Download - 07 Rubble Mound Stability
![Page 1: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
Rubble Mound Stability
Presenter: Jeffrey A. Melby, Ph.D.
Email: [email protected]
![Page 2: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
WHAT IS A RUBBLE MOUND?
![Page 3: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
RUBBLE MOUND STABILITY
ContentsINTRODUCTION
Structure TypesFunctional vs Structural DesignExamplesArmor Selection Criteria
HYDRAULIC STABILITYPhysical Model StudiesInitiation of Armor MovementImportant ParametersDamage DeverlopmentStability Equations
Based on CEM Chapter VI-5-2 (f)
![Page 4: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
STRUCTURE TYPES
BREAKWATERSMultilayer
+ Traditional trapezoidal section+ Composite+ Low-Crested+ Submerged
Uniform+ Reef
JETTIESGROINSREVETMENTS
![Page 5: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
FUNCTIONAL VS STRUCTURAL DESIGN
FUNCTIONAL DESIGNPlan and Profile GeometryWave Transmission - Overtopping, Flow ThroughWave DiffractionWave Reflection
STRUCTURAL DESIGNFilter Sizing for Stability and Filtering Armor StabilityGeotechnical Settlement and Slip Circle FailureToe StabilityArmor Unit SizingArmor Layer GeometryArmor Unit Structural CapacityCap or Wavewall Stability and Structural CapCrest and Backside Stability
![Page 6: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
OCEAN CITY INLET JETTIES, MARYLAND
· Constructed in ‘30's using W= 5.4 t, 1V:2H· Repaired in ‘50's with W = 8.1 t, 1V:3H· Extended in 1985 with W = 13.5 t, H=5.5 m, KD=2.7
NOTE EBB TIDAL SHOAL
![Page 7: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA
![Page 8: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
HUMBOLDT JETTIES, CA
![Page 9: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
LUARCA, SPAIN
![Page 10: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
LLANOS, SPAIN
![Page 11: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
ARMOR SELECTION CRITERIA
Consider purpose of armorHydraulic stabilityStructural capacity, materialsEngineering performance vs cost
Volumetric efficiencyEase of construction
![Page 12: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
ARMOR LAYER LAYOUT & OPTIMIZATION
· N = Number of armor units A = Surface area on slope· δ = Packing density coefficient V = Volume of individual armor unit· W = Armor unit weight γ = Armor specific weight· n = Number of thicknesses kΔ = Layer coefficient· r = Total armor layer thickness VT = Total volume for N units· P = Armor layer porosity
23
13
1100
.T n n
N W PV where V and nkA
V N V r nk D where D V
δ δγ
−
Δ
Δ
⎛ ⎞= = = −⎜ ⎟⎝ ⎠
= = =
![Page 13: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
ARMOR LAYER LAYOUT AND OPTIMIZATION
![Page 14: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
VOLUME OPTIMIZATION
• N/(δA) = V(-2/3)
• VT/(δA) = V1/3
• So the total number of units can decrease much faster than the total volume increases as the armor size increases
• If equipment is constant, then it may be more economical to go with larger units ( increase volume)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Volume
NumberVolume
N/(δA) = V(-2/3)
VT/(δA) = V1/3
![Page 15: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
HYDRAULIC STABILITY
· PHYSICAL MODEL STUDIES
· INITIATION OF ARMOR MOVEMENT
· ARMOR STABILITY DERIVATION
· STABILITY PARAMETERS
· DAMAGE DEVELOPMENT
· STABILITY EQUATIONS
![Page 16: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
PHYSICAL MODEL STUDIES
FROUDE AND GEOMETRIC SIMILITUDE
![Page 17: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
INITIATION OF ARMOR MOVEMENT
![Page 18: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
INITIATION OF ARMOR MOVEMENT
2 2
3
2
( )
D L
G
w n
s w n
n
n
s
F x Fwave forcerestoring force F
D vg D
vg DH if v gHD
N
ρρ ρ
=
=−
=Δ
= =Δ
=
![Page 19: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
PRIMARY SEA STATE STABILITY PARAMETERS
· Hs, H1/10 = Wave height (at toe)· Tm = Mean wave period· Lom = Deep water wave length for mean period· Lm = Local wave length for mean period· som= Hs/Lom = Deep water wave steepness· Nw or Nz = Number of waves at mean period· Hmo = 4(mo)1/2 = Spectral significant wave height · Tp = Peak wave period· Lop = Deep water wave length for peak period· h = Water depth at toe· ρw = Mass density of water
![Page 20: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
SECONDARY SEA STATE STABILITY PARAMETERS
· WAVE ASSYMMETRY· SHAPE OF WAVE SPECTRUM· WAVE GROUPING· WAVE INCIDENT ANGLE
![Page 21: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
STRUCTURALSTABILITY PARAMETERS
· α = Structure slope from horizontal· ρs = Mass density of armor units· Rock grading· Mass and shape of armor· Dn50 = (M50/ρs)1/3 = Nominal stone diameter (cube)· Packing density, layer thickness· P = Hudson’s porosity· P = van der Meer’s notional permeability of entire structure· S = Ae / D2
n50 = Normalized eroded area or damage· Armor placement
![Page 22: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
COMBINED PARAMETERS
· SR = ρs/ρw - 1 = Relative mass density· Ns = Hs/Dn50 = Stability number· Ns* = Ns sp
-1/3 = Ahrens’ stability number
· ξom = tan /(som)1/2 = Surf similarity parameter· SR = Sa - 1 = Relative mass density· Ns = Hs/Dn50 = Stability number
![Page 23: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
SURF SIMILARITY PARAMETER
![Page 24: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
DAMAGE PROGRESSION
Redondo Beach, California, 1988
![Page 25: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
DAMAGE DEFINITIONS
· COUNTING METHOD• Appropriate for small amounts of damage (CAU’s)• ‘No movement’ is lower limit• Armor units rocking (important for dolosse)• Individual units displaced• D = number displaced / total number in active region• Nod = number displaced / total number in strip Dn wide
· CAU: concrete armor unit
![Page 26: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
DAMAGE DEFINITIONS
· PROFILING OR DISPLACED AREA METHOD• Eroded Volume: Hudson, Jackson, D%, active region• Eroded Area: Broderick and Ahrens, S = Ae/D2
n50
• 0.6 < S/D% < 1.25• If S/D% = 0.8, then D = 5% corresponds to 0 < S < 4• Note that S determined from average profile can be very
different from average S of several profiles
![Page 27: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION
· STONE• INITIAL DAMAGE: “no damage” value in 1984 SPM...D = 0-
5% displacement by volume or S = 0 - 2 by profiles• INTERMEDIATE DAMAGE: S = 2 - 12• FAILURE: Underlayer exposed through a hole at least Dn50
in diameter, D > 20%, S = 8-20
SOUTHWEST PASS, LA
![Page 28: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION
· CONCRETE ARMOR UNITS• INITIAL DAMAGE: Core-Loc and Accropode D = 0-1%,
Dolosse D=0-2%, All shapes Nod = 0• INTERMEDIATE DAMAGE: Core-Loc and Accropode D = 1-5%• FAILURE: Core-Loc and Accropode D> 10%,
Cube Nod = 2, Dolosse D > 15%Tetrapod Nod =1.5, Accropode Nod = 0.5
LESSER ANTILLES
![Page 29: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
DAMAGE PROGRESSION
· Melby And Kobayashi 1998
![Page 30: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
DAMAGE PROGRESSION
ERODED AREA PREDICTION
Standard Deviation shows cross-shore variation
![Page 31: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
DAMAGE PROFILES
![Page 32: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
DAMAGE DEVELOPMENT
![Page 33: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
DAMAGE PROGRESSION
SHAPE OF ERODED PROFILE
![Page 34: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Melby & Kobayashi’s OBSERVATIONS
· Equations verified for wide range of wave heights, wave periods, water depths, and stone gradation
· Damage does not progress to equilibrium· Armor gradation did not produce a measurable
difference in damage progression or eroded profile· Significant alongshore varability of damage · Damage initiation varied more than advanced damage· Spectral or time series parameters produce similar
results
![Page 35: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Melby & Kobayashi’s LIMITATIONS
· Only single breakwater and beach slopes tested but conservative for most conditions
· Equations are limited to trunk section with head-on waves
· Multilayer trapezoidal cross section· Damage initiation not specifically investigated· Breaking waves only but should be conservative for
non-breaking conditions· Does not account for breaking stones
![Page 36: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
ARMOR STABILITY EQUATIONS
• MULTI-LAYER STONE• MULTILAYER LOW-CRESTED STONE• MULTILAYER SUBMERGED STONE• STONE REEF BREAKWATERS• BACKSIDE STABILITY• CONRETE ARMOR UNITS
![Page 37: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
CROSS SECTION
![Page 38: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
HUDSON EQUATION
· W = W50 = Median weight of armor unit· γa = Specific weight of armor material· H1/10 = Average of highest 10% of wave heights· KD = Tabulated empirical stability coefficient· Sa = Specific gravity of armor material· α = Seaside angle of armor slope from horizontal
1/ 3
5031/10
3
( cot )
( 1) cot
Dn
a
D
HNs KD
HWK Sa
α
γα
= =Δ
=−
![Page 39: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
STABILITY COEFFICIENTS
![Page 40: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
RIPRAP
· Riprap can also be designed using Hudson equation using the median weight W50, H1/10, and KRR = 2.2 for breaking waves and KRR = 2.5 for non-breaking waves (Ahrens 1981b)
· Typical stone size distribution 0.125 W50 < W < 4.0 W50
· Melby and Kobayashi observed that riprap armor deteriorates at the same rate as uniform armor for similar median weights because the larger stones hold the matrix together
![Page 41: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
STONE PLACEMENT
BUFFALO, NEW YORKKEYED AND FITTED
UMPQUA, OREGONSPECIAL PLACEMENT
![Page 42: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
GALVESTON BREAKWATER, TEXAS
![Page 43: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
STONE PLACEMENT
UNKNOWN SITERANDOM PLACEMENT
![Page 44: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
HUDSON EQUATION FOR BREAKING WAVES
· Probably the most extensive data set
· Many structure and armor types
· Breaking waves means depth-limited waves
· KD is lowest stability measurement in lab using severely breaking regular waves
![Page 45: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
CARVER’s MODIFICATIONS TO THE HUDSON EQUATION
Hudson Stability Coefficient vs Relative Depth
![Page 46: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
VAN DER MEER EQUATIONS
Hs
ΔDn501.0P 0.13 S
Nw
0.2cotα ξP
om Surging waves: ξm > ξmc
Hs
ΔDn506.2P 0.18 S
Nz
0.2ξ 0.5
om Plunging waves: ξm < ξmc
ξom [6.2P 0.31 tanα ]1
(P 0.5)
![Page 47: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
VAN DER MEER’S PARAMETERS
• Hs = Significant wave height at toe• Δ = Sa - 1 = Relative mass density• Nw = Number of waves at mean period• P = Notional permeability of entire structure• S = Ae / D2
n50 = Normalized eroded area / damage• ξ om = tan α/(Hs/Lom)1/2 = Surf similarity parameter• Lom = gTm
2/2π
![Page 48: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
VAN DER MEER’S PERMEABILITY
![Page 49: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
VAN DER MEER EQUATIONSBREAKING WAVES
H2%
ΔDn501.4P 0.13 S
Nw
0.2cotα ξP
om Surging waves: ξm > ξmc
ξom [6.2P 0.31 tanα ]1
(P 0.5)
Hs = H2%
H2%
ΔDn501.4(6.2)P 0.18 S
Nz
0.2ξ 0.5
om Plunging waves: ξm < ξmc
![Page 50: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
VAN DER MEER’S LIMITATIONS
· Limited to deep to intermediate depth· Breaking wave equations are based on 8 tests using
only spilling breakers - not conservative for most applications
· Damage is for constant wave conditions · Equations are for a trunk section or revetment with
head-on waves· Equations are limited to uniform armor stone
![Page 51: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
MULTI-LAYER OVERTOPPED STRUCTURES
Rc/h a*10^4 b Hs/Lp0.29 0.07 1.66 <0.03 850.39 0.18 1.58 <0.03 700.57 0.09 1.92 <0.03 200.38 0.59 1.07 >0.03 45
· Nod = Number of displaced units· Na = Total number of units· Ns = Hs / Dn50· sp = Hs / Lp = Local wave steepness
POWELL AND ALLSOP (1985)
Nod
Naa exp[b s 1/3
P Ns] or Nss 1/3
p
bln 1
aNod
Na
![Page 52: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
MULTI-LAYER OVERTOPPED STRUCTURES
· Replace Dn50 by fi (Dn50) in original equations· Rc = Freeboard· sop = Hs / Lop = Deep water wave steepness
VAN DER MEER 1991 - ARMOR REDUCTION COEF.
fi 1.25 4.8Rc
Hs
sop
sπ
1
0 <Rc
Hs
sop
sπ< 0.052
![Page 53: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
MULTI-LAYER SUBMERGED STRUCTURES
· h = Water depth at toe
· h’c = Crest height over sea bed
· Ns* = Ns(sp)-1/3 = Spectral stability number
VAN DER MEER, 1991
h c
h(2.1 0.1S) exp( 0.14Ns )
![Page 54: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
REEF BREAKWATERS
At = Initial cross-sectional area of structure
VAN DER MEER, 1990 AFTER AHRENS, 1987
h cAt
exp(aNs )h c
a 0.28 0.045At
(h c)20.034
h c
h6×10 9 A 2
t
D 4n50
![Page 55: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
BACKSIDE STABILITY
JENSEN, 1984
![Page 56: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
ROUNDHEAD STABILITY
· Heads and bends usually sustain damage at a much lower wave height than the trunk
· Causes include reduced support from neighboring armor and high overflow wave velocities and wave refraction
![Page 57: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
ROUNDHEAD STABILITY
· Use equation of Carver and Heimbaugh (1989) for stone and dolos
· Can also use Hudson equation· Increase stability by increasing roundhead diameter· Roundhead slopes are often flatter· Trunk and head units must interlock· Toe detail is very important
![Page 58: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
YAQUINA JETTIES, NEWPORT, OREGON
· Original structures 1 km long in ~1900
· Structures extended to 1.5 km in 30's - 40's then to 2.1 km in 60's. W = 18.5 t, S=2.58, Hb = 8.2 m, 1V:2H, KD=10
Outer 500 ft repaired twice: W = 18 t, S=2.66, Hb = 6 m, KD = 3.7Then W = 29 t, Hb = 8.5 m,KD=6.3
![Page 59: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
Stability Conclusions
· Stability of stone breakwaters predicted by many equations• Use appropriate equation• Use conservative design assumptions because
equations are based on idealized laboratory conditions
· Least expensive option may not be one with least material
· Lobby for aesthetics
![Page 60: 07 Rubble Mound Stability](https://reader034.vdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050805/5695d01e1a28ab9b02910849/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
VATIA STONE