Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

Rubble Mound Stability

Presenter: Jeffrey A. Melby, Ph.D.
Email: melbyj@wes.army.mil

WHAT IS A RUBBLE MOUND?

RUBBLE MOUND STABILITY

Contents
INTRODUCTION
Structure Types
Functional vs Structural Design
Examples
Armor Selection Criteria
HYDRAULIC STABILITY
Physical Model Studies
Initiation of Armor Movement
Important Parameters
Damage Deverlopment
Stability Equations
Based on CEM Chapter VI-5-2 (f)

STRUCTURE TYPES
BREAKWATERS
Multilayer
+
+
+
+

Traditional trapezoidal section

Composite
Low-Crested
Submerged

Uniform
+

Reef

JETTIES
GROINS
REVETMENTS

FUNCTIONAL VS STRUCTURAL DESIGN

FUNCTIONAL DESIGN

Plan and Profile Geometry

Wave Transmission - Overtopping, Flow Through
Wave Diffraction
Wave Reflection

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Filter Sizing for Stability and Filtering

Armor Stability
Geotechnical Settlement and Slip Circle Failure
Toe Stability
Armor Unit Sizing
Armor Layer Geometry
Armor Unit Structural Capacity
Cap or Wavewall Stability and Structural Cap
Crest and Backside Stability

OCEAN CITY INLET JETTIES, MARYLAND

Constructed in 30's
Repaired in 50's
Extended in 1985

using W= 5.4 t,
1V:2H
with W = 8.1 t,
1V:3H
with W = 13.5 t, H=5.5 m, KD=2.7

NOTE EBB
TIDAL SHOAL

VENTURA, CALIFORNIA

HUMBOLDT JETTIES, CA

LUARCA, SPAIN

LLANOS, SPAIN

ARMOR SELECTION CRITERIA

Consider purpose of armor
Hydraulic stability
Structural capacity, materials
Engineering performance vs cost
Volumetric efficiency
Ease of construction

ARMOR LAYER LAYOUT & OPTIMIZATION

2

N
= V 3
A

VT = N .V

W
n
r
P

where V =

and

r = nk Dn

= Number of armor units

= Packing density coefficient
= Armor unit weight
= Number of thicknesses
= Total armor layer thickness
= Armor layer porosity

= nk 1

100

where Dn = V

A
V

k
VT

1
3

= Surface area on slope

= Volume of individual armor unit
= Armor specific weight
= Layer coefficient
= Total volume for N units

ARMOR LAYER LAYOUT

AND OPTIMIZATION

VOLUME OPTIMIZATION
3.00
Number

N/(A) =
VT/(A) = V1/3

V(-2/3)

2.50

Volume

2.00
N/(A) = V(-2/3)
VT/(A) = V1/3

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0

10

12

Volume

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 ( increase
volume)

HYDRAULIC STABILITY

PHYSICAL MODEL STUDIES

INITIATION OF ARMOR MOVEMENT
ARMOR STABILITY DERIVATION
STABILITY PARAMETERS
DAMAGE DEVELOPMENT
STABILITY EQUATIONS

PHYSICAL MODEL STUDIES

FROUDE AND GEOMETRIC SIMILITUDE

INITIATION OF ARMOR MOVEMENT

INITIATION OF ARMOR MOVEMENT

FD x FL
wave force
=
restoring force
FG

w Dn2 v 2
=
g ( s w ) Dn3
v2
=
g Dn
H
if v = gH
=
Dn
= Ns

PRIMARY SEA STATE

STABILITY PARAMETERS
Hs, H1/10

= Wave height (at toe)

Tm

= Mean wave period

Lom

= Deep water wave length for mean period

Lm

= Local wave length for mean period

som= Hs/Lom

= Deep water wave steepness

Nw or Nz

= Number of waves at mean period

Hmo = 4(mo)1/2 = Spectral significant wave height

Tp

= Peak wave period

Lop

= Deep water wave length for peak period

= Water depth at toe

= Mass density of water

SECONDARY SEA STATE

STABILITY PARAMETERS

WAVE ASSYMMETRY
SHAPE OF WAVE SPECTRUM
WAVE GROUPING
WAVE INCIDENT ANGLE

STRUCTURAL
STABILITY PARAMETERS

= Structure slope from horizontal

s = Mass density of armor units

Rock grading
Mass and shape of armor
Dn50 = (M50/s)1/3 = Nominal stone diameter (cube)
Packing density, layer thickness
P = Hudsons porosity
P = van der Meers notional permeability of entire structure
S = Ae / D2n50 = Normalized eroded area or damage
Armor placement

COMBINED PARAMETERS

SR = s/w - 1

= Relative mass density

Ns

= Stability number

= Hs/Dn50

Ns* = Ns sp-1/3

= Ahrens stability number

om = tan /(som)1/2 = Surf similarity parameter

SR = Sa - 1

= Relative mass density

Ns

= Stability number

= Hs/Dn50

SURF SIMILARITY PARAMETER

DAMAGE PROGRESSION
Redondo Beach, California, 1988

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
Nod = number displaced / total number in strip Dn wide

CAU: concrete armor unit

DAMAGE DEFINITIONS
PROFILING OR DISPLACED AREA METHOD

Eroded Volume: Hudson, Jackson, D%, active region

Eroded Area: Broderick and Ahrens, S = Ae/D2n50
0.6 < S/D% < 1.25
If S/D% = 0.8, then D = 5% corresponds to 0 < S < 4
Note that S determined from average profile can be very
different from average S of several profiles

DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION
STONE
INITIAL DAMAGE: no damage value in 1984 SPM...D = 05% displacement by volume or S = 0 - 2 by profiles
INTERMEDIATE DAMAGE: S = 2 - 12
FAILURE: Underlayer exposed through a hole at least Dn50
in diameter, D > 20%, S = 8-20

SOUTHWEST PASS, LA

DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION
CONCRETE ARMOR UNITS
INITIAL DAMAGE: Core-Loc and Accropode D = 0-1%,
Dolosse D=0-2%, All shapes Nod = 0
INTERMEDIATE DAMAGE: Core-Loc and Accropode D = 1-5%
FAILURE:
Core-Loc and Accropode D> 10%,
Cube Nod = 2, Dolosse D > 15%
Tetrapod Nod =1.5, Accropode Nod = 0.5

LESSER
ANTILLES

DAMAGE PROGRESSION
Melby And Kobayashi 1998

DAMAGE PROGRESSION
ERODED AREA PREDICTION

Standard Deviation shows cross-shore variation

DAMAGE PROFILES

DAMAGE DEVELOPMENT

DAMAGE PROGRESSION
SHAPE OF ERODED PROFILE

Melby & Kobayashis OBSERVATIONS

Equations verified for wide range of wave heights, wave
periods, water depths, and stone gradation
Damage does not progress to equilibrium
Armor gradation did not produce a measurable
difference in damage progression or eroded profile
Significant alongshore varability of damage
Damage initiation varied more than advanced damage
Spectral or time series parameters produce similar
results

Melby & Kobayashis LIMITATIONS

Only single breakwater and beach slopes tested but
conservative for most conditions
Equations are limited to trunk section with head-on
waves
Multilayer trapezoidal cross section
Damage initiation not specifically investigated
Breaking waves only but should be conservative for
non-breaking conditions
Does not account for breaking stones

ARMOR STABILITY EQUATIONS

MULTI-LAYER STONE
MULTILAYER LOW-CRESTED STONE
MULTILAYER SUBMERGED STONE
STONE REEF BREAKWATERS
BACKSIDE STABILITY
CONRETE ARMOR UNITS

CROSS SECTION

HUDSON EQUATION
Ns = (K D cot )

1/ 3

W =

H
=
Dn 50

aH1/3 10

K D (Sa 1)3 cot

= W50 = Median weight of armor unit

= Specific weight of armor material

H1/10 = Average of highest 10% of wave heights

KD

= Tabulated empirical stability coefficient

Sa

= Specific gravity of armor material

= Seaside angle of armor slope from horizontal

STABILITY COEFFICIENTS

RIPRAP
Riprap can also be designed using Hudson equation
using the median weight W50, H1/10, and KRR = 2.2 for
breaking waves and KRR = 2.5 for non-breaking waves
(Ahrens 1981b)
Typical stone size distribution 0.125 W50 < W < 4.0 W50
Melby and Kobayashi observed that riprap armor
deteriorates at the same rate as uniform armor for
similar median weights because the larger stones hold
the matrix together

STONE PLACEMENT

BUFFALO, NEW YORK

KEYED AND FITTED

UMPQUA, OREGON
SPECIAL PLACEMENT

GALVESTON BREAKWATER, TEXAS

STONE PLACEMENT

UNKNOWN SITE
RANDOM PLACEMENT

HUDSON EQUATION
FOR BREAKING WAVES
Probably the most extensive data set
Many structure and armor types
Breaking waves means depth-limited waves
KD is lowest stability measurement in lab using
severely breaking regular waves

CARVERs MODIFICATIONS
TO THE HUDSON EQUATION
Hudson Stability Coefficient vs Relative Depth

VAN DER MEER EQUATIONS

Hs
Dn50

Hs
Dn50

6.2P

1.0 P

0.18

0.2

S
Nz

0.13

0.2

Nw

om
[6.2 P 0.31 tan ]

0.5

om

Plunging waves: m < mc

cot Pom

1
(P  0.5)

Surging waves: m > mc

VAN DER MEERS PARAMETERS

Hs

= Significant wave height at toe

= Sa - 1

Nw

= Number of waves at mean period

= Notional permeability of entire structure

= Ae / D2n50 = Normalized eroded area / damage

= Relative mass density

om = tan /(Hs/Lom)1/2 = Surf similarity parameter

Lom = gTm2/2

VAN DER MEERS PERMEABILITY

VAN DER MEER EQUATIONS

BREAKING WAVES
H2%
Dn50

H2%
Dn50

1.4(6.2) P

0.2

0.18

Nz

1.4 P

0.13

0.2

Nw

om
[6.2 P 0.31 tan ]

Hs = H2%

0.5

om

Plunging waves: m < mc

cot om

1
(P  0.5)

Surging waves: m > mc

VAN DER MEERS LIMITATIONS

Limited to deep to intermediate depth
Breaking wave equations are based on 8 tests using
only spilling breakers - not conservative for most
applications
Damage is for constant wave conditions
Equations are for a trunk section or revetment with
head-on waves
Equations are limited to uniform armor stone

MULTI-LAYER OVERTOPPED STRUCTURES

POWELL AND ALLSOP (1985)
Nod
Na
Rc/h
0.29
0.39
0.57
0.38

1/3
a exp [b sP N s]
a*10^4

1/3

or

Ns

sp

1 Nod
ln
b
a Na

Hs/Lp

0.07
0.18

1.66
1.58

<0.03
<0.03

85
70

0.09
0.59

1.92
1.07

<0.03
>0.03

20
45

Nod = Number of displaced units

Na = Total number of units
Ns = Hs / Dn50
sp = Hs / Lp = Local wave steepness

MULTI-LAYER OVERTOPPED STRUCTURES

VAN DER MEER 1991 - ARMOR REDUCTION COEF.
fi

1.25 4.8

0 <

Rc

sop

Hs

Rc

sop

Hs

< 0.052

Replace Dn50 by fi (Dn50) in original equations

Rc = Freeboard
sop = Hs / Lop = Deep water wave steepness

MULTI-LAYER SUBMERGED STRUCTURES

VAN DER MEER, 1991
h
c
h

(2.1  0.1S) exp (

0.14Ns )

h = Water depth at toe

hc = Crest height over sea bed

Ns* = Ns(sp)-1/3 = Spectral

stability number

REEF BREAKWATERS
VAN DER MEER, 1990 AFTER AHRENS, 1987
h
c

a

0.28  0.045

At

exp (a Ns )

At
2
(h
c)

 h
c

 0.034

h
c
h

610 9

At

Dn50

At = Initial cross-sectional area of

structure

BACKSIDE STABILITY
JENSEN, 1984

ROUNDHEAD STABILITY

Heads and bends usually sustain damage at a much lower wave

height than the trunk
Causes include reduced support from neighboring armor and high
overflow wave velocities and wave refraction

ROUNDHEAD STABILITY
Use equation of Carver and Heimbaugh (1989) for stone
and dolos
Can also use Hudson equation
Increase stability by increasing roundhead diameter
Roundhead slopes are often flatter
Trunk and head units must interlock
Toe detail is very important

YAQUINA JETTIES, NEWPORT, OREGON

Original structures 1 km long in ~1900
Structures extended to 1.5 km in 30's - 40's then to 2.1 km
in 60's. W = 18.5 t, S=2.58, Hb = 8.2 m, 1V:2H, KD=10
Outer 500 ft repaired
twice:
W = 18 t, S=2.66, Hb = 6 m,
KD = 3.7
Then
W = 29 t, Hb = 8.5 m,
KD=6.3

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory

Stability Conclusions
Stability of stone breakwaters predicted by
many equations
Use appropriate equation
Use conservative design assumptions because
equations are based on idealized laboratory
conditions

Least expensive option may not be one with

least material
Lobby for aesthetics

VATIA STONE