Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Hydraulic performance of different non-overtopped breakwater types

under 2D wave attack
Montse Vílchez ⁎, María Clavero, Miguel A. Losada
Grupo de Dinámica de Flujos Ambientales, Instituto Interuniversitario del Sistema Tierra en Andalucía (IISTA), University of Granada, CEAMA, Avda. del Mediterráneo s/n, 18006 Granada, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this research was to develop a method to calculate the hydraulic performance resulting from the
Received 20 April 2015 interaction of perpendicularly impinging water waves on various types of breakwater. Our study was based on
Received in revised form 6 October 2015 data obtained from physical tests in a wave flume with irregular waves. Based on this information, it was possible
Accepted 7 October 2015
to derive the complex wave reflection and transmission coefficients in terms of non-dimensional parameters
Available online 30 October 2015
representing the breakwater geometry, granular materials and incoming wave train. The overall dissipation
Keywords:
rate caused by the structure was estimated by applying the energy conservation equation to a control volume,
Breakwater which included the breakwater section. The logistic sigmoid function was used to describe the variation in the
Coastal structures modulus and phase of the reflection and transmission coefficients (as well as the energy dissipation rate). Re-
Hydraulic performance markably, the sigmoid function was able to define the domain of the hydraulic performance of the most common
Wave reflection breakwaters. It is shown that the sigmoid function depends primarily on a 2D scattering parameter Aeq/L2, where
Wave transmission Aeq is the area of a porous medium under the mean water level and L is the wavelength, and on the relative grain
Wave energy dissipation size of the porous medium, Dk, where k is the wave number. The logistic sigmoid curves help to include the phase
of the reflection coefficient when defining the wave regime in front of, inside, and leeward of the breakwater.
Practical examples of how these results can be applied are also included.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Maritime structures and particularly breakwaters must frequently
be designed to control wind–wave action. According to Takahashi
(1996), there are three structural types of breakwater: (1) sloping or
mound breakwaters; (2) vertical breakwaters (including vertical up-
right as well as composite and horizontal composite breakwaters);
and (3) special non-gravity breakwaters.
A gravity breakwater is composed of three main sections (ROM, 1.0-
09, 2009): (a) a foundation, which determines the way in which the
structure transmits forces to the seabed; (b) a central (or main) body
that controls the transformation of incident wave energy and transmits
the result of these actions to the foundation; and (c) a superstructure
that controls the wave overtopping rate, and, if necessary, provides an
access path.
Depending on their typology, breakwaters reflect, dissipate, trans-
mit, and radiate incident wave energy. This alters the distribution of
the components of the frequency and directional wave spectra
(Klopman and van del Meer, 1999; Losada et al., 1993b, 1997b). Partial
standing wave patterns are likely to occur at all types of breakwater.
Thus, wave transformation (i.e. wave reflection, wave transmission,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958241781.
E-mail addresses: mvilchezsolis@ugr.es (M. Vílchez), mclavero@ugr.es (M. Clavero),
mlosada@ugr.es (M.A. Losada).
modulus and phase, and wave energy dissipation) plays an important
role in defining the wave regime in front of, near (seaward and lee-
ward), and inside the breakwater (Hughes and Fowler, 1995; Losada
et al., 1997a; Sutherland and O'Donoghue, 1998).
In the case of regular waves, a pattern of nodes and antinodes in the
wave height occurs in front of the structure. However, in the case of ran-
dom waves, significant wave height only appears as a partial standing
wave pattern close to the structure. According to Lamberti (1994), this
pattern is a consequence of the effect of coherence between incident
and reflected components, which become evanescent as their distance
from the reflecting surface increases. Thus, the superposition of incident
waves and of those generated and transformed by the presence of
breakwaters constitutes the set of oscillation patterns that affects the
hydraulic performance of the structure. This evidently signifies that
the prediction of such patterns is an important issue in breakwater
design (Hughes and Fowler, 1995; ROM, 1.0-09, 2009).
The dependence of wave regimes on the complex reflection and
transmission coefficients and on the wave energy dissipation rate has
been the focus of theoretical considerations, dimensional analysis,
and experiments (Dalrymple et al., 1991; Losada et al., 1993a;
Pérez-Romero et al., 2009). The bulk reflection and transmission coeffi-
cients (Hughes and Fowler, 1995) can be defined, similarly to regular
waves, as a complex number with information regarding the amplitude,
KR and KT, and phase, ϕR and ϕT, of reflection and transmission, respec-
tively. In addition, the wave energy balance in a control volume

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.10.002
0378-3839/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52
including the breakwater is a convenient engineering method for de-
scribing the interaction between phase-averaged wave motion and
the structure. It provides the dissipation rate, D*, and works as a closure
condition of the problem. The calculated wave energy dissipation rate is
a phase-averaged quantity.
Since the pioneering work of Iribarren and Nogales (1949), which
introduced the Iribarren number in the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi analysis of the stability of
mound breakwaters (Ir ¼ tanα T = H=L, where αT is the seaward slope
angle of the breakwater and H is the wave length), and its application
by Battjes (1974) to the analysis of flow characteristics on sloping struc-
tures, many journal and conference papers have focused on the calcula-
tion of wave reflection by breakwaters (e.g. Ahrens and Mc Carney,
1975; Allsop and Channell, 1989; Altomare and Gironella, 2014;
Losada and Gimenez-Curto, 1981; Zanuttigh and Van der Meer, 2008).
Moreover, Medina (1999), Iglesias et al. (2008), and Zanuttigh et al.
(2013) demonstrate the efficiency of an artificial neural network
(ANN) for the prediction of the wave reflection coefficient for a wide
range of coastal and harbor structures.
Unfortunately, most of these formulas and ANN methods fit the re-
flection coefficient modulus obtained without simultaneously evaluat-
ing the other hydraulic processes participating in the wave–structure
interaction, namely, the transmission coefficient and the energy dissipa-
tion rate. Furthermore, most databases, such as EU-project DELOS
(www.delos.unibo.it) and CLASH (www.clash-eu.org), only provide
the modulus of the reflection coefficient but not its phase. Actually,
most databases do not supply the phase at all, and this type of informa-
tion is extremely difficult to recover. However, as previously mentioned,
the phase is essential in the evaluation of the flow on breakwaters. Flow
characteristics include run-up, run-down, and overtopping, among
other engineering magnitudes, which are crucial for breakwater design.
The main objective of this research was to calculate the hydraulic
performance resulting from the interaction of wave–breakwater by cal-
culating the complex wave reflection and transmission coefficients
(modulus and phase) as well as the overall dissipation rate caused by
different non-overtopped structures.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the princi-
pal non-dimensional parameters controlling the interaction between
water waves and different breakwater typologies and defines the pa-
rameter list. The experimental setup is also described. Section 3 explains
the data analysis. Next, Section 4 focuses on the governing function (i.e.
the sigmoid function) used to describe the wave regime in front, inside,
and leeward of the breakwater. Section 5 presents the hydraulic perfor-
mance for the different breakwater typologies and its dependence on
the relevant parameters. Section 6 explains the methodology of
Fig. 1. Breakwater types: A) porous vertical breakwater (PVB); B) composite breakwater (CB); C) low and high mound breakwaters (LMB and HMB) and high mound composite break-
water (HMCB) [FM/h ≤ 1.1]; D) rubble mound breakwater with crown walls [FM/h N 1.1] (RMB-CW); E) rubble mound breakwater (RMB).
35
application of the hydraulic performance curves obtained and includes
some examples. This is followed by Section 7, which discusses the limi-
tations of this research study. The paper ends with a summary of the
most important conclusions that can be derived from this research. Fi-
nally, Appendix A provides the data used for comparison with other
formulas.
2. Breakwater types, parameter list, and experimental setup
Fig. 1 shows the breakwater types studied and identifies their geo-
metric parameters. The following typologies are considered (some of
which were taken from Kortenhaus and Oumeraci, 1998): (A) porous
vertical breakwater (PVB); (B) composite breakwater (CB); (C) mixed
breakwater with a berm below or at SWL [FM/h ≤ 1.1] (low and high
mound breakwaters, LMB and HMB respectively, and a high mound
composite breakwater, HMCB); (D) mixed breakwater with a berm
above SWL [FM/h N 1.1] (rubble mound breakwater with crown walls,
RMB-CW); and (E) a rubble mound breakwater, plane slope (RMB).
Following Kortenhaus and Oumeraci (1998), this research designed
a parameter list. In addition to the parameters describing the wave mo-
tion, it includes the geometric parameters necessary to unambiguously
characterize gravity breakwater types (Fig. 1),
• h/L, relative water depth where L is the wavelength
• HI/L, wave steepness of the incident wave train (non-breaking)
• Ht/L, wave steepness of the total wave height (incident and reflected
wave trains)
• Dk (or D/L), relative grain diameter
• B/L, relative width of the caisson (1D scattering parameter)
• Aeq/L2, relative area of the porous medium under the still water level,
SWL (2D scattering parameter)
• hb/h, relative caisson foundation depth
• (Fc + h)/h, relative height of the breakwater
• Bb/h, relative berm width
• FM/h, relative berm height
• αT, seaward slope angle
• Sp, type of unit, placement density, and the number of layers beneath
the armor layer
• St, slope profile
• Rep, pore Reynolds number
• KCp, pore Keulegan–Carpenter number.
Based on the theoretical background as well as numerical and phys-
ical experimental works, the 2D hydraulic performance of different non-
36 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52
overtopped breakwater types (Y) can be expressed by the following
function:
 
Aeq HI
Y ¼ f Dk; 2 ; breakwater typology;
L L
where Y characterizes the wave regime resulting from the interaction of
the breakwater and the incoming wave train. Y is described by the mod-
ulus of the reflection coefficient (KR), the modulus of the transmission
coefficient (KT), the phase of the reflection coefficient (ϕR), the phase
of the transmission coefficient (ϕT), and the wave energy dissipation
(D*). D* can be calculated by means of the energy conservation equation
(D* = 1 − KR2 − KT2) (see Section 3).
The relative grain diameter, Dk, controls the flow regime inside the
porous medium, whereas k is the wave number, k = 2π/L. A general de-
scription of the flow regimes in a porous medium is given in Burcharth
and Andersen (1995).
The ratio B/L is a scattering parameter that controls 1D wave propa-
gation in the porous medium (Dalrymple et al., 1991; Losada et al.,
1993a; Pérez-Romero et al., 2009; Clavero et al., 2012, among others).
However, for breakwaters consisting of different parts and units
(some of which are composed of granular material), it is more conve-
nient to define a 2D scattering parameter, Aeq/L2, where Aeq is the area
per unit section under the mean water level. This choice is coherent
with the application domain of linear theory, which extends from the
sea bottom to the still water level. The scattering parameter is related
to the averaged transformation of the wave inside the porous section
of the structure. For a vertical porous breakwater (Type A), Aeq is simply
B · h, and for a constant depth, the scattering parameter is reduced to
B/L, which is the relative breakwater width.
Breakwater typology includes the non-dimensional parameters that
describe the breakwater geometry and includes, hb/h, FM/h, Bb/h, Sp,
and St. Most of the analyzed breakwater types are non-overtopped
structures, and the slope profile was kept constant. In the case of sloping
breakwaters, the Iribarren number (Battjes, 1974; Iribarren, 1938;
Losada and Gimenez-Curto, 1981) is generally acknowledged to be an
effective parameter that can be used to control the type of wave break-
ing against the breakwater slope. Wave breaking can vary by modifying
the wave steepness and maintaining the breakwater slope angle, by
modifying the slope angle and maintaining the wave steepness, or by
modifying both slope angle and wave steepness. This study applied
the first option and the slope angle remained constant (cotαT = 1.5).
The hydraulic performance of the different breakwater types can
be described in terms of the non-dimensional parameters given in
Table 1.
2.1. Experimental setup
Based on the parameter list, an experimental setup was designed to
test different breakwater typologies. Most of the experiments were per-
formed in the wave flume at the CEAMA — University of Granada
(23 × 0.65 × 1 m), though other labs such as CITEEC (33.8 × 0.58 ×
0.80 m) (Benedicto, 2004; Benedicto and Losada, 2002) contributed
data for some of the tests. The experiments were performed during a
Table 1
Parameter list for different breakwater typologies.
Typology Parameters
Type A PVB Aeq/L2, Dk, HI/L
Type B CB Aeq/L2, Dk, hb/h, HI/L
Type C and LMB Aeq/L2, Dk, hb/h, Bb/h, FM/h, HI/L
Type D HMB
HMCB
RMB-CW
Type E RMB Aeq/L2, Dk, HI/L, Sp, St
time period of over ten years with a total of 1575 experiments. The
data for the B and E typologies were taken from Clavero et al. (2012)
and Benedicto (2004) respectively. To widen the intervals of the param-
eter list, additional specific tests were carried out for A, C, and D
ð1Þ
typologies.
Table 2 includes the variation intervals of the experimental parame-
ters: (a) geometry of the breakwater as well as its parts and elements;
(b) porous medium; and (c) incident wave action and sea level. In this
work, L and k are the wave length and wave number, respectively,
which are associated with the mean period (Tz). Furthermore, the theo-
retical spectral wave parameters are included, where Tp is the peak pe-
riod; HIs is the significant incident wave height; and sp is the wave
steepness calculated as sp = 2πHIs/gTp2 and s0p = 2πHIs/gT2m − 1.0. For
single-peak spectra, it is approximately Tm − 1.0 = Tp/1.1 (Goda, 1985).
The caisson used in the experiments had a rectangular parallelepi-
ped shape, and its width was equal to that of its porous base.
The granular materials for Types A, B, C and D were classified accord-
ing to CIRIA/CUR/CETMEF (2007). Their characteristics are shown in
Table 3. A Fourier asperity roughness parameter (Kf) was assigned to
each material depending on the axial dimensions of the number of
single units. Finally, based on Kf, the average stone mass (m) and dry
density (ρ0), the characteristic diameter, D, was calculated with the fol-
lowing equation: D = Kf · (m/gρ0)1/3. For a more detailed description,
see Scarcella et al. (2006) and Pérez-Romero et al. (2009).
For Type E, two breakwater sections were tested. The first breakwa-
ter was composed solely of a core (core). The second was built with the
same core material but was protected by a main layer of armor stones
(core + armor layer). The core material was fine gravel with a median
size, D50 = 6.95 mm, and porosity n = 0.42. The relation D85/D15 was
1.60 and the density was ρ0 = 2.7 tn/m3. The armor units were angular
stones with nominal diameter, Dn = 2.95 cm, and the armor layer
consisted of two layers of units. The porosity of the armor layer was
ns = 0.48.
The stability of the breakwater elements was not the focus of this re-
search. Therefore, when necessary, the stability of the armor stones in
all of the breakwater types was assured by means of a fine wire mesh,
which did not modify their hydrodynamic behavior.
The flow regime in the cases analyzed was evaluated by using the di-
agram proposed in Gu and Wang (1991) and subsequently in Van Gent
(1995). These authors established the relative importance of resistance
forces in the porous medium by means of the Reynolds number, defined
as Rep = U · D/(n · ν), and the Keulegan–Carpenter number, KCp =
U · T/(n · D), where U is the volume-averaged ensemble-averaged ve-
locity over the control volume (the breakwater section); n is the poros-
ity; and ν is the kinematic viscosity. The seepage velocity, U, was
calculated as U ~ nHgT/2L following the methodology proposed by
Pérez-Romero et al. (2009), where H is the average of the mean square
wave height at the entry and exit of the porous medium; T is the mean
period; and L is a characteristic wavelength.
Fig. 2 shows the results. In all cases, Rep/KCp was larger than 10. Thus,
it was not strictly necessary to include Rep, KCp in the parameter list.
Moreover, an in-depth analysis of the influence of Dk on the hydraulic
behavior of a breakwater can be found in Pérez-Romero et al. (2009).
Tests were performed in which irregular waves were generated with
the wave absorption system (AWACS®) activated. They then impinged
perpendicularly onto the breakwater. These irregular waves were gen-
erated with a Jonswap type spectrum, and a peak enhancement factor
of 3.3. Water depth was kept constant and equal to 0.4 m except in
the case of Type E in which it was 0.5. The experiments were for non-
overtopping conditions. Waves only broke when the wave train impact-
ed against the breakwater wall or when they broke on the berm or slope
because of the change in depth. In no case did depth-limited breaking
occur, and so the waves did not break before reaching the breakwater.
Ten resistance wave gauges (S1 to S10) were located along the flume
and used to measure free surface elevations with a sampling frequency
of 20 Hz. The distances between the gauges are shown in Fig. 3. The
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 37

Table 2
Range of variables in experimental tests.

Typology Breakwater geometry Porous medium Incident wave and sea level
characteristics

Aeq/L2 hb/h FM/h Bb/h cotαT Dk ns HIrms/L h/L Tp (s) HIs (m) sp s0p

A PVB 0.056–0.200 – – – – 0.01–0.43 – 0.011–0.048 0.10–0.37 1.05–3.00 0.04–0.08 0.0028–0.0465 0.0034–0.0563

B CB 5.05 × 10−4–0.36 0.25 – – – 0.01–0.53 – 0.003–0.05 0.07–0.39 1.05–3.00 0.04–0.08 0.0028–0.0465 0.0034–0.0563
Clavero et 0.50
al. (2012) 1.00
C LMB, HMB 0.008–0.26 0.50 0.50 0.250 1.5 0.02–0.28 – 0.005–0.04 0.09–0.36 1.05–2.50 0.04–0.06 0.0041–0.0349 0.0050–0.0422
and HMCB 0.75 0.625
1.00
D RMB-CW 0.018–0.330 0.50 1.25 0.250 1.5 0.02–0.27 – 0.005–0.03 0.09–0.36 1.05–2.50 0.04–0.06 0.0041–0.0349 0.0050–0.0422
1.50 0.625
E RMB 0.040–0.300 – 1.36 0.48 1.5 0.004–0.009 – 0.0052–0.026 0.12–0.30 1.40–2.7 0.12–0.20 0.0106–0.0654 0.0128–0.0792
Benedicto 1.60 0.202 0.48
(2004)

positions of gauges S1, S2, S3, and S8 were the same for all the typolo-
gies. Gauges S9 and S10 were used only for typologies A and B in
order to remove the reflection from the dissipation ramp. Gauges S4,
S5, and S6 were only applied in the case of typologies C, D, and E because
typologies A and B did not have a protection berm. In regard to typology
E, gauges S6 and S7 were located at the beginning and the end of the
berm, respectively.
Fi, Ei, and Cg,i are phased-averaged quantities and EiCg [KR] and EiCg
[KT] represent the reflected (off the front), and transmitted (leeward)
wave energy flux per unit section perpendicular to the breakwater.
The complex reflection and transmission coefficients (Hughes and
Fowler, 1995) can be defined, similarly to regular waves, as a complex
number with information regarding the amplitude and phase of reflec-
tion and transmission:

3. Analysis of experimental data K R ¼ K R eiϕR ð5Þ

The wave energy balance in a control volume including the break- K T ¼ K T eiϕT ð6Þ
water is a convenient engineering method for describing the interaction
between phase-averaged wave motion and the structure. When linear where KR and KT are the moduli of the reflection and transmission coef-
theory is applied, wave energy is expressed per unit of horizontal sur- ficient, defined as follows:
face and unit time as the most energetic wave frequency of the spec-
trum, and, when the transfer of wave energy to higher harmonics is H Rrms
KR ¼ ð7Þ
considered negligible (Losada et al., 1997b), the wave energy balance HIrms
reads as follows:
H Trms
KT ¼ ð8Þ
F I −F R −F T −D0 ¼0 ð2Þ H Irms

and ϕR and ϕT are the reflection and transmission phase, respectively.

where,
 
  1
F i ¼ EC g i ¼ ρgH2rms C g ð3Þ
8 i

where g is the gravitational acceleration; and Hrms is the root-mean-

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
square wave height, defined as H rms ¼ 8mo (m0 is the zero-order mo-
ment) and i = I (Incident), R (reflected), and T (transmitted). The linear
theory group speed is the following:
  
  1 2kh
Cg ¼ C 1þ ð4Þ
i 2 sinhð2khÞ i

where Ci, ki, and h are the wave celerity, wave number, and water depth,
respectively. (Cg)i approximates 0.5(C)i in deep water and (C)i in shal-
low water (Dean and Dalrymple, 2001).

Table 3
Material characteristics: porosity, Fourier asperity roughness parameter, characteristic di-
ameter, sorting parameter, and dry density.

Material, D (mm) n Kf D50 (mm) D85/D15 ρ0 (tn/m3)

110 0.471 1.03 115 1.21 2.57

52 0.474 1.03 75 1.21 2.57
40 0.473 1.03 45 1.44 2.69
26 0.462 1.02 30 1.54 2.84
12 0.391 1.02 10 1.71 2.83
Fig. 2. Importance of the resistance forces (Gu and Wang, 1991) in the tests performed.
38 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

Fig. 3. Scheme of the wave flume and location of wave gauges.

D* is the rate of wave energy dissipation, produced by the applying Eq. (10), the overall energy dissipation, D*, was calculated for
breakwater, each type of breakwater tested.
Gauge S4, located at the toe of the structure (x = 0), and gauge S7,
D0 located at the seaward side of the superstructure, provided the root-
D ¼ ¼ Da þ Dp : ð9Þ
1 mean-square total wave height (due to the interaction of the incident
ρgC g H 2I;rms
8 and reflected wave trains), Htrms (x = 0) and Hwrms, respectively. In be-
tween, gauges S5 and S6 were used to record the water surface displace-
Here all dissipation is assumed to be the result of wave breaking on ment on the breakwater face. This information was used to compare
the front of the breakwater, including the turbulent flow through the these measurements with the values calculated at those points, based
voids of the armor units, Da⁎, and the shear stresses inside the porous on the data from gauges S1, S2, and S3.
medium, Dp⁎. Eq. (2) can be expressed in terms of KR, KT, and D* as
shown in the energy conservation equation (constant depth): 4. The logistic sigmoid function

K 2R þ K 2T þ D ¼ 1:
KR, KT and ϕR were obtained from the experimental data. The com-
plex reflection coefficient modulus and phase were calculated with
the data measured by gauges S1, S2, and S3. The incident and reflected
wave trains were separated by applying Baquerizo (1995). This method
is based on the three-gauge method in Mansard and Funke (1987), but
it resolves the mathematical inconsistence of minimizing the complex
variable with which it was formulated. This method is based in linear
theory.
When wave energy transmission through the breakwater was sig-
nificant (Types A and B, and KT N 0.5), the transmitted root-mean-
square wave height (HTrms) was calculated by applying the Baquerizo
method to the data obtained from gauges S8, S9, and S10, and by sepa-
rating the reflected energy flow on the ramp. In the rest of the cases,
since HTrms was small and the transmission phase was not relevant, it
was obtained only with gauge S8. The transmission coefficient was com-
puted as the ratio of the incident root-mean square wave height, HIrms,
and the transmitted root-mean-square wave height, HTrms (Eq. (8)). By
ð10Þ Following Churchill and Usagi (1972), if Y(X) is a physical entity de-
scribing a transport phenomenon and Y0(X), Y1(X) are known asymp-
totes to Y(X) for small and large values of the independent variable X,
  γ −1
X
Y ðX Þ ¼ ðY 1 −Y 0 Þ 1 þ þ Y0 XN0 ð11Þ
aX
which describes a uniform transition between the asymptotes with γ, a
blending coefficient, and aX, a parameter of the process inherent to the
sigmoid shape. The Churchill–Usagi method has been successfully
used to describe various transport phenomena in fluid mechanics,
heat transfer, and chemical engineering (Sivanesapillai et al., 2014).
Curve definition requires four parameters: Y0, Y1, aX, and γ. Fig. 4
shows how the variation of these parameters affects the form of the sig-
moid curve.
In this research, the phase-averaged quantities [KR, KT, ϕR, D*] are
physical entities describing a wave energy transport phenomenon. Fol-
lowing Churchill and Usagi (1972), and for a given breakwater type,
these quantities should adapt to a sigmoid shape for a specific

Fig. 4. Sigmoid curve variation based on parameters γ (left panel) and aX (right panel).
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 39

independent variable and other non-dimensional parameters, as given length restrictions, only the results of two types of breakwater are
by Eq. (1) and summarized in Table 1. A logistic sigmoid curve should shown and analyzed in this work: (i) Type C, a mixed breakwater with
fix uniform transitions of Yi, between Yi0 and Yi1, a berm below or at SWL [FM/h ≤ 1.1] (low and high mound breakwaters,
LMB and HMB respectively, and high mound composite breakwater,
" !γi #−1
Aeq =L2 Aeq =L2 N 0 HMCB) and (ii) Type E, rubble mound breakwater (RMB). However, a
Y i ¼ ðY i1 −Y i0 Þ 1 þ þ Y i0 Y i0 b Y i b Y i1 for i ¼ K R and K T
aX;i complete report of this research with the experimental data for the
Y i1 b Y i b Y i0 for i ¼ D and ϕR
rest of typologies can be freely downloaded (Vílchez et al., 2015).
ð12Þ
5.1. Type C: mixed breakwater with a berm below or at SWL [FM/h ≤ 1.1]
where i is the index denoting the modulus of the reflection coefficient
(LMB, HMB and HMCB)
(KR), transmission coefficient (KT), phase of the reflection coefficients
(ϕR), or the wave energy dissipation rate (D*). The selected independent
The construction of a porous submerged berm with width Bb and a
variable is the relative volume of granular material per unit of breakwa-
relative height from the seabed of FM/h ≤ 1.1 (Type C), increases the rel-
ter width, or scattering parameter, X = Aeq/L2. The other two fit param-
ative width of the breakwater and reinforces its dissipation power with
eters of the curve (γi and aX,i) depend on Dk, the type of breakwater, and
respect to the mixed breakwater without a berm. This can eventually
incoming wave train characteristics.
cause the wave to break on the front face of the breakwater and on
For the reflection process, the largest and smallest values of KR (KR1
the berm. The reflection (modulus and phase) and transmission coeffi-
and KR0, respectively) are associated with the maximum and minimum
cients as well as the energy dissipation rate vary, depending on the geo-
values of the reflection coefficient. The value of KR1 defines the breakwa-
metric characteristics of the berm (the experimental berm was
ter response when the reflection process is dominant, and when the
constructed with granular material of the same diameter as that in the
wave energy dissipated, mostly by porous friction, is negligible. It is usu-
foundation), in accordance with Eq. (15):
ally associated with large wave periods (largest wavelength) and the
smallest wave steepness. On the other hand, the smallest value, KR0, de-

termines the reflection coefficient when the energy dissipation rate Y ¼ ½K R ; K T ; ϕR ; D ¼ f Aeq =L2 ; Dk; hb =h; F M =h; Bb =h; H I =L : ð15Þ
tends to be maximal. Generally speaking, it is associated with short
wave periods (shortest wavelength) and the largest wave steepness.
Fig. 5 portrays the variation of Y with the scattering parameter; one
Moreover, under such conditions the dissipation process can dominate
caisson foundation depth, hb/h; two berm widths, Bb/h; three berm
the wave–structure interaction.
heights, FM/h; one range of relative diameter, Dk; and two incident
The wave transmission (KT) for non-overtoppable permeable break-
wave steepness, HIrms/L. To analyze the influence of the relative diame-
waters decreases with X = Aeq/L2. For large Aeq/L2, KT0 ➔ 0, whereas for
ter, Dk, Fig. 6 shows the variation of Y with the scattering parameter for
Aeq/L2 ➔ 0, KT1 must fulfill the energy conservation equation and can be
one berm height, FM/h = 0.75 (HMB), with two berm widths, Bb/h, and
approximated by means of K2T1 ~ 1 − K2R1.
two ranges of the relative diameter, Dk. The variation of ϕR (represented
Depending on the breakwater type and the incoming wave train, the
by the non-dimensional phase, x0/L) with the scattering parameter is
wave energy dissipation could occur due to one or all of the following
shown for both two ranges of Dk in Fig. 5. They reflect the following:
mechanisms: porous friction, wave breaking onto the structure, and tur-
bulence in the main layer. Strictly speaking, the wave energy dissipation
1. For a relative berm height, FM/h = 0.50 (LMB), and with no wave
rate, D*, is the complementary value of the sum of the squares of the two
breaking, the relative berm width (Bb/h), the relative diameter of its
sigmoid curves. Its performance can also be represented by a sigmoid
granular material (Dk), and the relative height of the superstructure
curve, as explained in the following sections.
foundation (hb/h) determine the dissipation rate, mostly by friction,
Based on the experimental data, the least squares method can be ap-
and the variation of the reflection and transmission coefficients as
plied to obtain the four fit parameters (Y0i, Y1i, γi, aX,i) of the sigmoid
X = Aeq/L2 increases. It should be highlighted that for Aeq/L2 N 0.05
curve for the phase-averaged quantities [KR, KT, ϕR, D*] for each break-
the variation of the reflection and transmission coefficient modulus,
water typology. The error in the experimental data, yo, and theoretical
and energy dissipation rate is negligible. Thus, from an engineering
data, ye, (o = observed, e = estimated) is calculated by means of the co-
point of view, KR can be regarded as practically constant with a value
efficient of determination, R2:
resulting from the largest expected steepness of incoming waves.
X
2 2. For a relative berm height, FM/h = 0.75 (HMB), the dissipation rate
yoðiÞ −yeðiÞ increases because few waves break (largest wave steepness). This
2
R ¼ 1− X
2 : ð13Þ
causes a decrease in the modulus of the reflection coefficient. How-
yoðiÞ −yo
ever, the dissipation rate is mostly due to friction, and the widest
berm is more dissipative than the shortest one. In this case, the mod-
In the case of breakwater types with reflection coefficients that ex- ulus of KR decreases more rapidly (the dissipation rate increases).
perience little variation and whose value is practically constant in re- Again, for Aeq/L2 N 0.05, KR can be considered constant although its
gard to the main variable, the quantification of the error is based on value is lower than the corresponding non-wave-breaking value
the following mean quadratic error, ε: (FM/h = 0.50). The relative berm geometry, height and width, and
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi the relative diameter control the value of Yi0 and the other parame-
u
2
u ters of the sigmoid curve. It can be seen (Fig. 6) that the modulus of
u yoðiÞ −yeðiÞ
ε¼ t : ð14Þ KT increases with Dk whereas the modulus of the reflection coeffi-
y2oðiÞ cient decreases slightly.
3. For relative berm height FM/h = 1.0 (HMCB), almost all the waves
break onto the slope or the berm, which enhances the wave energy
5. Hydraulic performance of different breakwater types dissipation rate by breaking and turbulence. As Aeq/L2 grows, there
is a rapid decrease in the modulus of the reflection coefficient
This section presents the fitted curve for the modulus and phase of (and a corresponding increase in the energy dissipation rate). For
the reflection and transmission coefficients as well as the energy dissi- Aeq/L2 N 0.15, KR can be considered constant, but its value is much
pation rate obtained from the experimental data pertaining to irregular lower than the corresponding non-wave-breaking value (FM/h =
wave action for non-overtoppable breakwaters (Fig. 1). Because of 0.50) and strongly depends on the relative berm width. Thus, the
40 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

Fig. 5. Type C (LMB, HMB and HMCB). KR, KT, D* and x0/L as compared to the scattering parameter, Aeq/L2, depending on Bb/h and FM/h, for Dk b 0.06 and hb/h = 0.50. Experimental data and
best-fitted curves.

relative berm width controls the value of Yi0 and the shape of the sig-
moid curve. Once again, this behavior is weakly dependent on wave
steepness. It can be assumed that an HMCB breakwater, con FM/h =
1.0 and Bb/h N 0.625, is totally dissipative for Aeq/L2 N 0.123, indepen-
dently of wave steepness and with negligible wave reflection and
transmission.
4. The general behavior of the non-dimensional phase, x0/L = ϕR/4π, in
regard to Aeq/L2 is approximately the same as that of breakwaters
with no berm, and follow the same pattern as the modulus. However,
the height of the berm and, to a lesser extent, its width, regardless of
wave breaking, tempers the increase of the phase with the scattering
parameter. Accordingly, x0/L is the non-dimensional distance be-
tween the toe of the breakwater and a reflection point within,
which produces the same characteristics as the reflected wave
train. Following Sutherland and O'Donoghue (1998), the points in
the figure are the experimental values that have been obtained by
adding multiples of 2π to the phase though without modifying the
results obtained because of the cyclical nature of the phase.
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 41

Fig. 6. Type C (HMB). KR, KT and D* as compared to the scattering parameter, Aeq/L2, depending on Bb/h, Dk and hb/h = 0.50. Experimental data and best-fitted curves.

Tables 4 and 5 give the best fit value of the sigmoid curve parameter crown wall, the modulus and phase of the reflection and transmission
in terms of the relative berm width (Bb/h), relative berm height (FM/h) coefficients, as well as the energy dissipation rate, are determined
and the relative diameter (Dk). Table 6 shows the goodness of fit. with Eq. (16) (see Fig. 7),

5.2. Type E: undefined slope breakwater without crown wall Y ¼ ½K R ; K T ; ϕR ; D ¼ f Aeq =L2 ; Dk; H I =L; Sp ; St : ð16Þ
(RMB, plane slope)

The tilt of the front face of the breakwater may eventually cause the Fig. 7 shows the variation of Y with the scattering parameter; a sea-
wave to break onto the structure, thus increasing the wave energy dis- ward slope, St, a slope angle, cotαT, and two intervals of incident wave
sipation rate. For an undefined plane–slope breakwater without a steepness, HIrms/L. Results of two breakwaters are shown: one built

Table 4
Sigmoid curve parameters for obtaining KR and KT. Type C (LMB, HMB and HMCB).

Coefficients

Parameter Expression Bb/h = 0.625 Bb/h = 0.250

Dk b 0.06 Dk ≥ 0.06 Dk b 0.06 Dk ≥ 0.06

KR γR γR ¼ a1R ð F M =hÞ
a2R
þ a3R a1R = 1.512 a1R = 1.767 a1R = 1.495 a1R = 1.567
a2R = 1.820 a2R = 5.777 a2R = 4.150 a2R = 6.941
a3R = 0 a3R = 0 a3R = 0 a3R = 0
aX,R aX;R ¼ b1R ð F M =hÞ
b2R
þ b3R b1R = 0.023 b1R = 0.021 b1R = 0.026 b1R = 0.028
b2R = 3.621 b2R = 15.484 b2R = 1.866 b2R = 14.524
b3R = 0 b3R = 0 b3R = 0 b3R = 0
KR0 K R0 ¼ c1R ð F M =hÞ
c2R
þ c3R c1R = −0.738 c1R = −0.620 c1R = −0.530 c1R = −0.516
c2R = 5.360 c2R = 4.247 c2R = 6.808 c2R = 6.704
c3R = 0.768 c3R = 0.783 c3R = 0.775 c3R = 0.775
KR1 – 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
KT γT – 1 1.5 1 1.5
aX,T aX;T ¼ b1T ðF M =hÞ
b2T
þ b3T b1T = 0.0053 b1T = 0.0233 b1T = 0.0061 b1T = 0.0237
b2T = 1 b2T = 1 b2T = 1 b2T = 1
b3T = 0.0038 b3T = 0.0125 b3T = 0.0038 b3T = 0.0118
c2T
KT,0 K T0 ¼ c1T ðF M =hÞ þ c3T c1T = 0.1332 c1T = 0.1334 c1T = 0.1116 c1T = 0.1116
c2T = −0.1637 c2T = −0.1635 c2T = −0.2290 c2T = −0.2290
c3T = −0.1281 c3T = −0.1182 c3T = −0.1036 c3T = −0.0936
KT,1 – 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
42 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

Table 5 regarded as constant. This region is associated with the largest

Sigmoid curve parameters for obtaining x0/L. Type C (LMB, HMB and HMCB). wave steepness and thus waves break on the slope.
Parameter Expression 2. If one or more upper layers are added to the breakwater section,
x0
γϕ 1.75
wave dissipation increases because of the turbulence flow through
L
aX,ϕ aX;ϕ ¼ bϕ1 ð FhM Þ þ bϕ2 bϕ1 ¼ 0:0412 the armor layer. The addition of a main layer causes the final fit
bϕ2 ¼ 0:0090 value of the reflection (KR0) to decrease. Again, for Aeq/L2 N 0.20, KR
(x0/L)0 2.15 can be regarded as constant, but its value is lower for the protected
(x0/L)1 0
slope with an armor layer than for the slope built only with the
core. Correspondingly, the rate of energy dissipation is also constant
but greater for the protected slope. It was found that the experimen-
Table 6 tal values for the interval of the greatest wave steepnesses were
Goodness of fit of the sigmoid curves for obtaining KR, KT and ϕR. Type C (LMB, HMB and slightly lower than those obtained for the smaller wave steepness in-
HMCB).
tervals. Nevertheless, the difference was not sufficiently significant
Bb/h FM/h Dk εR R2K T R2ϕR to be taken into account in the practical application.
3. Since in this study wave transmission in these breakwater types was
0.625 0.50 Dk b 0.06 0.010 0.63 0.91
Dk ≥ 0.06 0.033 0.84 practically negligible, it was not analyzed and the wave energy dissi-
0.75 Dk b 0.06 0.024 0.71 0.90 pation rate was computed by using KT = 0.
Dk ≥ 0.06 0.011 0.93 4. The behavior of the non-dimensional phase follows the same pattern
1.00 Dk b 0.06 0.120 0.78 0.91 as the previous types of breakwater, but depends on the characteris-
Dk ≥ 0.06 0.012 0.92
0.250 0.50 Dk b 0.06 0.020 0.74 0.91
tics of the armor layer, as can be observed in Fig. 7. The presence of
Dk ≥ 0.06 0.030 0.87 the main layer modifies the phase for Aeq/L2 N 0.05, by changing its
0.75 Dk b 0.06 0.007 0.90 0.90 rate of variation as the scattering parameter grows, at least until
Dk ≥ 0.06 0.009 0.71 Aeq/L2 b 0.4. Larger values of this parameter are usually associated
1.00 Dk b 0.06 0.060 0.92 0.91
with larger relative breakwater widths. Moreover, dissipation by fric-
Dk ≥ 0.06 0.070 0.87
tion also increases.

only with the core, and the other one with the same core material but
protected with a main layer of armor stones. They reflect the following:
1. For the undefined sloping breakwater only composed of the core, the
modulus of the reflection coefficients decrease with the scattering
parameter, Aeq/L2, and for values larger than 0.20, KR and D* can be
5.2.1. Effect of main layer units and porosities in the hydraulic performance
For the sake of completeness, this study analyzed the performance of
non-overtoppable breakwaters with an armor layer composed of differ-
ent units and placement density. Two data sources were analyzed:
(i) dolosse breakwater (Ruíz et al., 2013) with ns = 0.49 and (ii) cube
and cubipod breakwaters (Medina and Gómez-Martín, 2007) with
ns = 0.37 and 0.40, respectively. Fig. 8 shows these experimental data

Fig. 7. Type E (RMB with core and core + armor layer). KR, D* and x0/L as compared to the scattering parameter, Aeq/L2, and section type: core (quarry run) and core + armor layer (core
protected with material of a uniform grain-size distribution). Experimental data and best-fitted curves.
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 43

Fig. 8. Type E (RMB). KR and D* as compared to the scattering parameter, Aeq/L2, and the type of armor unit with the following parameters: core (Benedicto, 2004); S = cubes and S =
cubipods (Medina and Gómez-Martín, 2007); and S = armor stones (Benedicto, 2004); S = Dolosse (Ruíz et al., 2013). Experimental data and best-fitted curves, depending on the porosity
of the armor layer.

and the best-fitted curves (modulus of the reflection coefficient and
wave energy dissipation rate), along with those of the section composed
only of a core (Core) or of a core and a rubble layer (Core + armor layer)
with armor stones (see Fig. 7). As can be observed, increasing the poros-
ity of the main layer caused the final fit value of KR (KR0) to decrease.
Although some of these data depart from the fitted curve, it is also
true that the data regarding cubes and cubipods include all the results
obtained, namely, those for plane slopes as well as those for fault (or
non-planar) slopes.
Moreover, Tables 7 and 8 give the best fit value of the sigmoid curve
parameters for Type E (RMB) in terms of the presence of the main layer
and its porosity (or type of armor unit). Table 9 shows the determina-
(2006) showed that the modulus of the reflection coefficient roughly
depends on the Iribarren number, Ir, and type of armor unit. All the for-
mulas predict a larger reflection coefficient for the largest Iribarren
number. Moreover, the deviation between the predicted and measured
values also increases with Ir. Fig. 9 shows a comparison of the measured
and predicted values of KR for an RMB with different armor units. Data
with an Iribarren number greater than 4 were considered. Eqs. (17)
and (18) show the formulae given by Zanuttigh and van der Meer
(2008) and Seelig and Ahrens (1981) respectively. Data with a wave
steepness (s0p) value of s0p ≥ 0.01 were selected because Zanuttigh
and van der Meer's formula is restricted to this condition.

tion coefficient of the modulus of the reflection coefficients and of the b

K R ¼ tanh a  ξ0 ð17Þ
phase of the reflection (when this value is available).
These results confirm that for armored non-overtoppable slope
2
breakwaters, the reflection coefficient (modulus and phase) and the a1  ξ0
KR ¼ ð18Þ
wave energy dissipation rate (by wave breaking, turbulence, and porous 2
ξ0 þ b1
friction) are accurately represented by a sigmoidal function with a prin-
cipal variable, the 2D scattering parameter. Moreover the sigmoid curve
parameters mainly depend on the porosity and placement density of ξ0 is the breaker parameter (Iribarren number) based on the spectral
the armor unit, and weakly depend on the incident wave steepness. wave period at the breakwater toe. The values of the coefficients are
the following: (1) for permeable rock, a = 0.12, b = 0.87, a1 = 0.49
and b1 = 5.456 and (2) for permeable rock with armor units, a =
5.3. Comparison with other formulas
0.105, b = 0.87, a1 = 0.49 and b1 = 5.456. The data used for the
It is not a simple task to compare the results of this study with those
obtained by other researchers. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the
phase of the reflection coefficients is rarely provided in the results of Table 8
such work. Secondly, some research studies do not show the complete Sigmoid curve parameters for obtaining x0/L. Type E (RMB).
breakwater section, which hinders the calculation of the 2D scattering
Parameter Core Core + armor layer
parameter, Aeq/L2, and blocks the application of the wave energy conser-
vation equation. For undefined sloped breakwaters (non-overtopped),
x0
L
γϕ 3.25 3.25
aX,ϕ 0.096 0.129
Losada and Gimenez-Curto (1979) and Zanuttigh and van der Meer
(x0/L)0 2.15 2.15
(x0/L)1 0 0

Table 7
Sigmoid curve parameters for obtaining KR depending on the presence of main layer and
their porosity. Type E (RMB).
Table 9
Coefficients Goodness of fit of the sigmoid curves for obtaining KR and x0/L. Type E (RMB).
Core Core + armor layer Layer R2ϕ
Parameter R2K R
Dk b 0.06 ns = 0.37 ns = 0.40 ns = 0.48 ns = 0.49
Core 0.96 0.99
(Cubes) (Cubipods) (Armor stones) (Dolosse) a
Core + armor layer n = 0.37 0.90
KR γR 1.80 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 n = 0.40 0.90 a

aX,R 0.04 aX,R = 0.056 ⋅ ns + 0.023 n = 0.48 0.96 0.95

KR0 0.35 KR0 = −0.40 ⋅ ns + 0.39 n = 0.49 0.93 a

KR1 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.75 a

The phase value is not available.
44 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52
Fig. 9. Comparison of KR obtained with the sigmoid function (SF) and the formulas of
Zanuttigh and van der Meer (Z&M) and Seelig and Ahrens (S&A). Typology E (RMB) com-
posed of: 1) core and 2) core + armor units.
comparison are included in Appendix A (Table 19). As can be observed,
with the exception of the sigmoid curve, none of the formulas matches
the experimental values. In fact, they predict an almost constant value.
6. Application of the hydraulic performance curves
The application of the logistic sigmoid curve considerably simplifies
the characterization of breakwater hydraulic performance in response
to wave action. It permits the cost-effective exploration of the entire
Fig. 10. Methodological sequence for applying the curves to obtain coefficients, KR, ϕR, KT, and D*.
parametric list in a very short time. It also makes it possible to do
the following: (i) analyze the sensitivity of the breakwater type
to different agents, materials, and geometries and (ii) determine its
viability.
This section describes the methodology for obtaining the reflection
coefficients (modulus and phase), transmission, and dissipation curves,
based on the hydraulic performance curves obtained in this research.
For this purpose, a practical example is presented, which explains how
performance curves can be used to verify certain project requirements
or conditioning factors related to the oscillatory regime because of
wave–breakwater interaction for non-overtoppable or occasionally
overtoppable maritime structures.
6.1. Sequence of application
The general application sequence involves doing the following
(Fig. 10):
1. Selecting the pair of values representative of the design requirements
from the joint probability distribution of (HIrms,Tz) at the breakwater
location, and choosing the most probable values of the smallest and
largest incident wave steepness.
2. Designing a preliminary section of the chosen breakwater type, cal-
culating the equivalent area, Aeq, the corresponding values of scatter-
ing parameter, Aeq/L2, and subsequently selecting the non-
dimensional parameter specific to the breakwater type and to the
wave action of the parameter list.
3. Selecting the sigmoid curve parameters for the reflection coefficient
(KR1, KR0, γR, aX,R), non-dimensional phase ((x0/L)1, (x0/L)0, γϕ, aX,ϕ),
and transmission coefficient (KT1, KT0, γT, aX,T), and then calculating
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 45

Table 10
Values of the non-dimensional parameter.

Sea state h/L HIrms/L Aeq/L2 hb/h FM/h Bb/h Dk

HIrms, Tzmin 0.233 0.044 0.059 0.50 0.50 0.625 0.027

HIrms, Tzmax 0.115 0.022 0.015 0.50 0.50 0.625 0.014

Fig. 11. Geometric dimensions.
the evolution of their values, depending on Aeq/L2, and other non-
dimensional parameters.
4. Calculating the most probable values of the smallest and largest
total (incident plus reflected) wave steepness values, [(Aeq/L2)min,
(Htrms/L)min], [(Aeq/L2)max, (Htrms/L)max], at the toe of the breakwater.
5. Verifying wave breaking at the front of the breakwater, on the berm,
or on the slope, by applying an appropriate breaking criterion, and
adjusting, if necessary, the largest total wave steepness values and
the sigmoid curve parameters.
6. Verifying that the breakwater is impervious to overtopping (limit
freeboard).
7. Calculating the transmitted waves based on the expressions of KT,
using Eq. (12).
8. Calculating the dissipation rate of the waves and the variation of
other state variables, for example, the root mean square velocity, or
pressure, in any location at the front of the breakwater.
6.2. Example of application to a non-overtoppable low-mound breakwater
(Type C, LMB)
In this section, the sigmoid curve is used to determine the wave
transformation of the incident wave train resulting from the interaction
with a given (preliminary) breakwater design,
Step 1 Selecting the pair of values representative of the design
requirements from the joint probability distribution of
(HIrms,Tz) at the breakwater location. The following sea
states impinging on the breakwater were selected:
• State 1: HIrms = 3 m; Tzmin = 7 s; normal incidence
• State 2: HIrms = 3 m; Tzmax = 12 s; normal incidence.
Step 2 Preliminary breakwater design, scattering parameter,
and other non-dimensional parameters. An LMB is
planned at a depth of h = 16 m, with the following geo-
metric dimensions (preliminary design) (see Fig. 11):
hb = 8 m; B = 19 m; FM = 8 m; Bb = 10 m; Fc = 3 m;
cotαT = 1.5; D = 0.30 m.
The equivalent area, Aeq (red-colored section in Fig. 11),
which corresponds to the area of porous material
below the still water level, is calculated as follows:
 
F MT
Aeq ¼ B  hb þ Bb þ  cotα T  F MT ¼ 280 m2 : ð19Þ
2 Step 7 Calculation of transmission coefficient with Eq. (12) and
Table 10 shows the scattering parameter and other non-
dimensional parameters (Aeq/L2, hb/h, FM/h, Bb/h, Dk) for
the two sea states, namely, the probable maximum peri-
od, Tz (Tzmax), and probable minimum period, Tz (Tzmin),
their wavelengths, and the respective steepness of the
Steps 4 and 5 Largest wave steepness and breaking criterion at the front
of the breakwater and on the berm. The values of Htrms are
obtained by using the reflection coefficient and phase for
each sea state as calculated with the following equation
(Losada et al., 1997a):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Htrms ðxÞ ¼ HIrms  1 þ K 2R þ 2K R cosð2kx þ ϕR Þ: ð20Þ
In this work, the maximum wave steepness at the front of
the breakwater is estimated by applying the following
breaking criterion for partial standing wave trains
(ROM, 1.0-09, 2009),
ðHtrms =LÞcr ≤ ½ar þ br  fð1−K R Þ=ð1 þ K R Þg  tanhðkhÞ ð21Þ
where ar = 0.08 and br = 0.03. Since the critical wave
steepness value is never exceeded, there are no breaking
waves at the front of the breakwater (Table 13).
By following the same procedure, wave breaking on the
berm is verified. However, it is necessary to previously
calculate the wavelength on the berm. Here the method
in Losada et al. (1997b) based on the effective depth of
the wave train is used. Values for n = 0.40, s = 1 and
f = 3.17 and 6.29 are chosen for sea states 1 and 2, respec-
tively (s is the inertial coefficient and f is the linear friction
coefficient [Sollitt and Cross, 1972]). The results are given
in Table 14.
It is plausible that the sea state with the minimum period
causes waves to break on the berm. In regard to the LMB,
breaking waves do not significantly modify the reflection
coefficient. Nonetheless, this calculation can help to
predict if the breaker can reach the caisson and produce
impulsive loads.
Step 6 Verification of wave overtopping. In this work, to verify
that the design breakwater is not overtopped by
the waves, the following criterion is applied: the
freeboard of the breakwater should be larger than the
root-mean-square vertical total displacement of the free
surface ηtrms on the wall affected by a coefficient
λ (Fc − ληtrms N 0) (Clavero, 2007). The value of ηtrms is
calculated with Eq. (20) as Htrms/2. The fact that the
wall is located at x = −(Bb + FM · cotαT) from the toe
of the breakwater is also taken into account. A value of
λ = 2 is used to ascertain whether overtopping occurs
in the two sea states. The results are given in Table 15.
Table 11
Sigmoid curve parameters KR, ϕR and KT.

incident wave train. Variable Sigmoid parameter

Step 3 Sigmoid curve parameters for the reflection coefficient, KR γR aX,R KR0 KR1
modulus and phase, and transmission coefficient (see 0.4282 0.0019 0.75 0.95
Tables 4 and 5). The sigmoid curve parameters are x0/L γϕ aX,ϕ ðxL0 Þ0 ðxL0 Þ1
shown in Table 11. 1.75 0.0296 2.15 0
The values of KR and ϕR are determined for the two sea KT γT aX,T KT0 KT1
1 0.0065 0.0211 0.30
states with Eq. (12) (Table 12).
46 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

Table 12 Table 15
Values obtained for KR and ϕR of the base curve. Analysis of the presence of overtopping.

Sea state KR ϕR Sea state ηtrms Fc − ληtrms Fc − ληtrms N 0

HIrms, Tzmin 0.787 20.84 HIrms, Tzmax 1.354 0.291 Yes ➔ non-overtopping
HIrms, Tzmax 0.809 6.00 HIrms, Tzmin 1.115 0.771 Yes ➔ non-overtopping

parameters selected in step 3 (Table 16). Table 16

Step 8 Calculation of wave energy dissipation. D* is calculated Sigmoid curve parameters of KT.
with the energy conservation equation (Eq. (10)). The Sea states KT
results are shown in Table 17.
HIrms, Tzmax 0.0485
HIrms, Tzmin 0.1071

6.3. Reflection coefficient modulus of various breakwaters in Spain

Fig. 12 shows the type and location of various breakwaters along the
Spanish coastline defined in Table 18. Their geometric and wave charac-
teristics were obtained from the Atlas de Diques Españoles (Puertos del
Estado, 2012). The four parameters needed to define the curves, Y0, Y1,
aX, and γ, were taken from the sigmoid curves proposed in this work.
Fig. 13 shows the breakwaters and the sigmoid curves for each of the
breakwater types analyzed. After the curve values obtained were
assigned to the reflection coefficients, it was found that the range of
the scattering parameter covered most of the values characteristic of
real breakwaters.
For the set of breakwaters analyzed, the scattering parameter
showed a wide range of variation, {0.005 b Aeq/L2 b 0.4}. The two
upper graphs correspond to the design wave period, Td (safety limit
states). The two lower graphs were calculated with half that period
and are representative of operational limit states. As can be observed,
for design conditions, sloping breakwaters (Type E, RMB) could pre-
sumably reflect more than 40% of the incident root-mean-square
wave height, whereas in normal operational conditions, reflection
would lessen to 20–30% of the root-mean-square wave height. Low
and high berm breakwaters with a superstructure (LMB and HMB,
Type C) would reflect more than 70% of the root-mean-square wave
height for design (safety) conditions and operationality.
6.4. Variation of Htrms at the front of the different breakwater types:
importance of the phase value
The application of the results of this study can be used to determine
the variation of the root mean square total wave height (incident and
reflected waves) in front of the breakwater, depending on its typology.
For that purpose, knowledge of the phase value is essential. Two inci-
dent sea states are considered. One state is associated with breakwater
safety, ultimate limit state: Tz,s = 14 s, and HIrms,s = 4 m. In contrast, the
Table 13
Analysis of the presence of wave breaking at the front of the breakwater.
Sea state Htrms/L (Htrms/L)cr Htrms/L N (Htrms/L)cr
HIrms, Tzmin 0.043 0.075 No ➔ no breaking waves
HIrms, Tzmax 0.039 0.052 No ➔ no breaking waves
less energetic state is associated with operational conditions and opera-
tional limit state: Tz,o = 7 s, and HIrms,o = 1 m.
In both cases, the water depth is h = 15 m and the seabed slope is
almost horizontal. The root-mean-square total wave height is calculated
at two locations in front of the breakwater: (x = 0), toe of the breakwa-
ter; and (x = −20 m), a distance of 20 m of the breakwater toe for each
of the breakwater types. All breakwater types have the same stone di-
ameter D = 1 m. The freeboard is such that the possibility of
overtopping the breakwater is negligible.
As shown in Fig. 14, the breakwater types are represented on the
x-axis, whereas the incident and reflected root mean square wave
heights at the front of the breakwater are represented on the y-axis.
For the sea state with the shortest period, Tz,o = 7 s, and the two loca-
tions, the root mean square wave height is slightly higher than that of
the impinging waves, except in the case of the rubble mound breakwa-
ter (Type E).
For the most energetic sea state with the longest period, Tz,s = 14 s,
the root mean square wave height at the front of the breakwater at x =
0 decreases to approximately half the HIrms in the case of the Types C and
D. However, for Types B and E, there is an increase in the root mean
square wave height of roughly 50%. The value of Htrms changes signifi-
cantly at the other locations (x = −20 m), except in the case of Types
A and B, where the breakwater do not have berm and the position
have not been changed. This result highlights the importance of the
phase value and of its incidence in determining the total oscillation at
the front of the breakwater, especially since it is responsible for actions
on the structure, such as its overtopping behavior.
7. Discussion
This research was based on many other studies that were carried out
with the same methodology. For this purpose, the breakwater section
was placed in the same location at a distance from the boundaries.
The different breakwater types were all made of the same material;
the vertical displacement of the free water surface was measured at
the same points of the wave flume; and the same separation method
was applied to analyze the data. This unity of criteria allowed us to cal-
culate the complex reflection and transmission coefficients, based on si-
multaneous measurements, which were used to obtain the energy
dissipation rate due to wave–structure interaction. Although other re-
searchers have performed similar experiments, to the authors' knowl-
edge, this is the first time that this methodology has been applied to

Table 14 Table 17
Analysis of the presence of wave breaking on the berm. Value of D*.

Sea state kr hef Htrms/L (Htrms/L)cr Htrms/L N (Htrms/L)cr Sea state D*

HIrms, Tzmax 0.112 8.323 0.0530 0.061 No ➔ no breaking waves HIrms, Tzmax 0.3781
HIrms, Tzmin 0.610 8.124 0.0522 0.040 Yes ➔ breaking waves HIrms, Tzmin 0.3344
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 47

Fig. 12. Spanish breakwater location and classifications.

such a wide range of common breakwater types. Because of space con-
straints, the methodology was not applied to other typologies such as
the S-shaped breakwater (Clavero, 2007). For the same reason, only
the results for some of breakwater types are shown. The complete list
of values of the sigmoid curve parameter of each breakwater type can
be downloaded from Vílchez et al. (2015).
Despite the large number of experimental tests and the wide range
of breakwater types covered, this work is not the end of the journey,
but rather the beginning since it opens new avenues of research. Evi-
dently, the results of our study also have limitations stemming from
the theoretical background applied to analyze the results, the perpen-
dicular wave incidence, and the experimental setup. Some of these lim-
itations are succinctly addressed in what follows.
All of the breakwater experiments were performed with the same
slope gradient, cotαT = 1.5. It is well known that the reflection coeffi-
cient is only dependent on Ir when the main wave transformation is
due to wave breaking by plunging and spilling, generally speaking,
when Ir b 1.5. Indeed, it can be assumed that in this range, the modulus
of the reflection coefficient linearly increases with Ir (Losada, 1990). For
larger values of Ir, wave reflection becomes the dominant process of
wave transformation. As shown in this research, under such conditions,
other parameters play a major role in controlling wave–structure inter-
action. When Ir b 1.5 and breakwater slope 1.5 b cotαT b 2.0, the incident
wave steepness HI/L0 ≤ (tan(αT)/Ir)2 is physically limited by generation
or by wave instability. As reflected in the results of previous work, for
large values of Aeq/L2, when the slope is modified within the previously
mentioned interval, a small variation in the value of KR0 should be ex-
pected. This can be observed in Fig. 15 (taken from Benedicto, 2004)
which shows how the reflection coefficient modulus varies with the
relative depth (for a given breakwater typology and constant depth, it
is equivalent to parameter Aeq/L2) for different types of wave breaking
calculated with the Iribarren number. The experiments were performed
on an RMB (core) breakwater impinged by regular waves. Consequently
for the analysis of the hydraulic performance of a slope breakwater,
the information obtained with the slope cotαT = 1.5 is valid for
milder slopes, possibly up to cotαT b 2.5. It should be highlighted that

Table 18
Spanish breakwater characteristics.

Number id. Breakwater name Typology Harbor Sea Geographic coordinates

1 Punta Langosteira breakwater Low mound breakwater (LMB) A Coruña Atlantic Ocean 43°20′14.3″N 8°29′58.2″W
2 Prioriño breakwater cape Low mound breakwater (LMB) Ferrol Port Atlantic Ocean 43°27′15.9″N 8°19′51.5″W
3 Osa breakwater Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) Gijón Cantabric Sea 43°33′21.3″N 5°40′53.7″W
4 Punta Lucero breakwater Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) Bilbao Cantabric Sea 43°22′14.8″N 3°05′41.4″W
5 Zierbera breakwater high mound breakwater (HMB) Bilbao Cantabric Sea 43°21′31.4″N 3°02′43.9″W
6 North breakwater Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) Barcelona Mediterranean Sea 41°21′58.4″N 2°11′22.5″E
7 West breakwater Low mound breakwater (LMB) Tarragona Mediterranean Sea 41°05′13.7″N 1°12′31.7″E
8 South breakwater Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) Valencia Mediterranean Sea 39°25′25.6″N 0°18′45.0″W
9 Botafoc breakwater Low mound breakwater (LMB) Eivissa Mediterranean Sea 38°54′12.8″N 1°26′55.8″E
10 Botafoc breakwater Low mound breakwater (LMB) Eivissa Mediterranean Sea 38°54′12.8″N 1°26′55.8″E
11 South breakwater Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) Alicante Mediterranean Sea 38°19′16.2″N 0°29′45.2″W
12 East breakwater Low mound breakwater (LMB) Motril Mediterranean Sea 36°42′58.8″N 3°30′54.0″W
13 Exterior breakwater Rubble mound breakwater (RMB) Algeciras Mediterranean Sea 36°07′02.8″N 5°26′07.7″W
14 Reina Sofía breakwater Low mound breakwater (LMB) Las Palmas Atlantic Ocean 28°07′26.6″N 15°24′17.0″W
48 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

Fig. 13. Location of the Spanish breakwaters on the fitted curves for the breakwater types analyzed. Aeq/L2 obtained: a) for the design period, Td (upper graphs) and b) for a time period
equal to 0.5 · Td (lower graphs).

because of costs and construction-related considerations, the majority
of breakwaters designed for harbor protection have steep slopes
1.3 b cotαT b 2.0.
Most of the experiments were performed in a wave flume with a hor-
izontal bed. The flume had a wave generation system that controlled
wave reflection, but not secondary waves. The sea states were generated
with no depth-limited breaking waves and individual waves of low
steepness, H/L b b0.1. In these conditions, the wave trains that impinge
on and are reflected by the breakwater are reasonably sinusoidal and
their interaction is linear. Nevertheless, the description of the sea in this
research is within the framework of linear theory, which uses the concept
of the mean energy per unit horizontal surface area of each component.
The slope of the continental shelf at the front of the breakwater de-
termines the conditions in which incident and reflected wave trains are
propagated. When the slope of the continental shelf is mild, oscillatory
movement at the front of the breakwater is the result of the interaction
of the incident and reflected wave trains. Klopman and van del Meer
(1999) performed experiments in a wave flume with a length of 45 m
and width of 1 m. The reflective structure was located at the end of a
smooth concrete 1:50 slope in a water depth of 0.50 m. Their

Fig. 14. Comparison of the root mean square wave height at the front of the breakwaters for two sea states and two locations: a) x = 0 and b) x = −20, depending on breakwater type.
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52
Fig. 15. Variation of KR with the wave breaking type (Benedicto, 2004).
experiment showed that the changes observed in the wave spectrum
and in the significant wave height near the reflective structure agreed
with the results of linear theory. Therefore, from an engineering per-
spective, the experimental data of this research study can be safely ap-
plied if the seabed slope in front of the breakwater is milder than 1:60
within a distance of one wavelength from the breakwater. For slopes
milder than 1:80, the representativeness of the results should extend
to two or more wavelengths in front of the breakwater.
This research is based on long-crested incident waves impinging
perpendicular to the breakwater. Generally speaking, the influence is
slight in the case of a small wave incidence angle of ± 15°, although
this depends on the type of breakwater and armor layer (Losada and
Gimenez-Curto, 1981). Van Gent (2014) confirmed this result in his
analysis of mound breakwater stability under oblique wave attack.
This limitation cannot be too restrictive because the main alignment
of the breakwater should be oriented parallel to the design wave crests.
In addition, perpendicular incidence provides the highest expected
value of the reflection coefficients. For an incidence angle in the interval
[15° b θ b Brewster angle] which is not for overly oblique waves, it
is well known that the reflection coefficient modulus decreases
(Dalrymple et al., 1991), depending on the porosity of the medium.
When one of the media is dissipative, there is a minimum reflection co-
efficient, KR,θ, which is known as the principal angle of incidence
(Mathieu, 1975). For wave incidence more oblique than the Brewster
angle, the linear reflection process does not hold, and the wave crest
propagates along the breakwater, and diffraction inside the porous
structure takes place (Dalrymple, 1992).
This study was carried out on non-overtoppable breakwaters.
Nevertheless, generally speaking, breakwaters in port installations are
designed so as not to be overtoppable. For this reason, the study of
their interaction with incident waves is a necessity in practical engineer-
ing. Furthermore, it is well known that overtopping should be significant
for it to affect the reflection coefficient (Van der Meer et al., 2005).
The curves proposed can be specified in the initial phase of breakwa-
ter design based on its hydraulic performance. In this way, it is possible
to analyze the sensitivity of the breakwater type to different agents,
materials, and geometries. However to determine its viability, and
estimate investment costs, it is necessary to calculate the structural
response of the different sections and elements of the breakwater in re-
lation to the action resulting from wave–structure interaction (López
et al., 2001). This information makes it possible to design efficient
breakwaters.
8. Conclusions
This work focused on the evaluation of the hydraulic performance
resulting from the interaction of perpendicularly impinging water
waves on various types of non-overtoppable breakwater. An experimental
49
setup in a wave flume was designed to test these breakwater types,
based on a list of non-dimensional parameters that represent the break-
water geometry, construction materials, and the incoming irregular
wave train. This provided smooth performance transitions between
different breakwater types and permitted the discrimination of
the full spectrum of wave oscillatory regimes resulting from wave–
structure interaction for the most common breakwater typologies:
(A) porous vertical breakwater (PVB); (B) composite breakwater
(CB); (C) mixed breakwater with a berm below or at SWL [FM /
h ≤ 1.1] (low and high mound breakwaters, LMB and HMB respec-
tively, and high mound composite breakwater, HMCB); (D) mixed
breakwater with a berm above SWL [F M/h N 1.1] (rubble mound
breakwater with crown walls, RMB-CW); and (E) rubble mound
breakwater, plane slope (RMB). Based on this information, the fol-
lowing conclusions can be derived:
(1) The complex wave reflection and transmission coefficients
as well as the overall dissipation rate caused by the structure
are engineering quantities that can be used to evaluate and
compare the hydraulic performance of common types of non-
overtoppable breakwaters typologies. The data confirm that
the variation of those coefficients (as well as the energy dissipa-
tion rate) depends on the dimensions and properties of the
parts and elements of the breakwater as well as on the wave
characteristics.
(2) In this paper, the logistic sigmoid function (Churchill and Usagi,
1972) has been found to define the domain of the hydraulic per-
formance of the most common breakwaters. It relates the modu-
lus and phase of the reflection coefficients, the modulus of the
transmission coefficients and the overall energy dissipation rate
to the non-dimensional parameters that represent the breakwater
geometry, construction materials, and the incoming irregular
wave train. It provides smooth performance transitions between
different breakwater types and discriminates the full spectrum
of wave oscillatory regimes resulting from wave–structure
interaction.
(3) It is shown that the principal variable of the sigmoid function is a
2D scattering parameter Aeq/L2, where Aeq is the area of a porous
medium under the mean water level and L is the wavelength.
(4) The curve is defined by the following four parameters: Y0, Y1, aX,
and γ. For the reflection process, the largest and smallest values
of KR (KR1 and KR0, respectively) are associated with the maximum
and minimum values of the reflection coefficient. The value of KR1
defines the breakwater response when the reflection process is
dominant. It is usually associated with large wave periods (largest
wavelength) and the smallest wave steepness. On the other hand,
the smallest value, KR0, determines the reflection coefficient when
the energy dissipation rate tends to be large. Generally speaking it
50 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52

is associated with short wave periods (shortest wavelength) and g gravitational acceleration
the largest wave steepness. The value of Aeq/L2 after which KR H water depth
can be considered approximately constant and equal to KR0 de- hb caisson foundation depth
pends on the typology. Parameters aX, and γ depend on the rela- hef effective depth
tive grain size of the porous medium, Dk, and on the non- hb/h relative caisson foundation depth
dimensional parameter that represent the breakwater geometry. h/L relative water depth
(5) For a mixed breakwater with a berm below or at SWL, H wave height
FM/h b =1.1 (Type C), the relative berm geometry, height and HI incident wave height
width, and the relative diameter Dk control the values of the sig- HI/L wave steepness of the incident wave height
moid curve parameters. This behavior is weakly dependent on HR reflected wave height
wave steepness. From a practical perspective, it can be admitted Ht total wave height at the front of the structure
that within Type C, a breakwater with a berm height close to HT transmitted wave height
SWL (HMCB, FM/h ~ 1.0 and Bb/h N 0.625) will be totally dissipative Hw total wave height on the wall of the breakwater
for Aeq/L2 N 0.123, independently of wave steepness and with neg- Ir Iribarren number
ligible wave reflection and transmission. (Ht/L)cr critical wave steepness to determine wave breaking
(6) For non-overtoppable slope breakwaters (Type E), the reflection k wave number
coefficient (modulus and phase) and the wave energy dissipation KCp local Keulegan–Carpenter number of the porous medium
rate (by wave breaking, turbulence, and porous friction) are Kf Fourier asperity roughness parameter
accurately represented by a sigmoid function with the 2D scatter- KR modulus of the reflection coefficient
ing parameter as the main variable. Moreover, the sigmoid curve KR complex reflection coefficient
parameters mainly depend on the porosity and placement densi- KT modulus of the transmission coefficient
ty of the armor unit, and, weakly, on the incident wave steepness. KT complex transmission coefficient
(7) The application of this method to breakwaters along the Spanish L wave length
coast showed that the logistic sigmoid curve, along with the m stone mass
values of the relevant parameters can be used for preliminary m0 zero-order moment
breakwater design. This considerably simplifies the characteriza- n porosity of the central body of the breakwater
tion of the hydraulic performance of the breakwater in response ns porosity of the main layer of the breakwater
to wave action, and permits the cost-effective exploration of an R2 determination coefficient
ample number of alternatives in a very short time. Rep pore Reynolds number for oscillatory flow
s inertial coefficient of the porous medium
List of notations s0 wave steepness related to Tp
a Zanuttigh and van der Meer (2008) formula coefficient s0p wave steepness related to Tm − 1,0
a1 Seelig and Ahrens (1981) formula coefficient Sp type of unit and placement density parameter and number of
a1i, a2i, a3i fit parameters for γi layers parameter
aX,i inflection point of the sigmoid curve (i = KR, KT, ϕR) St slope profile parameter
ar, br coefficients (wave breaking) T wave period
Aeq area per unit section of a porous medium under the mean Td design wave period
water level Tm − 1.0 spectral wave period at the structure toe
Aeq/L2 relative area of the porous medium under the still water level U volume-averaged ensemble-averaged velocity
(2D scattering parameter) x horizontal axes with origin of coordinates at the toe of the
b Zanuttigh and van der Meer (2008) formula coefficient structure
b1 Seelig and Ahrens (1981) formula coefficient x0/L non-dimensional phase
b1i, b2i, b3i fit parameters for aX,i yo experimental data (o = observed)
B structure width ye theoretical data (e = estimated)
Bb berm width (Types A, B, C and D)/mound breakwater corona- Yi0, Yi1 final and initial values of the sigmoid curve (i = KR, KT, ϕR)
tion width (Type E) Yi phase-averaged quantity of wave–breakwater interaction
B/L relative width of the caisson (1D scattering parameter) (i = KR, KT, ϕR)
Bb/h relative berm width αT seaward slope angle
c1i, c2i, c3i fit parameters for Yi0 βT leeward slope angle
Cg linear theory wave group speed γi blending coefficient of the sigmoid curve (i = KR, KT, ϕR)
C wave phase speed ε2 mean relative error
D grain size ξ0 breaker parameter (Iribarren number)
D* wave energy dissipation rate ϕ, ϕR reflection phase
Da* dissipation due to wave breaking including the turbulent flow ϕT transmission phase
through the voids of the armor units η vertical displacement of the free surface
Dp* dissipation due to the shear stresses inside the porous medium λ empiric coefficient (overtopping)
D⁎′ wave energy dissipation rate per unit of time ν kinematic viscosity of the fluid
Dk (D/L) relative grain diameter ρ0 stone density
Ei mean special energy per unit of the horizontal area ρ water density
f friction coefficient of the porous medium
Fc freeboard Subscripts — Wave statistics
Fi wave energy flux (i = I, R, T: incident, reflected, transmitted) max Maximum
FM berm height (Type C)/distance between bottom and break- min Minimum
water coronation (Types D, E) rms Root-mean square
(Fc + h/h) relative height of the breakwater s Significant
FM/h relative berm height z Mean
 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52 51

p Peak Benedicto, M.I., Losada, M.A., 2002. Memoria del Convenio de colaboración entre
Puertos del Estado y varias universidades españolas para estudiar la influencia de la
reflexión en la estabilidad de los diques en talud. Puertos del Estado, Madrid (in
Subscripts — sigmoid function Spanish).
0 final value of the curve Burcharth, H.F., Andersen, O.K., 1995. On the one-dimensional steady and unsteady po-
rous flow equations. Coast. Eng. 24 (3–4), 233–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
1 initial value of the curve 0378-3839(94)00025-S.
Churchill, S.W., Usagi, R., 1972. A general expression for the correlation of rates of transfer
Breakwater types and other phenomena. AICHE J. 18 (6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690180606
(11221–1128).
CB composite breakwater CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF, 2007. The Rock Manual: The Use of Rock in Hydraulic Engineering.
HMB high mound breakwater CIRIA, London, p. C683.
HMCB high mound composite breakwater Clavero, M., 2007. Comportamiento de los diques en talud frente a la acción del oleaje y
criterios para el reparto de la probabilidad conjunta de fallo en la vida útil (PhD
LMB low mound breakwater
thesis), University of Granada (in Spanish).
PVB porous vertical breakwater Clavero, M., Vílchez, M., Pérez, D., Benedicto, M.I., Losada, M.A., 2012. A unified design
RMB rubble mound breakwater method of maritime works against waves. Coast. Eng. Proc. 1 (33), 1–9. http://dx.
RMB-CW rubble mound breakwater with crown wall doi.org/10.9753/icce.v33.structures.76 structures.76.
Dalrymple, R.A., 1992. Water wave propagation in jettied channels. Proc. 23rd Coastal
Engineering Conference, Venice. ASCE, New York, pp. 3040–3053.
Acknowledgments Dalrymple, R.A., Losada, M.A., Martín, P.A., 1991. Reflection and transmission from porous
structures under oblique wave attack. J. Fluid Mech. 224, 625–644.
Dean, R.G., Dalrymple, R.A., 2001. Coastal Processes With Engineering Applications.
This research was partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Econ- Cambridge University Press.
omy and Competitiveness and the European Union (research project, Goda, Y., 1985. Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures. University of Tokyo
Press, Tokyo.
Método unificado para el diseño y verificacion de los diques de abrigo, Gu, Z., Wang, H., 1991. Gravity waves over porous bottom. Coast. Eng. 15, 497–524.
REF: BIA2012-37554), the Spanish Ministry of Public Works (research Hughes, S.A., Fowler, J.E., 1995. Estimating wave-induced kinematics at sloping structures.
project, Fiabilidad de las estructuras portuarias. REF: P50/08) and the J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 209–215 (August).
Iglesias, G., Rabuñal, J., Losada, M.A., Pachón, H., Castro, A., Carballo, R., 2008. A virtual lab-
Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (research project, Desarrollo
oratory for stability tests of rubble-mound breakwaters. Ocean Eng. 35, 1113–1120.
tecnológico de diques en talud con tipología de maxima estabilidad REF: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2008.04.014.
CIT-380000-2007-47). Significant improvements to the original manu- Iribarren, R., 1938. Una fórmula para el cálculo de diques de escollera. Fluids Mechanics
Laboratory, Univ. Calf., Berkeley, Tech. Rep. HE-116-295, 1948 Translated by
script were suggested by an anonymous reviewer.
D. Hernrich (in Spanish).
Iribarren, R., Nogales, C., 1949. Protection des ports. XVII International Navigation
Appendix A Congress, Lisbon (1949) Section II-4.
Klopman, G., van del Meer, W., 1999. Random wave measurements in front of reflective
structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 39–45 http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-950X(1999)125:1(39).
Table 19
Kortenhaus, A., Oumeraci, H., 1998. Classification of wave loading on monolithic coastal
Test used for comparison with the formulas of Zanuttigh and van der Meer (Z&M) and
structures. Coast. Eng. 867–880 http://dx.doi.org/10.9753/icce.v26.
Seelig and Ahrens (S&A).
Lamberti, A., 1994. Irregular waves reflection and multi-gauge wave measurements near
the reflecting structure. Discussion. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Rubble
cot(αT) Tp (s) Hts (m) HIs KR KR KR KR
Mound Failure Modes (Contract MAS2-CT92-0042), Bressanone (5 pp.).
(x = 0) (m) (Z&M) (S&A) (FS) (exp)
López, C., Losada, M.A., Kobayashi, N., 2001. Stability of mound breakwaters: dependence
Permeable rock on wave reflection. Coast. Eng. Proc. 1 (26). http://dx.doi.org/10.9753/icce.v26.%p.
1.5 2.600 0.090 0.058 0.548 0.453 0.632 0.609 Losada, M.A., 1990. Recent development in the design of mound breakwater. In: Herbich,
1.5 2.559 0.104 0.065 0.517 0.448 0.623 0.609 J. (Ed.), Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston,
1.5 1.868 0.078 0.059 0.455 0.422 0.454 0.472 TX, pp. 939–1050.
Losada, M.A., Gimenez-Curto, L.A., 1979. The joint effect of the wave height and period on
1.5 1.857 0.087 0.068 0.435 0.413 0.452 0.465
the stability of rubble mound breakwaters using Iribarren's number. Coast. Eng. 3,
1.5 1.429 0.037 0.027 0.491 0.435 0.379 0.396
77–96.
1.5 1.416 0.052 0.037 0.432 0.417 0.377 0.408
Losada, M.A., Gimenez-Curto, L.A., 1981. Flow characteristics on rough, permeable slopes
1.5 1.420 0.087 0.064 0.353 0.377 0.378 0.370 under wave action. Coast. Eng. 4, 187–206.
Losada, I.J., Dalrymple, R.A., Losada, M.A., 1993a. Water waves on crown breakwaters.
Armor units
J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 119 (4), 367–380.
1.5 1.811 0.071 0.057 0.411 0.421 0.321 0.355
Losada, I.J., Losada, M.A., Baquerizo, A., 1993b. An analytical method to evaluate the effi-
1.5 1.802 0.078 0.064 0.394 0.413 0.319 0.352
ciency of porous screens as wave dampers. Appl. Ocean Res. 15 (4), 207–215.
1.5 1.617 0.070 0.068 0.377 0.393 0.279 0.282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-1187(93)90009-M.
1.5 1.593 0.056 0.058 0.407 0.402 0.275 0.282 Losada, I.J., Vidal, C., Losada, M.A., 1997a. Effects of reflective vertical structures
1.5 1.413 0.080 0.066 0.322 0.372 0.244 0.223 permeability on random wave kinematics. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 123 (De-
1.5 1.395 0.037 0.034 0.431 0.420 0.242 0.226 cember), 347–353.
1.5 1.388 0.059 0.051 0.359 0.391 0.241 0.252 Losada, I.J., Patterson, M.D., Losada, M.A., 1997b. Harmonic generation past a submerged
1.5 1.369 0.049 0.055 0.381 0.383 0.238 0.262 porous step. Coast. Eng. 31, 281–304.
Mansard, E.P.D., Funke, E.R., 1987. On the reflection analysis of irregular waves. Natl. Res.
Cunc. Rev. Can. Hydraulics Laboratory Technical Report, TR-HY-O17.
Mathieu, J.P., 1975. Optics. Pergamon, Oxford.
Medina, J.R., 1999. Neural network modelling of runup and overtopping. ASCE, Proc. of
Coastal Structures 1999, Santander, Spain 1, pp. 421–429.
References Medina, J.R., Gómez-Martín, M.E., 2007. Análisis de la estabilidad hidráulica del manto
principal de diques en talud con cubos y cubípodos. Laboratorio de Puertos y Costas
Ahrens, J.P., Mc Carney, B.L., 1975. Wave period effect on the stability of rip-rap. Proc. of de la Universidad de Valencia. Informe N° 2. Ensayos LPC-UPV (in Spanish).
the 3rd Civil Engineering in the Oceans Conference Vol. II, pp. 1019–1034. Pérez-Romero, D.M., Ortega-Sánchez, M., Moñino, A., Losada, M.A., 2009. Characteristic
Allsop, N.W.H., Channell, A.R., 1989. Wave reflections in harbours: reflection performance friction coefficient and scale effects in oscillatory porous flow. Coast. Eng. 56 (9),
of rock armoured slopes in random waves. Report OD 102. Hydraulics Research, 931–939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2009.05.002.
Wallingford. Puertos del Estado, 2012. Diques de abrigo en los puertos de interés general del Estado.
Altomare, C., Gironella, X., 2014. An experimental study on scale effects in wave reflection Años 1986–2011 Retrieved from:, http://www.puertos.es/sites/default/files/pdfs/
of low-reflective quay walls with internal rubble mound for regular and random inicio_atlas_diques.pdf (in Spanish).
waves. Coast. Eng. 90, 51–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.04.002. ROM, 1.0-09, 2009. Recommendations for Maritime Works 1.0-09 Retrieved from http://
Baquerizo, A., 1995. Reflexión del oleaje en playas. Métodos de evaluación y de predicción www.puertos.es/es-es/BibliotecaV2/ROM%201.0-09%20(EN).pdf.
(PhD thesis), University of Cantabria (in Spanish). Ruíz, J.R., Flores, Z., Fragoso, L., 2013. Reflexión del oleaje en rompeolas superficiales
Battjes, J.A., 1974. Surf similarity. Proc. XIV Int. Conf. Coastal Eng. ASCE, pp. 466–480 permeables a talud. Rev. Cient. Ing. Hidrául. Ambient. XXXIV (2), 27–40 (in Spanish).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-361-5. Scarcella, D., Benedicto, M.I., Moñino, A., Losada, M.A., 2006. Scale effects in rubble mound
Benedicto, M.I., 2004. Comportamiento y evolución de la avería de los diques de abrigo breakwaters considering wave energy balance. Proc. 30th Int. Conf. on Coastal
frente a la acción del oleaje (PhD thesis), University of Granada (in Spanish). Engineering. ASCE, San Diego, pp. 4410–4415.
52 M. Vílchez et al. / Coastal Engineering 107 (2016) 34–52
Seelig, W.N., Ahrens, J.P., 1981. Estimation of wave reflection and energy dissipation coef-
ficients for beaches, revetments and breakwater. CERC Technical Paper 81-1, National
Technical Information Service, distributor, Fort Belvoir, U.S.A.C.E. MS, Vicksburg.
Sivanesapillai, R., Steeb, H., Hartmaier, A., 2014. Transition of effective hydraulic proper-
ties from low to high Reynolds number flow in porous media. Geophys. Res. Lett.
41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060232.
Sollitt, C.K., Cross, R.H., 1972. Wave transmission through permeable breakwaters. Proc.,
13 International Conference on Coastal Engineering. ASCE, Vancouver, pp. 1827–1846.
Sutherland, J., O'Donoghue, T., 1998. Wave phase shift at coastal structures. J. Waterw.
Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 90–98 (April).
Takahashi, S., 1996. Design of Vertical Breakwaters. Port and Harbor Research Institute
(Reference Document, No. 34, Japan).
Van der Meer, J.W., Briganti, R., Zanuttigh, B., Wang, B., 2005. Wave transmission and re-
flection at low-crested structures: design formulae, oblique wave attack and spectral
change. Coast. Eng. 52 (10–11), 915–929. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.
2005.09.005.
Van Gent, M.R.A., 1995. Wave Interaction of Permeable Coastal Structures Ph.D. thesis
Delf Univ., Delf, The Netherlands, p. 177.
Van Gent, M.R.A., 2014. Oblique wave attack on rubble mound breakwaters. Coast. Eng.
88, 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.02.002.
Vílchez, M., Clavero, M., Losada, M.A., 2015. Operational behavior of a 2D breakwater:
synthesis and design performance curves. Report EM 200. Grupo de Dinámica de
Flujos Ambientales. University of Granada (http://gdfa.ugr.es/hpc).
Zanuttigh, B., Van der Meer, J.W., 2006. Wave reflections from coastal structures. Interna-
tional Conference on Coastal Engineering, pp. 1–13.
Zanuttigh, B., van der Meer, J.W., 2008. Wave reflection from coastal structures in design
conditions. Coast. Eng. 55, 771–779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2008.02.
009.
Zanuttigh, B., Formentin, S.M., Briganti, R., 2013. A neural network for the prediction of
wave reflection from coastal and harbor structures. Coast. Eng. 80, 49–67. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.05.004.