WELCOME TO LECTURE-14-15

Academic Year 2023-24, Semester: IV

CMT-623: Airport and Port Infrastructure
Breakwater

PRESENTED BY
Dr. C. S. Gokhale
Professor, SOE, NICMAR, Pune

1
 Breakwater
1 Introduction
* Breakwaters are one of the essential coastal structures and these are
constructed to provide a calm basin for ships and to protect harbour
facilities.
* Most breakwaters function only to provide protection against waves
but some of them serve a dual purpose by providing berthing
facilities alongside for a ship.
* The alignment of the breakwaters must be carefully considered after
examining the predominant direction of approach of waves and
winds, degree of protection required, magnitude and direction of
littoral drift, and the possible effect of these breakwaters on the
shorelines in general.
* The shape, size and location of breakwater structures are decided to
suit their functional requirements and overall economic criteria
2
 Breakwater
1 Introduction

Breakwater Schematic Layouts as adopted some Indian Major Ports

3
 RUBBLE Mound breakwater
2 Historical Development
*The historical development of the breakwaters is shown
schematically in Fig. 2. Beginning with the primitive dike of natural
stones, various sequences are noticed in the structural development
towards the increase in stability consistent with economy.

*Rubble mound breakwaters as built in the earlier times had gentle

slopes requiring large quantities of stones. A solution to reduce the
volume was the knowledge that steep stable slope could be built if
artificial armor units made of concrete were used instead of
quarry stones.

*The first mound breakwater with concrete blocks was constructed

in Alger, Algeria in 1830's. The design of rubble mound
breakwaters was significantly influenced by the two shocks in the
history of breakwaters. 4
 Breakwater
2 Historical Development
* The first shock in the 1930's was the damage to a series of vertical
wall breakwaters in Europe. Most of these breakwaters were
rebuilt as mound breakwaters.

* After this shock, there was a strong tendency on the part of designers
to prefer mound type to wall type.

* The second shock was the failure of the a breakwater in Portugal in

1978. This failure triggered significant investigations and
discussion on the design philosophy of rubble mound breakwaters.

* The design has undergone a full circle is evident from the fact that
after all the evolutions of the breakwater profiles, today we find the
primitive berm breakwater back in the forefront as perhaps the most
efficient and cost effective structures to withstand wave action.5
 Breakwater
3 Types of Breakwaters
*Breakwaters are broadly classified into the following three types
and are shown in Fig. 3.

(a) Rubble mound breakwaters (mound type)

(b) Vertical wall breakwaters (Wall type)
(c) Vertical wall on rubble base (composite type)

(a) Mound (b) Wall (c) Composite

6
 Breakwater
3 Types of Breakwaters
*Functionally, mound breakwaters dissipate the incident wave
energy by forcing them to break on a slope, and thus they do not
produce appreciable reflection.

*Vertical breakwaters on the other hand, reflect the incident

waves without dissipating much wave energy.

*Composite breakwaters function as mound breakwaters when

the tide level is low and as vertical breakwaters when the tide level
is high.

*The selection of the type of breakwater would be primarily

controlled by factors such as; availability of rock, depth of
water, geotechnical nature of sea bed, function of breakwater,
and technical know-how. 7
 Breakwater
3 Types of Breakwaters
*If natural rock is abundantly available and can be quarried to the
required sizes economically, then rubble mound breakwaters offer
the best solution. If large size rocks blocks cannot be quarried, then
concrete blocks are often used to replace the larger rocks.

*For large water depths, rubble mound type may be uneconomical

in view of the huge volume of rocks required. In such cases vertical
wall on a rubble base may be preferred.

*In recent times rubble mound breakwaters have been built in water
depths as large as 50 meters (as in Portugal).

*Conditions of sea bottom, particularly the strength characteristics

have a significant influence on the selection of type.
8
 Breakwater
3 Types of Breakwaters
* Wall type gravity breakwater induce high stresses on the soil on
which they are resting and would require a firm foundation strata.

* Where unavoidable, soil strength improvement techniques may have

to be adopted to make wall type acceptable.In situations where space
is a problem, the harbour side of the breakwater may have to be used
for berthing of ships.

* The rubble mound type with its sloping faces is not suitable for
berthing. If rubble mound breakwaters are unavoidable; special
arrangement with piles and other structures may have to be made for
berthing and cargo handling operations in such cases.

* The final choice will be governed by the equipment available,

contractor potential and the technical know-how available to
9
handle the job.
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
4 Types of RMBW
*A rubble mound breakwater is composed of several layers of
random shaped and randomly placed stones protected with a
cover layer of selected armor units of either natural rock or
specially shaped concrete units.

*The armor units in the cover layer may be placed at random or in

an orderly manner to obtain good interlocking between the
individual units.

*The wave action on rubble slopes is not yet completely understood

to be in a position to precisely calculate the weight of the armor
units in the cover layer to be stable under a given wave attack. This
has necessitated the use of empirical methods to provide
guidelines for determining the stability characteristics of these
structures. 10
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
4 Types of RMBW
*RMBW can be broadly grouped under 5 main types as shown in
Fig. 4.
(i) Berm breakwaters armored with natural rock
(ii) Conventional multi-layer breakwater with armor over crest (no
crown wall).
(iii) Conventional multi-layer breakwater with crown wall
(iv) Broken profile, otherwise as in (ii)
(v) Composite structure, incorporating caisson with armor protection.

*Among these, the most widely used are the conventional multi-
layer breakwater with or without crown wall. Standard design
procedures and guidelines are available for this type.

*The recommended cross-sections as per Shore Protection Manual

(SPM 1984) are shown in Fig. 5. 11
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
4 Types of RMBW

Fig. 4: Types of Rubble Mound Breakwaters

Fig. 5: Typical Cross-Section of Rubble Mound Breakwaters 12

 Rubble Mound Breakwater
5 Layout
*The layout of breakwaters will be decided on the basis of
Physical Model Tests. The physical model testing shall take the
following factors into account:
(a) Environmental conditions: winds, waves and currents
(b) Degree of calmness required in the harbour
(c) Ease of ship manoeuvrability
(d) Littoral drift and effect of construction of harbour on coastal
geomorphology
(e) Construction cost and maintenance cost
(f) Future expansions.
* For a preliminary study; mathematical modelling can be used
and the more promising layouts can be tested in Physical Models.
It may be necessary to resort to movable bed models if the effect of
littoral drifts is to be studied. 13
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
6 Design Considerations
*The mound type are the oldest breakwater structures in use. In
spite of the experience gained over hundreds of years, the design of
mound breakwaters continues to rely on empirical methods.
*The mound breakwater is an ill defined (not well defined)
structure often constructed under conditions that make it difficult to
know exactly what the final cross-section is.
*However how well the breakwater is built, there is bound to be
some readjustments, settlements and possibly movement of stones.
*It has become standard to accept a certain amount of damage
as a part of the design philosophy.
*This is a delicate balancing act in which a significant error almost
anywhere in the design process may well lead to disaster. 14
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
6 Design Considerations
Design Water Depth
* A Primary factor influencing the wave conditions at the harbour site
is the bathymetry in the general vicinity of harbour.

* Water depths will partly determine whether a structure is subjected to

breaking, non-breaking, or broken waves.

* Variation of water depth along the breakwater axis must also be

considered as it affects the wave conditions.

* In the case of long breakwaters, it is preferable to consider different

sections based on water depths and to provide a design for each.

* The maximum and minimum water depths at each section must be

evaluated taking into account the tidal range and the storm surge
effect. 15
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
7 Failure Modes
*Traditionally, the design of any Civil Engineering structure consists
in identifying the possible modes of failure of the structure and
evolving a suitable design with adequate factor of safety against
each failure mode.
*Rubble mound breakwaters being flexible marine structures are
capable of withstanding a certain amount of readjustment of
armor units without any adverse effect on their functioning.
*The initial readjustment under normal wave action tends to ‘settle
down’ the breakwater by allowing the units and the stones to attain
stable positions within the structure.
*Failure of a structure implies that the structure ceases to perform its
desired function. Being flexible structures, mound breakwaters are
16
not supposed to suffer total failure.
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
7 Failure Modes
*With the increasing use of specially shaped artificial armor units
which depend on interlocking for their stability, the above
concept may need a change.
*Some of these special armor units like the Dolos have slender
outstanding legs to achieve interlocking.
*With large artificial units (25 tonnes and more), the internal
stresses developed in the units due to rocking of the units under
wave action and during placement are very large and the
structural strength of the concrete is unable to withstand it.
*The consequences are breakage of the unit resulting in loss of
interlocking. The broken armor unit which has lost the
interlocking strength is easily moved by wave action causing
impact with neighboring units resulting in further breakage. 17
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
7 Failure Modes
*This chain reaction cascades very rapidly, unravelling the armor
layer, exposing the under layers and the core to direct wave action.
This causes a catastrophic failure of the structure, uncharacteristic
of rubble mound breakwaters.

*With large size concrete armor units, thermal stresses are

developed internally during the curing process and these get locked
inside. This accelerates the breakage of the units during the
knocking under wave action or during placement.

*The damage rates of three typical mound type breakwaters are

shown in Fig. 6.

*RMBW with heavily interlocking armor units must be signed for

very low rates of damage. 18
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
7 Failure Modes
* The principal modes of failure of rubble mound breakwaters are:

(1) Loss or damage to armor units

(2) Movement of armor layer
(3) Crown wall or cap movement
(4) Toe erosion
(5) Excessive settlements
(6) Foundation failure
(7) Overtopping causing lee side damage
(8) Loss of core material

* These are shown schematically in Fig. 7. 19

 Rubble Mound Breakwater
7 Failure Modes

Fig. 7: Principal Modes of Failure of RMBW

20
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
8 Design Process
* An examination of the important failure modes leads to the
formulation of the design for RMBW. The design cross-section of the
structure passes through a series of logical stages. These stages put
together constitute the ‘design process’. Table 1 gives the flow chart
of the design process.

* The design process has four stages. These are

(a) The feasibility study,
(b) Development of a preliminary cross-section,
(c) Physical model study, and finally
(d) Geotechnical stability analysis.

* The feasibility study involves the technical and economic viability.

Available stability formulae are used to determine a hydraulically
stable weight of the primary armor unit and this is used as the basis for
arriving at the preliminary cross-section in the second stage. 21
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
8 Design Process

Table 1: Basic Flow Chart for Design of Rubble Mound Breakwater

Determination of Layout
1 Feasibility Analysis (Technical & Economic)
2 Determination of Design Conditions
3 Selection of a Preliminary Cross Section
4 Examination of Hydraulic Stability
5 Physical Model Studies
6 Examination of Oeon-Technical Stability
7 Selection of Final Cross Section
8 Design Specifications

22
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
8 Design Process
*Since the design formulae consider only the hydraulic stability,
physical model tests of this preliminary cross-section are
necessary to check other failure modes.

*In the next design stage, the geotechnical stability is checked and
the final design cross-section of the rubble mound breakwater
arrived at.

*The design process is iterative in nature.

*None of the stages in design are independent, on the contrary there

exists a strong interaction between each of the stages.

23
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
9 Hydraulic Aspects of Armor Design
*The RMBW were built in the past primarily based on the
experience gained from the construction and performance of
similar structures. These structures were generally safe in smaller
water depths but in larger water depths stability was in question.
*The earliest formula which was extensively used was Iribarren
formula developed in 1938. However there were some issues with
the determination of coefficients used in this formula.
*Based on a rational analysis and the results of the laboratory
investigations, on the basis of the stability of an individual armor
unit subjected to wave action Hudson (1959) proposed following
formula along with procedure to obtain coefficient involved on the
basis of laboratory and/or model testing.
W = gH3/[KD(Sr-1)3cota]
24
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
9 Hydraulic Aspects of Armor Design
Where
W = Weight of an individual armor unit in the primary cover layer
in Newton.
g = Unit weight of armor unit in N/m3
H = Design wave height in meters
Sr = Specific gravity of armor unit relative to the water
a = Angle of structure slope measured from horizontal in degrees.
KD = Stability coefficient that varies primarily with the shape of the
armor unit, roughness of armor unit surface, sharpness of
edges
*When the cover layer is two stones thick, the stones in the primary
armor layer can range from 0.75 W to 1.25 W with about 50 percent
of the stones weighing more than W and degree of interlocking
obtained in placement.
25
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
9 Hydraulic Aspects of Armor Design
Table 2: Values of Stability Coefficients KD and KRR

26
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
10 Damage Criteria
*RMBW structures when subjected to wave action do undergo
rearrangement, movement and displacement of armor units.

*Any such deviation from the profile as built is termed damage and
expressed as percent damage, evaluated in terms of the
equivalent number of armor units displaced compared to the
number of units in the armor layer.

*The damage measurement is generally on the basis of the eroded

cross-sectional area of the profile.

*The stability coefficients values as presented in Table 2 correspond

to ‘no damage criteria’ which actually corresponds to damage up
to 5%.
27
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
10 Damage Criteria
*There is no general rule for what an acceptable degree of damage
should be for RMBW. A RMBW in relatively shallow waters with
natural rock as armor can absorb considerable movement,
displacements and settlements. But for a BW in deeper waters
with artificial armor units such as Dolos, the acceptable degree of
damage may for all practical purposes be zero. Even rocking of
such units may cause breaking endangering the stability of the
structure.
*Acceptable damage is therefore be a function of the residual
stability and utility of the structure after a serious storm, and the
cost and time involved in reshaping the BW to its original profile.
*For certain artificial units like Dolos, experience has shown that
once the damage exceeds a certain level, further increase in the
damage is at a very fast rate leading to total failure. 28
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
10 Damage Criteria
*SPM (1984) suggests that the KD values for Dolos may be reduced
by 50 % to protect against breakage. In certain situations, it may be
possible to accept a higher level of damage if the functional utility
is not seriously endangered.

*Where natural rock is the primary armor, it may prove to be

economical to design for a lower wave height particularly where
storms are less frequent.

*Table 3 provides guidelines in such cases for selecting the design

wave heights corresponding to any damage level.

29
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
10 Damage Criteria
Table 3: Type of Amour Unit and Cover Layer Damage as function of H/HD=0
Wave Height (H) with respect to Design Wave Height (HD=0) with no Damage (H/HD=0)
Unit Damage (D), %
0to5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50
Smooth Quarry 1.00 1.08 1.14 1.20 1.29 1.41 1.54
Stone
Rough Quarry Stone 1.00 1.08 1.19 1.27 1.37 1.47 1.56
Tetraods and 1.00 1.09 1.17 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.50
Quadripods
Tribar 1.00 1.11 1.25 1.36 1.50 1.59 1.64
Dolos 1.00 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.20 1.24 1.27
1. Breakwater trunk (n = 2), random placed armor units, nonbreaking waves, and minor overtopping
conditions
2 Caution: Tests did not include possible effects of unit breakage. Waves exceeding the design wave height
conditions by more than 10 percent my result in considerably more damage than the values tabulated.
30
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
11 Concrete Armour Unit
*Before the 1950's, when breakwaters were built in relatively
shallower waters, the use of natural stones as armor units posed
no problem, since the weight of stones required could be easily
obtained from the quarries.

*As the constructions started moving into deeper waters, the armor
weights kept increasing and a stage was reached where such large
stone weights were uneconomical to quarry and transport. Quinn
(1972) mentions that a 20 ton rock to be the largest size which
can be economically produced in sufficient quantity for armor
rock under the most favourable quarry conditions.

*On a 1:2 slope, with Hudson formula this corresponds the design
wave height of 5.0 m. Hence for design wave height above 5 m
artificial blocks of concrete are required.
31
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
11 Concrete Armour Unit
* The size of concrete unit is limited only by the equipment capable of
handling them. These blocks initially were cubic or rectangular shaped.
However these blocks were found to be less stable than natural rock of
same weight. It became apparent that concrete blocks of some special
shapes may have decided advantages when used as primary armor units.

• The main characteristics required of such blocks is permeability,

roughness and strength.

32
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
12 Design Elements
* A rubble mound breakwater is normally composed of bedding layer and
a core of quarry-run stone covered with one or more layers of large
quarry stones or concrete armor units. As recommended in Shore
Protection Manual (1984), the following structure details should be
investigated as a part of the Design process.

(1) Crest Elevation and Width

(2) Concrete Cap
(3) Thickness of Armor Layer and Underlayers
(4) Bottom Elevation of Primary Cover Layer
(5) Toe Berm for Cover Layer Stability
(6) Structure Head and Lee side Cover Layer
(7) Secondary Cover Layer
(8) Core
(9) Bedding Layer or Filter Blanket Layer
(10) Scour Protection at Toe
(11) Toe Berm for Foundation Stability 33
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
13 Hydraulic Model Testing
* Hydraulic model tests constitute one of the essential tools in the
design of rubble mound breakwaters. Analysis of the various design
aspects of rubble mound breakwaters clearly shows that except for the
hydraulic stability, there is no rational analysis in the dimensioning of the
various critical parts. What is obtained is only a preliminary cross-section
and scale model tests are essential to finalise the cross-section.

14 Geotechnical Stability
* Geotechnical stability plays a vital role in the overall stability of the
rubble mound breakwater. The final cross-section after all the stability
checks may be drastically different from the preliminary one.

* The RMBW section finalised after model testing needs to be checked

regarding Geotechnical stability. It consists of (a) Internal stability of
mound and (b) Soil-structure-wave interaction.
34
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
15 Construction
*Rubble mound breakwater is one of the Civil Engineering structures
where it is absolutely necessary to integrate the construction
aspects into the design process. The aspects of construction should
include availability of material, contractors potential and skill, and
the equipment required and available for construction.

*A knowledge of local quarries and their approximate economic

yields is a must. It must also be kept in mind that the construction
of the breakwater may cause significant changes in the
Hydrodynamics in the area resulting in changes in sediment
movement.

*This may result in significant bathymetric changes in the vicinity

of the structure. The design should be flexible and must allow for
modifications during and after construction. 35
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
15 Construction
* The designer should be involved in the supervision of construction and
modifications.

* In the analysis of failure of the Sines breakwater, it has been brought out that
the designers had no control over the construction and were totally ignored
once the drawings were submitted (Civil Engineering Journal, ASCE, April
1982).

* The wide gap existing between the Design on one hand and the construction
on significantly affects performance, stability, safety, maintenance cost etc as
dipicted in Table 4 (Bruun; 1985).

• The stability formula gives only the primary armor weight and the designers
generally ignore the core and under-layers. It leads to vague specifications
and summary instructions for the construction of these vital parts of the
breakwater.
https://youtu.be/L7tqaG6b7qY
36
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
15 Construction
Table 4: Model of Actual Process of Creation of Breakwater

https://youtu.be/xBh_di14cjQ
37
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
16 Maintenance
* The Rubble mound breakwaters are generally flexible marine
structures showing progressive damage under extreme wave
conditions. Even the best constructed breakwaters are bound to have
readjustments, settlements and minor damage under continued
wave action.

* Proper and timely maintenance may prevent costly failures.

Generally a major hurdle in maintenance is non-availability of
required equipments. Most of the equipment used for construction
will be disposed after the work is over and Ports and Harbours rarely
have the required equipment for replacing the damaged/displaced
armor units.

* From this point of view, perhaps a little over-design initially may pay
rich dividends in the longer run.
38
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
17 Other Types of RMBW
(1) Submerged Breakwaters
Submerged breakwaters are breakwaters with their crest at or slightly
below the still water level. In situations where complete protection from
waves is not required, submerged breakwaters offer a potentially
economic solution.

2 Berm Breakwaters
These new forms, which resemble the shape of letter 'S', are sometimes
termed as 'S' shaped breakwaters. The 'S' shaped profile tends to be more
stable than the original uniform slope from which it developed as long as
the damage has not advanced to the under layers (Fig. 9).

(3) Dynamically stable breakwater

* A further development of the berm breakwater is what is called a
"Dynamically stable breakwater". These are structures in which the
armor is composed of a wide range of stone sizes and undergoes
reshaping in response to wave action finally resulting in a stable profile.
39
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
New Mangalore Port (India) RMBW

*The cross-section for extension part of the rubble mound

breakwater completed in 1996 in New Mangalore Port is shown in
Fig. 2.

*The breakwaters built initially had very wide berms to provide

adequate safety against slip circle failure. In the extension
programme, pre-consolidation method was adopted by constructing
the core up to a height of 3 m above sea bed level and leaving it for
one season before completing the breakwater.

*Berms of 4 m on either side were found to be adequate to provide

the required factor of safety against slip circle failure.

40
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
New Mangalore Port (India) RMBW

Fig. 2: Cross-Section of RMBW at New Mangalore Port

41
 Rubble Mound Breakwater
Sines (Portugal) RMBR
*The Cross-section of the famous Sines breakwater in Portugal
before its failure is shown in Figure 3. The breakwater head was in
50 m water depth and 42 T Dolos were used as primary armor.

42
Rubble Mound Breakwater
Construction of RMBW

43
Rubble Mound Breakwater
Construction of RMBW

44
Rubble Mound Breakwater
Construction of RMBW

45
Rubble Mound Breakwater
Construction of RMBW

46
Rubble Mound Breakwater
Construction of RMBW

47
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
1 Introduction
*The growing concern for the proper utilization of the coastal zone
resulted in increased efforts by researchers in understanding the
coastal zone dynamics.

*This resulted in to a set of guidelines for coastal zone management

and proper design and evolution of new types protective
structures.

*The wall type structures are widely adopted by coastal engineers

for coastal protection works and as breakwaters. 48
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
1 Introduction
** These structures are designed to withstand the environmental
loads due to waves, tides and currents. The interaction of these
loads and their variability makes their design complicated.

49
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
1 Various parts of a Vertical Breakwater

50
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
1 Introduction

*The construction of' mound breakwaters has been confined to

shallow waters and vertical wall and/or composite and
breakwaters are best suited for intermediate to deep waters.

*Use of caissons as vertical wall, and composite breakwaters

provide an extremely stable structure even in rough, deep seas.
Such strength has led to their use throughout the world.

*In Western countries, vertical wall breakwaters are usually built in

deep water where wave breaking is not a problem.

*In Japan vertical wall breakwaters have been primarily built to

withstand breaking waves.
51
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
2 Advantages
*Vertical breakwaters especially the single unit monolithic types
are sometimes preferred to the rubble mound breakwaters
mainly for two reasons:
(i) Saving in material due to maller body width and
(ii) Rapidity in construction.

*Obviously, the VWBW is preferred in deep waters and when rock

quarries are not located near the harbour site and transportation of
large quantities of stones (required for rubble mounds) from distant
quarries becomes expensive.

*The VWBM occupies less space than the rubble mound type
provides larger harbour area and well-defined entrance widths.

*The VWBM also limits the impact on sea bed life.

52
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
2 Advantages
*It has the added advantage that the lee-side of the structure could
be used for berthing. The top of the VWBW can accommodate
promenades, roads and allow movement of construction equipment
as well as cargo loading and unloading facilities.

*The VWBW permanent structure requiring little maintenance

provided it is properly designed for the maximum storm waves to
be encountered during the life of the structure.

*Normally VWBW is constructed in locations where d > 2H (d=

depth of the sea and H = design wave height) in order to ensure
that the waves do not break on the structure.

*The design of vertical breakwater cross sections are amenable to

exact analysis for given environmental conditions.
53
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
3 Limitations and Disadvantages
*requires good foundation that does not allow erosion or uneven
settlement and preparation of foundation base.
*Foundations made of fine sand may cause erosion and settlement.
The structures are inflexible to foundation settlement; Erosion may
cause tilting or displacement of large monoliths. If structure get
damaged due to foundation problems or due to waves beyond
design wave heights, it is difficult and expensive to repair.
*Building; launching; towing; positioning and installing casions
require special land and water areas and heavy construction
equipment. They require form work, quality concrete, skilled
labour, batching plants and floating crafts.
* Refloating dislodged and entangled caissons sometimes becomes
almost impossible. Full reflection of waves results more
environmental impact due to less water exchange. 54
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(a)Small Block Breakwater
*In earlier years when handling equipment were of limited capacity,
vertical walls were built of small blocks of masonry or concrete as
shown in Fig. 2. The weight of each block varied from 10 to 15
tonnes (typical size of say 3 m x 1.5 m x 1.5 m).

*Fig. 2(a) shows piano-key block type of construction while Fig.

2(b) shows saw-tooth blocks. Fig. 2(c) shows dovetail blocks
followed by sloping blocks or slice work illustrated in Fig. (d).

*In all these types, continuous horizontal joints are avoided and
adjacent blocks are keyed to one another by dowels, joggles or
dovetailed. This method is now more or less obsolete except in
coastal protection works of small heights, since it entails skilled
labour and large construction time.
55
Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types

Fig. 2: Various Types of Small Blocks

56
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(b) Large Block Breakwater
*Large blocks of size 400-500 tonnes (typical sizes used - 9 m x 5.0
m x 2.5 m or 12 m x 4.5 m x 3 m or 8 m x 5 m x 3.33 m) are shown
in Fig. 3.

*Fig.3 (a) illustrates moderate blocks with staggered joints and Fig. 3
(b) shows two blocks placed adjacent to each other. Fig. 3(c) has a
single block for the entire width. Fig. 3(d) shows large blocks with
R.C dowels to provide vertical monolothicness.

57
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(c) Monolithic Caisson Breakwater
*Caissons are box-type units with closed bottom with longitudinal
and crosswise diaphragm walls dividing the box into several
compartments. Most of the caisson construction work is carried out
on shore or in a dry dock.

*Concrete caissons are initially built to a certain height in a dry-dock

or slipway and then floated out and built to the required height.

*This procedure reduces the construction time in water and hence

highly suitable in a rough sea environment where working time in
calm weather is limited.

*For actual installation and sinking of caissons in position, fair

weather is required.
58
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(c) Monolithic Caissons
*The caisson is towed out and sunk in position by ballasting the
compartments initially with water. Tilts in caissons can be easily
adjusted by pumping water in or out of the compartments.
*After the caissons are erected in position, the compartments may be
filled with dredged material or sand or gravel depending on the
availability of the materials.
*Fig. 4 shows typical cross sections of monolith used. Caisson length
may vary from 20 to 30 m and the cross walls may be spaced at 3 to
5 m. The end wall thickness are of the order of 20 to 30 cm and the
inner diaphragm walls about 15 cm.
*The capping is generally laid using in situ concrete which provides
longitudinal continuity of adjacent blocks.
59
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types

Fig. 4: Monolithic Caisson

* Adjacent blocks are also interlocked to each other by the provision of
dowels or joggles. The foundation for the caisson is invariably on a
prepared level bed of quarry spall. The toe of the structure is protected
against erosion by rubble stones at slopes not steeper than 1.5 to 1.
60
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(d) Sloping Face Caisson Breakwater
*In some cases the side walls of a caisson may be inclined if the lee-
side of the breakwater is not to be used for berthing and narrow top
widths are acceptable as shown in Fig. 5.

61
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(d) Sloping Face Caisson Breakwater
*This will reduce the cost of the caisson; the vertical component of
the weight of still water on the sloping faces will contribute to the
stability of the breakwater.

*However the section should be analysed for stability at all levels.

*Sloping fronts have reduced reflection coefficients and the wave

height in front of the structure will be less than 2H as is obtained
for a normal standing wave with full reflection of the oncoming
wave of height H.

*Therefore the wall height can be reduced and the force on the wall
is also reduced.
62
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(e) Hanstholm Type of Breakwater
*An other example of the sloping breakwater known is the
Hanstholm Breakwater. The upper portion of the vertical face
slopes back at angle of 45° as shown in Fig. 6.

*The ocean side of the breakwater is cylindrical in shape with radial

hydrodynamic and hydrostatic pressure acting on it. Horizontal
forces and moments are reduced by half compared to the vertical
wall. The lee side is vertical with provision for quay facilities.

*This type has the advantage of economy of material, less cost, less
reflection of wave energy, and reduced wave pressure

63
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(e) Hanstholm Type of Breakwater

64
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(f) Cellular Sheet Pile Breakwaters
*In the Cellular shell pile shown in Fig. 7a, each cell is self-
supporting and independently stable. The sheeting must be driven to
a depth below the sea bed to prevent undermining of the cell by
erosion.

*Minimum depth of penetration recommended is not less than 3 m

unless rock is met. Top of sheeting should extend atleast a little
above the mean high water level.

*Concrete capping may be used to build the top of the wall to a

height twice the height of the design wave (2H) above mean sea
level. Closures between adjacent cells are indicated in the Fig. 7b.

*The sheet piles are also liable for corrosion and depths may be
limited to the available lengths of sheet piles in the country.
65
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(f) Cellular Sheet Pile Breakwaters

Fig. 7: Cellular Sheet Pile Breakwater

*Sheet piles are not suitable in rough seas as it is difficult to position
the sheet piles and hold them during driving.
*In India, the sheet piles are used for construction of Coffer dams in
river and coastal works. 66
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(g) Vertical Parallel Sheet Piles Breakwater
* When the water depth is shallow and wave heights are small, two parallel
lines of sheet piles are used with the distance between the two parallel
sheet piles being equal to depth of water plus twice the wave height
(d+2H).

* The sheet piles are connected by the rods at suitable intervals as shown in
Fig. 8. The space between the two rows of piles is filled with granular fill
and the capping may consist of stones weighing approximately 7 to 20
tons or concrete.

67
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(h) Metal Box Caisson Breakwater
*Metallic box caissons with mild steel plates on the outside sidewalls
and bottom supported by steel frames were used in earlier times but
they are now obsolete.
*They had very light draught and the side walls were usually backed
by concrete to get the desired draft for stability during towing. A
typical size of such a caisson could be 25 m long x 10 m wide with
varying heights depending on the depth of water.

68
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(i) Perforated Breakwater
* The front face of a porous breakwater has a number of holes (Fig.10)
through which waves can rush in and out of a wave chamber which is
ventilated at the top for the entrapped air to escape during wave uprush
and allow air to enter the chamber during wave downrush.

* Part of the wave energy is dissipated (or absorbed) inside the chamber and
the porous face reflects only a part of the incoming wave energy.

* Wave energy devices (Fig. 11) may be considered as logical extension of

this concept with a properly designed wave chamber and entrance to it
coupled with a turbine mounted over the air vent which converts the air
flow into electrical energy.

* It requires high quality concrete and workmanship. A level bottom is

essential as it is susceptible to settlement. Severe damage may occur if
design conditions are exceeded. 69
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
4 Types
(i) Perforated Breakwater

Fig. 11: Porous Breakwater Fig. 11: Wave Energy Device

*For minimum reflection, the ratio of solid surface to total surface

area has been found to be 0.75 and the reflection coefficient varies
between 10% to 20%. The length and diameter of hole should be
around L/100 where L is the length of the significant wave. The lee
side may be used for berthing. 70
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
5 Forces on Vertical Breakwater
*The external forces acting on vertical breakwaters are wave forces,
hydrostatic pressure, uplift pressure or buoyancy.
*The evaluation of static pressure and buoyancy are straight forward,
while the dynamic pressure exerted on vertical walls has to be
estimated with care due to the possible creation of standing waves
and wave breaking on walls.
*The action of waves on vertical breakwaters exert pressure which is
the main design criteria for stability and foundation design. The
type of wave action exerted on the vertical wall depends on the
height of its rubble foundation.

*When the height of the rubble foundation above sea bed is small,
the incoming waves are fully reflected giving rise to a pure standing
wave in front of the structure with their heights equal to 2H.
71
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
5 Forces on Vertical Breakwater
*In the absence of overtopping of waves and strong winds, the
incident waves will get reflected from the wall and the wave energy
concentrates just in front of the wall. Thus, perfect standing waves
are generated in front of the vertical wall.

*The classification of waves before a vertical breakwater is

presented in Table 1.

*A number of pressure theories were proposed for non-breaking

standing waves and breaking waves based on linear and non-linear
theories for estimation of design wave forces.

*There are two systems for estimating the wave pressure

(a) Non-Overtopping Vertical Breakwaters and
(b) Overtopping Vertical Wall Breakwaters
72
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
5 Forces on Vertical Breakwater
Table 1: Classification of Waves in front of Vertical Wall Breakwater
Sl. No. Type of Foundation Condition of Existence Wave Behaviour
1 Underground foundation or foundation d > 2H Standing Wave
with a small height above seabed d< 2H, m < 1/10 Broken Wave
(d/do > 2/3)
2 Foundation with a middle height d> 1.8H Standing Wave
[(2/3 > d/do > 1/3) d < 1.8H Broken Wave
3 Foundation with large height d> 1.5H Standing Wave
(d/do < 1/3) d < 1.5H Broken Wave
d = depth of BW wall above rubble foundation and upto MSL
d0 = water depth in front of BW; ; m = sea bottom slope near the BW

When height of VWBR is higher then highest storm wave it is

considered as Non-Overtopping VWBR. Obviously it will have to
resist larger magnitude wave pressures.
73
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
6 Design Aspects
*The main factors to be considered for the detailed planning of a
breakwater include:
(a) Layout of the breakwater
(b) Influence on surrounding topography
(c) Influence on water ecology
(d) Design conditions
(e) Structural type of breakwaters
(f) Design method
(g) Execution method and
(h) Construction cost.

*The determination of the layout of breakwaters requires the detailed

investigations on the environmental conditions, tranquillity
requirements in the harbour basin, maneuverability of moving
ships, water quality in the harbour basin and its maintenance cost.
74
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
6 Design Aspects
*The future plans of the port and harbour also influences the layout.
Breakwaters influence on the surrounding topography due to
reflection and, hence, the environment water conditions also help
determine the layout.

*The determination of the structural design conditions needs the

required calmness in the harbour, wind and wave data, tidal levels,
water depth and sea bottom conditions.

*There are essentially three types of failures of vertical walls:

(a) Settling in quicksand when the breakwater is founded on fine

sand
(b) Horizontal sliding at the foundation level
(c) Overturning
75
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
7 Guidelines for Determination of Cross Section
*In determining the cross section of vertical breakwaters, the
following points should be kept in mind.
(1) The crown height of breakwater should be not less than about 0.6
times the design significant wave height above the mean spring
high water level.
(2) In a port where the basin behind the breakwaters is small in water
area and is used for small ships, considerable overtopping waves
should be preferably prevented. Hence the crown height of the
breakwaters may be 1.25*H1/3 above the mean spring high water
level.
(3) The crown height is preferably made higher than 0.6*H1/3 above
the spring high water level, when incoming waves close to the
design wave height frequently attack the breakwaters and the
duration of wave continuation is long.
76
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
7 Guidelines for Determination of Cross Section
(4) Where the influence of storm surge is required to be considered, the
tidal level is obtained by adding a proper rise based on the past records
to the mean spring high water level is used as the datum level for
determining the crown height of the breakwaters.

(5) Since the shallow part of the harbour side of the breakwater may be
buried with sand carried by over topping waves, the breakwater on a
shallow sand beach should have a sufficient crown height.

(6) The standard thickness of the crown concrete shall be 1m or more for
significant design wave height of 2 m or more and at least 50 cm or
more even for less than 2m of significant design wave height.

(7) The top elevation of concrete block type vertical breakwater should be
above at least the mean MSL and if possible, above mean spring high
water level to facilitate the placing of crown concrete.
77
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
8 Stability
*For a vertical wall breakwater following stability shall be examined.
(a) Stability against Sliding
(b) Stability against Overturning
(c) Stability against Buoyancy while under installation
(d) Bearing Capacity of the foundation at the bottom of the structure
*The design of a breakwater upright section must be, stable against
sliding and overturning and to accomplish this, safety factors
against sliding and overturning must be greater than 1.2.
*In most cases, sliding is more severe than overturning, especially
when the breakwater crown is relatively low. The dynamic water
pressure during earthquake should be considered as an external
force for stability calculation of the structure against overturning
and the bearing capacity of the foundation.
78
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
9 Vertical breakwater failures
*Japan is the country with the largest stretch of vertical and
composite breakwaters in the world. There are in average more than
six disasters per year caused by wave action to these structures. As
per study of failure 34 caisson breakwaters built in between 1921
and 1972; 21caisson breakwaters failed and the predominant mode
of failure was sliding. The analysis of failure indicated following
(a) The design wave conditions were not or only slightly exceeded
(b) The collapse generally took place by sliding
(c ) breaking and overtopping caused damage at uncompleted head
(d) Settlement and shear failure of the foundation also contributed in
a number of cases to the collapse.
(e) Most of the failures occurred directly at or near singular points
(bound, joint between two different structures, head).
79
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
10 Construction of Vertical Wall Breakwater

https://youtu.be/xgfJLV5ONME
80
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
10 Construction of Vertical Wall Breakwater

https://youtu.be/bFYF0Q4sW70
81
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
10 Construction of Vertical Wall Breakwater

82
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
10 Construction of Vertical Wall Breakwater

83
 Vertical Wall Breakwater
10 Construction of Vertical Wall Breakwater

84
THANK
YOU

85