Advertisement

Wave Transformation Around Submerged Breakwaters Made of Rubble Mound and Those Made of Geosynthetic Tubes—A Comparison Study for Kadalur Periyakuppam Coast

  • M. Kalyani
  • A. S. KiranEmail author
  • Vijaya Ravichandran
  • V. Suseentharan
  • Basanta Kumar Jena
  • M. V. Ramana Murthy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 23)

Abstract

In the present paper, the hydrodynamic performance of two-segmented (200 m length, 60 m gap) submerged detached geosynthetic tube breakwaters has been compared with two-segmented traditional submerged detached rubble mound breakwaters under similar conditions, for Kadalur Periyakuppam (KPK) site. Bathymetry and wave conditions have been measured by NIOT. Tentative cost estimation of the superstructure shows that the cost of geosynthetic tube breakwaters is almost half of that of the rubble mound breakwaters and is preferred. Mike21 PMS and EMS modules have been used to simulate and compare the wave transformation under overtopping conditions for porous structures. PMS can predict diffraction accurately if wave action is perpendicular to structure, for an impermeable structure. EMS can simulate diffraction and can account for permeability and reflection characteristics, on a scale from (1, 0) to (0, 1) by externally feeding corresponding friction factor values into the numerical model. The amount of Kt or Kr cannot be predicted by the model itself as these are depth-averaged 2D models. Both the modules treat the structure as emerged only, and there is no direct provision for including the overtopping effects of submerged structures. In this paper, an attempt is also made to include overtopping effects externally (indirectly) into the model. The Kt values under different hydrodynamic conditions d’Angremond et al. (25th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Orlando, Florida, 1996 [2]), Pilarczyk (Proceedings of 6th international conference on coastal and port engineering in developing countries, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2003, [11]) have been fed appropriately, and the variation of leeside wave height with respect to water levels (CD vs. HWL) and type of structure (rubble vs. geosynthetic tube and impermeable-PMS) and the breaking characteristics are quantified.

Keywords

Kadalur periyakuppam Geosynthetic tube Submerged breakwater Rubble mound MIKE21 PMS MIKE21 EMS 

References

  1. 1.
    Blacka MJ, Carley JT, Corbett BB, Jackson LA (2009) Wave transmission over low crested geotextile breakwater structures. In: 19th Australasian coastal and ocean engineering conference 2009 and the 12th Australasian Port and Harbour conference 2009, COASTS and PORTS 2009, pp 489–495Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    d’Angremond K, Van der Meer JW, de Jong RJ (1996) Wave transmission at low-crested structures. In: 25th International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DHI (2005) MIKE21 user guide and reference manual. Danish Hydraulic Institute Water and Environment, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    EM 1110-2-1100 (2006) Coastal engineering manual. US Army Corps of EngineersGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanson H, Kraus NC (1989) GENESIS: generalised model for simulating shoreline change. Report 1: technical reference, Technical report CERC-89-19, US Army Engineer, WES, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanson H, Kraus NC (1990) Shoreline response to a single transmissive detached breakwater. In: Proceedings of the 22nd coastal engineering conference. ASCE, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanson H, Kraus NC (1991) Numerical simulation of shoreline change at Lorain, Ohio. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 117(1). January/FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson HK, Brøker I, Zyserman JA (1994) Identification of some relevant processes in coastal morphological modelling. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on coastal engineering, Kobe, JapanGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kiran AS, Vijaya R, Sivakholundu KM (2015) Stability analysis and design of offshore submerged breakwater constructed using sand filled geosynthetic tubes. Procedia Eng 116:310–319. 8th International conference on Asian and pacific coasts (APAC 2015). IIT Madras, ChennaiGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Makris CV, Memos CD (2007) Wave transmission over submerged breakwaters: performance of formula and models. In: Proceedings of 17th international offshore and polar engineering conference. ISOPE, pp 2613–2620Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pilarczyk KW (2003) Design of low-crested (submerged) structures: an overview. In: Proceedings of 6th international conference on coastal and port engineering in developing countries, Colombo, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seabrook SR, Hall KR (1998) Wave transmission at submerged rubble mound breakwaters. In: 26th International conference on coastal engineering, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van der Meer JW, Briganti R, Zanuttigh B, Wang B (2005) Wave transmission and reflection at low-crested structures: design formulae, oblique wave attack and spectral change. Coast Eng 52:915–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wamsley T, Hanson H, Kraus NC (2002) Wave transmission at detached breakwaters for shoreline response modelling, ERDC/CHL CHETN-II-45, US Army Corps of EngineersGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kalyani
    • 1
  • A. S. Kiran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vijaya Ravichandran
    • 1
  • V. Suseentharan
    • 1
  • Basanta Kumar Jena
    • 1
  • M. V. Ramana Murthy
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute of Ocean TechnologyChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations