[Escriba

 texto]   [Escriba  texto]   [Escriba  texto]  

 
 
 

Counterdike  for  a  new  marina  

Sayoa  Oscoz  Pérez  

Group  8  

 
  

Annex I. Location
The objective of this Project is the design of a Counterdique for a new marina in
the Catalan coast. Our structure is located in the region of El Garraf, between the
localities of Sitges and Garraf.

As we can see in the figure below, there is already an industrial harbour in this
location which is used exclusively by the concrete factory that is located just next to
it. What we pretend is to convert this harbour in a marina adding a counterdike to
create a place where sporadic tourists could go to enjoy the environment. Thus,
our main objective is to conserve the beaches and the surroundings and cause the
minimum effect on the current situation.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Location of the counterdike
   

 
  

Annex II. Wave Climate

In order to design our structure, we need to characterise the wave conditions that
we will find in this area of the Mediterranean. To do this, we have a huge range of
data from waves, corresponding with deep water conditions from 1996 to 2006.

2.1 Storms definition

To analyse the wave climate we will use a method called Peak Over Threshold
(POT). The first thing that we had to do was to find a wave height threshold in
order to define storm conditions. According with ROM 02.90 and considering our
location on the catalan coast, this threshold has a value of 2 meters. Taking in to
account this wave heigh, we obtained 33 different storms in the 10 years that were
covered by our data, giving a lambda factor of 3,3 storms/year.

To define the storms, we have considered all the data with a wave height grater
than 2 meters and duration longer than 6 hours. None of our storms had a duration
longer than 4 days, in such a case we had cut it in to 2 different storms. If we find 2
storm conditions separated by a calm period shorter than 6 hours, we have
considered it in to a single storm.

2.2 Probabilistic function (Weibull)

Now we will work only with storm data. The next step is to find the probabilistic
function that fits better with our conditions in order to relate the wave height and
the non-exceeded probability. We will use a Weibull function, which follows the
expression below.
!
𝐻−𝐴
𝐹 𝐻 = 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 −                  , 𝐻>𝐴
𝐵

We haver computed a reduce variable dependent only on C factor. This variable

follows a straight line as we can see in its definition.

! !!! !
𝑌𝑟 = −𝐿𝑛(1 − 𝐹 𝐻 ) =   !
, Where       𝐹 𝐻 = 1 − !!!

Adjusting this new variable using the minimum square method, we obtain the best
R-square value for a C factor equal to 0,8

 
  

C=0,8  
6  
y  =  1,4879x  -­‐  3,1543  
5   R²  =  0,9769  
4  

Yr  
3  
2  
1  
0  
1   2   3   4   5   6  
Hmo  
Figure 2. C factor regression

 
From this linear regression we can find the values of A and B factors as follows.
 
𝐻−𝐴
= 1,4879𝐻 − 3,1543  
𝐵
 
And we obtain the following result:
 
 
  Weibull    
 
 
 
1,2  
A   2,11996774  
B   0,672088178   1  
C   0,8   0,8  
F(H)  

  0,6  
 
0,4  
 
  0,2  
  0  
  1   2   3   4   5   6  
 
Hmo  
 
Figure 3. Weibull distribution

3.3 Return period

Now, we are interested in knowing how the return period and the wave height are
related. We will use the following formula whit a lambda factor that represents de
number of storms per year.

 
  

1 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑠 33
𝑇𝑟 =      ,            𝜆 = = = 3,3
(1 − 𝐹(𝐻))𝜆 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 10

H  -­‐  Return  period  

6  
y  =  2,9281x0,2788  
5  
R²  =  0,99791  
4  
3  
H  

2  
1  
0  
0   2   4   6   8   10   12  
Return  period  
Figure 4. Relation between wave high and return period

𝐻 = 2,9281 ∗ 𝑇 !,!"##

3.4 Wave period

We also need the relation of wave height and wave period in order to do our
design. Thus, with the wave height of each storm and its correspondent peak
period we have found the regression that fits better, with a grater value of R-
square. In this case, we were looking for a potential function, but we found that a
linear regression gives a higher R2 value.
Wave  period   Wave  period  
16  
16  
14  
14  
12   12  
Period  

Period  

10   10  
8   8  
6   6  
4   4  
0   2   4   6   1   3   5   7  
Hs   y  =  5,6755x0,4519  
R²  =  0,22255   Hs   y  =  1,5286x  +  4,8664  
R²  =  0,28448  

Figure 5. Potential function. R2=0,22 Figure 6. Linear regression. R2=0,28

We obtain the following expression that relate the wave height (H) with the wave
period (T)
𝑇 = 1,5286 ∗ 𝐻 + 4,8664

 
  

3.5 Wave direction.

There are only few directions that arrive directly to our structure, so the next
analysis that we have to do is to select these wave directions and find the most
critical one. That means, the direction that contains the highest waves.

As the structure is a secondary breakwater, the principal breakwater that is already

built stops most of the waves. We only have to consider the following directions,
which, as we can see, are the ones that arrive to our counterdike.

Figure 7. Directions considered.

Figure 7. Wave directions considered

In order to calculate the wave height in each direction we need the direction factors
K. The procedure to calculate them is the next one:

1- Adjust to a Weibull distribution the significant wave heights of the sector

covered by each direction like we made before with the entire sample.

2- Calculate the wave heights corresponding to the probabilities 99 % and 99’9 %

of occurrence. Then calculate the mean of both.

3- Divide the mean of each direction by the maximum mean, obtaining K.

Direction H 99% H 99,9% MEAN (H) K

SEE 1,39 2,04 1,71 0,7010
S 1,95 2,94 2,44 1
SWW 1,49 2,01 1,75 0,7144
SW 1,55 2,09 1,82 0,7450
WSW 1,48 1,86 1,67 0,6843

 
  

Annex III. Mean Water Level oscillations

We have characterized the wave climate for a constant mean water level, but this
level can change due to different reasons. The biggest changes in sea water level
are produce by tides, both meteorological and astronomical ones.

As we do not have enough data to calculate it, we can use this plot from the web
www.puertos.es, where it is represented the peak water level for each month since
1996.

Figure 8. Mean Water Level oscillations

We can see that the maximum value is achieved in 2003 when the water level
increased nearly 1 meter. Even so, we are going to consider a smaller value in
order to represent a bigger range of years. If we consider 1 meter of mean water
level oscillation we are overdimensionating our structure because it is a value that
has been achieved only once in 15 years. Thus, we will take a value of 0,8. This
value is a more representative one as it has been reached some other times.

 
  

Annex IV. Wave propagation

We have characterized the wave climate in deep water conditions, but we are
interested in knowing what happens in the proximities of the counterdike. We have
to propagate our waves from the buoy to the coast in order to know the energy that
the counterdike will have to support.

We considered that our coast is tilted 70 degrees from the North direction. We also
supposed that the isobaths are parallel to the shoreline in order to apply the
expressions that we have learnt in class.

First of all we have to compute the return period of the structure in order to work
with waves of the same return period, which would be the most dangerous ones.

In the ROM 0.2-90 there is an expression to calculate the structure’s return period.

−𝐿
𝑇=
𝐿𝑛(1 − 𝐸)

Where T is the return period in years and, L is the lifetime of the construction and E
the maximum admissible risk. From the tables below we have considered the
values that fit better with our counterdike.

Figure 9. Life period of the structure

 
  

As the counterdike is for a marina, no related with industrial aims, the estructure
has a generic nature. The level security is 1 as it is a local construction with a low
risk of losing human lives or causing environmental damages. So we take L=25

Figure 10. Risk

We consider the risk for the start of the damage as we consider our structure a
flexible one, easy to repair in case of failure and with a low risk of losing human
lives. Thus, we take a risk coefficient E=0,5

Introducing these values in to the formula given above, we get a return period for
the structure T=36 years

Considering the relationship between the return period and the wave height that we
computed in annex II, for a return period of 36 we get a wave height of 7,96
metres.

Direction K Ho  (m) Tp  (s)

SEE 0,7010   5,58 13,39
S 1   7,96 17,03
SWW 0,7144   5,68 13,55
SW 0,7450   5,93 13,93
WSW 0,6843   5,44 13,19

In the table above we can see the wave height and the periods for each direction
(The wave height is computed as 7,96*K for each direction). The period is
computed using the relationship that we got in annex II between wave height and
wave period.

 
  

From these values we can calculate the celerity, the group celerity and the wave
length in deep water as follows:

!" !" !"

𝐶𝑜 = !! , 𝐶𝑔 = !
= !!    ,          𝐿𝑜 = 𝑐𝑇

Direction Tp  (s) Co  (m/s)   Cg  (m/s) Lo  (m)

SEE 13,39   20,89   10,44 279,73
S 17,03   26,56   13,28 452,24
SWW 13,55   21,14   10,57 286,57
SW 13,93   21,72   10,86 302,50
WSW 13,19   20,57   10,29 271,31

We can calculate the wave length at a depth of 6 metres by an iterative method.

Then, with this value, we compete the ratio h/L in order to know if we are in
transitional or shallow water. We obtain values of h/L between 0,5 and 0,05 that
indicate that we are in intermediate water.

Now we need to propagate this values to the counterdike depth, h = 6 metres.

𝑔 · 𝑇! 2𝜋 · ℎ 1 4𝜋 · ℎ 𝐿 𝐿
𝐿= · tanh          ,          𝑐!! = 𝑛 · 𝑐! = · 1 + ·
2𝜋 𝐿 2 sinh 4𝜋 · ℎ 𝐿 𝑇

Direction L  (m) h/L   C  (m/s)   Cg  (m/s)

SEE 102,69   0,0584   7,50   7,17
S 130,57   0,0460   7,56   7,35
SWW 103,94   0,0577   7,50   7,18
SW 106,79   0,0562   7,51   7,20
WSW 101,13   0,0593   6,89   6,53

Finally we need the incident angle and the propagate angle that we relate using the
Snell equation.

sin ∝! sin ∝ 𝑐
=              ,               ∝= sin!! · sin ∝!
𝑐! 𝑐 𝑐!

Direction ∝! (degrees) ∝ (degrees)  

SEE 2,5   0,90  
S 20   5,59  
SWW 42,5   13,87  
SW 65   18,26  
WSW 87,5   19,56  

 
  

Now we are ready to compute the design wave height of our counterdike.

𝑐!! ∝!
𝐻 = 𝐻! · 𝐾! · 𝐾! = 𝐻! · ·
𝑐!! ∝!

Direction Ho  (m)   Kr   Ks Hp  (m)

SEE 5,58   1,2073   0,9996 6,73
S 7,96   1,3438   0,9717 10,39
SWW 5,68   1,2136   0,8714 6,01
SW 5,93   1,2280   0,6671 4,86
WSW 5,44   1,2551   0,2152 1,47

The maximum wave height due to the propagation arrives from the South direction
and reaches a height of 10,39 metres. However, supposing a breaking coefficient
Hb/hb=0,6, we obtain a Breaking wave high of Hb=3,6 metres. As we are in a
situation where Hp>Hb, that is an impossible situation, we will work in breaking
conditions assuming a design wave height equal to 3,6 metres

 
  

Annex V. Cross section definition

To determinate the cross section we used two different methods in order to
compare the results and find a more accurate solution. These methods are
Iribarren-Hudson and Van der Meer.

Iribarren-Hudson

The Iribarren-Hudson equation to scale the elements of the armour layer is the
next one:
𝜌!"!#!$% · 𝐻 !
𝑀!" =
𝐾! · ∆! · cotg 𝛼
In our case:

𝜌!"!#!$% = 2.650  𝑘𝑔/𝑚!

𝐻 =   𝐻! !" = 1! 27 · 𝐻!"#$% = 4! 572  𝑚

𝐾! = 2   𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑠  𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔

!!"!#!$%
∆= !!"#$%
− 1 = 1′65

With the mass value we can find the nominal diameter of the armour elements with
the next expression:

! !
𝑊 ! 𝑀!" !
𝐷!!" = 1.0 · =
𝛾 𝜌!"!#!$%

For the elements of the core, the mass is related with the mass of the elements of
the armour and the nominal diameter is calculated as for the armour.

𝑀!"
𝑀!"! =
20
!
𝑀!"! !
𝐷!!"! =
𝜌!"!#!$%

We will dimension the elements for three different slopes: 2:3, 1:2 and 1:3

 
  

cotgα 1,5 2 3
M50 (kg) 18792,798 14094,599 9396,399
Dn50 (m) 1,921 1,746 1,525
M50c (kg) 939,640 704,730 469,820
Dn50c (m) 0,708 0,643 0,562

Van der Meer

To dimension the structure with this method we need to calculate a factor N that is
the number of waves that arrive in a storm. To do this we have relate the wave
high of our storms with its duration, so we were able to calculate the duration of a
storm with a wave high of 3,6 metres, that is our design wave high.

H  -­‐  dura?on  
60  
50   y  =  12,777x  -­‐  18,775  
R²  =  0,593  
dura?on  

40  
30  
20  
10  
0  
0   2   4   6  
H  

Figure 11. Duration of storms

𝐷 = 12,777 ∗ 𝐻 − 18,775

For H = 3,6 metres we obtain a duration of 27,2 hours that are equivalent to 98000
seconds. With the wave period associated to this wave high Tp = 10,37 s, we
obtain a N factor equal to:

98000
𝑁= = 9450  𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑠
10,37

The security factor S has a value of 2. The structure is protected by the mean dike
of the harbour, that it is why the waves do not arrive with a lot of energy to the
counterdike. We have considered a permeability of 0,4 so we will design our
counterdike with 3 layers (armour, filter and core). This permeability is due to the
fact that the structure is not a very important structure, so we can admit some

 
  

permeability, but we do not want fluxes of water in our harbour, thus the
permeability cannot be extremely high.

Figure 12. Permeability

The next step is to know the type of breaking. In order to do that, we must calculate
the model and the critical Iribarren parameter and compare them:

𝐿!
𝐻!
𝐼𝑟! =
cotg 𝛼
!
!!!"#
Ir! = 6! 2 · P !"#$ · tanα

cotgα 1,5 2 3
Ir,m 4,55 3,41 2,28
Ir,c 4,42 3,77 3,01

In the fist case we have Surging conditions and in the last two cases, plunging. The
equations to scale the armour elements are:

!"#
𝐻! 𝑆
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 ∶                         = 1.0 · 𝑃!!"#$ · · 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝑔α · 𝐼𝑟! !
∆ · 𝐷!!" 𝑁
!"#
𝐻! 𝑆
𝑃𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 ∶                         = 6.2 · 𝑃!,!" · · 𝐼𝑟! !!,!
∆ · 𝐷!!" 𝑁

𝑀!" = 𝜌!"!#!$% · 𝐷!!" !

 
  

For the elements of the core, the nominal diameter is related with the nominal
diameter of the elements of the armour and the mass is calculated as for the
armour, the same happens for the elements of the filter.
𝐷!!"
𝐷!!"! =          ,          𝑀!"! = 𝜌!"!#!$% · 𝐷!!"! !
8
𝐷!!"
𝐷!!"! =          ,          𝑀!"! = 𝜌!"!#!$% · 𝐷!!"! !
2
The results are shown in the next table:

cotgα 1,5 2 3
Dn50 (m) 1,876 1,822 1,361
M50 (kg) 17488,02 16040,83 6682,35
Dn50f (m) 0,938   0,911   0,681  
M50f (kg) 2186,00 2005,11 835,29
Dn50c (m) 0,234   0,228   0,170  
M50c (kg) 34,16 31,330 13,052

As we can see we obtain smaller values with this method than with the Iribarren-
Hudson method. Our solution will be the highest slope. The reason of this election
is that we have already reduce the space in the harbour in order to maintain the
beach, so a softer slope would reduce the space for boats even more.

cotgα 1,5
Dn50 (m) 1,876
M50 (kg) 17488,02
Dn50f (m) 0,938
M50f (kg) 2186,00
Dn50c (m) 0,234
M50c (kg) 34,16

The high of the counterike will be 11 metres (6m of the mean water level + 0,8 of
the mean water level oscilations + 3,6 of the wave high + 0,6 as a security factor).
The width of the core is 7 metres to allow the circulations of two trucks during the
construction. The toe must have a length doble the diameter of the elements of the
armour, and the thickness of the armour must have the same value, 7,5 m. The
thickness of the filter layer must have 1,5 times the size of the elements of the
armorur

 
  

Figure 13. Cross section

 
  

Annex VI. Coastal impacts

As we are trying to convert the industrial harbour in a marina, we consider that is
important to conserve the coast as much as we could. We had two different
solutions for the location of the counterdike that are shown in the figure below.

Figure 14. Alternatives to the design of the counterdike

We have considered the first option as we renounce to space inside the harbour
but we maintain the beach, attracting more tourism. It has also a smaller visual
impact. The fist option will cause minimum changes in the coastal because is an
internal structure so all the damage has already been caused by the mean dike
and we can appreciate that it has not cause almost any impact.

In addition the coast of this part of Catalonia is very rocky, so the impact in the
sediment transport that we can expect is almost zero.

The only impact that this counterdike can cause is the possibility of reflecting
waves to the beach increasing the wave height. To minimise this reflection we
have decided to do a rubble mound instead of a vertical structure.

 
  

Annex VII. Budget

In order to have an approximate price for this construction, we have looked for a
similar project near the catalan coast. We have used a project of a marina in
Cèrbere, done by Tamara Roldán Díaz in collaboration with the ETSECCPB-UPC.
We have considered de budget of this project related with the counterdike and we
have computed a unitary price for 1 cubic meter of counterdike. Then, with the
volume of our counterdike, we have calculated an approximate price for its
construction.

Counterdike in Cèrbere

Figure 15. Design of the counterdike in Cèrbere

The volume of the section of the counterdike has been computed as a triangle with
a mean high of 10 metres and a base of 26,7 metres as we can see in the figure
above. We obtain a volume of 133,5 m2 for lineal unit. The length of this
counterdike is 140 metres odd, so the total volume is about 18690 m3.

 
  

Figure 16. Budget of Cèrbere counterdike

The total price of this counterdike is 1.738.032,24 €, so the price for a cubic metre
is 93€

Counterike in Garraf

The length of our counterdike is 170 metres, leaving 50 metres in the entrance of
the harbour.

The approximate volume for the designed section is 181,5 m2, so the total volume
is about 30855 m3.

The budget that we obtain is 2.869.515 €

This budget is not very accurate because the sizes of the stones in the project of
Cèrbere are different than those in our project.