Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

CONCRETE ARMOR
UNIT DESIGN
Jeffrey A. Melby, Ph.D.
Email: melbyj@wes.army.mil
CONCRETE ARMOR UNIT DESIGN
Contents
Based on CEM Chapter VI-5-2 (f) and VI-5-2 (h)
INTRODUCTION
STABILITY OF VARIOUS SHAPES
CONCRETE ARMOR UNIT STRUCTURAL
RESPONSE
EXAMPLES
CONCRETE ARMOR UNIT SHAPES
CONCRETE ARMOR UNIT SHAPES
Thousands of shapes
Many different applications
Most shapes have been patented and trademarked
Most basic shapes are in patents of 1950s and 1960s
TRIBARS AT KAHULUI, MAUI, HAWAII
PATTERN-PLACED TRIBAR
SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA
900 28 t QUADRIPODS
CUBES AT GIJON, SPAIN
Repair in 1995 of 90 t
with 120 t concrete
cubes!
Ringer crane is
permanent fixture
CORE-LOC AT CHICAGO RIVER BAFFLE
ROUNDHEAD CONSTRUCTION
HUMBOLDT JETTIES, CALIFORNIA
HUMBOLDT JETTY HEAD
Khaboura, Oman
offshore U-shaped
breakwater
MANASQUAN, NEW JERSEY
CORE-LOC FORM IN SOUTH AFRICA
CORE-LOC CASTING
KHABOURA, OMAN CASTING
ARMOR SELECTION CRITERIA
Consider purpose of armor
Hydraulic stability
Structural capacity, materials
Engineering performance vs cost
Volumetric efficiency
Ease of construction
ARMOR COMPARISON
Stability and structural strength
Cost of materials
Total volume of concrete, reinforcing steel, and forms
Adequate reinforcing steel will double the cost of materials
Form cost will be 10% - 100% of concrete cost
Handling costs
Proportional to number of units
A higher order function of armor size
ARMOR LAYER LAYOUT
AND OPTIMIZATION
N = Number of armor units
A = Surface area on slope
= Packing density coefficient
V = Volume of individual armor unit
W = Armor unit weight
= Armor specific weight
n = Number of thicknesses
k

= Layer coefficient
r = Total armor layer thickness
V
T
= Total volume for N units
P = Armor layer porosity
N
A
V
2/3
where V
W
W
and nk

(1 P/100)
V
T
NV r nk

D
n
where D
n
V
1/3
ARMOR LAYER LAYOUT
AND OPTIMIZATION
CAU VOLUME COMPARISON
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
c
o
r
e
-
l
o
c
a
c
c
r
o
p
o
d
e
d
o
l
o
s
t
r
i
b
a
r
t
e
t
r
a
p
o
d
c
u
b
e
s
s
t
o
n
e
V
r
V
r


r
[ (K
D
)
r
(cot >)
r
]
1/3
VOLUME OPTIMIZATION
N/(A) = V
(-2/3)
V
T
/(A) = V
1/3
So the total number of units can decrease much
faster than the total volume increases as the
armor size increases
If equipment is constant, then it may be more
economical to go with larger units
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Vol ume
Number
Volume
N/(A) =V
(-2/3)
V
T
/(A) =V
1/3
CONCRETE ARMOR UNIT
PHYSICAL MODELING
Damage definitions
Stability Studies
Strength Analyses
DAMAGE DEFINITIONS
COUNTING METHOD
Appropriate for small amounts of damage (CAUs)
No movement is lower limit
Armor units rocking (important for dolosse)
Individual units displaced
D = number displaced / total number in active region
N
od
= number displaced / total number in strip D
n
wide
DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION
CONCRETE ARMOR UNITS
INITIAL DAMAGE: Dolosse D = 0-2%, Core-Loc and Accropode
D = 0-1%, All shapes N
od
= 0
INTERMEDIATE DAMAGE: Core-Loc and Accropode D = 1-5%
FAILURE: Dolosse D 15%, Core-Loc and Accropode D
10%, Cube N
od
= 2, Tetrapod N
od
=1.5, Accropode N
od
=0.5
LESSER
ANTILLES
CAU STABILITY FORMULAE
Many different equations with various parameters
Different criteria used to judge stability
Best to check with Hudson equation
Use 4 -K
D
-16
Larger K
D
is dangerous because of noninterlocked
condition, which is nearly impossible to avoid
Also, armor layers are easily damaged during
construction and nearly impossible to repair to original
condition
N
s

H
s
D
n
(6.7N
0.4
od
/N
0.3
z
~1.0)s
0.1
m
STABILITY OF CONCRETE CUBES
D
n
= Cube length
N
od
= Number of units displaced within a strip D
n
In
width
Valid for non-breaking irregular head-on waves
Two layers of randomly placed cubes
3 <
m
< 6
Or see table for K
D
Note very few stability experiments
STABILITY OF TETRAPODS
N
s

H
s
D
n
(3.75N
0.5
od
/N
0.25
z
~0.85)s
0.2
m
Based on few tests
See table for K
D
N
s

H
s
D
n
2.32(N
od
/ N
0.5
z
)
0.2
~1.33
TRADITIONAL TRAPEZOIDAL MULTILAYER STRUCTURE
RUBBLE MOUND FRONTING CAISSON STRUCTURE
STABILITY OF DOLOSSE
Many equations
Use Hudson with K
D
= 8 for no rocking with
breaking waves
Good performance in USA except for Crescent
city and Cleveland
DOLOS SHAPES
r = 0.44 r = 0.38 r = 0.32
r = B/C
STABILITY CORE-LOC
Extensive physical model tests with irregular waves
yielded no repeatable instability
Regular severely plunging breaker tests yielded K
D
= 16
for no-damage limit
Variety of severe 3-D physical model tests yielded K
D
=
13 for heads
Unit is licensed by 6 firms worldwide including Baird
and Associates, Sogreah, and Tetra (formerly Nippon
Tetrapod)
LIMITATIONS OF MOST GENERALIZED
CAU PHYSICAL MODEL STUDIES
Model studies did not include scaled strength - model units dont
break
So damage above very low percentages is not in similitude
Also toe is typically fixed which prevents sliding and limits damage
in model
Concrete armor may be less stable under oblique wave attack and
armor is nearly always less stable at transitions
Concrete armor design must be very conservative for these
reasons and site specific physical modeling must address these
details
STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF CAU
Specifications should always indicate the required
flexural tensile strength
Slender units have higher tensile stresses than bulky
units but bulky units can have higher heat-of-hydration
cracking
Magnitude of impact stresses is much higher than other
stresses - for example, any size dolos dropped from
approximately one foot on a stiff surface will break
CAU STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Several structural formulations for dolosse
Core-locs were shown by Melby and Turk (1994) to have
stresses approximately 60% those of dolosse under
equivalent impact and static loadings
Table VI-5-42 lists allowable impact speeds for
placement
FATIGUE IN CAU
Definition - the decrease in material strength due to repeated
loading
Typically loads due to waves are not high enough to cause
fatigue that is significant
The reduction in strength due to fatigue is offset by the long-
term increase in strength. The increase in strength is
typically about 50% over the first 5 years
Impact fatigue is not an issue because we assume rocking
units will break in our design
STRENGTH ENHANCEMENTS
Change armor shape to increase
section modulus and decrease
moment arm
Increase material strength
Reinforce
Fibers
Rebar
Post-tension
STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF CAU
Typically unreinforced units -
tensile strength of concrete is
10% of its compressive strength
Light reinforcement used in
Corps dolosse yields 15% to 20%
increase in flexural tensile
strength (rebar and fibers) and no
increase in torsional strength
(longitudinal rebar only, no
hoops)
High strength concrete can be
brittle and relatively weak under
impact loading
CRESCENT CITY, CALIFORNIA
CRESCENT CITY 42 t DOLOSSE
CRESCENT CITY, CALIFORNIA
1970 DESIGN
H=35', W= 156pcf, cot >= 2, W= 84,000lb => K
D
= 13.4
High strength
+ 1100 - 1300 psi Flexural tensile
+ 400 - 600 psi Splitting tensile
+ 7000 - 9000 psi Compressive
Breakage ~ 75 %
1985 DESIGN
Similar except cot > = 5 to 6, => K
D
= 4.5 to 5.4
Similar strength with added metal fibers
+ 1000 - 1500 psi Flexural tensile
+ 300 - 660 psi Splitting tensile
+ 7700 - 1100 psi Compressive
Breakage ~ 3%
LESSER ANTILLES
LESSER ANTILLES
LESSER ANTILLES
Design armor chosen based on H
design
= 17 = 0.78 * h
b
=> 10 t units used
Also based on form availability of 6 t and 10 t
Should have used H
design
= 26 = 1.2 * h
b
=> 30 t
Design wave determined offshore which was
conservative for Atlantic hurricane
Units placed at light packing densities
Units placed with vertical fluke seaward
No money saved using existing forms!
EFFECT OF 1:8 SLOPE
Table 1. Crude Design Wave Height at Structure Toe For Revetment For Various Return
Periods with Associated Dolos Size for 5 Percent Breakage and Estimated Breakage for 6
t Dolosse
Return
Period
Yr
Toe
Depth +
Storm
Surge
ft
Wave
Period
T
p
sec
Wave
Height
At 200
H
mo
Ft
Breaker
Height
Index
Shoaling
Coeff
K
s
Design
Wave
Height
H
ft
Dolos
Size for
K
D
=16
B=5%
t
Breakage
for 6 t
Dolosse
B
%
1 17.3 10.0 15.0 1.12 1.10 16.9 5 2
2 17.6 10.5 18.5 1.10 1.12 19.3 7 3
5 18.3 11.5 23.0 1.09 1.15 19.9 8 4
10 18.8 12.0 26.5 1.07 1.16 20.1 8 5
20 19.2 13.0 30.0 1.08 1.20 20.6 9 12
50 19.8 13.5 34.2 1.07 1.21 21.1 10 13
100 20.0 14.0 38.0 1.07 1.23 21.3 10 19
Table 3. Crude Design Wave Height at 5H
s
Seaward of the Shoreline ForRevetment For
Various Return Periods with Associated Dolos Size for 5 Percent Breakage and
Estimated Breakage for 6 t Dolosse
Return
Period
Yr
Toe
Depth +
Storm
Surge
ft
Wave
Period
T
p
sec
Wave
Height
At 200
H
mo
Ft
Breaker
Height
Index
Shoaling
Coeff
K
s
Design
Wave
Height
H
ft
Dolos
Size for
K
D
=16
B=5%
t
Breakage
for 6 t
Dolosse
B
%
1 17.3 10.0 15.0 1.12 1.03 15.8 4 2
2 17.6 10.5 18.5 1.10 1.03 19.7 8 5
5 18.3 11.5 23.0 1.09 1.04 25.2 16 75
10 18.8 12.0 26.5 1.07 1.04 29.4 25 100
20 19.2 13.0 30.0 1.08 1.06 34.3 39 100
50 19.8 13.5 34.2 1.07 1.05 39.1 59 100
100 20.0 14.0 38.0 1.07 1.06 43.7 82 100
LESSER ANTILLES
Alternative: High Density Aggregate
S=2.00, double cost of aggregate
Table 4
Comparison of Armor Costs
Armor Repair
Option
Armor
Weight
ton
Number
Required
Cost of
Armor
$M
Cost of
Forms
$M
Total
Material
Cost
$M
1. Normal density
5 cy dolosse 10 1300 1.43 0.25 1.68
7.9 700 0.31 0
2. HDA 5 cy and
3 cy dolosse 13.8 860 1.31 0 1.62
3a. Normal
Density Core-Loc 18 1065 2.35 0.35 2.70
3b. HDA Core-Loc 6 1770 1.40 0.30 1.70
VATIA STONE
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
CONCRETE ARMOR UNIT CONCLUSIONS
Concrete armor is typically economical when
there is no stone or the stone size is large
Concrete armor design requires higher design
reliability, but concrete armor units are usually
stable for a wider range of wave heights