-
20.0 10.0 37 ° - 5 60
compacted fill
1-500 kg Fill
for Rubble- 17.0 10.5 45 ° - 10 100
mound
Rock Armour 17.0 10.5 45 ° 10 10 100
Accropode II
12.0 7.0 - 50 - 100
units
It should be noted that these values differ slightly from those described in the Overall Basis of
Design.
Properties of the in-situ soils are described in the Geotechnical Basis of Design 3666-RAM-GEO-
00-BOD-001.

3.3 Rubble-mound Breakwater – PM 0 to PM 1495
The typical rubble-mound breakwater is made up of the following components:
 1-500kg fill core up to the required level under the slab.
 Rock filter layer and rock underlayer.
 Accropode II units on the sea side and rock armour units on the harbour side.
Table 2 Summary table of description of rubble-mound breakwater from PM 0 to PM 1495
CHAINAGE ROAD LEVEL SEA SIDE HARBOUR SIDE
PM 0 to PM 923 +6.50 mZH Accropode II 4 m3 (+ 8.20 mZH) 1-2 T Riprap (+ 6.80 mZH)
PM 923 to PM 1043 +6.50 mZH Accropode II 6.3 m3 (+ 8.50 mZH) 1-2 T Riprap (+ 6.50 mZH)
PM 1043 to PM 1318 +6.50 mZH Accropode II 6.3 m3 (+ 8.50 mZH) 1-2 T Riprap (+ 6.50 mZH)
PM 1318 to PM 1445
PM 1445 to PM 1495 +6.50 mZH Accropode II 10 m3 (+ 8.50 mZH) 1-2 T Riprap (+ 6.50 mZH)
Notes :
The data in Table 2 is based on the Client requirements set out in the Spécifications Techniques
Particulières. However, it is understood that 10m3 Accropode II units will be used at PM 1318 to
PM 1495 instead of 8m3 Accropode II. The top level will be kept at +6.5m mZH
Given that the physical model tests available tested 6 m3 and 8 m3 Accropode II units, the latter
sizes were checked initially. Upon receiving the information from site regarding the 10 m3
Accropode II units, further design checks were carried out.
Therefore the design checks covered in this document for the Accropode II include units of sizes
4 m3, 6.3 m3, 8 m3 and 10 m3.
Furthermore, in the CID drawings, chainage PM 0 to PM 410 do not consist of Accropode II units
on the sea side. The Accropode II units start from PM 410. 2-4 T rocks are used from PM 0 to PM
190 and 4-6 T rocks are used from PM 190 to PM 410.
3.4 Rubble-mound / Caisson Junction
The transition in level between the rubble mound breakwater and the caisson breakwater (from
+6.50 mZH to +4.50 mZH), will be made over a transition zone between the two structures over
a length of approximately 50m.

3.5 Caisson breakwater – PM 1495 to PM 4233
The caissons consist of reinforced concrete box elements which will be filled with ballast. The
foundation beneath the caisson breakwater is made up of 1/500 kg core protected by rock
armour.
Table 3 Summary table of description of caisson breakwater from PM 1495 to PM 4233
Rock Armour (Top

Chainage Road Level Caisson Base
level)
1 -2 T Riprap
PM 1495 to PM 1940 +4.50 mZH -17.3 mZH
(-17 mZH)
1 -2 T Riprap
PM 1940 to PM 3620 +4.50 mZH -24.3 mZH
(-24 mZH)
1 -2 T Riprap
PM 3620 to PM 4233 +4.50 mZH -24.3 mZH
(-24 mZH)
Figure 1 Cross section through rubble-mound breakwater (trunk)
Figure 2 Cross section through rubble-mound breakwater in the transition zone (roundhead)

Figure 3 Typical Cross section through caisson breakwater in deeper water

4. HYDRAULIC STABILITY
4.1 Wave Parameters
4.1.1 Review of available data
The wave data was taken from the report Climatologie des états de mer sur le site de Nador West
Med, July 2014.
Figure 4 Location of points of wave data measurements
Points 10 to 21 are in the zone relevant to the rubble-mound section of the MBW. Points 22 to 24
are relevant to the rubble-mound foundation for the caisson breakwater section.
On the general layout drawing of the MBW, it was found that the bed level of the rubble-mound
section is from 0 mZH to approximately -22 mZH. Point 18 was selected with a bed level of
approximately -24 mZH. For the analysis of the caisson foundation, Point 24 was selected with a
depth of approximately -37 mZH as it included the highest wave heights.
To carry out checks based on damage level, longer return periods were calculated (see Section
4.4). The wave data obtained for the selected data points was therefore used to extrapolate the
required wave parameters, as discussed below. The 1:200, 1:400 and 1:2000 wave heights were
determined by linear extrapolation.
4.1.2 Wave data selected for the design
Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 show the wave data for Point 13, Point 18 and Point 24 respectively.
The values in black were taken from the available data in the Climatologie des états de mer sur le
site de Nador West Med, July 2014 report. The values for the return periods in red were
calculated by extrapolation.
The significant wave height (Hs) and the peak time period (Tp) were taken as the upper bound
value of the 90% confidence interval.
Table 4 Wave parameters at Point 13
Mer d’Alboran Mer Occidentale
Return
Wave height, Hs (s) Time period, Tp (s) Wave height, Hs (s) Time period, Tp (s)
Period

1 2.8 9.0 1.9 11.0
10 3.8 10.0 2.8 13.0
100 4.9 11.0 4.1 14.0
200 5.2 11.1 4.3 14.5
400 5.5 11.4 4.7 14.9
2000 6.3 12.0 5.5 15.9
Table 5 Wave parameters at Point 18
Return
Period
1 3.0 10.0 1.7 12.0
10 4.0 10.0 2.3 13.0
100 5.2 11.0 2.9 14.0
200 5.5 11.1 3.1 14.5
400 5.8 11.3 3.3 14.8
2000 6.6 11.7 3.7 15.5
Table 6. Wave parameters at Point 24
Return
Period
1 3.2 10.0 2.4 12.0
10 4.4 10.5 3.6 13.5
100 5.7 12.0 5.3 14.0
200 6.1 12.1 5.6 14.7
400 6.4 12.4 6.0 15.0
2000 7.3 13.2 7.0 15.7
4.1.3 Wave parameters in the harbour
The wave height in the harbour was assumed as maximum 1.0m given its sheltered location.

4.2 Rubble-mound breakwater – Sea Side
The following stability checks were carried out:
 Roundhead section (at the transition from rubble-mound to caisson breakwater) with sea
bed level at -24 mZH using wave data Point 18 ;
 Trunk section with sea bed level at -20 mZH using wave data from Point 18 ;
 Trunk section with sea bed level at -10 mZH using wave data from Point 13.
A 3:4 slope was analysed for the Accropode slopes and at 2:3 slope for the rock slopes.
4.2.1 Accropode II - Trunk
The Accropode II units are placed in a single layer. The check was carried out using wave height
as 120% of the 1 in 100 year wave height.
The stability of the Accropode II units in the trunk was checked based on the method outlined in
Section 5.2.2.3 and using Table 5.35 of the Rock Manual. The calculation assumed the “start of
damage” condition, or a damage level of 0%.
It was found that the Accropode II units (4 m3 and 6.3 m3) defined in Table 2 met the stability
criteria.
The transition on the trunk section from the 4m3 units to 6.3m3 units shall be carried out at a 45°
angle. The heavier armour units should be placed first, resulting in a transition line at 45° across
the side slopes. The smaller elements are then placed on top of the larger ones. A sketch of the
transition is given in Figure 5.
Given the change in size of the concrete armour units, care should be taken to avoid any
protrusion or overhang of the larger units at the transition. The external profile at transitions
should be kept constant as far as practically possible by gradually varying the underlayer, filters
and core profiles.
Figure 5 Extract from Rock Manual (Figure 6.22d) showing the transition on trunk section between
different sizes of armouring in elevation view
4.2.2 Accropode II - Roundhead
Waves breaking over roundheads yield relatively larger velocities and wave forces compared to
the trunk of the breakwater. To achieve the same stability as for the trunk section, either the
mass of the armour units needs to be increased or the side slope at the roundhead needs to be
less steep. In the current design, the slope was kept constant. Therefore the size of the armour
units was increased.
It was found that 8 m3 Accropode II units were adequate for the roundhead section in the
transition zone. However, it is understood from the Contractor that 10m3 Accropode units will be
used, which is satisfactory as these are larger, more stable units.

The calculated Accropode II sizes (6.3 m3 and 8 m3) were also compared to the physical test
models. The test results validated the sizes calculated. Refer to section 5 of this document for the
review of the physical model tests.
However, it is understood from the Contractor that 10m3 Accropode II units will be used, which is
satisfactory as these are larger, more stable units.
The transition at the roundhead from 6.3m3 units to 10m3 units shall also be carried out at a 45°
angle as shown in Figure 5. Given the change in size of the concrete armour units, care should be
taken to avoid any protrusion or overhang of the larger units at the transition. The external
profile at transitions should be kept constant as far as practically possible by gradually varying
the underlayer, filters and core profiles.
4.2.3 Underlayer
The underlayer supporting the concrete armour units was designed based on the method outlined
in Section 5.2.2.3 and Table 5.36 of the Rock Manual. The size of the underlayer depends on the
size of the concrete armour it supports. The rock sizes provided in Table 7 were calculated.
Table 7 Armourstone for underlayer with concrete armour made up of single-layer interlocking units,
based on Table 5.36 of Rock Manual
Single-layer interlocking Recommended underlayer stone

mass (T) Proposed underlayer stone
concrete units mass (T)
M50,u Mmin,u Mmax,u
3
Accropode II 4 m 1.0 0.7 1.3 0.5 – 1.5
Accropode II 6.3 m3 1.4 1.0 2.1 1–2
Accropode II 8 m3 1.9 1.3 2.7 1–3
3
Accropode II 10m 2.4 1.7 3.4 1–3
M50,u : Median armourstone mass of the underlayer
Therefore, 0.5 – 1.5 T rocks ,1 - 2 T rocks and 1 – 3 T rocks are adequate to support Accropode
II units of 4 m3, 6.3 m3 and 8 m3 respectively. The underlayer rocks should be placed in two
layers.
Where 10m3 Accropode II units are used, a modified 1-3 T underlayer is deemed acceptable. The
Contractor shall ensure that the material is selected and placed to meet the grading limits given
in Figure 6 below:

Figure 6 Extract from Accropode II design table (CLI, 2012)
It is noted that 1-3 T rock was checked as an underlayer for the 10m3 Accropodes in the physical
model.
The sizes calculated were checked against the physical model tests. Refer to section 5 of this
document for the review of the physical model tests.
4.2.4 Core and filter layer
The core material design shown in the tender drawings is made up of 0-500kg and 1-500kg
riprap. The filter layer lies between the rock armour and the core. However, this arrangement
using two types of material was found to be unnecessary and only the 1-500kg material is
proposed for the final design.
The check of the core and filter layer sizes used the Terzaghi filter criteria method given in
Section 4.4.3 of BS 6349-7.
It was found that a filter layer of rock size of 0.1 to 0.5 T placed in two layers, 1m thick is
adequate. This applied to the whole length of the trunk.
4.2.5 Toe design
A falling apron toe design was selected, as shown in Figure 7. This involves the armourstone to
be placed directly on to the bed with toe width equal to 3 times the scour depth. This is based on
the recommendation in Rock Manual.
The scour depth was estimated using reflected wave conditions using the method given in
Section 5.1.1.5 of the Rock Manual. The maximum scour depth along the trunk of the rubble-
mound breakwater was calculated as 2.5 m. Therefore a scour depth of approximately 2.5m may
form. A minimum falling toe width of approximately 7.5 m is recommended for scour protection.
A sketch of the recommended arrangement is given below.

Figure 7 Falling apron, with the optional Dutch toe. (Extract from BS 6349-7:1991 Figure 13)
4.3 Rubble-mound breakwater – Harbour Side
The slope is taken as 2:3. The wave height assumed inside the harbour is 1.0 m.
The wave height on the sea side of the breakwater was taken as the 1 in 100 year return period
wave height.
4.3.1 Rock Armour Units
Two methods were used for check the stability of the rock armour units:
 Hudson formula ( Rock Manual, Section 5.2.2.2)
 Van Gent/Pozueta method (Rock Manual, Section 5.2.2.11)
The wave height inside the harbour was applied in the Hudson formula. Breaking wave conditions
were assumed for a robust design. 2 layers of 0.1 to 0.5 T rock in 1.0m thickness layer were
found to be adequate.
The Van Gent/Pozueta method assesses the stability of the rear-side slope due to wave
overtopping. Using the 1 in 100 year wave height, 1 – 2 T rocks were found to be adequate for
the design.
Therefore, it is recommended to provide 1 -2 T rocks in two layers from the top of the rubble-
mound to below the low water level and 0.1 to 0.5 T rocks in two layers below that.
4.3.2 Core material and Filter layer
Given that the rock sizes are similar to those on the sea side of the rubble-mound, the sizes
defined in section 4.2.4 also apply on the harbour side.
Therefore 1 m thickness of 0.1 to 0.5 T rocks placed in two layers is adequate to support the 1 –
2 T rocks.
4.3.3 Toe design
Given that the wave height considered in the design is of 1.0 m, at least 3.0 m toe width would
be recommended, as a rule of thumb, for a falling apron arrangement, as shown in Figure 7.
4.3.4 Propeller wash check
Propeller jet velocities were determined using the Rock Manual and PIANC Report No. 180.
This was used to check that the rubble-mound face and toe are not disturbed by propeller jets
from the berthing ships or tug boats.

Following a conservative approach using an applied power of 2500kW, the critical diameter of
material (below which scour is likely to occur) was calculated as 0.30m. This was less than the
mean diameter of the exposed armour layer units.
4.4 Caisson Rubble-mound Foundation
The following sections were checked:
 Caisson base at -17.3 mZH, assuming bed level at -25 mZH and using wave data from
Point 18
 Caisson base at -24.3 mZH, assuming bed level at -40 mZH and using wave data from
Point 24
The slope of the rubble-mound foundation was taken as 2:3 slope on both sea side and harbour
side. The 1 in 100 year wave height was used in the calculations.
The stability of the caisson rubble-mound foundation was checked using the results of the
physical model study.
4.4.1 Caisson base at -17.3 mZH
In the physical model tests (refer to section 5), 1 – 2 T rock size were found to be adequate to
withstand 1 in 100 year waves.
An additional check was carried out using the Madrigal/Valdés method to test the 1 – 2 T rocks.
It was found that they were adequate for a 1 in 2000 year wave, satisfying a damage criterion of
Nod = 5 for “failure”.
4.4.2 Caisson base at -24.3 mZH
In the physical model tests (refer to section 5), 1 – 2 T rock size were found to be adequate to
withstand 1 in 100 year waves.
An additional check was carried out using the Madrigal/Valdés method. The 1 – 2 T rocks were
found to satisfy a damage criterion of Nod = 5 (failure) using a 1 in 2000 year wave condition).
4.4.3 Toe design
Based on the method used in section 4.2.5, the maximum scour depth expected is 5m for the sea
facing side of the breakwater. Therefore a toe length of approximately 10 m is recommended.

4.5 Scour
The quality of the bed material of the site was found to be inadequate for supporting the planned
structures. The bed was dredged from PM1100 to PM 4283 to replace the existing material
replaced with vibro-compacted sand (VCS).
The grading of the VCS was analysed from several test samples (May 2017). The particle size
reported varied between 0.1 and 0.5 mm.
The Shields critical shear stress method was used to determine whether scour of the bed material
(vibro-compacted sand) will occur. Based on those findings, a scour protection measure is
presented.
4.5.1 Scour due to waves
The current-induced shear stress on the bed was negligible and therefore ignored.
The shear stress under oscillatory flow was determined. The overall length of the MBW was
analysed based on the 1 in 100 year wave data given in Climatologie des états de mer sur le site
de Nador West Med, July 2014 report.
It was found that the VCS will scour along the whole length of the MBW. The average shear
stress was calculated as 0.5 – 1.3 m/s, assuming reflected wave conditions.
To protect the VCS from scouring, a scour protection layer of 2700 kg/m3 rock of D50 of at least
10mm is required.
4.5.2 Scour due to propeller wash
It was assumed that vessels only manoeuvre in depths greater than -24mZH. Data for the Mol
Triumph vessel was used for the design check.
Using the German method described in PIANC Report No. 180, the potential velocity at the sea
bed was calculated as 4.5 m/s (assuming 28% of propeller power). This is greater than the value
found for wave action.
It was determined that a scour protection layer of 2700 kg/m3 rock of D50 of at least 70mm is
required to protect the VCS from scouring.
4.5.3 Scour protection
It was concluded that a scour protection layer needs to be provided to cover the VCS. One option
would be to provide a filter layer and a rip-rap layer. However this was discussed with the
Contractor and found to be impractical due to quarry rock availability.
An alternative was therefore proposed whereby a single, thicker layer of a widely-graded material
is provided to act as both a filter layer and scour protection layer. It is understood that the
granular material that may be available is of the order 0-200mm. However, the D15 (16mm) of
the granular material is too large to act as a filter layer to the VCS sand. The smaller material in
the grain size distribution is of sufficient size.
Therefore, a thickness of minimum 0.75m of the granular material is recommended. This is to

allow for losses of fines during the placing of the granular material and because of fines being
washed away from the top section of the layer over time. In time, the granular material is
expected to settle with a particle distribution that is adequate to protect the VCS. The lower
section of the layer will be able to retain its fines, which will act as a filter and prevent loss of the
VCS, while the top section of the layer is of sufficient size to resist scour.

At the rubble-mound section of the MBW, the granular material needs to cover all of the exposed
VCS.
At the caisson section, given its deeper bed levels, the granular material extends over the design
dredge width plus an additional 15m. This width is sufficient to protect the seabed required to
provide geotechnical stability. In both cases, the granular material will act as a falling apron to
protect against scour holes forming at the edges.

5. GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY OF THE RUBBLE MOUND

5.1 Rubble Mound Breakwater
The geotechnical stability of the rubble mound breakwater has been assessed for three separate
sections along the length of the rubble mound breakwater to determine the form the rubble
mound is to take to ensure stability of the breakwater. The details of the analysis sections is
summarised in Table 8.
Table 8 Cross section details
Chainage CID reference Rubble Mound Height (m) Founding Material

drawing (Ground level to tallest point)
410 Section 3 9.8m (-2mZh to +7.8mZH) Dense Sand
990 Section 5a 19.5m (-11mZh to +8.5mZH) Loose Shelly Sand
1480 Section 7 30.5m (-22mZH to +8.5mZH) Vibro compacted sand
These locations have been identified from the CID drawings as being representative of the rubble
mound breakwater along its length and include all of the expected variation in rubble mound size
and founding material.
Geometry of the rubble mound breakwater has been taken from the CID drawings that were
issued to Ramboll at the start of the contract. An initial assessment of the geometry as presented
in these drawings has been carried out in the Geosuite slope stability software Slope/W. Where
necessary, changes have been made to the geometry of the slope or the founding material to
ensure that the required level of stability as defined by the Employers Specification have been
met.
5.1.1 Load Combinations and Partial Factors
Loads have been applied as described in the Overall Basis of Design and include:
Permanent Loads
 Pipe rack loads - 876kN per leg. We have assumed each leg is resting on a 3 metre by 3
metre pad foundation.
Variable Loads
 Construction loads - 10 to 20 kN/m2 load over the top of the breakwater.

 Type D convoy loads - consists of two areas which are 19 metres apart. Both areas are 3.3
metres wide by 11 metres long and have a total load of 1400kN. Therefore the distributed
load applied to the breakwater is 38.6kN/m2.
 Maintenance crane loads – 800kN over a 2.5m2 area, therefore the distributed load applied to
the breakwater is 128kN/m2.
 Vehicular loads - load model Bt was used as it represented the worst case; two vehicles, one
behind the other. Both vehicles have a 320kN load over a 1.35 metre by 2 metre area,
resulting in an 118.5 kN/m2 distributed load on the breakwater.
5.1.1.1 Load combinations
Load combinations have been determined in accordance with Section 6.5 of the Overall Basis of
Design with partial factors applied to the both the permanent and variable loads.

Serviceability Limit State Analysis Combinations
 Characteristic combinations:
, , Ψ , ,
‐ SLS Characteristic Combination 1 = Construction surcharge (1.00)

‐ SLS Characteristic Combination 2 = Pipe rack live load (x 1.00) + Vehicle Load (x 1.00)
‐ SLS Characteristic Combination 3 = Pipe rack live load (x 1.00) + Convoy Load (x 1.00)
‐ SLS Characteristic Combination 4 = Pipe rack live load (x 1.00) + Crane Load (x 1.00)
Ultimate Limit State Analysis Combinations
 Persistent and transient design situations:
, , , , , Ψ , ,
‐ ULS Combination 1 = Construction surcharge (x 1.35)

‐ ULS Combination 2 = Pipe rack live load (x 1.35) + Vehicle Load (x 1.5)
‐ ULS Combination 3 = Pipe rack live load (x 1.35) + Convoy Load (x 1.5)
‐ ULS Combination 4 = Pipe rack live load (x 1.35) + Crane Load (x 1.5)
Seismic Analysis Combinations

 Combination for seismic design situations:
, Ψ , ,
‐ ULS Seismic Combination 1 = Construction surcharge + Seismic Load

‐ ULS Seismic Combination = Pipe rack live load + Seismic Load + Vehicle Load (x quasi
permanent variable action)
‐ ULS Seismic Combination = Pipe rack live load + Seismic Load + Convoy Load (x quasi
‐ ULS Seismic Combination = Pipe rack live load + Seismic Load + Crane Load (x quasi
5.1.1.2 Partial factors
The Partial factors stated in Tables 9 to 11 have been applied to the material strengths and
imposed loads as described in the Technical Specification for both the ULS and seismic cases.
Table 9 Partial factors for the loads
Partial Factors for Loads SLS ULS Seismic
Permanent Loads 1.00 1.35 1.35
Variable Loads 1.00 1.5 1.5
Table 10 Variable action partial factors
Limit State Seismic

Quasi- Quasi-
Variable Action Partial Factors Characteristic Frequent
permanent permanent
for Loads variable variable
variable action variable action
action (ψ0) action (Ψ1)
(ψ2) (Ψ2)
Construction loads 0

Convoy D Loads 0.77 0 0 0
Maintenance Crane Load – with

0.77 0.85 0.75 0
wind
Maintenance Crane Load – without

0.77 1.00 0.9 0
wind
Vehicular Loads 0.77 0.5 0.25 0
Table 11 Partial factors for material parameters
Partial Factors for Material

SLS ULS Seismic
Parameters
Unit Weight 1.00 1.00 1.00
Angle of Friction 1.00 1.25 1.25
Cohesion 1.00 1.25 1.25
5.1.2 Seismic analysis
The stability of the rubble mound breakwater has been assessed in both static and seismic
conditions. Two seismic load cases have been assessed; N1 and N2 as described in the Seismic
Basis of Design.
Seismic Load N1
1.2
0.14 0.084
2
0.0984 0.5 0.042
Seismic Load N2
1.2
0.19 0.114
2
0.114 0.5 0.057
The direction of both the horizontal and vertical seismic loads has been assessed to ensure that
the critical failure surface has been identified and that the design criteria outlined in Section 6.1.2
are met.
5.1.3 Design Approach
The cross sections produced by CID were the starting point for the slope stability assessments
that have been carried out. Where these were shown to not meet the design criteria set out in
the Technical Specification, changes to the geometry have been made to increase the resistance
of the rubble mound to slope failure.
In the seismic case, the following approach has been taken:
N1 seismic loads
 Resistance factor > 1 for all slope failures

N2 seismic loads
 Resistance factor > 1 for slope failures passing through founding material
 Resistance factor < 1 for slope failures in fill material only providing they do not encompass
the pipe rack or roadway.

This approach is justified on the basis that the structure is to be resistant to N2 seismic loads to a
level defined at ‘repairable damage’. It has been deemed that a failure purely in the shoulder of
the rubble mound breakwater can be classed as repairable damage as the slope can be regraded
and re-built in a short space of time following the earthquake. Any settlement to the roadway or
pipe rack caused by a lack of support from the failed material can also be repaired following an
N2 seismic event. This approach is deemed to be in accordance with the levels of damage and
failure modes set out in PIANC No. 34 Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures.
5.1.4 Calculations
Slope stability calculations have been carried out using the software package Slope/W by
GeoStudio using characteristic values of material parameters as defined in the Overall Basis of
Design and Section 3.2 of this report.
The starting point for each assessed cross section was the geometry given in the CID drawings,
where side slopes were typically shown with a gradient of 3(v):4(h).
5.1.4.1 Modifications
Ground Improvement
 Vibro compacted sand (VCS) will be placed from chainage 980 to the start of the caissons to
replace marine deposits with insufficient strength to support the Rubble Mound. This will help
to prevent failure through the underlying material. The VCS has to be greater than 4m thick
to prevent ground failure, otherwise further ground improvement would be required. As the
thickness of VCS only exceeds 4m after chainage 990, other ground improvement is required
up to this point.
 Ground improvement will be carried out between chainages 410 and 990 due to the high risk
of seismic liquefaction in the area (Ref Report No. 3666-RAM-XXX-00-REP-CG-007) VCS will
be placed from chainage 920 onwards. However, a 4 metre thick layer of VCS is required to
provide adequate stability. This thickness is met at chainage 990, therefore ground
improvement is needed until this chainage. The ground needs to have an angle of friction
greater than 34 degrees to prevent failures through the underling material.
 Structures between chainage 0 and 410 are less than 10m tall and do not require any ground
improvement to provide a stable foundation.
Slope Geometry
The geometry of the slope was modified due to a change required for buildability and instability
issues of the slope. The CID drawings represented most of the slope angles on both sides of the
rubble mound as 3:4. In order to meet buildability requirements for the rock armour when
Accropode are not present, the steepest slope angle on the port side was reduced to 2:32:3. The
location and size of the berms were adjusted to prevent failure.
Sea Side
On the sea side a 4(h) in 3(v) slope is required as this is the most effective angle for the
Accropode. In order to increase the stability of the slopes, weight was added to the toe of the
slope and material underneath the toe of the slope was replaced to produce a stable earthwork
configuration.
Port Side
On the port side, the slope angles cannot be steeper than 2:3 for buildability purposes. A range
of slope options were considered if a 2:3 slope was not stable. In addition, the width and location
of the benched areas were modified to prevent fill failures.

 Rubble Mound Structures between 0 – 410

‐ Port side: All slope angles were reduced to 2:3. Additional weight at the toe of the slope
was added.
‐ Sea side: No changes required.
 Rubble Mound Structures between 410 – 990
‐ Port side: All slope angles were reduced to 2:3. The location and width of benches were
modified for slope stability and buildability. The rock armour thickness was modified to
1.7 metres.
‐ Sea side: additional weight was added to toe and additional material underneath the toe
was replaced with rock fill (1-500kg).
 Rubble Mound Structures >990
‐ Portside: All slope angles were reduced to 2:3, except the slope at the toe of the overall
slope, which was reduced further to 1:2. The location and width of the benches were
modified for slope stability and buildability. The rock armour thickness was modified to
1.7 metres.
‐ Seaside: additional weight to toe was added.
5.1.5 Results
The slope stability analysis suggests that the rubble mound is stable (factor of safely >1) for both
the SLS and ULS analysis. However, certain slopes became unstable during the seismic cases.
The least stable scenario for all cross sections was with an N2 seismic load, with positive
horizontal loads and negative vertical loads. The stability of the modified slopes geometry was
verified using the loading conditions as it represents the worst case load condition.
Sea side Port Side

Chainage
N1 N2 N1 N2
410 (-2mZH) 1.179 1.082 1.174 1.060
0.924 (fill)
990 (-10mZH) 1.159 1.034 1.006
1.001 (ground)
0.928 (fill)
1040 (-11mZH) 1.145 1.020 1.010
1.017 (ground)
1480 (-22mZH)* 1.205 1.046 1.156 1.009
Figures 8 to 10 are representative failure mechanisms for the rubble mound. For failures through
the ground, the factor of safety results has to exceed 1 for both N1 and N2 seismic loads.
Failures through the fill have to exceed 1 for the N1 seismic load but can be below 1 for N2
seismic loads. The results below are from the analysis carried out at chainage 1480 on the port
side. All results are shown in appendix A.
 Fill failure for N1 analysis (factor of safety: 1.006)

Figure 8 Fill failure with N1 Seismic Load
 Fill Failure for N2 analysis (factor of safety: 0.924)
Figure 9 Fill failure with N2 Seismic Load
 Ground Failure for N2 analysis (factor of safety: 1.001)

Figure 10 Ground failure with N2 Seismic Load
6. REVIEW OF PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS RESULTS

2D and 3D wave tank testing have been carried out for the detailed design stage, to verify the
armour design, in particular the transitions and roundheads. The physical model tests were
carried out by the STFA, SGTM and Jan De Nul joint venture in November 2016
The following reports have been reviewed:
 Rapport d’essais sur modèles physiques – Modèles M1 et M1b - Section de la Digue

Principale à caissons, MANPP-DE-REP-04003-DP-01-FR
 Rapport d’essais sur modèle physique – Modèle M3 Jonction DP talus / DP Caissons,

MANPP-DE-REP-04002-DP-FR
 Rapport d’essais sur modèle physique hydraulique – Modèle M4 - DP Caissons, MANPP-

DE-REP-04004-DP-00-FR
 Rapport d’essai sur modèle physique hydraulique – Modèle M5, MANPP-DE-REP-04005-

DPDS-00-FR
The following sections are a summary of the review of the physical model test results.
6.1 Objectives
The objectives of the physical model tests were:
 To check the stability of the rubble-mound breakwater, including the armour layer, the
filter layer, the abutment and the scour mattress.
 To measure the wave overtopping volumes at the crest wall level.
A review of the wave overtopping will be covered in a separate report.

6.2 Review of the models
The design criteria complied with the Client’s requirements set out in Spécifications Techniques
Particulières and the Rubble Mound Basis of Design.
The test conditions and wave data of the physical model tests are given in the tables below.
Table 12 Physical model test conditions
Test No. Return period Water level Duration Objective
1 1 year +1.00 mZH 2 x 3h Stability of structure
2 10 years +1.50 mZH 2 x 3h Stability of structure and wave overtopping
3 100 years +2.00 mZH 2 x 3h Stability of structure
4 100 years 0.00 mZH 2 x 3h Stability of toe
5 120% x 100 years +2.00 mZH 2 x 3h Stability of armour
Table 13 Wave data used in the physical model tests
120% 1 in 100
Model Wave data 1 in 1 year 1 in 10 years 1 in 100 years
years
Hs Hs Hs
Hs (m) Tp (s) Tp (s) Tp (s) Tp (s)
(m) (m) (m)
M1 Point 6 (NW) 3.1 9 4.3 10 5.6 12 6.7 12
M3 Point 18 3.0 10 4.0 10 5.2 11 6.2 11
M4 Point 6 (NNE) 2.3 13 3.5 14 5.0 14 6.0 14
M5 Point 25 2.2 11 3.3 13 4.7 14 5.6 14

The figures below are sketches of the cross-sections of the physical model tested.
Figure 11 - Models M1 and M1b (extract from MANPP-DE-REP-04003-DP-01-FR)
Figure 12 - Model M3 (extract from MANPP-DE-REP-04002-DP-00-FR)

6.3 Review of Model Test Results
6.3.1 Rubble-mound breakwater
The rubble-mound section of the transition zone was modelled in Model M3.
No Accropode II units were displaced during the tests. There was only one case of block
oscillation at the roundhead part of the transition zone in the 1 in 100 year wave condition. This
was observed in a test at low water and followed by the test at high water, before it eventually
stabilised.

On the sea-facing side of the breakwater, a maximum rock displacement of 2% was observed in
the rocks (4 – 6 T and 0.1 – 0.5 T) at the base of the Acccropode II armour. Where the rock
displacement occurred, there was a slight reshaping with no significant effect on the global
stability of the Accropode II armour.
The rock armour on the rear-side of the breakwater was not affected by the overtopping waves.
No rock displacement was observed.
6.3.2 Caisson on rubble-mound breakwater
The caisson on rubble-mound breakwater was modelled in Model M1, Model M1b, Model M3,
Model M4 and Model M5.
The rock displacements observed in the above tests are summarised below (except M1b which
does not provide those observations):
Table 14 Rock displacement observations in physical model tests
Maximum rock displacement Maximum rock displacement

Model
observed on sea side observed on harbour side
M1 0.2% 0%
M3 0.3% 0%
M4 1.3% 1.2%
M5 1.1% 0.2%
The rock displacements observed in the physical model tests listed in the table above are within
the displacement criteria (<3% for 1 in 100 year wave height; <5% for 120% 1 in 100 year
wave height)

7. CONCLUSIONS
Rubble-mound breakwater:
 The design calculations of the Accropode II 6.3m3 and 8m3, and rock armour sizes were
validated by the physical model tests results. The stability criteria were met.
 Additional checks were carried out for Accropode II 10m3 units as it is understood that
those units are being built on site. While there is no physical model data available to
support the design calculations, the armour layer satisfies the stability criteria and being
larger than the original 8m3 specification is judged to be stable.
 The 3:4 slope on the harbour-side of the breakwater was reviewed for buildability. A 3:4
slope would be difficult to build. A 2:3 slope was therefore tested and verified for stability.
The breakwater is expected to be more stable with this arrangement.
 The transition zone from rubble-mound to caisson consists of a roundhead arrangement

with gentler slopes than the trunk section. The slope of the Accropode II changes from
3:4 to 3:2, and the rock armour slopes change from 2:3 to 2:5.
Caisson on rubble-mound foundation breakwater:
 The design calculations returned larger rock sizes than the physical model tests. However,
it was shown that the stability criteria were met in the physical model tests for the 1 in
100 year return period wave condition. Therefore the rock sizes tested in the physical
model are adequate for the rubble-mound foundation for caissons.
 The physical model tests results indicated that the overtopping criteria were not met in
some parts of the caisson breakwater. The solution proposed was a change in the height
and shape of the crest wall.
 The end of the MBW consists of a roundhead with the slope of the 1 – 2 T changing from
2:3 to 2:5.
The vibro-compacted sand (VCS) needs to be protected by a minimum 0.75m thick granular
material to limit scour due to wave action and propeller jet wash.
Slope stability analysis has been undertaken on the rubble mound element of the Main
Breakwater as shown in the CID Drawings. In several locations the berm height and width has
had to be modified and ground improvement introduced in order for the slopes to be stable under
loads in the seismic condition.

APPENDIX A
Chainage 410 (rock armour)
Left side / sea side
 Fill failure for N1 analysis (1.536)
 Ground Failure for N2 analysis (1.082)

Right side/port side

Chainage 990 (4m3 Accropods)


Chainage 1040 (6.3m3 Accropods)


Chainage 1480 (10m3 Accropode)



3666-RAM-MBW-00-REP-CW-005 Rubble Mound Design Report Rev 0

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

3666-RAM-MBW-00-REP-CW-005 Rubble Mound Design Report Rev 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intended for

Nador West Med

PORT NADOR WEST MED

Revision Date Purpose / Status Document Ref. Comments

Prepared By Reviewed By Approved By

Karishna Bunwaree Melinda Odum Martin Duke

tel +44 (0)23 8081 7500

fax +44 (0)23 8081 7600

The Main Breakwater: Rubble-Mound Design Report details the following:

 The verification of the hydraulic design of the components of the rubble-mound

The design verification is based on the report 3666-RAM-00-BOD-CW-001 Main Breakwater –

1.2 Scope of Work

The following checks were carried out:

 Analysis of the hydraulic stability of the rubble-mound breakwater and rubble-mound

 Assessment of the geotechnical stability of the rubble-mound breakwater. .

Port Nador West Med Page 1 Ramboll UK

2. CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

BS 6349: Maritime Works

EN 1997 - Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design

EN 1998 - Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance

2.2 Guidance Documents

PIANC WG 28 Breakwaters with vertical and inclined concrete walls, 2003

PIANC WG 34 Seismic design guidelines for port structures, 2001

Thomas Telford Port Designer’s Handbook 2010

US Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Manual

2.3 Project Reports and Drawings

Rubble-mound basis of design report, 3666-RAM-MBW-00-BOD-CW-001

Rapport d’essais sur modèle physique hydraulique – Modèle M4 - DP Caissons, MANPP-DE-REP-

Rapport d’essai sur modèle physique hydraulique – Modèle M5, MANPP-DE-REP-04005-DPDS-00-

Port Nador West Med Page 2 Ramboll UK

Table 1 Material properties

Sea Water 10.25 - - - -

Plain Concrete 24.0 14.0 - - -

Rock Armour 17.0 10.5 45 ° 10 10 100

Port Nador West Med Page 3 Ramboll UK

3.3 Rubble-mound Breakwater – PM 0 to PM 1495

The typical rubble-mound breakwater is made up of the following components:

 1-500kg fill core up to the required level under the slab.

 Rock filter layer and rock underlayer.

Table 2 Summary table of description of rubble-mound breakwater from PM 0 to PM 1495

CHAINAGE ROAD LEVEL SEA SIDE HARBOUR SIDE

3.4 Rubble-mound / Caisson Junction

Port Nador West Med Page 4 Ramboll UK

3.5 Caisson breakwater – PM 1495 to PM 4233

Table 3 Summary table of description of caisson breakwater from PM 1495 to PM 4233

Rock Armour (Top

Figure 1 Cross section through rubble-mound breakwater (trunk)

Port Nador West Med Page 5 Ramboll UK

Figure 3 Typical Cross section through caisson breakwater in deeper water

Port Nador West Med Page 6 Ramboll UK

4.1.1 Review of available data

Figure 4 Location of points of wave data measurements

4.1.2 Wave data selected for the design

Table 4 Wave parameters at Point 13

Mer d’Alboran Mer Occidentale

Port Nador West Med Page 7 Ramboll UK

1 2.8 9.0 1.9 11.0

10 3.8 10.0 2.8 13.0

100 4.9 11.0 4.1 14.0

200 5.2 11.1 4.3 14.5

400 5.5 11.4 4.7 14.9

2000 6.3 12.0 5.5 15.9

Table 5 Wave parameters at Point 18

Mer d’Alboran Mer Occidentale