See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312472283

SAL REI BREAKWATER WITH SINGLE LAYER CUBES

Conference Paper · October 2016

CITATIONS READS

7 1,761

3 authors:

Cock van der Lem Ronald Stive

Royal HaskoningDHV Royal HaskoningDHV
10 PUBLICATIONS 50 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marcel R.A. van Gent

Deltares & TU Delft
185 PUBLICATIONS 2,974 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The influence of berms, roughness and oblique waves on wave overtopping at dikes View project

Coastal Risk Assessment for Ebeye Island View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcel R.A. van Gent on 17 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

SAL REI BREAKWATER WITH SINGLE LAYER CUBES

1 2 3
J.C. van der Lem , R.J.H. Stive , M.R.A. van Gent
ABSTRACT
When design wave conditions are high and available rock sizes are small, the application of concrete
armour units for the design of breakwaters becomes nearly inevitable. Modern day design practice
then shows that often single layer concrete armour units are applied. The concept of a single layer
obviously results in a considerable cost reduction compared to double layer armour systems applied
some decades ago. Looking at present day single layer units, it is observed that the shape is rather
complex, with legs protruding in different directions. Therewith the formwork of these units is complex,
as is the fabrication of the moulds and the casting and compaction of the concrete. Moreover, the
placement is often dictated by stringent directives of the developers, demanding specific placement
patterns and/or orientations. In contrast to these complex units, a concrete cube is easier to produce.
The formwork is simple and the compaction of concrete is not complicated by legs protruding in
different directions. Furthermore, cubes are easy to stack and the placement of the cubes in a single
layer is quite simple. After damage occurred to the breakwater at Sal Rei (Cabo Verde) Royal
HaskoningDHV, with the support of Deltares, became involved and based on aforementioned
considerations prepared a repair design using single layer cubes instead of slender interlocking
concrete units. Directly after the completion of the breakwater with single layer cubes in 2013, this
breakwater experienced some severe swell wave events and the single layer of cubes showed to
perform satisfactorily. The design of the breakwater with single layer cubes, the results of the physical
model tests, and observations on the in-situ status of the single layer cubes are presented here.

1 SAL REI BREAKWATER - HISTORY

1.1 Sal Rei port development project

The port of Sal Rei is located in the North West of the island of Boa Vista, Cabo Verde (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Sal Rei, Boa Vista, Cabo Verde

1
Royal HaskoningDHV - Senior Port Consultant, PO Box 8520, 3009 AM Rotterdam.
Cock.van.der.Lem@rhdhv.com
2
Royal HaskoningDHV - Senior Port Consultant, PO Box 8520, 3009 AM Rotterdam.
Ronald.Stive@rhdhv.com
3
Deltares – Head of Department Coastal Structures & Waves, Deltares, PO Box 177, 2600 MH Delft,
The Netherlands, Marcel.vanGent@Deltares.nl

1
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

In view of the limited capacity of the old port, a port expansion plan was developed in 2008 as shown
in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Original Sal Rei Port Masterplan (2008)

1.2 Construction and temporary protection (2011)

In 2011 the construction of this port was well underway. The as built status of the breakwater and the
land reclamation as per October 2011 is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 As built situation (October 2011)

With the upcoming bad weather season in mind the contractor provided provisional protection to the
breakwater structure as shown in the pictures below. For this protection the contractor applied 10
tonne cubes (as prepared to be applied in the toe of the breakwater), quarry rock and tetrapod units

2
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

3
removed from the existing pier. Accropode units in the (permanent) works consisted of 5m units
placed up to the top of the slope of the breakwater.

Figure 4 Temporary protection works (October 2011)

1.3 Damage due to swell waves (2011)

Late October and early November 2011 large swell waves arrived from the NW to NNW, resulting in
heavy wave attack on the breakwater and high wave overtopping. An impression of the occurring
wave overtopping conditions is shown in the picture below.

Figure 5 Heavy wave attack and overtopping (4/11/2011) on the partially complete breakwater
Due to this wave attack substantial damage was inflicted on the breakwater. Not only was damage
done to the temporary protection works (Tetrapods, Cubes and rock on the crest of the breakwater),
but also to the permanent works (broken Accropode units on the slope and displaced cubes in the toe
of the breakwater).
The observed damage to the breakwater raised concern to the applied design wave conditions and
thus the design of the breakwater in 2008. To identify the cause of the observed damage with the

3
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

purpose to improve the breakwater design (if required), Royal HaskoningDHV became involved and
was requested in 2012 to carry out an independent review of the original design of the breakwater.

2 DESIGN REVIEW

2.1 Review design wave conditions

As questions were raised about the applicability of the original design wave conditions, an extensive
wave study was carried out, including:
 Statistical analysis of 3-hourly time series of offshore wave parameters covering the years
1996-2011 for location 17º00’N 22º30’W, in the Atlantic Ocean northeast of Cape Verde.
 Offshore to nearshore wave transformation modelling using three nested SWAN wave
transformation models (Figure 6)

Depth (m CD)
Above 3000
2000 to 3000
1000 to 2000
500 to 1000
250 to 500
100 to 250
50 to 100
25 to 50
10 to 25
5 to 10
0 to 5
Below 0

Figure 6 Three nested SWAN wave transformation models and bathymetry (m CD)

The new wave studies showed somewhat higher offshore 1 in 50 years wave conditions than in the
original design of 2008, but when transforming these offshore wave conditions towards locations in
front of the breakwater the differences in design wave showed to be rather small (Table 1).

4
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Offshore wave direction: NNW Output locations

Output location 70 75 80 85 90

Depth (m CD) 12 11.3 8 7.75 7

Offshore Hm0 (m) Nearshore Hm0 (m)

5.3 (2008) 6.0 5.3 6.1 5.8 5.3

5.6 (2012) 6.1 5.4 6.2 5.9 5.4

Table 1 Near shore extreme 1 in 50 year wave conditions

2.2 Review breakwater design

As a lot of Accropode armour units were broken, the review of the technical design of the breakwater
focussed on the design of the Accropodes and yielded the following observations.

2.2.1 Breakwater tender design

In the original tender design the Accropodes on trunk and head were dimensioned using Kd
3
coefficients in the Hudson formula of 15 and 11.5 respectively, resulting in Accropode sizes of 3 m
3
and 4 m respectively (Figure 7).

Trunk Head

Figure 7 Tender design cross sections (2008)

These values assume that the waves are non-breaking before they reach the structure. But from the
field observations as well as the wave modelling results it is concluded that wave breaking does occur
in front of the breakwater and hence lower Kd coefficients would have been appropriate as
recommended in the Concrete Layer Innovations design guidelines governing in 2008 (CLI, 2008).
Apart from this, CLI in 2012 issued an updated design guideline which includes the steepness of the
foreshore as input parameter: the steeper the foreshore to a breakwater the larger the required armour
unit (Figure 8).

5
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Figure 8 Accropode design guideline (CLI, 2012).

Orange line presents the original Hs = 5.3 m design wave.
Bathymetric data at Sal Rei confirms such steep foreshore to be present as in Figure 9. Especially
profile lines 2, 3 and 4 show a steep character just in front of the breakwater (about x = 0 to 200 m)
and bottom steepness between 2% and 6.5%. Towards the head of the breakwater (line 1) the
foreshore profile flattens somewhat to about 2% or less.

Figure 9 Bathymetric profile in front of the breakwater (lines number from left to right)
Combining this bottom steepness with the current design guideline (Figure 8), the orange line
3 3
indicates that the original Accropode size of 3 m (for Hs = 5.3 m) would have to be increased to 5 m
to account for a steep foreshore.

2.2.2 Breakwater construction design

The construction design by the contractor included modifications to the tender design, but not with
respect to the design wave height. This wave height is still reported as the 50 year return period H s =
5.3 m (in shallow water) with corresponding wave peak period of 18 s. Compared to the tender design,
the Accropode sizes were modified:

3 3
From 3 m to 5 m at the trunk of the breakwater

3 3
From 4 m to 6.3 m at the head of the breakwater
Resulting in the following typical cross sections:

6
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Figure 10 Construction cross sections (anno 2010/2011)

3 3
with 5 m Accropode (trunk, top) and 6.3 m Accropode (head, bottom)
This construction design was extensively model tested by LNEC in 2010 and 2011 (Figure 11). During
the model tests “rocking” of the Accropode units was observed to occur, already at a wave height of
about Hs = 3.0 m. Under the design wave of Hs = 5.3 m, the number of rocking Accropodes increased
up to 3 to 4 armour units per section (A through E, Figure 11). In the overload situation (Hs = 1.2x5.3 =
6.36 m) the rocking increased further showing that there was limited redundancy in the design.
In the model tests it was also observed that towards the head of the breakwater the amount of rocking
units reduced, even in the overload situation. This confirms the observation that indeed the bottom
steepness, water depth and wave breaking influences the stability of the armour units. Towards the
head of the breakwater the bottom steepness reduces and depth increases.

Figure 11 Impression of 3D model tests at LNEC (2010/2011)

2.3 Analysis of damage

2.3.1 Comparison of damages in model tests and field

To understand the damages that occurred in October / November 2011, the wave conditions during
these events were analysed in the wave transformation studies by Royal HaskoningDHV as well. This
showed that at the peak of the swell events, wave conditions in front of the breakwater were in the
order of Hs = 4.5 m at the area of the breakwater that was constructed at that time.
Taking a wave of Hs = 4.5 m from NNW as input conditions a comparison was made between the
observed damage in the field (broken Accropode units) and the damage in the model tests (rocking

7
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Accropode units). The comparison learned that the damage to the Accoprode units in the field is in
reasonable agreement with the rocking of the Accropodes in the model tests, apart from the fact that
the units in the field are broken.
Thus, the most alarming about the damages observed in the field obviously is not that the Accropode
units rocked (which actually cannot be proven from field records), but that as a result of apparent
rocking the Accropode units were broken. Since the amount of broken units about equals the number
of rocking Accropodes in the model, one may conclude that any Accropode shown to be rocking in the
model tests eventually will break in the field when subject to its design conditions. With the increasing
amount of rocking observed in the tests for even higher wave conditions, this raises concern about the
applicability of the envisaged armour unit size.

2.4 Closing remarks

The review of the technical design of the breakwater to identify the cause of the damages was
complicated by the fact that the breakwater was not completely finished. The Accropode units in the
works were not fully supported by additional units on the crest and also the breakwater parapet wall
was not completed yet. Further, it was impossible to conclusively judge whether the strength of the
armour units was sufficient, as no calculation model exists to address the concrete tensile stresses
occurring in the rocking armour units already placed in the (temporary) works. Apart from this, it was
observed that the foreshore of the breakwater shows to be steep which (in accordance with the newer
CLI design guidelines of 2012) could have affected the stability of the Accropodes. Finally, the 2012
nearshore wave conditions appear somewhat higher than the 2008 wave conditions. Combining these
observations it was recommended to reconsider the primary armour design of the breakwater.

3 REPAIR ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Accropode alternatives

3.1.1 Alternative options 1 through 5

3 3
With the contractor on site and a large number of 5 m and 6.3 m Accropode units already fabricated
and the moulds of these available, together with the already produced rock grades, the development
of alternative breakwater repair designs initially was driven by these boundary conditions. At this stage
Deltares became involved and their physical model facilities allowed for simultaneous evaluation of a
series of alternatives. Hence, a first set of alternative repair design options included:
1. Original construction design by Contractor (Figure 10), as reference
3
2. 6.3 m Accropode units on the slope of the trunk of the breakwater, with the filter layer of 0.8 –
3
1.7 tonne (Figure 10) unchanged. On the crest a single layer of 5 m Accropode units
3
3. 6.3 m Accropode units on the slope of the trunk of the breakwater, with a thicker layer of 1-3
tonne rock underneath. The larger permeability of the 1-3 tonne rock aiming to increase the
3
stability of the Accropode units. On the crest a single layer of 5 m Accropode units
3
4. 9 m Accropode units on slope of the trunk of the breakwater, based on the assumption that
this size could be achieved by reworking the Accropode moulds on site (solution
suggested by CLI). Underneath these units again a thicker layer of 1-3 tonne rock. The
3
crest of the breakwater provided with 5 m Accropode.
3
5. 12 m Accropode units on the slope of the trunk of the breakwater, with a 2-4 tonne rock
underlayer based on the 2012 CLI design guidelines. This requires to fabricate new moulds.
As there is a clear correlation between wave action, rocking of concrete armour units and the risk of
breakage of these units (Van der Meer 1991; d’Angremond 1994; CUR C70 1989 & 1990), but no
mathematical model to predict this for Accropode armour units, it was decided to investigate these
alternatives in physical model tests. For the purpose of comparison, the construction design of the
breakwater trunk (Figure 10, upper figure) was also included in these tests as Option 1.
To speed up the testing of these alternatives, as the construction works in Sal Rei were interrupted, it
was decided to construct flumes in a wave basin in which the 5 options for the re-design of the
breakwater sections could be tested simultaneously (Figure 12).

8
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Figure 12 Impression of 2D model tests for simultaneous testing of 5 cross-sections at

Deltares (2012)

3.1.2 Model tests

An impression of the applied foreshore is presented in Figure 13 and the wave and water level
conditions are presented in Table 2. Tests 101 through 103 intend to reproduce the test conditions of
the original design. Tests 104 and 105 represent the new 1 in 50 year design wave conditions. Test
106 includes an “overload” test to investigate the redundancy of the design.

Figure 13 Impression of 2D foreshore and instrumentation

Table 2 Test conditions series T0100 (ZH = Chart Datum)

An overview of the damage to the Accropode armour layers observed after the tests is presented in
Table 3. The results on the left show the percentage rocking; where a maximum of 1% rocking

9
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Accropode units is generally considered acceptable. The results on the right show the total number of
extracted Accropode units; where in general no extractions are accepted.

Table 3 Damage to Accropode armour layers

3
Most significant damage in this test series is the complete failure of option 1 (5 m Accropode) after
test T0105, with 28 Accropodes being extracted. The Accropode units were extracted under a design
wave of Hm0 = 6.6 m at the toe of the structure. The Hm0/∆Dn ratio at which this failure of the
Accropode layer occurs is 2.9.
3
Damage was also caused to option 3, with one 6.3 m Accropode being extracted from the armour
layer. The Accropode was extracted under a design wave of Hm0 = 6.9 m at the toe of the structure.
The Hm0/∆Dn ratio at which this failure of the Accropode layer occurred is 2.8, which is in agreement
3
with aforementioned failure ratio of 2.9 for the 5 m Accropodes.
3 3
No extractions were observed on the 9 m and 12 m Accropode alternatives.
Rocking of Accropodes was observed at all breakwater alternatives in this test series, most particular
starting at test T0104. With increasing wave conditions the rocking also increased.
In the model tests special attention was paid to the registration of settlement of the armour units. Due
to uneven settlement the interlocking between units may decrease. Settlement may also cause a gap
between units in the slope (experiencing settlement) and units on the horizontal crest (not
experiencing settlement), leading to less interlocking of the units around this gap.
Settlement was measured by using a camera suspended above the structure. Before and after
each test a photograph was made which enabled a comparison between these two situations.
Using a technique to recognize patterns in images of the slope, settlement is quantified but individual
units are not recognized. The technique yields a direction in which the pattern moves and a
displacement in pixels in a horizontal [x, y] plane (i.e. not along the slope). For the purpose of
determining settlements these movements were translated to movements along the slope and
displacement in Dn of the applicable primary armour unit.
All breakwater alternatives showed settlements in the Accropode armour layer. The settlement in
option 1 had already increased to maximum 0.24∙Dn during test T0104, when complete failure
occurred during test T0105. The area of largest settlement (and gradient in settlement) matches the
area of the failure (Figure 14), giving support to the theory that a reduction in packing density of
armour units will result in a reduction in stability of such armour unit. Observing the large amount of
extractions during test T0105 it is assessed that the actual settlement of the Accropodes up to the
moment that extractions started (i.e. start of damage) will be higher than indicated by test T0104.

10
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Settlement after test T0104 Failure after test T0105

3
Figure 14 Settlement and failure of option 1 (5 m Accropode)
3
Indeed for option 2 and 3 (6.3 m Accropode) the settlement of the Accropode ranged up to about
0.29∙Dn to 0.34∙Dn where for option 3 only 1 Accropode was displaced. This tends to suggest that this
maximum settlement of approximately 0.3 to 0.35∙Dn may coincide with “start of failure” of the
Accropode armour layer.
Option 4 and 5 show much smaller settlements with maxima of 0.04∙Dn and 0.09∙Dn respectively.
These alternatives indeed show no extractions and a limited amount of rocking.

3.1.3 Model test conclusions

Based on these tests it is concluded that the damage number at “failure” of the Accropode is:
Hm0/∆Dn|failure = 2.8 to 2.9. This ratio is much lower than the “standard” failure damage number of
about 3.7 to 4.1 mentioned by the Rock Manual (2007, Section 5.2.2.3). But this is in agreement with
the recommendation by Concrete Layer Innovations (CLI), that for steep foreshore the stability of the
Accropodes reduces (resulting in lower Hm0/∆Dn values).
Using a ratio of 2.8, an estimate can be made of the safety in the design of the different tested
Accropode alternatives, by calculating the ratio of the actual D n to the failure Dn for a given test. Given
the wave heights in front of the breakwater in test series 0100, these results are presented in Table 4.

3
TestID SWL Hm0 Accropode size (m )
(m ZH) (m) 5 6.3 9 12
T101 2.07 3.2 1.990 2.150 2.421 2.665
T102 2.07 4.5 1.415 1.529 1.722 1.895
T103 2.07 5.5 1.158 1.251 1.409 1.550
T104 2.07 6.2 1.027 1.109 1.249 1.375
T105 2.07 6.6 0.965 1.042 1.174 1.292
T106 2.07 6.9 0.923 0.997 1.123 1.236
███ = 1 in 50 year event
Table 4 Resulting safety coefficient in the design

From this table the following conclusions can be drawn:


3
For design conditions the factor of safety for the 5 m Accropodes is around 1 and for overload
3
conditions well below 1. Therewith it is concluded that the 5 m Accropodes are not fit for
purpose. This particularly applies to the sloping part of the structure. The model tests have

11
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

3
shown that the 5 m Accropodes on the crest of the breakwater (in front of the wave wall)
show to be stable.

3
For design conditions the factor of safety for the 6.3 m Accropode is just above 1. However,
as shown by model test T0106, for further increasing wave height (H m0 = 6.9 m), the factor of
3
safety drops below 1. Therewith it is concluded that also the 6.3 m Accropodes are not fit for
purpose.

3
For design conditions, the factor of safety for the 9 m Accropodes varies between 1.17 and
1.25 and for overload conditions about 1.1. Indeed, during tests 0100 no extractions of
Accropodes were observed. During the test series 0100 rocking percentages increased to
more than 1% (test T0105). Maximum settlement of the Accropodes lies in the order of
3 3
0.05∙Dn which is much less compared to settlements of the 5 m and 6.3 m Accropodes at
failure of these armour layers (about 0.3∙D n to 0.4∙Dn). Albeit not preferred (since the safety
coefficient under design conditions is still less than about 1.5), the results are such that it
could be contemplated to apply these units on the front slope of the breakwater.
 For design conditions, the factor of safety for the 12 m3 Accropodes varies between 1.29 and
1.37 and for overload conditions is 1.23. Indeed, during tests 0100 no extractions of
Accropodes were observed. During the test series 0100 rocking percentages increased to
more than 1% (test T0106). Maximum settlement of the Accropodes lies in the order of
3 3
0.07∙Dn to 0.11∙Dn which is much less compared to settlements of the 5 m and 6.3 m
Accropodes at failure of these armour layers (about 0.3∙Dn to 0.4∙Dn). In view of this and
observing that the factor of safety of close to “about 1.5” as recommended by The Rock
3
Manual, it was concluded that the 12 m Accropodes provide a possible alternative for the final
design of the breakwater.

Yet, when discussing these results with the client and the contractor, it became clear that they
3 3
anticipated major difficulties in enlarging the available 5 m or 6.3 m Accropode moulds. Also making
3
new moulds for a 9 or 12 m Accropode was too time consuming. Hence the application of (Antifer)
cubes was further investigated.

3.2 Cube alternatives

3.2.1 Double layer cubes vs. single layer cubes

Concrete cubes have been applied for over a century for the construction of rubble mound
breakwaters. Commonly in such cases cubes are being placed in irregular, double layers (Figure 15,
left).

Irregular placed, double layer (Antifer) cubes Regular placed, single layer cubes (Sal Rei)
Figure 15 Conventional and innovative application of concrete cubes as armour layer
As the design formula for irregular, double layer cubes (refer the Rock Manual (2007), equation 5.152)
typically results in larger concrete masses than those for Accropodes, it is obvious that a double layer
of concrete cubes appears a far from economic solution.
However, an innovative way of applying concrete cubes is by using a single layer and a regular
placement pattern (Figure 15, right). The application of cubes in such single layer is an innovative
solution under investigation since 1998 (e.g. Van Gent & Spaan, 1998; Van Gent et al, 1999, 2001;
d’Angremond et al, 1999; Van Gent 2003; Rock Manual, 2007; Van Buchem, 2009, Van Gent & Luis,
2013; Van Gent, 2014). Although the cube in the single layer is still somewhat larger than an
Accropode (for equal design conditions), advantages of the cube are the simple formwork and the

12
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

simple placing pattern (Van Gent & Luis, 2013). In particular in view of these advantages the single
layer cubes solution was included in the physical model tests for the Sal Rei breakwater repair.

3.2.2 Design
The Rock Manual (2007) recommends to apply a stability number of H s/ΔDn = 2.9 to 3.0 for the design
of single layer armour cubes, but also to apply a safety factor to this number as the difference between
start of damage and failure is small. As a starting point therefore a cube of 16.8 tonne was applied in
the model tests, for the design waves of Table 1 resulting in stability numbers between 2 and 2.44.
The packing density of the cubes was selected at 0.72, i.e. a porosity of 28%. The spacing between
the cubes thus becomes about 0.75 m (for the 16.8 tonne cube). Consequently, the underlayer was
taken as 1-3 tonne rock (available on site) with a Dn50 ≈ 0.9 m. A typical cross section is provided in
Figure 16. Note that, to reduce overtopping, the breakwater crest was raised with about 3 m. This
increase was introduced after test series 0100, showing high amounts of overtopping for all cross
sections (Accropode as well as cubes). The differences in overtopping discharges between the
various alternatives with the same crest elevation were not significant. To save construction costs, the
3
horizontal part in front of the crest wall was provided with 5 m Accropode that were already available
on site.

Figure 16 Typical cross section of single layer cubes design

3.2.3 2D Model tests

The cross section shown in Figure 17 was included in the 2D tests, but with slightly changed wave
conditions (Table 5), taking into account the results of a joint probability analysis of wave heights and
wave periods (not further discussed in this paper) leading to somewhat shorter wave periods. The
damage to the single layer cubes was measured with the same picture overlay technique as for the
Accropodes. Table 6 shows the results where damage is based on units that are displaced over more
than 1 cube diameter.

Table 5 Test conditions series 0T300 (ZH = Chart Datum)

13
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Nod of armour units (cubes)

TestID Option 3-5
16.8t cubes
(-)
T0301 0.0
T0302 0.0
T0303 0.0
T0304 0.0
T0305 0.0
T0306 0.0
T0307 2.6
T0308 2.7
T0309 2.7
Table 6 Damage to single layer cube armour layer

3.2.4 Model test conclusions

From these tests results it is observed that the single layer cubes are very stable, but also that there is
a quick transition to “failure” (Nod > 0.2) reached during test T0307. Based on the results of test T0307,
the damage number at “failure” is: Hm0/∆Dn|failure ≈ 2.5.
Based on this ratio of 2.5, an estimate can be made of the safety in the design of the tested single
layer cube breakwater alternative. Given the wave heights in front of the breakwater in test series
0300, these results are presented in Table 7.

TestID SWL Hm0 Cube size (tonne)

(m ZH) (m) 16.8 21.1 26 35
T0301 2.07 3.2 2.02 2.18 2.34 2.58
T0302 2.07 4.5 1.44 1.55 1.66 1.83
T0303 2.07 5.5 1.17 1.27 1.36 1.50
T0304 2.07 6.2 1.04 1.12 1.21 1.33
T0305 2.07 6.6 0.98 1.06 1.13 1.25
T0306 2.07 5.9 1.10 1.18 1.27 1.40
T0307 2.07 6.5 0.99 1.07 1.15 1.27
███ = 1 in 50 year event, values in italics not tested
Table 7 Resulting safety coefficient in the design
From this table the following conclusions can be drawn:
 For design conditions and overload conditions the factor of safety for the 16.8 tonne cubes is
about 1. As a result, the safety coefficients are not at the required value of “about 1.5”. The
3
safety level more or less corresponds to the level calculated for the 5 m Accropodes, which
were rejected for application. In view of this it is also concluded that the 16.8 tonne regular
placed cubes are not recommended.
 If larger cubes are used instead of 16.8 tonne cubes, the safety coefficient will increase. In
3
such event 26 t cubes are a bit less safe than 9 m Accropodes and 35 tonne cubes are a bit
3 3
more safe than 9 m Accropodes, but less safe than 12 m Accropodes.
 Using a safety coefficient of “about 1.5” a concrete cube of about 42 tonne would be required
for the trunk of the breakwater.

3.2.5 3D Model tests

Following the successful 2D model tests with single layer cubes, 3D model tests were performed to
investigate the stability of the head of the breakwater and to verify the transition from the single layer
cubes to the Accropode layer (Figure 17). The latter transition was introduced as the client urged for a
maximum use of already fabricated Accropodes to optimize the construction costs. In view of this, on
3
the shallower trunk sections of the breakwater 6.3 m Accropode were applied, yet with a reduced
safety coefficient.

14
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Transition Trunk Roundhead

Figure 17 Impression of 3D model tests, last test series (2012)
Cubes in the model were 43.6 tonne cubes, slightly larger than the 42 tonne cubes applied for the final
construction of the breakwater. In contrast to normal practice, the steepness of the breakwater slope
at the roundhead as well as the cube size was kept similar to the breakwater trunk. Compared to the
2D tests, the cube packing density was increased to 0.75 (0.72 in the 2D tests) and the porosity thus
reduced to 25%. The 1-3 tonne underlayer was maintained. Wave conditions in the final series of the
model tests are included in Table 8.

Deeper water Breakwater toe

TestID Description SWL Hm0 Tp Hm0 Tp
(m ZH) (m) (s) (m) (s)
1/50 year design condition
T0403 2.07 5.6 16.3 5.7 15.4
(1.5% wave steepness)
1/50 year design condition
T0404 2.07 6.1 18.3 6.0 17.2
(1.0% wave steepness)
Overload: 120% of governing
T0405 2.07 7.4 18.3 6.5 19.5
1/50 year condition
T0406 1/50 year low water 0.24 6.1 18.3 5.7 18.3
Table 8 Wave conditions of final test series of the 3D model tests
In the 3D model tests both conventional cube solutions as well as single layer cube solutions were
addressed. The single layer solution showed to be much more attractive. Not only does it result in a
reduced concrete demand (compared to conventional double layer cubes), but also in a higher
stability. An impression of this stability is shown in Figure 18, showing the observed damage to the
breakwater head after two 1/50 year events included in the last test series.

15
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Pre-tests 403 Post-test 404

Figure 18 Damage to breakwater head after two 1/50 year tests

3.3 Final design, construction and current (2016) status

Following the completion of the model tests, the final design report and final design drawings were
prepared and completed in November 2012. By that time the condition of the works at Sal Rei had
severely deteriorated (Figure 19).

16 September 2012 28 March 2013

Figure 19 Condition of the Sal Rei works prior to reconstruction works (Google Earth)
The contractor managed to have the majority of the breakwater works completed before the winter of
2013/2014 (Figure 20). Apart from the contractor’s commitment to accomplish this, the simplicity of the
cube and single layer placement helped to achieve this.

16
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Figure 20 Sal Rei breakwater during reconstruction works 17-10-2013 (Google Earth)
Following the completion of the construction works, three winter seasons have passed. During these
winters the breakwater regularly suffered from severe incident swell conditions. For example on 7 and
8 January 2014 the breakwater was hit by severe waves (Figure 21). Hindcast deep water wave
th
conditions were assessed to have reached a height of Hm0 = 4.33 m early evening of 7 of January
2014. Corresponding peak wave period was just below Tp = 18 s and the direction was more or
less NNW. Based on joint probability analysis, the return period of these wave conditions was
assessed to be about 8 years. Nearshore wave conditions were consequently assessed to vary
between Hm0 = 4.6 and 5.2 m along the NW face of the breakwater. Inspection of the breakwater
after these swell events has shown that the single layer cube solution performs as expected (Figure
22).

Figure 21 Waves hitting breakwater

17
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Figure 22 Breakwater status (July 2014)

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the review of the original Sal Rei breakwater design and the re-design of the breakwater, the
following conclusions are drawn:
 The effect of the steepness of the foreshore (included in CLI design guidelines of 2012)
partially explains the damages observed to the Sal Rei breakwater in 2011. Designers should
pay clear attention to this aspect when designing single layer armour unit breakwaters, as this
expectedly will also affect other armour units than Accropodes,
 Methods to calculate the tensile stresses in slender interlocking single layer armour units
during storm conditions are urgently lacking. The availability of such method would highly
support investigations into the causes of breaking of single layer amour units as well as
provide a basis for the design of such units. International research to develop such a
calculation model in similitude to earlier research for Tetrapods (d’Angremond et al, 1994) is
highly recommended,
 Based on the current model tests (maximum) settlements in an Accropode layer of about 0.3
to 0.4 Dn appear to be a prelude to failure of the armour layer. For future investigations it is
recommended that (maximum) settlement of Accropode layers shall be substantially less than
about 0.3 to 0.4 Dn. Expectedly this recommendation also applies to similar types of
interlocking single layer armour units.
 Settlements in interlocking single layer armour appear to be an important prelude to failure of
the armour layer. Information based on (constant) rocking of single layer armour units is not
sufficient to estimate prospective failure of the armour layer. Photographic (or similar)
measurement of the settlement of single layer armour units rather than visual observation of
rocking is therefore recommended when performing physical model tests.
 Single layer cubes may be seriously considered in addition to other single layer armour units.
Albeit larger in size, the single layer cube is attractive because of its simplicity, both in shape
as well as in placing pattern. Apart from this the application of the single layer cube is not
subject to royalties.

18
 PIANC-COPEDEC IX, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

References
CLI (2008); ACCROPODE™ Design Guidelines
CLI (2012); ACCROPODE™ Design Table 2012
CUR C70 (1989); Study group I “Investigation”, Integration of stages 1-3. Breakwaters. Strength of
concrete armour units. The Netherlands.
CUR C70 (1990); Summary. Breakwaters. Strength of concrete armour units. The Netherlands.
d'Angremond, K., Van der Meer, J.W. and Van Nes, C.P. (1994); Stresses in tetrapod armour units
induced by wave actions. ASCE, proc. 24th ICCE, Kobe, Japan, pp. 1713-1726
d’Angremond, K., E. Berendsen, G.S. Bhageleo, M.R.A. van Gent and J.W. van der Meer, 1999.
Breakwaters with a single-layer, Proc. Copedec-V, Capetown, South Africa.
Rock Manual, 2007. The use of rock in hydraulic engineering (2nd edition), CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF,
Published by C683, CIRIA, London (ISBN 978-0-86017-683-1 and 5).
Van Buchem, R.V., 2009. Stability of a single top layer of Cubes, MSc-Thesis, Delft University of
Technology, Delft.
Van der Meer, J.W. and Heydra, G. (1991); Rocking armour units: number, location and impact
velocity. Journal of Coastal Engineering, special issue "Breakwaters", 15 (1991) 3-19, Elsevier. Also
Delft Hydraulics Publication Number 435.
Van Gent, M.R.A. and Spaan, G.B.H., 1998. Breakwaters with a single layer of Cubes, Delft
Hydraulics report H3387, Delft Hydraulics, Delft.
Van Gent, M.R.A., E. Berendsen, S.E. Plate, Spaan, G.B.H. and d’Angremond, K., 1999. Single-layer
rubble mound breakwaters, Balkema, Proc. International Conference Coastal Structures, Santander,
Spain, Vol.1, pp.231-239.
Van Gent, M.R.A., d’Angremond, K. and Triemstra, 2001. Rubble mound breakwaters: Single armour
layers and high-density units, Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastlines, Structures
and Breakwaters, London, ICE, 307-318.
Van Gent, M.R.A., 2003. Recent developments in the conceptual design of rubble mound
breakwaters, Proceedings of the COPEDEC VI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Van Gent, M.R.A., Luis, L., 2013. Application of cubes in a single layer
Van Gent, M.R.A. (2014), Oblique wave attack on rubble mound breakwaters, Coastal Engineering, Vol.
88, pp. 43-54, Elsevier.

19

View publication stats