Wave transmission and mooring-force characteristics of pipe-tire floating breakwaters

us, Arma Coast Cag Kes .Ae-TP 82-4

Wave Transmission and Mooring-Force
Characteristics of Pipe-Tire

WHOI

— DOCUMENT
COLLECTION ,

Floating Breakwaters

by

Volker W. Harms, Joannes J. Westerink,
Robert M. Sorensen, and James E. McTamany

TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 82-4

OCTOBER 1982

Approved for public release;
distribution unlimited.

U.S. ARMY, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COASTAL ENGINEERING

ep RESEARCH CENTER

LW Kingman Building

/

Fort Belvoir, Va. 22060

Ay a) val

Reprint or republication of any of this material
shall give appropriate credit to the U.S. Army Coastal
Engineering Research Center.

Limited free distribution within the United States
of single copies of this publication has been made by
this Center. Additional copies are available from:

Nattonal Techntcal Information Service
ATTN: Operations Diviston

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

Contents of this report are not to be used for
advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official
endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial
products.

The findings in this report are not to be construed
as an official Department of the Army position unless

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
” REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
TP 82-4

- TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

WAVE TRANSMISSION AND MOORING-—FORCE Technical Paper

CHARACTERISTICS OF PIPE-TIRE FLOATING SPD EEG aMING ONGEREBORTINUMNGER

AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

Volker W. Harms, Joannes J. Westerink,
Robert M. Sorensen, and James E. McTamany

- PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK
AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Department of the Army
Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERRE-CS) D31679
Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

Re ea ty
Coastal Engineering Research Center
Kingman Building, Fort Belvoir, VA y 9

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(/f different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thia report)

UNCLASSIFIED

1Sa. DECL ASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report)
- SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

Floating breakwaters Mooring loads
Laboratory tests Tires
Monochromatic waves Wave transmission

ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

Wave transmission and mooring-load features were tested for a floating
breakwater created from massive cylindrical members (steel or concrete pipes,
telephone poles, etc.) in a matrix of scrap truck or automobile tires. The
Pipe-Tire Breakwater (PT-Breakwater) was tested at prototype scale using
regular waves ranging in height from 0.15 to 1.78 meters and period from 2.6
to 8.1 seconds; water depths ranged from 2.0 to 4.6 meters. Two designs were

(continued)

DD , Acta 1473 ~—s EDITION OF 1 NOV 651S OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)

tested--the PT-1 module, composed of steel-pipe buoyancy chambers and truck
tires, and the PT-2 module, composed of telephone poles and car tires. Each
design was 12.2 meters wide in the direction of wave propagation and was held
together by conveyor-belt loops. Wave attenuation and mooring-force features
were established based on data from 402 separate runs in which incident and
transmitted wave heights were recorded, along with the tension in the seaward
mooring line. Test results are compared with those of earlier experiments
made on the Goodyear floating tire breakwater. The construction of these PT-
Breakwater modules is outlined, along with the cost estimates for construction
of components. A breakwater buoyancy test was made and the flotation require-
ments calculated. The influence of stiffness on the mooring system was exper-
imentally investigated and conveyor-belt material tested to the point of
failure. Design curves for determining the proper anchor requirements and
breakwater size are given.

Apart from the incident wave height, the transmitted wave height and peak
mooring force are shown to depend primarily on four dimensionless parameters:
the relative wavelength, wave steepness, relative breakwater draft, and
breakwater aspect ratio. The wave attenuation performance of PT-Breakwaters
improves as either wavelength or water depth decreases, or the wave steepness
increases. The shelter afforded by a particular PT-Breakwater is strongly
dependent on the incident wavelength, L: substantial protection is provided
from waves that are shorter than the width, B, of the breakwater but very
little from waves longer than three times the width of the breakwater.

The wave attenuation performance of PT-1 was found to be superior to
that of PT-2 and the Goodyear breakwater: for L/B = 1 and deep water with

H/L = 0.04; for example, the wave height transmission ratios are approximately
0.6, 0.4, and 0.2 for the Goodyear, PT-2, and PT-1 breakwaters, respectively.
For the conditions investigated, the peak mooring force increases approxi-
mately with the square of the wave height, more precisely: F « H" where
n= 1.5, 2 and 2 for the PT-1, PT-2, and Goodyear breakwaters, respectively.

2

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)

PREFACE

This report is published to provide coastal engineers the results of a
series of prototype-scale tests of a floating breakwater that incorporates
massive cylindrical members (steel or concrete pipes, telephone poles, etc.)
in a matrix of scrap truck or automobile tires. The breakwater, which was
developed by the senior author while serving on the faculty of the State
University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY), is referred to as the Pipe-Tire
Breakwater (PT-Breakwater). Tests were conducted in the large wave tank at
the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) in a joint effort by
CERC and SUNY personnel. The work was carried out under CERC's Design of
Floating Breakwaters work unit, Coastal Structure Evaluation and Design
Program, Coastal Engineering Area of Civil Works Research and Development.

The report was prepared by Dr. Volker W. Harms, SUNY and University of
California, Berkeley; Joannes J. Westerink, SUNY; Dr. Robert M. Sorensen,
Chief, Coastal Processes and Structures Branch, CERC; and James E. McTamany,
Coastal Oceanography Branch, CERC.

The authors gratefuly acknowledge the assistance of SUNY technical spe-
cilalist J. Sarvey and students T. Bender, P. Hughey, and P. Speranza, and
the difficult crane operations and frequent wave generator stroke changes
performed by CERC's research support personnel.

This research was sponsored in part by the New York Sea Grant Institute
under a grant from the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, through SUNY. It was also
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract W-7405-ENG—48 to the
Marine Sciences Group, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California.

Technical Director of CERC was Dr. Robert W. Whalin, P.E., upon publica-—
tion of this report.

Comments on this publication are invited.

Approved for publication in accordance with Public Law 166, 79th Congress,
approved 31 July 1945, as supplemented by Public Law 172, 88th Congress,
approved 7 November 1963.

Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Commander and Director

CONTENTS

Page
CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI)...ccccccccccecs 7

SYMBOLSMAND DE FAGNTsIlONSiereteveteieloreroteloterovetoretelieleloteioteierel cicielelistorciorsionsicichelels 8

IL LN TRODU GH ONepercucleketeloletoreteletetoxcloleiarclciciclclaiciolelekelsioleleicicicicleleletelelcielolslelclelele 9
IIE THE PIPE-TLIRE BREAKWALE Reveretereveveroleleicteketelelererclerolevetciohsielotelctonslorelciclehchorele 10
1. Breakwater Modules and ComponentS...cccccccscccccccccscccccee 12

Pe CONStELUCELON MELO CCAUBESisfeleleleleleleletelelelelolelelelclelelelcleleioioleleieleleleielele loin LO

J BLeakwatermsbuUOV All Cyjelelelelolejekelololelaloiolele)clolsialolelelelololsiclovoleleketslelorelerel=) m2 O

ih 6 Cost EsiGiimalze'Sereisicholeneloteleleicherclctetcreteicleiclclercioneieioiareroteleleleleteloietolclelele D3}

ICICI EXPERIMEN TA SE LUP SAND pPROGED URE Steteveleeleloleielcleleleleleleleicleleleleleleielelelelelere) rch
lulestbaciltityrandsslnstLumentatslOmers sleleielelehelofelerelsleletelelelolsteleyais)e: uar2e

Die MOONS MOY SECMefeloketelolsieloieleielelorerereketoleKetelelelelerobeiotalelolelelelelolsicloleycls|<] onal O

Beles erProceduremand ss Condit onStereretelclolelerelefeletolelelsleloleleleleloleleleleyelele) mall

IV DATAMREDU GILONMANDMWANAILY SiltGleieleletoioleloleletelele| slolelcloleletoleiolelclclelciolcielslofalerelo) 0/2
io Wimamestomeail AmeulyestSgoagbadococc ob D0 NDO GODS OGDODDOOCOOOOOCGCS | 32

Qa Data-Reductlonweeroceduresriclelsieleioleleleleleleiolalelelcleieleloialeleloteleteielelsyele) St

V EXPERIMENTAL RESUME Sis sietovovevereiene- crevensiclevetoreeierelelotelevelerslekeiorolelereroneevelere! wie 3i7/
euWaverehransmisSionmD at aletelovclolelel leleiohelolelolelokelolclolokeloleloleloleliclelolelelefelon tr S)i

Ze MOOTAN T—KOLCCWDACAlelelolelelelolelo lolol lel olelelsvolol sie) lolol efololeleVoleleleloleloleiololel oi nn ct

VI SUMMARYEVANDIMGCONGEUWSTHONSiareleicieiolorstelelolclolckclelchetelciclelehelicherelelctelereteletetolelereicle 50
LITERATURE GUILE D eeaievovetelo svevotorstcvonevovetonensterelevolocictetotoveieliohaiotcheieleloheicteiclcrera c 53

APPENDIX
A TABULATED TEST RES UlesSioteretetetoietolaletotehetcioketeltetetoletekotelelclolelcdotevenolencreneleiel eters 5)5)

B FORCE MEASUREMENT CORREEATION| @RsL--')) lie} elelolevolelelsls|olslelelsls)oleleleleielelels) efor OD)

C DETAILED WAVE TRANSMISSION DIAGRAM. .ccccccccccccccccccccccccccce 14
TABLES

1 Cost estimates of PT—Breakwater cCOompOMeNtsS.cccceccccsccccccccccsccccsces 23

2 Compleancevore mooring Sy SteMmS\ejcjeicle)cleleloleleielelelelolololeieielelelelelslclelokelelelclolelelelelereloie Zo)

5) Summary jo test condtitTon's\eyeerelclelele|e/e)e cloleleleyele/oloteloleleleleyelololoiciclolelelelelololsyeleloreie: tS

4 Summary of mooring—force datac...ccccccccccsccccvccccesccccccccccccccss 46
FIGURES

l' PT-Breakwater field installiatdon 7.5. 7. <sjclels cielo ol elelelelelelelsielelsisivisielvisiolsisieisieiee il

2 Typical PT-Breakwater module with tire-armored pipeS..eccccccccccccecee Ill

26

27

CONTENTS

FIGURES-—-Continued

Orientation of PT—Breakwater..cecccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccs
Schematile ‘of PT=1 “breakwater moduler. soci le cccecciecic cic cccccicicic ccc
Definition sketch for PT—Breakwater...ccccccccccccccccccccvccsccccvcce
Asisembiltywoter lr levand sPIl— 2m moduilelsiereie re clelelclelclcle) olelcloleleiele/elolele cloleleleslelcicl sie) ele
pir eMsseiteadnre raat sendaO fap lap Clokelolelelelelelolelelerelclefe clei elelelelone) ol clohelelelele/eieleloleielelsl eyo
Breakwater and mooring-SysStem COMPONENTS. cccccccccccccccccccccecsccccce
Tire MOOTIng daMPeCT.ccccccccccccccccccecccvceccvececvececccccveccevcce
First step in breakwater assembly--rolling tires into place.....cc.ce.
itrnesiacelein positon skeadysitOl Det led cio elelels)elole lolol olelol ole olelc/elele/elele)elelsloele
Guiding conveyor-belt strip through tire caSingS..cccccccccccccccccvee
Tensioning belt before completing belt-to-belt connection.......0..ce0%
Belts are overlapped and bolted together. .ccecccccceccceccccccceccccvcce
Belt is anchored to sidewall of one tire... .cccccccccccccccccccccccce
PT-1 module ready for lift into wave tank...ccecccecccccccccecccccccccecce
Forces! on pipe—tire unit... ccc ccc cc ccc ccc ccc ccc ccc ces ccc seescesesccce
Large wave tank at CERC with breakwater and MS-1 mooring system.......
View toward wave ZeMNeratOr.cccceccccccccccccccecscccccccccccccccescccces
View toward beach. .ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccecccccevcceceerccecccee
Inserting PT=I! breakwater. cic. ccs clic cccicccc cece cee ceccecscceclccclcsce
Turbulence associated with wave damping. .cccccccceccccccccceccscscvcccce
Attachment of seaward mooring line... cccccccccccccccccccccecccccccccce
Strain-gage-cantilever force gage.ccccccccccccccccceccccccccc ccc cccccce
Force-gage calibration record and Curve.cececcccccccerccccccc ccc cccccce
Mooring bridle used in field installation...cccceccccccccccccccccccccce

Load elongation curves for mooring—-line inSertS..ccccccccccccccccccccs

Page
W72

13
13
14
14
15
16
17
1\7/
18
18
19
19
20
21
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
29

30

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

3}//

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

CONTENTS

FIGURES-—Continued

Stress-strain diagram for belt connection. .ccrccccccccccccccccccscccce
Wave and force record for long WaveS.ccccoeccccccccsccccrccccccccccecvcce
Wave and force record for ShOrt WaVES.cccccccccccccccccccvccccsccvcvce
Wave and force record for Ste€ePp WaVESecccccecccccccccccccesccccccccccece
Wave and force record for shallow-water WaveS.cccccecccccccecccccccccce
Definition sketch for force analySiS..cccccccccccccccccccevccvccceccce
Wave transmission data for PT-] breakwater (d = 4.7 Mm) ecccccccccccccce
Wave transmission data for PT-1 breakwater (d = 2.0 m).ccecccccccccccce
Wave transmission design curves for PTI-1 breakwater..ccccccscccccccccce
Wave transmission data for PT-—2 breakwater (d = 4.7 Mm) ccccccccccvccccece
Wave transmission data for PT-2 breakwater (d = 2.0 m)cceccccccccccccce
Wave transmission design curves for PT-2 breakwater. .ccccccccccscecccce
Comparison of PT-1 and PT-2 wave attenuation. .ccccccccccccccrcccccccoce
Comparison of Goodyear and PT-2 wave attenuation (d = 4.7 m)ecccccccee
Comparison of Goodyear and PT-2 wave attenuation (d = 2.0 m).cceccoeee
Influence of D/d on Goodyear wave attenuation. ccccccccceccccsccccccce

Wave transmission design curves for Goodyear and PT—Breakwater......0.

2.0 iM) Go00O0G 0000000 G000000000

PT-1 peak mooring-force data (MS-1, d

PT-1 peak mooring-force data (MS-1, d

4.7 iM) GOOO00DO0000000006000000

Effect of mooring-system compliance On Feecccceccccccceccccccceccvccce

PT-1 peak mooring-force data (MS-3, d

4/7 il) COoCO0000O000000000000000

4.7 mm) 60Q9000000000000006000000

PT-2 peak mooring-force data (MS-3, d

PT-2 peak mooring-force data (MS-3, d

2.0 Ml) 600000 OO00000CODO00DO0000

Goodyear peak mooring-force data (reference 3, d = 2.0 m)eccccccccccce

Goodyear peak mooring-force data (reference 3, d = 4.0 M)cccecccececcce

Page

31

34

35

35

36

37

38

39

39

40

41

41

42

43

43

44

44

45

46

47

48

48

49

49

50

CONVERSION FACTORS, U.S. CUSTOMARY TO METRIC (SI) UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

U.S. customary units of measurement used in this report can be converted to
metric (SI) units as follows:

Multipl by To obtain
2-54 centimeters
square inches 6-452 Square centimeters
cubic inches 16.39 cubic centimeters
feet 30.48 centimeters
0.3048 meters
square feet 0.0929 Square meters
cubic feet 0.0283 cubic meters
yards 0.9144 meters
Square yards 0.836 square meters
cubic yards 0.7646 cubic meters
miles 1.6093 kilometers
square miles 259.0 hectares
knots 1.852 kilometers per hour
acres 0.4047 hectares
foot-pounds 1.3558 newton meters
nabelenares 1.0197 x 1073 kilograms per square centimeter
ounces 28.35 grams
pounds 453.6 grams
0.4536 kilograms
ton, long 1.0160 metric tons
ton, short 0.9072 metric tons
degrees (angle) 0.01745 radians
Fahrenheit degrees 5/9 Celsius degrees or Kelvins!

lfo obtain Celsius (C) temperature readings from Fahrenheit (F) readings,
use formula: C = (5/9) (F -32).
To obtain Kelvin (K) readings, use formula: K = (5/9) (F -32) + 273.15.

SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS
width or beam of breakwater (dimension in direction of wave motion)
breakwater aspect ratio
wave height transmission ratio, C, = H,/H
tire diameter
relative draft
water depth

peak mooring force on seaward mooring line (per unit length of
breakwater)

center-to-center distance between pipes of PT-Breakwater
gravitational acceleration

incident wave height

wave steepness

transmitted wave height

wavelength

relative wavelength

wave period

specific weight of water

horizontal displacement of breakwater from equilibrium position

length of breakwater (dimension at right angles to direction of wave
motion)

kinematic viscosity of water

WAVE TRANSMISSION AND MOORING-FORCE CHARACTERISTICS
OF PIPE-TIRE FLOATING BREAKWATERS

by
Volker W. Harms, Joannes J. Westerink,
Robert M. Sorensen, and James E. McTamany

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents methods for constructing a recently developed float-
ing breakwater that consists largely of scrap pneumatic-tire casings, and
also provides basic data for the design of such structures. The idea of con-
structing floating breakwaters almost entirely from scrap tires was originally
conceived two decades ago by R.L. Stitt and resulted in a patent for the wave-
maze floating tire breakwaters (Stitt, 1963; Kamel and Davidson, 1968). More
recently, this concept was adapted in the development of the Goodyear floating
tire breakwater (Kowalski, 1974; Candle, 1976). Both these breakwaters
are flexible in all directions since there are no rigid structural members
utilized. The Goodyear module ciffers from the Wave-Maze in the size of the
tires used (automobile as opposed to truck tires), geometric arrangement of
the tires (single-layer upright versus triple-layer “sandwich”), and binding
materials and techniques used (typically conveyor-belt loops as opposed tb
bolted-tire connections). A number of floating breakwaters of both types have
been installed on the Great Lakes, the east and west coasts of the United
States, and overseas, with various levels of success.

Although the installation of floating breakwaters is frequently favored
over bottom-resting structures for a number of environmentally related reasons
(e.g., impact on water circulation, fish migrations), the principal reason for
considering floating breakwaters made of tires is their relatively low cost.
For small marinas of less than 100 boat slips, floating breakwaters are fre-
‘quently the only wave protection system that is economically feasible with
costs ranging from $10 to $100 per horizontal square meter of breakwater. At
the same time, it must be recognized that floating tire breakwaters provide
less wave protection, are less rugged, and have lower extreme event survival
capabilities than conventional bottom-resting structures, such as rubble-mound
and sheet-pile breakwaters. A comparison of knowledge acquired from field
installations and prototype-scale laboratory tests suggests that the Goodyear
and Wave-Maze floating tire breakwaters should be limited to semiprotected
sites, or short fetch applications (e.g., 10 kilometers or less), with signif-
icant wave heights below 0.9 to i.2 meters. At locations with severer wave
climates (larger wave height and period), several limitations have been
encountered with regards to:

(a) Structural Integrity. The response behavior of wave-induced
mooring loads increases approximately with the square of the wave
height. While under severe wave action the following problems have
been encountered: (1) modules connected to the seaward mooring lines
separate because of excessive loads, (2) anchors fail or “walk”
because of the large mooring forces, (3) flotation material is lost
from individual tires because of the excessive stretching and twist-
ing, and (4) tire connection and binding materials reach their fail-
ure limit.

(b) Breakwater Size. As with all breakwaters, the size of a
floating tire breakwater is site specific. The dimension of the
breakwater in the direction of wave propagation (width or beam) must
generally be at least as large as the locally predominant wavelength
(design wave). This implies that a very large breakwater will be
required at sites with long period waves, which not only increases
the breakwater's cost but also may not be feasible because of space
limitation.

(c) Buoyancy. Portions of the breakwater configuration may begin
to sink if individual tires lose their flotation material (e.g.,
caused by stretching and twisting while under high loads) or if the
structure gains too much weight with time (caused by deposition of
suspended sediments in the tire casings or excessive marine growth).

In an attempt to improve on the design characteristics of the floating
breakwaters discussed above, another wave protection concept utilizing
pneumatic tire casings as the major construction material has recently been
developed by the senior author at the State University of New York at Buffalo
(Harms and Bender, 1978; Harms, 1979a). It is referred to as the Pipe-Tire
Breakwater (PT-Breakwater), or Harms Breakwater, and is basically a hybrid
structure with massive, rigid, cylindrical members (e.g., steel or concrete
pipes) embedded in a flexible matrix of scrap tires. Experiments performed
with several small-scale PT-Breakwater models (Harms, 1979b) and one full-
scale breakwater demonstrated that this design provides significantly more
wave protection than the Goodyear or Wave-Maze breakwaters constructed of
equal size. These early laboratory tests also suggested that a full-scale
PT-Breakwater would have superior extreme event survival capabilities, while
preliminary calculations indicated that costs would remain low enough for this
wave protection system to be economically attractive.

Because of the PTI-Breakwater's potential contribution to low-cost wave
protection, prototype-scale experiments over a wide range of wave conditions
were conducted in a joint test program between the State University of New
York at Buffalo and the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC).
Full-scale tests, which are the subject of this report, were conducted in the
large wave tank at CERC. Investigations were aimed at defining the wave
transmission and mooring-force characteristics of PT-Breakwaters; it was also
intended that structural failure modes be analyzed, should it be possible to
induce them within the range of wave conditions that could be generated in the
tank.

Figures 1 and 2 provide a general impression of a floating PT-Breakwater.
This field installation at Mamaroneck, New York, is based on the PT-1 module
discussed in this report; it is constructed of truck tires with steel pipes
serving as the structural members and flotation chambers. The orientation of
the pipes with respect to the incident wave train is shown in Figure 3.

II. THE PIPE-TIRE BREAKWATER
The PTI-Breakwater is basically a mat composed of flexibly interconnected
scrap tires, floating near the surface, into which massive cylindrical members

are inserted to provide stiffness in the direction of wave motion and to serve
as buoyancy chambers. Major structural features of the PTI-Breakwater are

10

Figure 1. PT-Breakwater field installation (PT-1
modules; Mamaroneck, New York).

Figure 2. Typical PT-Breakwater module with tire-
armored pipes (Mamaroneck, New York).

11

Figure 3. Orientation of PT-Breakwater.

(a) densely spaced tires, (b) tire-armored longitudinal stiffeners (frequently
steel pipes), and (c) flexible connections and binding materials (no steel-to-
rubber connections). The orientation of the pipes with respect tio the inci-
dent wave train is shown in the drawing in Figure 3, with major structural
features of the breakwater shown in the module schematic in Figure 4 and the
definition sketch in Figure 5.

1. Breakwater Modules and Components.

Two versions of the PT-Breakwater, designated as the PT-1 and PT-2 mod-
ules, were tested in the large wave tank at CERC (Fig. 6). The PT-1 module,
which is the most massive of the two due to its composition of truck tires and
steel pipes, is shown in the foreground. The PT-2 module is constructed from
car tires and used telephone poles. From the detailed drawing of the PT-1
module (Fig. 4), several important structural features of the breakwater
emerge:

(a) A series of parallel conveyor-belt loops receive all lateral
loads (at right angles to the direction of wave motion), supports all
tires that are not “riding” on the pipe, and couples one module to
the next.

(b) Wave-induced hydrodynamic loads are ultimately transferred
from tire strings to the tire-armored steel pipe. This takes place
in stages. Wave action displaces tire strings and belt loops in the
direction of the wave motion (along the pipe) causing the pipe tires
to slide along the pipe and become compressed as they transfer their
load to the tire retainer at the end of the pipe (Figs. 4 and 7).

(c) The pipe itself effectively floats in a dense matrix of
flexibly connected tires.

12

——12' x 40'PT BREAKWATER MODULE — —

56 SU5H, 04048 A544 M4039 3035, IISD, 2125, 25222) BW 9854 eee EEL RES byipunven)
“52 mM 43423837 343398 5409S =——BELT Loop TIRES
: =: + ee ==>

16" STEEL PIPES
(49 long, I2'apart )

12 STRINGS,
(10 tires each)

TIRE RETAINER
ne

faa (405 dione 56 TIRES PER PIPE Lae ae
Si sR
ey Vane oe See
lr 1 10 a Me 6 5 3 4
“| ( dA Vo De ve is UNG ee aD)
SHORE WARD [+ -— = -—- - === | SEAWARD
TE= TRAILING EDGE WIDTH B= 40' LE = LEADING EDGE

Note :!£ Truck fires used, 40” diameter

Figure 4. Schematic of PT-1 breakwater module.

Figure 5. Definition sketch for PT-Breakwater.

13

Figure 6. Assembly of PT-1 (foreground) and PT-2 modules.

—— PIPE RETAINER ——

4 SECTIONS OF 2" STEEL PIPE
SCREWED INTO PIPE-CROSS
AT CENTER

16" STEEL-PILE PIPE,
0.281" WALL

‘STEEL END PLATE,
5/16"

FLOTATION CRAMBER
( foam filled )

Figure 7. Tire retainer at end of pipe.

14

The tire retainer used in the PT-1 module is shown in Figures 4 and 7. In
the case of the PT-2 module, the retainer was a tire casing that was held in
place by a 1.9-centimeter threaded steel rod extending through the telephone
pole and casing.

Standard marine steel-pile pipes were utilized as buoyancy chambers and
stiffeners in the PT-1 module; they were 12.2 meters long and 41 centimeters
in diameter, with a wall thickness of 0.71 centimeter. Scrap telephone poles
were used for the PT-2 module; they were 12.2 meters long with a diameter of
33 centimeters at the butt end and 23 centimeters at the tip.

Truck tires ranging in size from 9.00-18 to 10.00-20, with an average
diameter of 102 centimeters were used for PT-l. Car tires with rim sizes
ranging from 32 to 38 centimeters were used for PT-2; the average diameter was
about 65 centimeters.

A three-ply conveyor belt strip, 14 centimeters wide and 1.3 centimeters
thick, was used as the binding material; this had a rated breaking strength of
7900 kilograms. A five-hole bolted connection (Figs. 8 and 9) was used to tie
the belt into continuous loops.

Figure 8. Breakwater and mooring-system components.

15

Conveyor belt
(5% x V2, 3 ply)
Auto
tires

Rear id eer lat

Wire rope
aa ;
—_—

5— hole
pattern for
yo" bolts

Af holes)

@eoq

<a

Steel— pipe
rope guide

Conveyor belt

Figure 9. Tire mooring damper (six tires are used in the
MS-1 mooring system discussed in Sec. III,2).

2. Construction Procedures.

The floating tire breakwater is a modular construction concept. The pro-
cedures followed in the actual construction of the PT-1 modules are described
in this section. The procedures used for the PTI-2 modules are very similar
and therefore are not covered. When constructing these modules onsite and
at field installations, it should be insured that a crane with sufficient
lifting capacity is provided as the two-pipe PT-1 module weighs approximately
11 metric tons and the PT-2 module weighs about 4 metric tons.

Assembly of the breakwater is begun by arranging the tires according to
the pattern shown in Figure 4 but leaving out those tires labeled free ttres
(i.e., all tires not connected in some way to a belt). This phase is depicted
in Figure 10, where the last tire is just being rolled into place, and also in
Figure 11, where the conveyor-belt strips are being prepared by cutting to
length and punching the five-hole bolted pattern with a gasket or leather
punch (also shown in Fig. 6).

Having assembled the tires, the belts are then guided through the tire
casing according to the pattern shown in Figure 4. An illustration of this
procedure is shown in Figures 12 and 13. The belt-to-belt connection is then
completed by overlapping the belt ends and inserting the five bolts required
for each connection (see Fig. 14). A single bolt is used to fix each belt
loop to the sidewall of one belt-loop tire (see Figs. 15 and 4); this prevents
the belt from rotating under wave action.

After all the belt loops: have been bolted together and anchored, the
remaining free tires are rolled into place. The unit is then ready for inser-
tion of the pipe. One forklift is used to raise the pipe and position it for
entry into the long tunnel created by the 56 alined tires; a second forklift,
or similar device, pushes and alines the pipe as required. This having been
accomplished, the module appears as shown in Figure 6. The tire retainer
shown in Figure 7 (or the one depicted in Fig. 8) is then installed at each
end of the pipe, and the PT-1 module is ready to be lifted into the water (see
Bale wli6) re

16

to place.

in

ires

t

First step in breakwater assembly—-rolling

10.

Figure

dy to be tied

ion, rea

it

in pos

Tires are

Figure ll.

17

Figure 12. Guiding conveyor-belt strip through tire casings.

SAT : Ser

SEE Sc ai Ses SRS

Figure 13. Tensioning belt before completing belt-to-belt connection.

18

Figure 14. Belts are overlapped and bolted together.

Figure 15. Belt is anchored to sidewall of one tire.

19

Figure 16. PT-l module ready for lift into wave tank.

3. Breakwater Buoyancy.

a. Pipe Buoyancy Test. A simple buoyancy test was executed by resting
steel I-beams on top of one of the tire-armored pipes of the PT-1 module until
total submergence was attained (i.e., crown of tires just at the water sur-
face, case B in Fig. 17). Starting from the static, no-load equilibrium
position of the breakwater (i.e., crown of pipe at water level and interior
of the tire vented to atmosphere, case A), two steel I-beams, each 10.7 meters
long and weighing 98 kilograms per meter, were placed onto the tire-armored
pipe. These beams provided the loading needed to attain total submergence of
the pipe-tire unit. In each case, equilibrium demands that

Bar yn oF Up) eg SB ce ae (1)

where

F = added external load

Tes = extraneous loads (from mooring system, etc.)

F, = buoyancy force per tire due to entrapped air

Fy = net buoyant force due to pipe (lift minus weight)

Wey = weight of tire segment submerged in water

Wea = Weight of tire segment in air

n = number of tires on pipe

20

Figure 17. Forces on pipe-tire unit.

In this case the pipe is 12.2 meters long (4l-centimeter outside diameter
and 70.2-kilogram-per-meter weight in air), provides a net lift of 59.5 kilo-
grams per meter when totally submerged, and supports 49 truck tires. Truck
tires have a specific gravity of approximately 1.2 with a weight of W,, = 41
kilograms in air for the sizes predominantly used (i.e., 10.00-20 and 9.00-18
truck tires). Submerged in water this weight is reduced to approximately one-
sixth of Wr,, or 6-8 kilograms if all air is expelled. Applying these val-
ues to case A (which corresponds to F = F, = 0 and approximately three-fourths
of tire material submerged) and using equation (1), it follows that the extra-
neous load is a small lift force of 26 kilograms, (i.e., F, = -26 kilograms).
When the external load F is applied (case B), the buoyancy force resulting
from air entrapped in each tire may be calculated from equation (1) to be:

10.7(196) + 49(0 + 6.8) + (-26) 12.2(59.5) + 49F,

tes]
i]

34.2 kilograms per tire

On an average, this implies that 34 liters of air is trapped in the crown
of each tire. It is not know at what rate this trapped air would escape
under static conditions; during wave action the tire crown would be alter-
nately vented and replenished with air. In determining the flotation require-
ments for the complete structure, the weight of suspended sediments that may
accumulate in the tire casings as well as the influence of marine growth
should be considered.

b. Equilibrium of Breakwater. The load-carrying capacity of the break-
water must be carefully considered, particularly in areas where the weight of
the breakwater is likely to increase substantially with time due to deposition
of suspended sediments within the tire casings, biofouling, etc. In extreme
cases, all the tires may have to be foamed to provide adequate reserve buoy—
ancy, whereas at other sites the lift provided by the steel-pipe flotation

21

chambers

F

alone is sufficient. Equation (1) may be used to estimate the
reserve buoyancy provided by a clean single-pipe PT-1 module if some terms
are redefined:

Foeq = sediment and biofouling load (per tire)

extraneous load (from binding material, tire retainers, pipe end
caps, shackles, etc.)

buoyancy force due to entrapped air (for each tire not foamed)
buoyancy force due to submersed foam (for each tire that is foamed)
number of tires per module

number of tires foamed (per module)

This leads to

nF ood + nWiw + F

(2)
1 m
Fea Ch > Wee) = Oy = 15) = (Fe = ¥,)
Using the following approximate values and estimates for the PT-1l module:
1 = 220 kilograms
Fy = (60 kilograms per meter) (12 meters) = 720 kilograms
Wey = 7 kilograms
19 = 17 kilograms (50 percent of value from buoyancy test)
Fe = 34 kilograms (crown fully foamed, 34 liters)
n = 176 tires
to obtain
F (17 71) + : ) (720 280) Z (34 7)
= = a - +/{— = 1
eed 176 (=)
m (3)
ovaay @ US ae 17 (=) (estograns per tire)

22

The following examples demonstrate the increased load-carrying capacity
when foam is added to the tires: ;

(a) Example 1. If none of the tires are foamed, m = 0 and m/n =
0 in equation (3) so that F..qg = 13 kilograms per tire. Therefore, a
weight increase of approximately 13 kilograms per tire can be accom-
modated before the breakwater starts to submerge.

(b) Example 2. If all the tires are foamed, m =n and m/n = 1
above so that F..q = 30 kilograms per tire. In this case, each tire
can carry approximately 30 kilograms of additional load for a total
reserve buoyancy of about 5300 kilograms per single-pipe module.

4. Cost Estimates.

Major construction components for the PT-1 module and their respective
costs as of mid-1980 are listed in Table 1. It should be noted that the steel
pipe accounts for nearly 60 percent of the total cost. Therefore, substantial
savings are possible if used pipe can be purchased, which was done for the
floating breakwater at the Mamaroneck site where used dredge pipe was obtained
at a fraction of the cost indicated in Table 1. As a precautionary measure,
steel pipe should be filled with foam before the end caps are welded into
place. The total component cost amounts to $19.60 per square meter of
breakwater.

Table 1. Cost estimates of PT-Breakwater components.

Module dimensions: 3.7 by 12.2 m (B = 12.2 m)

Materials: Truck tires (9.00-18 and 10.00-20)
Steel pipe (4l-cm-diameter steel-pile pipe)
Conveyor-belt material (three-ply, 14 by 1.3 cm)
Nylon bolts, washers, and nuts (13 mm)

Steel pipe 12.2 m $43.00 $524.60 $11.60

Polyurethane foam 2.4 m9 75.00 180.00 4.00
(pipe plus 20 percent of tires)

Tying material 94m 1.15 108.10 2.40
(conveyor belt)

Tires 176 0.25 44.00 1.00
(transportation cost)

Nylon bolts, washers, and nuts 80 0.35 28.00 0.60
Cost of breakwater $19.60

(excluding mooring system and assembly)

Assembly and launching procedures should be carefully considered and
planned in advance so as to take full advantage of cost-saving site condi-
tions. Since the anchoring system can be very costly, alternatives should be
carefully investigated (e.g., the use of anchor piles may be less costly than
concrete clump anchors or steel embedment anchors, depending on availability
of pile-driving equipment and geotechnical conditions).

III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURES

1. Test Facility and Instrumentation.

a. Wave Tank. Experiments were conducted in CERC's large wave tank which
is 194 meters long, 4.6 meters wide, and 6.1 meters deep. The tank was oper-
ated at two water depths, 2.0 and 4.7 meters, using regular waves ranging in
period from 2.6 to 8.1 seconds and height from 0.15 to 1./8 meters. A sche-
matic of the wave tank operating with a piston-type wave generator at one end
and a relatively ineffective rock revetment wave energy dissipator at the
other end is shown in Figure 18. The breakwater at high and low water is
shown in Figures 19 to 23.

b. Wave Gage. Two Marsh McBirney voltage-gradient water level gages
(Model 100) were used to measure incident and transmitted waves. The waves
were calibrated twice daily over a range of 2.0 meters by manually lowering
and raising the wave staff. The output was recorded on a six-channel Brush
oscillographic recorder.

c. Force Gage. Loads on the seaward mooring line were measured by a
single force gage located above the tank near the wave generator. The force
gage consisted of a cantilevered steel plate with strain gages mounted near
its base, as shown in Figure 24. The strain gages formed two arms of a full
Wheatstone bridge that was driven at carrier frequencies. The sensitivity of
the force gage could be varied over a broad range, not only electronically but
also mechanically, by varying the mooring-cable attachment point on the can-
tilever (Fig. 24). The force gage was generally calibrated before and after
each test (one wave generator stroke setting) by applying a series of loads
to the cantilever using a mechanical load tightener (come-along) and a 2270-
kilogram dial force gage. The electrical output was displayed on the six-
channel Brush oscillographic recorder; typical calibration curves are shown in

Figure 25.
Se Wave goge ee A ;
k Vinee 1LOm_ Me eee Tee
ae | —— mss i THY = = INOING/ x
Ibs

d=46m ond 20m

fasim 30m ao 20 m——~ n 122m- ‘ +|- 19m—— oo 31m =
65m
Tire mooring damper
12" pulley Saas st OD TEGO Ea 000d. ye
re = 43m == a =>—___—_—_-—__]]
Timah: -22oooo

'
brie Ny 19m |
| i 50m ~ ~ 50m SS -|

Figure 18. Large wave tank at CERC with breakwater and MS-1 mooring system.

24

°(qJuolqzaAed YOO)

yoreq PpieMol MeTtA

°OZ ean3sty

aB1eT)

°(OuaD SyueQ eAeA
iJoje19Uue3 sAeM P1IeMO META

°61 aan3sta

25

Figure 21. Inserting PT-1 breakwater.

Figure 22. Turbulence associated with wave damping.

26

Figure 23. Attachment of seaward mooring line (MS-1 mooring system).

alae

ji SIZ wee” Silas PUNE

3/4" BOLT SHACKLE

1/4" MOORING
CABLE

STRAIN GAGES

STRAIN- GAGE - CANTILEVER STEEL BEAM ACROSS
UNIT WAVE TANK

— CANTILEVER FORCE GAGE ——

Figure 24. Strain-gage-cantilever force gage.

27

50

40

s ae

Chart Deflection (mm)

20 a
a o Initial

A Final

0 500 1000 1500 2000
Load (kg)

Figure 25. Force gage calibration record and curve.

2. Mooring System.

The basic mooring-line arrangement used throughout the test program is
shown in Figure 18. The mooring lines were 6-millimeter-diameter wire rope,
except for two removable segments 6 meters long that are labeled ttre mooring
damper as shown in Figure 18 and in more detail in Figure 9. These sections
were installed in order to determine whether a pliant mooring-line insert such
as the six-tire mooring damper could significantly reduce peak mooring forces.
Should a relatively “soft" mooring system be desirable, it may be achieved by
installing a tire mooring damper. The shoreward mooring bridle was always
attached directly to the steel pipes; no mooring-line inserts were used on
this side of the breakwater. On the seaward side the mooring bridle was
most often attached to the steel pipe with cables connected to shackles
extending through the pipe wall. An exception to this is the third mooring
system tested in which the mooring bridle was attached to the breakwater via
conveyor-belt loops that were laced through two tires armoring the pipe. In
this case the mooring-line forces are first transmitted to those two tires,
then transmitted to the pipe itself after the tires have shifted some distance
along the pipe and encountered the compressive resistance of the other tires
restrained by the retainer at the end of the pipe (Fig. 7).

The following mooring configurations were tested (major features are
listed in Table 2):

(1) Damper Pipe Connection (MS-1). In this module the tire
mooring-force dampers are installed and the mooring bridle is con-
nected directly to the pipes (soft line, hard connection) (see Figs.
18, 23, and 26).

28

Table 2. Compliance of mooring systems.

Mooring system

Type of mooring-line insert! Belting
(hard)

Type of breakwater connection Tires on pipe
(soft)

Mooring line stiffness (ranked) 2

linserts are 6 meters long; belting is in the form of a loop
(used double strength) with elongation characteristics under
load approximately equal to that of wire rope used.

Figure 26. Mooring bridle used in field installation.

(2) No-Damper Pipe Connection (MS-2). In this module the mooring
bridle remained attached to the pipes but the mooring-force damper was
removed and replaced with a conveyor-belt loop of equal length. The
load elongation characteristics of the conveyor-belt loop are similar
to those of the wire rope used (hard line, hard connection) (Fig. 27).

(3) No-Damper Tire Connection (MS-3). In this module the conveyor-
belt loop remained in place, but connection to the breakwater was made
by guiding the belt around two tires located on each pipe. Im the
PT-1 module, tires numbered 9 and 10 were used for this purpose; in
the PT-2 module, tires numbered 15 and 16 were used (hard line, soft
connection).

29

1000

500

TENSION T (kg)

DEFLECTION X (cm)

Figure 27. Load elongation curves for mooring-line inserts.

A stress-strain diagram for the conveyor belt with a five-hole bolted connec-
tion is shown in Figure 28. The strain values are influenced by the connec-
tion itself (i.e., elongation of the boltholes is being measured along with
any stretching of the belt). The belt failed at a load of 2270 kilograms, not
at the five-hole bolted connection but at the transition, where the belt had
to be reduced in width from 14.3 to 8.9 centimeters in order to fit into the
testing machine.

Force displacement relationships for MS-1 and MS-2 were obtained by ten-
sioning the insert, using a large dump truck, and determining deflection and
force, using a measuring tape and a dial force gage. The results are plotted
in Figure 27. Corresponding relationships for MS-3 were not determined, but
observations indicate that the elastic properties of MS-3 are between those of
MS-2 and MS-1.

A mooring bridle utilizing both truck and automobile tires is shown in
Figure 26. This unit was not tested at CERC; however, it has been used in
field installations.

3. Test Procedure and Conditions.
This experimental program is limited to two designs, the PT-1 and PT-2
modules, and two water depths, 2.0 and 4.7 meters. The summary of the test

conditions shown in Table 3 lists one other breakwater design--the PT-DB mod-
ule; this design is simply a PT-] breakwater that has been lengthened in the

30

F/F,, x10

F=applied toad
Fare (3150 Ib /in)(5.6in ) = 17,700 Ib

(RATED BREAKING STRENGTH)
Lo = 15-1 in

5.6 in
3-8 In

a

Figure 28. Stress-strain diagram for belt connection.

Table 3. Summary of test conditions.

Breakwater No. of Water Mooring Generator Wave height Wave period
Type Beam runs depth system stroke
(m)~ (m) (cm) (cm) (s)

PT-1 12.2 101 2.0 MS-1 61 to 213 15 to 113 2.6 to 8.1
PT-1 12.2 92 4.7 MS-1 61 to 168 42 to 178 2.6 to 8.0
PT-1 12.2 62 4.7 MS-2 61 to 152 32 to 132 2.6 to 8.1
PT-1 12.2 SU 4.7 MS-3 61 to 122 30 to 130 2.6 to 8.1
PT-2 12.2 40 2.0 MS-3 61 to 122 18 to 110 2.6 to 8.1
PT-2 12.2 36 4.7 MS-3 61 to 122 30 to 150 2.6 to 8.1
PT-DB 25.9 34 2.0 MS-3 61 to 122 28 to 132 2.6 to 8.1

shoreward direction by flexibly attaching the PT-2 module by use of conveyor-
belt loops. Data for the PT-DB configuration are listed in Appendix A.
The PT-1 module was tested with three different mooring systems and was, in
general, emphasized in the experimental program. Out of 402 runs tested, 290
were devoted to the PT-1 breakwater. Wave heights ranged from 0.15 to 1.78
meters, with wave periods ranging from 2.6 to 8.1 seconds; the wave generator
stroke varied from 0.61 to 2.13 meters.

With the breakwater floating in the wave tank and attached to the mooring

system, test preparations were generally initiated each day by adjusting the
water level, calibrating the wave and force gages, and checking the stroke

31

setting of the wave generator. The generator was adjusted to the desired
frequency, started, and waves generated for about 5 minutes; this constituted
a run. After shutdown of the wave generator, a necessary waiting period
followed in order to regain quiescent conditions in the wave tank. When these
conditions were attained, waves of another frequency were generated and this
process was repeated until all the desired wave periods for that stroke
setting were obtained; this process constituted a test. One, and sometimes
two, tests were completed per day, and the generator stroke was changed in the
afternoon so that a new test could be started the following morning. Wave and
force gages were calibrated both at the beginning and end of each day's
testing (and sometimes more frequently).

IV. DATA REDUCTION AND ANALYSIS
1. Dimensional Analysis.

For a particular breakwater and mooring system, the transmitted wave
height, H,, may be expressed as a function of the following variables:

H, = f(H,L, B,D,G,A,m, k,e, d,y,v,g)

where
€ = horizontal excursion of the breakwater from its equilibrium position
k = measure of mooring-system stiffness (equivalent spring constant per
unit length, i)
m = mass of breakwater (per unit length, A)
Y = specific weight of water
v = kinematic viscosity of water
g = gravitational acceleration

The remaining terms are defined in the definition sketch (Fig. 5). Since
this expression contains three dimensionally independent physical variables
(length, mass, time), this relationship involving 14 physical variables may be
replaced, according to Buckingham's t-Theorem, by one involving 11 dimension-
less groups:

= wave transmission ratio, Ce

structure parameters

oO} a

wave steepness

em
u

32

ye = wave structure parameters
2 BD = fluid structure parameters
d * mg

(z)(

DY gL

a

Reynold's number

Delete the following parameters for the stated reasons:

o|>

ial5

==} Ku)

(ee)

Only quasi-two-dimensional experiments will be
considered (i.e., diffraction effects are
absent when the breakwater extends across the
full width of the tank).

This is the ratio of mooring-system static
restoring force to structure weight and is not
changed during the experiment.

Assumed to be a weak parameter that is of
little importance for small values of e/H
(i.e., for horizontal motions of the structure
that are small compared to the wave height).

This parameter relates the mass of fluid dis-
placed by the breakwater to the mass of the
breakwater itself. It would remain constant
for geometrically similar breakwaters con-
structed from the same materials.

This Reynold's number is based on the tire
diameter and a velocity that is related to the
maximum wave-induced water particle velocity;
it will be assumed large enough to insure
Reynold's number independence.

By eliminating the above dimensionless groups, the following is obtained

L
Cc. =f 3

ei
als
ol|lw
Se

33

(4)

This is the relationship on which the experimental program was based.

Similarly, consider the mooring-force relationship to be
ye £(H,H, >L, B,D,G,A,m, k,e, d,y,v,g)

and, by similar reasoning, obtain
F My al YD) B
=—SSEl=pPoKose (5)
L

2. Data-Reduction Procedures.

Analog signals from the wave gages and force transducer were recorded on
three channels of a six-channel Brush oscillographic recorder. Typical
records of the seaward mooring-line force and the incident and transmitted
waves are reproduced in Figures 29 to 32.

Wave reflections from the steep, rock-armored beach at the end of the wave
tank (Fig. 18) were an annoyance, particularly for the longer waves generated.
The incident and transmitted wave heights were therefore generally obtained
from the first 5 to 10 waves in the run (i.e., before wave reflections could
substantially influence wave height measurements. Beach reflections were
particularly bothersome when generating waves of low steepness and of periods
larger than about 5 seconds.

From the force gage records it can be seen that the seaward mooring load
fluctuates with the passage of each wave between a maximum value, which varies

i keep eet nage! Ha A Acces EEE BASSESUEESEREIT GE #96 vase
ana ' Ee rf 1 aida ny cif pate aracyeat ti Hh :
Oe ARS TESTE AIG fd re isia bie AAI uh AM
ee A aR oe = ‘

TLE eH ;
iets | | [| ei pa | | a Ei
li | ipeaanenea ce: ALAA A A avai
i f NENMENZINT

Efces008 Pee |
:

q tnd a Soares
aeene we
Py 7] ea NATE
A ae da he TET
Eee Ke Gaal LE
criti be goeuee ee
ey He cH EEE

PS WAVE Hy

i

+

Figure 29. Wave and force record for long waves (d = 4.7 m, T = 8.0 s).

34

1

|
v >
i

if
|
|
A
y
T T
|
uty

|

AML

WY

B62) Do

|
|
|

Yl

uJ

T

i

AWM My

I

wail
40 cm

T
ho AU ATA)
gem AN YAN LVAD

i
|

t
At

400 kg

N\ Ad

+

ney! WEL

Alt lA

HT

IA

FORCE

AAA |

WAVE. H
|

|
i
ll

!

es —=— =
aa — i =i a —4
—— ——— al a

|

l]
|
l
VAN A AANA AA A AIA
ASATAV AVATAYAYA? AUB" AU WTA ATAUAGAUA M7

i
tM
:

ii
l

|
i

H |]
\

|
]
A

i
J

il
|

F
ot
]

ill
ii

HWY

AAA TA A
+

il

|
MMC LAL AILA

WAU Hy

an

Wave and force record for short waves (d = 4.7 m, T
|
|

|
|
ayes ae SRE a

i
Hi
|
ut
1

Figure 31.

Figure 30.
Re eel
ert lah

TA
| N
SE it
: L
Falaat
EEE

0 s)

4./ m, T = 3

35

Wave and force record for steep waves (d

j 1 i Eon ||
Hl ed
at i t

! Lh SIAL
ry era | h
A! 1h

i wll IMs saieinitit

TG
MHL
iil

ey i AAA A TAA ni AU A A WAAL

| ! TELE
See mle iy ULL Hut WWWWWWWWW WWW CY | RY Kane)

| eC EEA fF fete ete Hi
a { Hage eee Ee ae) pe Se beOE EEE Se UL

40 cm

ale aay T ST T Taal T T Tien] en Tom 7 TT T
ici, Bee Pe eS Gy f aa eee ened
| Hay Ie 0) espe vl i Biba fh EE ila hed g el |
i Len A ARIAUNALR UML IV CNS

7 PO LE p "i GRECO Re ada Enh eae eae ra
! i tt tas cell i i

Figure 32. Wave and force record for shallow-water waves (d = 2.0 nm,
T= 5.5 8).

throughout the run, and a minimum value, which remains essentially constant.
The individual force peaks occur as the breakwater surges shoreward during
the passage of each wave crest, but is prevented from moving too far in this
direction by the mooring-line restraint. On the other hand, the seaward
movement of the breakwater is not similarly opposed, since no force cantilever
was installed on the leeward side of the breakwater. Instead, only a constant
negative restoring force or preload of approximately 113 kilograms was exerted
on the breakwater via the shoreward mooring line and pulley-weight arrangement
shown in Figure 18. The zero-force referen¢e position recorded at the begin-
ning of each run always corresponds to this static preloaded condition of the
cantilever force gage. Negative force values up to the magnitude of this
preload can consequently be obtained as the breakwater surges seaward; these
constitute the stable lower limit of the force records.

A time-series analysis of the force data was not performed because the
experiments were limited to regular waves and because the level of effort
required did not make it feasible. For practical purposes, each force record
is therefore characterized by a single force value that is considered most
useful for design purposes—the peak force, F, occurring during the length
of record (excluding wave generator start-and-stop transients, which have no
counterpart in nature). Typically, this implies that the first 5 to 10 waves
were not included in the analysis, nor were those last waves propagating down
the tank after shutdown of the wave generator. Each run consists of at least
50 waves. In addition to the peak mooring force, F, an approximation to the
drift force, F, is also obtained, as is the significant peak force, F

The drift force F is the net, time-averaged force acting on the seaward
mooring line; it was determined “by eye” as show in Figure 33 and is there-
fore subject to larger errors. The significant force, Fz. represents the
average of the largest one-third of the force peaks, again excluding stop-and-
start transients; it is obtained manually, directly from the data trace.

If stop-and-start transients are included in the determination of the peak
mooring force, as has been done by other investigators (Giles and Sorensen,

36

O
O
LL
REGION 1
START BEST DATA REFLECTIONS STOP
TRANSIENT TRAN.
F = PEAK FORCE
F = DRIFT FORCE, WHERE F = 1/215 aA )
FROM REGION 1
LA = AVERAGE OF HIGHEST 1/3 PEAKS

on
“

AVERAGE OF LOWEST 1/3 EXTREMES

mul
i)

HIGHEST PEAK FORCE VALUE FOR LENGTH OF RECORD

Figure 33. Definition sketch for force analysis.

1978), the difference between F and this peak force is frequently small, but
on the other hand can be quite large as shown in Appendix B. In that appendix
the peak mooring force, F, is also compared to the significant peak force,
F,, for a large number of the tests.

The cantilever force gage is calibrated at least once at the beginning and
ending of each day's testing; if zero drifts are observed, it is calibrated
more frequently. Calibration is accomplished manually via a separate cable
with mechanical load tightener and 2270-kilogram dial force gage in series,
attached close to the cantilever. A typical calibration record is shown in
Figure 25. The force values are always referenced to the static no-load
condition (i.e., with pully preload but no waves).

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

1. Wave Transmission Data.

For each breakwater configuration and water depth, the transmitted wave
height depends primarily on the width of the structure and the incident wave-
length (or period) and wave height. Dimensional analysis and physical insight
were invoked in Section IV to arrive at dimensionless parameters that would
describe the problem more succinctly and clearly and would also guide the
experimental effort and analysis of the results. This evolved in the presen-
tation of the data in the format shown in Figure 34. The wave height trans-—
mission ratio, C, = H,/H, is presented as a function of relative wavelength
L/B, with different symbols designating ranges of wave steepness H/L. These
are the primary parameters. The secondary parameters are listed in the insert
of each figure. These parameters specify the water depth (relative depth,

37

CERC.1979. PT-1 BREAKWATER WITH MOORING TYPES 1.2,3; DEPTH=4 6M
T T cae Ear lar T W T

1.20

1.00

80

3 5

B

oy

i
Gct

B BB
B+

0
@
a
rc]
e

0.60
cc)
e\i3
\
iC]

)
got
ci 2.
S af x (H/L)I0" ——D/d B/D G/D
(o>) x
f + 06-19 0.22 12.0 3.3
we m 2.0-60
° a)
2 vA x 6.1 IL6

WAVE HEIGHT TRANSMISSIGN RATIO CT

x ¥ — 40

%.00 0.50 1-00

oO
oO

1.50 2'.00 2.50 3.00
RELATIVE WAVELENGTH!!! L/B
Figure 34. Wave transmission data for PT-1 breakwater (d = 4.7 m).

D/d) and breakwater geometry (aspect ratio, B/D, and pipe spacing, G/D).
For design purposes, the transmission characteristics of each breakwater are
summarized in the form of a single wave height transmission curve. This curve
corresponds to a wave steepness of H/L = 0.04 (a moderate value frequently
encountered in practice) and different values of D/d. Although much data
have been obtained at wave steepness other than 0.04, indicating that the
transmission ratio, Ces generally decreases with increasing wave steepness,
the available data are not adequate for defining transmission curves for wave
steepness other than 0.04. Nevertheless, the influence of wave steepness has
been preserved to a large extent by grouping the data according to steepness
categories; in Appendix C the value of H/L is actually listed next to each
data point. Appendix C should be particularly useful for design cases with
wave steepness near the extremes encountered in nature, either high or low
(e.g-, H/L larger than 0.08 or less than 0.02), since deviations from the 4-
percent design curve may then become significant. The wave transmission data
in Appendix C have also been segregated with respect to the type of mooring
system installed, but it was found that this had no discernible influence on
wave transmission characteristics. It is therefore permissible to combine the
data for all of the mooring systems as has been done in Figure 34.

a. PT-1 Breakwater. Wave transmission data for the PT-]1 module (truck
tires, steel pipe) are show in Figures 34 and 35 for two water depths, D/d =
0.22 and 0.51. In both cases the transmission ratio, C., increases mono-
tonically with relative wavelength L/B. The breakwater is very effective

38

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (C,)

LEGEND
(H/L) 10°
0.4 to 1.9
2.0) {0 G0
6.1 to 10.1
x 40
0.51
= 12.0
> 3.3

0) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Relative Wavelength (L/B)
Figure 35. Wave transmission data for PT-1 breakwater (d = 2.0 m).

in filtering out waves that are shorter than the width of the structure, but
becomes increasingly less effective as the wavelength increases.
breakwater is significantly more effective at the lower depth,
particularly for longer waves. The influence of water depth, or relative
draft D/d, becomes particularly apparent in Figure 36 where the transmission

dent that the

curves are compared.

Figure

H/L2=Q04

0/d =0.51

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (Cy)

@/D GD Dim
122.0 33 102

() 05 1.0 15 20 25 30 35 4.0
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

36. Wave transmission design curves for PT-1 breakwater.

39

It is evi-

The influence of wave steepness is most readily detectable for longer
waves (e.g-, L/B larger than 2) and may be important at low water depths.
For L/B = 2.9 and D/d = 0.51 (Fig. 35), the value of C, decreases dramati-
cally from 0.9 to 0.4 as H/L increases from 0.007 to 0.028 (refer also to
Fig. C-7 in App. C). The data in Figures 34 and 36 apply to the PT-1 module,
which has a pipe spacing of G/D = 3.3, aspect ratio of B/D = 12, and beam
B = 12.2 meters. These conditions may not be altered greatly without also
influencing the wave transmission characteristics. For example, the design
curves of Figure 36 may not apply to a structure with a much larger beam,
e.g-, B = 24 meters (i.e., or B/D = 24). Until further data on the importance
of B/D are obtained, it is suggested that the PT-l1 wave transmission design
curves of Figure 36 be limited to beam dimensions in the range from 9 to 15
meters. Such information has been recently provided in Harms, Bishop, and
Westerink, 1981. Existing data from small-scale experiments (Harms, 1979)
indicate that the transmission curve for D/d = 0.22 does not change signifi-
cantly as the water depth increases. For deepwater applications with D/d
less than 0.2, it is therefore suggested that the D/d = 0.22 curve be used for
design purposes, at least until further data become available. In addition,
curves should not be extrapolated beyond the range of data shown (i.e.,
L/B > 4.5 and 3.0).

b. PT-2 Breakwater. Wave transmission data for the PT-2 module (con-
structed of automobile tires and telephone poles) are shown in Figures 37 and
38, with design curves given in Figure 39. The behavior of the PTI-2 module is
very similar to that of the PT-1 module, although a decrease in wave attenua-
tion performance is indicated, at least at the larger water depths considered
in Figure 40. It was observed that the influence of wave steepness H/L is
again particularly apparent at the lower water depth (D/d = 0.33, Fig. 38) and
large values of L/B. The actual H/L values associated with each data point
are given in the appendixes. Again, curves should not be extrapolated beyond
the range of the data shown (i.e., L/B > 4.5 and 3.0).

al T lee a eal | a Sa aE | Sesame a Res RE Vesa
D/d=0.14
es +
© 1.00
~~ g i x + x
fe} +
2 ‘ce,
o
re 3
S 8
wo
ee
E
a LEGENO
= 2
2 (H/L) 10
S + 0.6 to 1.9
r= © 2,010 6.0 an
a X 6.0 to ll2
aw
oT:
g
>
oO
=
PT-2, MS-3
O i | ee N pee
() 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3,00 350 4.00 4.50

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure 37. Wave transmission data for PT-2 breakwater
(d = 4.7 Mm)

40

1.20

D/d = 0.33
wal OO +
2 +
ec a
rs)
< 080 ‘ "
Cc
2 + _
2 ° ;

e)

cz mith
E ° +
a oe aP Bee LEGEND
eS o <<, (H/L) 10°
- {o) fo) fo)
ag & ° + 0.5to 19
reap Ro © 2,010 6.0
® X 6:0 to 9.2
a
: |
>
io) r
=

O 0.50 1,00 1,50 2.00 2:50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4,50
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure 38. Wave transmission data for PT-2 breakwater
(d = 2.0 m).

H/L =0.04

D/d=0.14

G/D D(cm)

5.5 66

6) 0.50 1,00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure 39. Wave transmission design curves for PT-2 breakwater.

41

1.20 T

H/L= 004

+)

G
5
fo)

PT-2 at D/d=0.14

PT-1 at D/d=0.22

iS}
@
[e)

9
fon)
[e)

io)
Ss
(e)

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (
S)
ine)
fo)

! JL | | | | |
00 150 2.00 2.50 3,00 3150 4.00 ~ 4,50

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

|
0.50

Figure 40. Comparison of PT-1 and PT-2 wave
attenuation (d = 4.7 m).

c. Goodyear Breakwater. Giles and Sorensen (1978) obtained prototype-
scale wave transmission data for the Goodyear floating tire breakwater using
the large wave tank at CERC. Data for the 6-module-wide Goodyear breakwater
are plotted in Figures 41 and 42, along with the wave transmission curve for
the PT-2 module. Both breakwaters are constructed from automobile tires and
have a beam of 12.2 meters which is equivalent to B/D = 18.5. For the lower
water depth case considered in Figure 42, it is evident that the PT-2 break-
water is substantially more effective than a Goodyear breakwater of equal
size. At the larger water depth considered in Figure 41, the PT-2 breakwater
is still superior but not as much so as at the lower water depth.

From extensive small-scale experiments by Harms (1979a, 1979b), the
influence of water depth is found not to be of practical importance for the
Goodyear breakwater, at least for values of D/d less than 0.4, although
C clearly decreases as D/d increases. How significant the influence of
pid is for the full-scale Goodyear breakwater (Figs. 41 and 42) is shown in
Figure 43 where the data for D/d = 0.16 and 0.33 may be compared while keep-
ing L/B, H/L, and B/d constant; the difference in C, is typically less
than 0.1 (the C, values near L/B = 2 are probably false). Small-scale and
prototype-scale data are therefore in agreement and the single Goodyear wave
transmission curve of Figure 44 (Harms, 1979a) may be used for most practical
applications as long as D/d does not exceed 0.4; near D/d = 0.4 the design
curve will be somewhat more conservative than at lower values of D/d.

The performance of the PT-1 module is compared to that of a Goodyear
breakwater of equal size in Figure 44. It is apparent that the PT-Breakwater
provides substantially more wave protection than the Goodyear breakwater. It

42

=} 1,00
oO
S)
=)
log 0.80
5 x
a
o
E 0.60
2 LEGEND
= (H/L) 10?
=
~ + 0.6 to 1,9
‘& 0.40 © 2.0 to 6.0
@ xX 6.0 tc 98
I=
© D/d B/D Dicm) G/D
= 0:20 PT-BW 014 185 64 55
+ 0 X GOODYEARO.I6 18.5 64
0 | aah NL l l if Nl L
o) 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3,00 350 4.00 4.50

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure 4]. Comparison of Goodyear and PT-2 wave attenuation (d = 4.7 m).

Goodyear data

a

LEGEND
(H/L) 10°

Ve ae + 06 to 119
o 2.0t0 6.0

X 6,0 to 89

D/d B/D D(cm) G/pD
0,33 18.5 64 55

enlees
0.50 1,00 1,50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (Cy)
fo) iS} 9° ° = =
N 7s (on) @ (e) nN
° iS) iS) ) fs) } iS)
a ae a ae rl
oom
% xCOD =
if x00aD
lo eee)
@wo+ 0 |
ocodgD
COD +4#+
O+FOF+ +
+ +

Figure 42. Comparison of Goodyear and PT-2 wave attenuation (d = 2.0 m).

43

H/L In %

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (Cy)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure 43. Influence of D/d on Goodyear wave attenuation.

1.2
H/L = 0.04

° =
@ le)

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (Cy)
oO
oa

0.2 B/D G/D D (cm)
PT- BW 12.0 3.3 102
—-—-— Goodyear 7- 42 815, 64
(0)
0) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure 44. Wave transmission design curves for Goodyear and PT-Breakwater.

44

should be noted that the Goodyear design curve in Figure 44 is independent of
B/D, having been tested over a broad range of B/D during experiments at
the Canada Centre for Inland Waters (CCIW) (Harms, 1979a, 1979b). A similar
series of experiments for the PT-Breakwater was scheduled at CCIW in September
1980 (see Harms, Bishop, and Westerink, 1981 for results).

2. Mooring-Force Data.

a. PT-l1 Breakwater. This breakwater was tested most extensively in
the MS-1 mooring configuration (i.e., with a six-tire mooring-force damper
installed). It was also tested with the MS-2 and MS-3 mooring systems at the
deepest water depth of 4./ meters. As is explained in Section III, the MS-2
mooring configuration is the “stiffest” system tested and the MS-1 is the most
elastic or “softest” system tested with the elastic properties of the MS-3
system lying somewhere between them.

The peak mooring force is plotted in Figures 45 and 46 as a function of
wave height for the case of MS-1 and two water levels, D/d = 0.51 and 0.22.
An exponential relationship between the mooring force and the wave height can
be detected in the data, even though this information is masked at times by
the relatively large scatter of data (even at fixed L/B) that is common in
this type of measurement. The best “by eye” fit has been drawn and indicates
that at both water levels F is proportional to H3/2. For a given wave
height and wavelength, the peak mooring forces are clearly higher at the lower
water level. This is shown in Table 4 where the value of the force coeffi-
cient K is listed and defined. The influence of L/B is difficult to quan-
tify from the data: an increase of F with L/B appears to be indicated,
particularly at D/d = 0.51, but additional tests would have to be made to
define this relationship.

450

375

300

LEGEND

225 L/B

2.%)
1.7
\_3
150 4 in 1.0

Peakload (kg/m )

75

(0) .25 50 nthe) 1,00 125 150 1.75 200
Incident Wave Height H (m)

Figure 45. PT-1 peak mooring-force data (MS-1, d = 2.0 m).

45

450

Sh)

300
€
g
BS LEGEND
§ L/B
oO 2.4 to
@
Pe 1.7

150 13

}.@)
m5
(0)

(0) 28) .50 we 1.00 25 150 175
Incident Wave Height H (m)

Figure 46. PT-1 peak mooring-force data (MS-1, d = 4.7 m).

Table 4. Summary of mooring-force data.!

Mooring Force coefficient, K
system

Goodyear

lFor design purposes, suggest that F be increased
by 100 kilograms per meter.
2Estimated values.

3Data not available.

46

200

How the mooring-system elasticity affects the peak mooring force is shown
in Figures 46, 47, and 48. In each case the water level is fixed and only the
mooring-line flexibility is changed. A substantial increase in F is noted
when the six-tire mooring-force damper is removed and replaced with a rela-
tively inflexible section of conveyor belt (i.e., switching from the MS-1 to
the MS-2 system). This is apparent in Figure 47 where the MS-2 data are shown
with relation to the MS-1 curve from Figure 46; all the data are above the
MS-1 curve with much of the data far above it. The MS-3 data and curve-
through data are shown in Figure 48. This system results in forces that are
somewhat higher than those for the MS-l1 system but lower than those for the
MS-2 system. The corresponding values of K are provided in Table 4.

b. PI-2 Breakwater. The PT-2 module was tested only in the MS-3 mooring
configuration; test results are shown in Figures 49 and 50. Again as for PT-
1, the force is proportional to He. but for PT-2 the appropriate exponent is
2, not 3/2 as it is for PT-1. The curves for n = 2, fitted by eye, are shown
in Figures 49 and 50; the corresponding values of K are listed in Table 4.
Although PT-2 was tested with the MS-3, and not the preferred MS-1 mooring
system, the effect of a change from MS-3 to MS-1 may be estimated by assuming
that the ratio of the respective forces is the same as for the PT-1 module
(for which such data exist and are conveniently summarized in Table 4). For
PT-1 it is noted

K(MS-1) _ 280 _

KQis=3)) 370 7 7
Assuming that this ratio holds for the PT-2 module as well, the estimated MS-1
values, shown in Table 4, are obtained. Although the peak mooring forces for
the PT-1 module are higher than those for the PT-2 module for the same wave
height and water depth, it should be noted that the transmitted wave is also
smaller in the case of the PT-1 module.

eS NN en Oa eye a ae Ae geeaey an]
re O/d = 0.22

Peakload fF (kg/m)

LEGEND

L/B
AaB) wey
et TO Be
(es Vou (
EORSsto= |

fe) FS) 50 7S 100 (25 150 75 200
Incident Wave Height -{ (m)

Figure 47. Effect of mooring-system compliance on F
(MS-1 and MS-2, d = 4.7 m).

47

Peakload F (kg/m)

300 |-

mae Ooh ay aie
o ot

° °
a
°
150}- Oo ° LEGEND _
©) AN
°o° 2.5 to 43
BS tov 1 20
eh Otes {t) 066
tl ObetOmalee.
a TE Oe Se |
O 2B 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Incident Wave Height H (m)

Figure 48. PT-1l peak mooring-force data (MS-3,
d= 400i/ me

D/d =O.14

Peakload F (kg/m)

LEGEND

2.5 to 4.3
1.7 to 2.4
I3 to V6
10 to 1.2

fe) .25 50 as) 00 l25 150 7S 200
Incident Wave Height H (m)

Figure 49. PT-2 peak mooring-force data (MS-3,
d = 4.7 m).

48

525 >
O/d = 0.33

450

uw
NI
e,)

—E °
~
=
% 300 al
a=)
o
: |
= +
cs
Ses
LEGEND
sob L/B +
© 25 to 2.9
4 #61.7 to 24
75 e 13 to 1.6 |
op Ikey tts ThA
ee la Gk che est le neh OP i a |
0) 25 50 75 Koyo) 125 I) 175 200

Incident Wave Height H (m)

Figure 50. PT-2 peak mooring-force data (MS-3,
d = 2.0 m).

c. Goodyear Breakwater. The Goodyear module tests by Giles and Sorensen
(1978) also included an evaluation of the breakwater mooring loads. Data from
those experiments are plotted in Figures 51 and 52 for the case corresponding
most nearly to the conditions in the present study (i.e., for the six-module-
beam Goodyear breakwater that is also 12.2 meters wide). The curves shown in
Figures 51 and 52 indicate that F is proportional to H%; the correspond-
ing force coefficient K is listed in Table 4. The hyperbolic relationship
between F and H adequately describes the data.

pe
Goodyeur

0.11
QO.
2

Peakload (kg/m)

me) 20 40 _ 60 .80 _ 1,00 120 140 160
Incident Wave Height H (m)

Figure 51. Goodyear peak mooring-force data
(Giles and Sorensen, 1978; d = 2.0 m).

49

180

Goodyear

150
LEGEND
mn, L/B
to
120 ze
= 1.3 to
& 1.0 to
o
= 0.8
bo} 90
=)
&
=
)
a
2 60
30
fe)
fo) 20 40 60 8
Incident Wave Height
Figure 52.

O/d
0.16

B/D
12.0

D (m )
0.65

1,00 120 140

H (m)

\60

Goodyear peak mooring-force data

(Giles and Sorensen, 1978; d = 4.0 m).

For a given wave height and length,

the mooring forces on the

Goodyear

breakwater are clearly much lower than those for a PT-Breakwater of equal

size.

importance of which cannot be quantified at this time:

This finding is attributed principally to three factors, the relative

(1) The transmitted -wave for the PT-Breakwater is smaller than

that for the Goodyear breakwater;

2lL6Qa 6

different levels of energy

dissipation occur on each structure (wave breaking and impact, etc.).

(2) Different mooring systems were utilized.

The importance of

this has already been demonstrated with regard to the PT-1 breakwater

(see Table 4).

(3) The Goodyear breakwater design stretches extensively under

load, being very pliable throughout.

This influences or perhaps even

dominates the mooring dynamics and load transmission characteristics.

VI.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Two prototype-scale PT-Breakwaters were tested in CERC's large wave tank

using regular waves: the PT-1 module,

constructed of truck tires and steel

pipes in waves up to 1.8 meters high, and the smaller PT-2 module, constructed
from automobile tires and telephone poles in waves up to 1.5 meters high.

Wave
data
were

transmission and mooring-load characteristics were established based on
from 402 separate runs in which incident and transmitted wave heights
recorded, along with tension in the seaward mooring line.

In the course of the investigation, it became increasingly evident (during

construction, crane operations,

and early experiments) that the PT-] break-

water was more rugged and could potentially function and survive under more

50

severe wave conditions than those normally considered acceptable for floating
tire breakwaters. For this reason, the PT-]1 module was emphasized in the test
program. Although structural failures were not experienced on either the PT-1
or the PT-2 breakwaters throughout the many weeks of testing, and posttest
inspections did not reveal areas of imminent failure or excessive wear, it
became clear that the PT-2 module was inherently more pliable than the PT-1
module because it was composed of automobile tires, not truck tires. Conse-
quently, as waves broke over the structure, greater compression and displace-
ment of leading-edge tires occurred on the PT-2 module than was true for the
PT-1 module under the same conditions. Although PT-Breakwaters were designed
to be pliable, with relative motion between individual components, under
severe wave-induced loads, the observed compression of leading-edge tires
on the PT-2 module is felt to be excessive for continuous operation. It is
therefore suggested that the PT-2 breakwater be limited to sites with signifi-
cant wave heights of less than 0.9 meter; this condition is considered to be
equally appropriate for Goodyear or Wave-Maze floating tire breakwaters that
are composed of automobile tires as well. The value of 0.9 meter was chosen
by the researchers as representing the best, though inherently somewhat sub-
jective, estimate for the maximum acceptable significant wave height; it is
based on extensive laboratory observations and experience with a variety
of field installations. The above rule is considered to be of practical
importance because it reminds the designer that the environment is hostile
and that PT-Breakwaters constructed from automobile tires are inherently less
rugged than those composed of truck tires; both have survival limitations.

The wave attenuation performance of PT-Breakwaters improves as either
wavelength or water depth decreases, or the wave steepness increases (i.e.,
C, increases with L/B and decreases with D/d or H/L). The shelter
afforded by a particular PT-Breakwater is strongly dependent on the incident
wavelength: substantial protection is provided from waves that are shorter
than the width of the breakwater (i.e, L< B), but very little from waves
longer than three B. As the water depth decreases, the wave attenuation
performance improves; a breakwater that provides inadequate shelter at high
tide may therefore be satisfactory at low tide. Wave attenuation generally
improves with increasing wave steepness, especially for relatively long waves
in shallow water (e.g., L > 3B and d < 3D). This behavior is attributed
principally to the inherent instability of waves, which increases with wave
steepness and, for waves near the breaking limit, is so great that only a
small perturbation is required to “trigger” the breaking process. For steep
waves, breaking was observed to start just seaward of the breakwater with
large amounts of energy being dissipated as the wave rolled and surged over
the breakwater. The wave attenuation performance of the PT-1 module was found
to be superior to that of the PT-2 module and the Goodyear breakwater. For
L/B = 1 (and deep water with d > 3D and H/L = 0.04), for example, the wave
height transmission ratio was approximately C, = 0.6, 0.4 and 0.2 for the
Goodyear, PT-2, and PT-] breakwaters, respectively. Wave transmission curves
given in this report should not be used to design breakwaters that are less
than 9 meters wide or more than 15 meters wide (see Harms, Bishop, and
Westerink, 1981 for further data).

For a given breakwater, the peak mooring force, F (on the seaward moor-
ing line, per unit length of breakwater) was found to depend primarily on the
wave height, H, and water depth, d, with wavelength, L, apparently only
of secondary importance. For the conditions investigated, F increases

51

approximately with the square of the wave height; more specifically, F« Ho
where n = 1.5, 2 and 2 for the PT-1, PT-2, and Goodyear breakwaters, respec-
tively. For design purposes, and until the results from ongoing experiments
become available, it is suggested that the following formula be used to cal-
culate anchor requirements for breakwaters that range in width from 9 to 15
meters:

F = 100(1 + 10 KH”) (6)
where
H = wave height (meters)
F = restraining force (kilograms per meter) to be provided by the
anchor system for each meter of breakwater length
n = 3/2 for the PT-1 breakwater or 2 for the PT-2 and Goodyear
breakwaters
K = force coefficient from Table 4.

The available small-scale and prototype-scale data have recently been
synthesized into detailed design curves (Harms, Bishop, and Westerink,
1981). In order to be conservative, mooring loads should be determined from
these design curves as well as equation (6), and the larger value chosen for
design purposes.

52

LITERATURE CITED

CANDLE, R.D., “Scrap Tire Shore Protection Structures,” Engineering Research
Department, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio, 1976.

DAVIS, A.P., Jr-, “Evaluation of Tying Materials for Floating Tire Break-
waters,” Marine Technical Report No. 54, University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, R.I., Apr. 1977.

GILES, M.L., and SORENSEN, R.M., “Prototype Scale Mooring Load and Transmis-—
sion Tests for a Floating Tire Breakwater,” TP 78-3, U.S. Army, Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., Apr.
1978.

HARMS, V.W., “Design Criteria for Floating Tire Breakwaters,” Journal of the
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Divtston, Vol. 105, No. WW2, pp. 149-170,
Mar. 1979a.

HARMS, V.W., “Data and Procedures for the Design of Floating Tire Break-—
waters,” Water Resources and Environmental Engineering Report No. 79-1,
Department of Civil Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo,
N.Y, Mar. 1979b.

HARMS, V.W., and BENDER, T.J., “Preliminary Report on the Application of
Floating Tire Breakwater Design Data,” Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering Report No. 78-1, Department of Civil Engineering, State
University of New York, Buffalo, N.Y., Apr. 1978.

HARMS, V.W., BISHOP, C.T., and WESTERINK, J.J., “Floating Breakwater Design
Criteria from Model and Prototype-Scale Experiments,” Proceedings of the
Second Conference on Floating Breakwaters, 1981.

KAMEL, A.M., and DAVIDSON, D.D., “Hydraulic Characteristics of Mobile Break-
waters Composed of Tires or Spheres,” Technical Report No. H-68-2, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1968.

KOWALSKI, T., “Scrap Tire Floating Breakwaters,” Floating Breakwater Con-
ference Papers, Marine Technical Report Series No. 24, University of Rhode
Island, Kingston, R.I., Apr. 1974, pp. 233-246.

STITT, R.L., “Wave-Maze Floating Breakwater,” Brochure No. 10732, Temple City,
Calif., 1963 (revised 1977).

53

ae

(ER)

oy
ay
La

APPENDIX A

TABULATED TEST RESULTS

DS)

GH H/DT (DT) (OT)

L/B

H/L

PT-1 breakwater with MS-1 (d = 4.7 m).

Table A-l.
4.650 (m)
= 101.600 (cm)

3.350 (m)

12.200 (m)
0.218
12.008
3.297

Hl

3sDT

3B

: BLOG

:DT/D
:B/DT
:BLOG/DT =

(8)

D

(m)

Relative draft

Tire diameter
Breakwater beam
Log spacing
B/DT

Water depth

BLOG/ DT

(cm)

O srt HORM WF VDNRORAONAMDNDNMHADMMOPEDAMHHDOLFNOMWAMANMHAI WADOOMo
ANNAN HAA AA AHA HRAAAANNANMYMNNMMMMOANNNN ARAN eA AA AHAAAMONNNN AGA
eo ereceoeo eee eoFFFee2FeoeooeFFCseveveese2eeoereF 22220077 H9 F288 Oo

MATE OMT MED DWMMANM HOON COW GT ONDWIOM CID GOR Mr ADP NOP (Ce 4rd war

OTDOCDVE-EENMMMNNE FMONNANNDDMAADODOCOWGDUOWT Ed TINNDONDAODWO

eeeeoeeveeeeeFeereeeeeeeeeeeeoeereeeeeoeeeteteeeeeeeeeeeserteeeeereee
a rAd vrnot A Ht Calc) Gok)

DAEOWM AMO AMM UNVWDOMOANHM TOA DMNOCVNOrOWTWMIAMOFGOMFNOMWNANOM

MWEIHMADOVIWIMMNMMN FS FT ODHDMAYODWENVAMANHONMOWE ANNO DOONMNFTHOMWDGHOT

AAANMPCNWDOVGDODDDOQWOSCHAAANNUNMMONWM SH OAD GMDYUHDOWOOMM Ww MP or

oeeGee eo ®eeeeeteteeereeeeeeeetr-eeoaeeeeeeevetrt*seeveeee Geet F Feee
rao eetes

UADAUNVNDHUNV AVNAUNDDOHPQVODDHUMMNNADNNHD tT ACHMNOT™ OFTEN EDWDOONST
DDNHANNT THDOATT FRrOOCVDDODDHNAANNMN SG DOF ORMMFEEDHAONOANT OF OMMEFO
eer8®eereto®eeerFP82eFeFGeere2ereereneF 2 ovpvevevceeeveeF 8 Fe 2788 0 @

AAA AAA ANNAN EDD PD AAA AAA AANANAAOAINMMMM AA ARAN NNN

PUNDIT DOWF- AWM DYDD DWANM DOWD HANDMNMNMANEODEFMHDODPMVNQVOATHAVMHHOO

eocevoeeeeeoer eee SG Geee ete Feeeeteeeoreeereerteeerseeeeet eee 8 FG 8B eo eo

ADAMDAVNMOMWM PMMA AAOCMOM ODE AN STONUNANSA HoH AAADOANWMAAIMI OC
Adda

LN ODM O MONA ALN TUN tt OWN AAP DWOOMMNMOCDNAA-ONMMNH + NOrNneacoMOOMD
eoeoeaoeveeeeeeeereet®eeeteeeeee PG eeerF Geeeereeeerte teeFeeeee eee e
PAN TFMAMDDAUNVNT DOM K-NVWDUAIMMNOMN NDS OFA DUDHOMOMMOODK-MFMMOKFOAWHDDMW
AAA MAAAACINN COIN MMM ST AAR HAAN A AIN CIPRO rt HNN NCR

e2CeeoeeoG Foe HeeeePGe eet FGgotree7Hpedsgteeoeosoeee7e7%087070987 8087890 © &
OW FH TFORMMONAMMNOMASCE-OUOF THHON OF COPGAHT OM OMVDHVOrHOSGTHAN
DVNWUF FOINANEDVOQDDND AT NN ARE ODNVON FAAP LNMMFAGOOMTOVUNAWE NNO
delist ddd ae ANNNMMNAMQNMNNAN A ste ANAM NANNderiet

eoceeeeoeeeooe eee Gees FS Goo®HeeFoFee2KFoFeFFFeeFFe2LFH72 HHH Oe O
NOADANONOVTHOMDANDMTEKOPgADAITHGST SVD ON FT OHV HMVHHOO-MAWOSHWM
OANMOPMK-DE™ NV AOHACHMAVWAME Sqr IEMPrDOMN OHO MMNAM ST VOMDDNAHMO
NANNN ASAHI HANA NMMM MMM MANAN NAN AAAI AMMMNNNSeeiedt

eco eo 8o9 e208 608 GH FHS BH EHF oe wo Mrg 9509 F009 9 00-9 OF 02 HoH Oe 9-9
GSVMDMO- AU VOAAAMAARMNCUHRTFTONMNOMNFKANDOFMEKEMNFOFVDOAVROMDINADONM
AAHCEH VME FMOANNMHAANDVID AHODDDMNUAUMDOM-NUNIMMMMMMHAMOanas4AIN
rte AAANNAdddnnt Neat

ee®eoee®FeeoeeteeeeFeeteeeeeeveeoFeeFetFeoetFetFeereoaeFeHeHHeBeet oes
DW ANDNVDNDDO FT AOCMDAMOM--E ONADAAHnT THOVMODNS COVAMVUAHHORANSOHW
BARASKE CGEUNAC HH OCAMDVQOMMOR FT MPF DAMDHOCKr EF wWIMNAMTWMMOCMNNVNOHMA
ANNAN ANd detest Ht HNNNMMMMMMMNANN HAN AHHH MMNNNAs it

eece®eoot®eeteeeteeeeereeetFeeeBeFoOpaet®FeBeeteoetFeFFet FBS GFF FF & O
FOSOFVONNNODNOVI TTI FAVIOGCDNUVNWONUAOT NOWNDVQDOODTTFOWNDFWONTITON
AAANMMIDSTMMNMNT FHI SITMAAANNANMs STMT NHUUMNMNTHNIFFITTMNDOOVOM

e@ceeeaeeeeeeeeeeeteoeeGeeeseeveaeeteeeoeeevet?Geeoeee8F FG eee e @

OVVANS DIDOOV AE TINATAANTNNDVOT DUNST FT OOCODTANDUOI SG TOMDTNATIOO

ag NETS ISOC OSTREAM ASIST NT RIND FS LEE ISIENE IDE
ddd AHH mM 6 an cic ot

A2L PONOMWIM NOGCOUNNAOOMBAACNVUONMNDGOCOMNIOMWMrPNWDEMAMOMMMMmW
WDDOHDBNM NE OMYOCKOMOCHANYVDQDOOCHNMMNE DOSY, NYUOAUNDAVNODOONNDAStHHNO
-9 © .0°9 ©.0 0-9-0° 0.6 © O4O-9.G © O.0°O-R 6 .0.9-0.8.0 O~9 © 9-8 0.2 &©- 9.9 @ O.H.P~o O09 9 B.9-o p-9 ©
ANAM MMM Mt FIO MNINNDOE ANNAN ANMNOMM MMP Mt tI TITOWWODOVEMMMMts9 tINwW

emer Seer S) Gh Ohne oko Olen ee er a alred enrol Enrol tenalaltalralela olrelalalay eran elton ay Mellel en ger el el en ita y a)
WVDODOUDW WV CVOUVUVVUNNDVDODOVUOOVYVVUVYYDVDVVOVU DOVOVUVVYYWVOUVUVNVNUVUNWUWNU
eeeeeeteereeeeeFeet®oeeteegeeoeeeeeseeeeeer eee nese GG geo & 6 g.6 @
ataatsesese deter tarrgeett¢dgesdd ged eget IssesIses¢s¢ds¢gggsestgss

oeeeteee@eeeoaeeree®eesoeeseeeteeseeeeseeeeeereeseeeeeeeseeee SG eevoe seeee @
Aes AAA ATAOUMW DOU WY VVYVNUUVYOUNY NUOVO QOUUDV AHN nAAAtddtHHied
WM DOWDOW OD O.0OWDDDMWORE ERE REPRE PEE Ee EEE NHHHOHHHHMH

56

y) (DT) (DT)

H/ DT

CT

L/B

PT-1 breakwater with MS-1 (d = 4.7 m).--Continued

4.650 (m)

= 101.600 (cm)
3.350 (m)

12.200 (m)
0.218

12.008
3.297

Table A-l.

BLOG
BLOG/ DT

:DT/D
B/DT

sDT
B

°
°
°
°
°
°
°
°

Water depth
Tire diameter
Breakwater beam
Log spacing
Relative draft
B/DT

(m)

BLOG/DT

WIW NDWND ed DMM AMWDNAMNONAAAM WI WNODWWEIMOO
AAMNNNNAN A AAA HAMMNNAAAN TMM PTONNANSMMNM NMI
eoe@oeoteteeeeeeeeeeeseeeeet®eaeeetet®Feeset eeee @

TMV TFVAODDNMNGDNHAAVGWOHDNMN ANNIE DOVE MOOwWOUF HO
OW ANOIDOD™ WOW DAOMODREIKR THrtANVNODOWIMOMNAHAA
eoeoeeeeeteeeoeefeoaeeeeveeeeeeeeeteteeeet® eee &

Ain adn AMAA Addn a

QBYIDANBODNVMDOSTAUMDNDPSOVIWMGEWOF DOW MWA) OE RE
2YQIAIMNMrNVNVOOSCSTTFOOMeCGNarrra NDM AMOR ANNI AO NAW)
QDWWM~OWDHYDHNEWOM—M DO ONNHN OWwwW Dd a9 uN) WU WF arc OVUr 0.0
eoeeeteo et be FF Gee FF 228278 FF FF 2&8 © eo eo 6 eo
bent a

OMTWONTOMINMNTDONM sMNVWOHKWREKMMMNA gs OR IMs ANOW
TANTO OME DANDE OMT DAN WE OMME KR DANDOMRDA ANwOWw
eooeeesee eee 2278207802828 F226 & 82 © © 0 © © © 6
POE A AHO COND PD OD 8 OND DD AIO OI CY O09 PD PALO CUCU PD 6D

MWMMAMOADADNMWDONANNOM ONAN NM OWANG Vet aNAw
eeoeoeeeeae eo eee eee P 2222 GC eere2eeeve eee eee
AD OW TMI NA AAS FP TANA AOU MOI MMM HOY SHINO!

OSHAAVUDDWDMDNCMNDAVMVDFIHDNWDIANAHDMM~— 4s OD TOMMHAWNH ow
eoeoereeertteeeeF eet Fees eeFetFeqaeteeeteteoeeege
DOP HAPFOMN ODN E AODMNDANT ANDKCMMMwOA + NAMWMASs
POD ANA CUOMO ST AANA MST INNA OMIM ST ANNO t a +

DOOD OF 990000109000 0'0909 005.00 00 01600 00600
DAS TI WPIOAINVVANMMWA NW EAP HMM DING Ht
~HOonN
OO He 4ONE Oyu ACU PITMODOANAOWOKWMAYSY MWLIPWMCO SFM HW)
A PON ete tet RIN ANd AMONCAMAKtIA hon US Do RGIS Ce att aNy

@oeG Ge FHF H8HHLHHHHHHH KH EHH HHFT HH OHH OHHH Oe
QUO T~ OK DOWVO™ NKR Fh DONA ST ANAMADOANHH OOH
VODOPMMITHSOKDKE OND ONMAN AVNAMVUDOADUNINMOW
ANAM FMA AAAAHOIMNNARANTMOM S FSMNANANTOMN MOND

v0 9.@ 000 0-008 OG FT OH EHH 4-9 He 8HKHH EHD O.O OOO

WONAANTOTSAMDHHDONIMNDNMON gc OMANAORDS ONDE

NAME FONNAMDDNDUMM s ODHODONAWN TNE OME OMUOh
reir Co] aaa ee a «4

e@eeeeneeveeoeteoeveeegeeGeoeteeeeeeevetekRO0ee8 00 6
NQNOAKDM~ OF DOD OM FANE ONDOHD ST ANMINHDHODHDHD SOON
WODMAMMOIHMONDAUTNONAMHIM ANAMVNOVDOFMHuMWNNMoOND
AAMMNANN ARIAT AMMNN ARAN ISM FGMNN MNT MN MN IM

eoeoeeeFee eG eG eFeeFetGebKeoeteetoeFeoe2ee0e2 60

CNONSONNDG DOO FOUVOTNOFGOO SG ODNWDODDDONDOMMOW

NONMEOPR ODD DO OF ADEE KANAKRQOQNHKEDOGDOWODN
a a Cal 4H A ei dart «A

@ooeoeeeeeee®G2@ee® 22 ee 02009 08S © © oo eo e@
DIVNODOSCTFWOVO DTA NWOT NDINVDANDVDFIOMNOVOUNN
WN ANMOU DRE ODWHOTHEELK THAGNOMNWDOAMMMUOHMe

Adri Cs hn hel AMAA Asie a

CMNOAVSCCOMAMMAANOTAO rg OHAVNAQWMHONTDANIOMOANSs
NDNDAIFTRMNAONDONE”HMDADOHIONH NN DADO THD NoOnuDoo
“2 Bree OG OF 0 :0.9-0-9°9 0-9-9 +9 020,860 -G-O © OWP 0.9100 Oh 0:.0-9-9 0-8
WIMM Ts TNNOOR STs FNNVUURK ss 4¢ THNMOUr +g HNO ORE

L120 1) 6 0 I WD Wn LO a iin NINN nw uw)
WOWDDNNOW DODVWVNDDUVY QVUDDDNDVNHNDVDUWDUNHONONUW
eFC F eet SG GeeFFGHFHROFT HB BHHF HLTH HHOC HE OBS EO
teostarsgetser¢etdaergtcs¢ssagrgd¢t¢agdgsgyer4ess¢sss

@eeoeeoeeeeeeoeeeseeeeeevaetreeegpeeseeeteeee® eee @
ah Ph EERE NANA AER RE RERRR AIOINNAIAO
DHROOCO OAS HOO ONAN AN CIN POND 9 0 $9 F900 In En ITN inwn

AAAs Adee HHA I IM tet ied

57

(y) (DT) (DT)

CT H/ DT

H/L L/B
(m)

PT-1 breakwater with MS-1 (d = 2.0 m).

Table A-2.

3.350 (m)

2.000 (m)
= 101.600 (cm)
12.200 (m)
0.508
12.008
3.297

D
DT

B

BLOG
DT/D
B/DT
BLOG/ DT

(8)

Relative draft
(m)

B/DT

Breakwater beam

Water depth
Tire diameter
Log spacing

BLOG/ DT

(cm)

RANA 0 OO OD OST TNF AITMNANAMNDVSOrMADVONUNFOMNUWVOPPraTNus
HALOS 090000 OO pata NAAAHOOANNNN at AAAAON NNN et ted IN
CORR HHSOKBLOFTHTHHHFEHCHHHTHLOHEHH BHF OSS EES HOEK EO EHH HEE HE OS

NOMNGNOMTHATODrT FADAUNNHDOHUHN ST UHKHKDnVNAHADVOH SG -THso
PANNONNADE EONS FSMMMMNOR DTT NNWMN TOME OWOUNETNTMAHRE
CROAT HSH HOHE TEHHHDHOHLHCHHH KOSH FSH FGHLHOFL OSCE HCOTHOEHEHH OS

o37

AO OMEONCOFrSCOMDDAMDOUVTMNNNOrNMNTM?s QDNONDOWNCOrONUTNAWD
HMVOMNOVADDOMMEMM DMA THVHOONONDM OF- NE NDO NNW NAOMNNRAMMNN
SANANNNG TEE VDEFDOnRNAANMS VOVOR AHA AHAHRMM FON OE AAANNT NTN ArAN
OO ee D

ee eee eee ee Re eae ay ONT ere SBS
poo FMM DH ANON ONOAMNM- MAND DHOAMNKHANDHO AM FVD ONMMANH
ee gee egeoeoteeooege Hoot o FGF eeg tHe eeet neo 02 F FF FH He
Ann nN AANAS AHA AARAANNN MAAANAANNN BAHAR ANNNRIeH

TFONCATHAVAAND YT HOVUIMORMNM sO gh OTOP OMF DNHUNOTMIHUNNNOWDST@

@eoeGGeoeseseeeeeaeveeeaeetMeH gee BeQgeeoeeeeeoeaeHeeaeteeeoeeteoeeeeeee

PON TMNNA AA SrUNtANAtAAR FEFOVWMMNAAH ODO IMNNNA AOS
a

TIN FNDNO HE AY Ts FNOMNODNOVO ANF SNOT F OM MIN AM FO AGT AMMO
©0090 02 C'G0F9 HCHO AHHH HEH HEBHOHMHCHHHHFOSLCHHS OHO HE HHL HEHOHTHOH HOH HES
DOANS VOOMMNOMHHOANT DDSMNQNHSGANTVD OM NAO HANMUMDOMNONMA.

AAARAAANNNNMMNM AAA ANNNMNM FAIA MAA AANNNMNM dete

oF CPeCHFHO FOB SCHOHFBHOHRLCH FOOSE HL ETO HOHE SOT OHHH OHS OS

ee e090 0:90 099

QHMTFNINSIMADWSSATADGODs FOr DAVINA HDOSOELMANYMODMAOAMAadrs

DADO DODMVDDOVMEMS NOHDOOMDADMNAMODSMr IFOVOUNHEMDS ONAL Mr
a ‘ Adddddeet AANA adda ANNAN tRNA

Co POC SCH HOH OHHH HHEHTECHHHEHHLHHOHHHOHEHHHH EHH OHH L OH OHHH HOKE
AHOAIMOMNS SF TROHDNTODATATHAVQAVDTONHNAVNOOSIVnSTNOWNH TODO TANSNAD
ANAL DD OR FUHUUE TNE ANSFNANNNMDEFODMNADYDOODOMNDOWNNWUSOTratMKs
Ane AaAddtaAnddeicdialt ANNANNAANAA ANNAN Str NM

40029 682 &2G 7 OH SMe OPe boo F.4d 0-2 OHV HHH HES
NVDADOWONMNWs DOr ANAHMNMAMF DDO MONNSTTO
WUNMMNMNAMA ODAMAEOCFNUNNM SenNCOrmrnnnnse

Ade aadae aad

@oeereeveo®eeosct®®G0eFeepG®Fee FF FHeeFFHHOFFHFFLHEHSF HOF HKH OHA eS
AOATFMOMSTIFDDTOATAP AVA FOUNDNAVNOCOKHVEUONHTOVSANOMAH
ANE OADMor-h VHUNST FN APTMANNANMHVZGOOMANVGCNONFOUMWOOUOArOTMEs
ann Adds ANNNANRAINA SAH NANA AAI Ne

CoP HGP oF GH EHHSHHHTHHHHSHGEHOHTHHHEHOHEHRHFTHTFLHO EASE HE HOHE HEHHHEHHOS
NDOOMN CNMND DOSMMDOVQOMNMOMMWIAMBDOSOMOOWNNNWN NT OMBoNNMNMMMNa
AHARARAANNAT FHAAHHNNANNN ATAAANANNANN BHA ANNAINNNA IS

e@oeregeoteoageeG eee Fe eoFFGFeteGFeeeeeF®FFGe22220246 80 8% Ge
SMSO CDMNNMAMNSNNMNADODNNMSMNASCDODONMMTDHOMMNEoMmMCMooNnanNnMNa
TNOVUNST TMOMANAMNANADEOVTIMMIMNNF-ADOrWOMMHTsITMr OCH OVUMMNSMOEOOr

NOINNN ODMOVOMNDHDOAHOSNNDONODADNSIONNG ANDE OSNMNAGCNAVWOOMMMG
UDONWM CMNHWNNESHS YVDAONMNATHMOKOCODQVDWNNS eHIHDOOENNVTHMOCOWrO
@ 0,2:0r6 0.0 © 0.6 0.0 © © o,0 029 0.9 0H 9 OSH HHH HFG FOOT HS e228 OF CD
NANMMMN FST MNMNOFFONNMMMNM dT FOU ONNMMMsS +IOMF AM MTT IMNOFOMMY

Vitel altel an pital elvarratt Sen Ol Pref el ty a elrolteltol onal py oitel elrel al al armel ei ai laltel ait On Ol ot PIR eked —Lak mt —)
9H900 OHO 0c. YVOOVGOQSOCHAVO OOOSOSNGDOOOOSAL VOOGAH AH OHDH DH AAVOS
ooo eoeGeoeeeeantGeeooaoereeeeetPteeoeoetgeeteeoeneeeeeee @2 Goes @ & @
NANAN NANA NANIN NAAN NINA NANA AINNAIN A tA AONNNN

eae OFee tee eF Gee GF FF2HReePFHaeateeeeetet®eeoeeeoeoees Bo
Addn OV OOO OU Vetted PEEP REE NNY
WWD VUNY WO VOD VUOVUR EE ETE TET EK Kr HNXONADHNAHTHHHDHCOHACOSOE NOON AN

7 Madd ddtdtdddddetet

58

(y) (DT) (DT)

CT H/ DT

L/B

H/L

PT-1 breakwater with MS-1 (d = 2.0 m).--Continued

3.350 (m)

0.508
12.008

12.200 (m)
3.297

2.000 (m)
= 101.600 (cm)

Table A-2.

BLOG
DT/D
B/DT

:BLOG/DT

B

3D
:DT

T

Relative draft
D

Water depth
Tire diameter
Breakwater beam
Log spacing
B/DT

BLOG/ DT

AMOAKNDWADATMNNUMNMIDW EG gENWVO NAT AODMACDNONME VDMNOAH GNM TOWTO
DED FD OGD OY ON OI ON 0h FD FFD OD 0 FD 0D OD OND PDO 9 OO CPD 9 0D PO —NM MN ND
Coeeeeeaeeaete ep Fea Foe Goeeeeeeoeoge0288 0282000 000808700 88 0060

FHNAM AAD DOTS THD ANT FWOWHOVATHOHNV GE FSH AAMHDTOANDIHDIHDVMS

SD SSO Fe UU AD SSO UD ALT 9 foc 60 oO cD Fe DBO Ot et, c0. a9 60 GO = be 0N C9 GO OS OSS? OC DUIS es

COHCHCHLREHOOCFC HEC CHOHOHLHHHHE HOHE LC OHHHHO HH HH HKHHHHHHH HHH HE Oe
“A «i «4 4

NAOH NDONODINNM ODMDT FMEKADHD TMNT AOA MPCMNNDVNAG AON gs Hi-OMOMrwW
MVNA ST E-WMNS ONNADOKHDHVOS ATDTONWVO TG VMAVOMDINOMS FHODOWD
NMMMN MMT TIFT ITSTORAMAANANMMS THTNVUMMT se HT TEMNNTMsrTaet dg GTNWNwWMM
CHOHOKOHTH HOARE HG LCHOHLHOHFLHOHHSHROG HH OH HLTH XH HHH FOXHT HOH HF FOG

ANDNHOCGOCANNOCODD DVS AONODNAOHNDVOHVNACSCHOVWVNMONVUG ST FFGPMAt eth
Me SEK KRDDHAATT ONMT NOEL NANT OOK HDAMMNVOOR OHH A AMINO D DW a
COLORS GC LOPE HOC HOHOHHELCHHHEHHH OHHH H HOCH HHH HHH OIF HHH HF Oe
AAA AAA ANN ANN AAA NNNN ANANSI ON

NKNOFT MN OW DUN ADHANANWMN-NADSTER TNA MENVNOV EE DOOHN NE DMM OMaD
CoHCCCHE RO CHET OHOLECHEOHOHLHOHHTHLCHHEHOHHH HE HHHHO HHH LETH HOH HAO OC

1M FSMMMANNANN ARAL MNMN STONMMMANAHST FMMNNNNRW S SMPTMOMMNANNSAM A

ANARERIng ¢MUMMND TMHAMDONPFOATR ARDS OAM NVNQMOHAINNAOMMN VOM
eoOeCeoeoeoeeveerexeteB2 OG geese Geene?®FKHe®FeeF2e0807F 80H 020% 0
WDVDOOSMMMNMNOCFTNOE DHOAMN DON TOAMNDONTORNMM OVA HAMNMNANS
AAAAN NAAN ANN AA ARAN NAMM ANNA AMMMAN CIN GIN AS MhMm mr mn

eC eFCC CLO CELT LH LHF HHHHHH EHO HOS PQ 0209009002000 F008
TO ALK DINTDH:0 VF MOV ADDN AUOMHAUNDVNE VEMVBODDONATOUISGMNT Mes
PEEK OF DMONNDONDNVNAADAHOADODCUFE NEM FHONHRADMONE AAO CM
AUINAAIN HAAN AN ANIM NAMA NMA NAM NAAM AMMMAN CM NIM M Mag 19

et eecececovoee ere eee F Geet PFeveeeeeoHeat?eeot®ee7e270070048 F080
AT DDH WNDU nt TOWN OTFMHDADNS DAMS UME OMMVUO APN DO HMIW FH
NF OADTNUDALW MON ADE FNOWUDODADATOIFVNANTMOMMOF FNCAD TODS OF OD
FO MMO UM UAN NNN FOS MMMTMNMNMOMNT MMMM NON AMMMMMMMMMMMAO st mM

0.9 020d 0 0:00 Go o-oo CO 0.9 9-6 8 6.00 HF OHO OB ©0260000.606890 6% © @ 0.9
ED SMTWOHAVUNUANNDOAI SF OOANNE AND ADANNEST NOMNDDHAACNNDONME 1c
NANOCNOWTIDOS wh + VOM ¢ COOWOSL HBHMNHD Ary OCAWVANNAOCONVNDNAARE STN
Addicted 4 AAdAciried et hen oH Ae added cite met

eoceoeoeoe etc eoovoevee Geee7eaeee2eoaee eae eoeveeeeevnev7e77e820289%F GO FFG EH Ge
ATVDH VUANDOHATFMNMNVDTFNDHONS OM NO OMMO00 AMrDODHMMNH t ur ow
NF ORNC NODATMOMMN ACR FMNOVVOHRN HOES VNHOKMMM FMAHAHDT ODF OrOwW
MMM NMA INNA TP NIN TONMONUMMNEMOMMA NM AMM MM MMMMMMMNAS MH

eCOCHTHT LO LCHG HOF LHTHOHHLOTHHOHHLHHFFBOHLH FHT FLL E EHH OHO OO OO
SHOMWIN DOWDESEQNN CHM NNNNEMMOMIOSAMMANMOMMSSCACONODDMNADON
ANANSI MANA ANAAAN NM MMMM MMAMMMPMMMrMme taeTaeTSIPMMMPMIMMMY

eeoeokKeoeoe®FereeGeooet®ooFe7HFF F227 248 FHF F027 FF2H6F82 FO 688 O Oe

WOCMNAIMMOADBDNNM AG CMOWNABCMAHOMNOVDODNMNMM aM NN QWSOMOM OMNOMNW

ORE OWOMOU Ws VAD CORE EEO WWADO OF —KWMAMWOHMWOCHMaAOrOOC a
aA et ac p Cm)

CHAM N WE NUS et FOO UNM COBANBAF COOMOCANMADSONOOSOMIMAnoo
OI TFOHDMMNWMEOCOC GBOAgGe—AG7MOMPS MEHAMOMWGSWOKHANWISOOCMOOMCOMNO
© © © © © ©. 2 © © © e.e % © © © O06. O © 0,%,0,0 © ©,0 © © 6.0,0,0 0 Oo Po @.0.8 00-00 6.0 e ©
SITITZNOWNVOORF OMS 7 gS TMNMNVOVFE DONO hOs sc NNMMWVOrrrwvwara

IO 9 © 9 PD OE OPEN PDN MIM MLE VOKOLEOVOYTC UND
VGQOOVDESCO COON BOD9OCBODIOSOOS 2000 SOV OGOHANAAMAA AANA ADH
COCHFe FPO SFeGe8RHOTFTFeESFTHHTHHSHSC HG PCHKRHFHe eC eCHHF BOF EF LC HCH 22GB FEES
NUNN OCIA AICI NI OIAIOIA NAN QAI NEY AINA NOI OIAN QUAN ANNAN O

CCCP FC COT eFHe BFP LCHeCHLHHFSeEOBeCHeEA2LeTTHF OS HHTOSFT HC HHE EHH EEE EO
NAN AINNNN ANNE EERE EEE ER UN NN NCO DODNDDDDONOOMDMDaMM
CEQA EL I OU AL QIU QIAO! CUP ED 69 9 ODPD PD PDD FF FOUN (HW WIN IND ONOWOWODOWWOeted
AAAS HIS IAAI ee I ed I ted et I it NO

59

PT-1 breakwater with MS-2 (d = 4.7 m).

Table A-3.

4.640 (m)
= 101.600 (cm)

Water depth
Tire diameter

DT
3B

12.200 (m)

Breakwater beam
Log spacing

3.350 (m)

0.219
12.008

3.297

BLOG
DT/D

Relative draft

B/DT

B/DT

BLOG/ DT

BLOG/ DT

CT H/DT

L/B

HT

(y) (DT) (DT)

(m) (s) (cm)

(cm)

AO NAD De D THOM ADEE OS NMMONON TAM TOM TADNMNMOMUVONNANTOMSTTONT NSO RN
NN WNN UNS ttt SRO MN UNS NIN TOM NMOS SIMMS ATANMT MOMENT ET TSOTIMMI TEMS

ef eoee CFS CCC OFSCHCF FC FEHBSH SEES FOHESFSOHFEEEEFT OES SH HOHHOSH SHOES E OBOE BEE Oe

MORK SR NM aN saaDoo RAMON KDOMMRN RBA MMsT NEMO MUOENOUEE MANN TOOVTANMN se aMmWRK

OADODDRPNTTMMMMDOM VGN gs THMMDO-NNWTTOHNDOS OW THOT HUE NMNUNDADOOURAADOM

woe ee coc FooeSFFED OFS OFLC ESCO SE HZEOSHO HE OS OCHO L SCE ESS OTE EET OOF LEO
oj “_ -_ —— Cele to lal

TOMS WSR WTNH OOH ANMANUEMIBSS VONOHDSOrSCHMOONTOSOPDOTHIMNEFOVUFOMATRR ehh

SORT MRANSAO THD OMONNLMOUNMONM IUD VO RBOOF DE MOODV OM OF Sa MUODNUVSE MNS ANNO

ASAAMD NDDHNHAAD OHTIVDODAHNKHODOLEELOSOCODN Or DOOHHOS ODHAAKAHA™ CEE HOAAAHRHD ann

eooese eee eee eo FSeF LF SCHOF ESB EOS FE EFS FEHB TSC SHEESH HO SES HOKE EOF OBESE OHS OREO
-_ -_ A -_ - -_

LOMR © OWORMMNW UD TCHMVOMMTONADVOMMcVN sc VOMMTOOMOMTDOUME Re CHUA STIOROM
ODA TROMFOMUINNTROMEOMUNDNNE SGMROMURANOMESMONAMEOMUNNEMNNOAMUNMMETN
eco ot ree tc eo ee FFCee eo eFe2e eee eee eo CLO ECE BC HO POEMS OOH FEL OES HOES CoeEeL OOS

BRAIN ANIM TSN NAMM PMT SUNN MMM TANNA MMM ST ANMMMMINNANAMMMMT MMMM Ss

MOT NNWNN ST AND VOND MH TSTHODDSMMNMOMVNODNMMDODVIVNARVAID-NVOMRBDVOITNDTSMOOW

eee eco ee ee ee ee F2e2e eo eee Fee hee ee eee reese eee FF oee eT Foe Feo ee ee Oooo ee
DOOWTMNases WSN NS ete OMNNG ese MONS OMAN eS TITMONNN SANNA
-

COR NA CAAQM CHROME CCH AMODUNINO BAM DEVE SOND EE MDONSDENIONSIDRU NDE FTOHNOMO
eo eoFeees ere o eee FF eo Gere ee HO eo CooL eo oF HO CEO TLE EHH CE EE ESCO ETHOS CHO SEES OOO
SCNUMNDAN ROR STD ALAM DML STO RARNODMPKOTHMRHNAMVSTOAHDMRSCTODANDOMRDOTHOSC CoM
SSSR NN ON SFT TORN NM TTS NNO M STF ONAMMTITTONMMT TIE NNMMMMsTIT NST TSeTW

ceo cta ee eee oe CPO eS eo oP CoE OF Coe E SoC ESE LCoS CHO CET COB EO COEF OSC HOES EEO
ONS DD WSS GUIR ODL HRA D RDN ON AMDUO UME NR eI BOUT RRR Oh AD FENNCDWOOSHWOTS
DWMOM AD AN ADAN NANT RT TODDS T TAO RMWIMNDNO DGS TONDO VWI TOO VEDAS
ANNAN NR Sete NGM RN ttt TONS RNS NSE NMA SOT MMMANNM TAM SNS

ee ee ee
DNA Bese TOSS TF TOIFN DOM AOTNTOND ROW TDM AD THVNONAD We OGD 9 DOT D Oe tO Nt
NEL IMMMON BANDON CADPR DT SOTSHODS SVC SR Ma TAERMMODMAMNTOTNNWOTMNDOMM
CUES CUCC ROU DD RISE MIN SSN TTT OINTMENT NST TIMI N STS

ef ee o.n ce 0 oe Coe O00 wooo oo De eo oe ooo oo LC oe RD Eo CEE oOo LOE Loe OO e-8 ee Oo C-e
POE Os et GAO OG TM eR Da BOON SRT ID OR RST TIER CRD TU IM ORR NS ORG SOON
CY AL SOE MN ANNM NANI ODE NT IN TOMO RST DUNNO OW NNR OCT SE ORTON MOF Cone Ne}

aot Ae ca aa aa A -- = Nea ada =

ecco rece ec eee Dee eee eee Fe ee Feet eo Pere re et eee eZro eee ee ee oe eee oeo COS
DAVNAD A SAOFT VOS TE OIPVADE AOS NTONCAOQUWNTNDANADOOAD OVNSDND RANDHAMSHDOAM AUN
NEL AMM D WAN DSO SPODNREDTOFRAVOO TAM RD WAS RNREORDMNMM TT TOT MIMANDOOM
ONO OC Ot et) OPIN ON SIN RS NT TON TSO MINT AINMTMOMI NST re TSIM TITIM INS

cece we eee oer ee ec oe reece ee eoeereeeceer esc eeo ee se ere ee ee eset ooeeestoecosece
OVTCg FTOT DIAN VNGSTNT ODNOVIT NEC BOTVOOMNDMOMsWe TANTO IT TIOVOT UMS Secor Sr Dar OS
MAN e FITTOMMMMMAOT OES TSMORP USOC NUTTER RCS CNTGAIE EP CUNDADNHOOCLOEMYDIDeErPr

eoceece see care eee ere eS FeO SeF FF LFE CHEF EEL ED oC Ce EE EL OOOO EEL CoO oo OOO

DODDUNVTVDNVINNOVSE ONAUWOONT FT CONNa Ss cOUOT TOT TONOTOOUNDOUNSTOUNGC US

DNODO-NNTTMMOMMNO- DOWNS TSEFCMCOrOUNNTTON ODVOVN ST SeOR LEE OAUMANADNAROCEOAM or
— “a ~“_ < a— Set

NOAA ONISOMM OT KON FSONNNVNON TOO NCNM MTSOCNFCUTONMEENTWNMM eRe DOMSNIM
DROANN SCTRN SMS MS WLOTHWMOM OMSSTHANGMOMS FHRNOMSMHOHDLOVIONOTHasNMonNeownanoe
NS 0-0-0. 2 0 0-0-0. 0.0 0.8 2 0.0 0.0 018-8 0.9 0-0. 6.0~0. 0.09 010-2 0X8 x2 © o~0~0-0.0-0.0.0-0 0-0 0.2 00-0-2 © ovo 0-8
NAMM eT TO COR POM TT TOOUOESMS TIT IMOCCP REC TSTUOCR EP OTE OMR POST TO OWOEEr COCR Ee

DOIN OID AW TW OW WL WNW OW GDL MMM MMMMMMMM MMM MMMMMMMUMMMMG
WCO DD DOD DDDD DW QOD SDODDDDDODODDDDODO YO HODOK HON EUKO COU DOO OUOWN

eeeecoceeeeeoes ef eee ae ee ese ee eee sce ee eases eee oer FOZ Fee2e2Fe Fe 2e SFE oe Oo
vaesoresvrorogrrrssesqredgesesssosIisegertetcercessesetcgssssegser¢see¢seresgrcrsr2

eeeerece sce eee oe Pe ee ese cee e Cree snes eseccere rere ers e tere eerccrerecececece
NE et tet ot emg tt mt F010 GD OO D0 0 ttt tte PER REE RINNE RE RRR RRR NAAN
WCOLIGOOWG0D DER EEE ERR ERR O OO DDE NED © SOTHO KOLO CN GEOL RT RT rR I I

Et et de Nd et et ed es eed tt gett ted et tt tnt

60

(y) (DT) (DT)

CT H/DT

L/B

B/L

PT-1 breakwater with MS-3 (d = 4.7 m).

Table A-4.

4.640 (m)
= 101.600 (cm)
3.350 (m)
0.219
12.008

12.200 (m)
3.297

BLOG
BLOG/ DT

DT/D
B/DT

B

Relative draft
(m)

Tire diameter
Breakwater beam
Log spacing
B/DT

Water depth

BLOG/ DT

(cm)

SOS CO SUM AT MHAICIM SG TUONAANONMNSTHONe cCRoOcSs
NNN et tet St IO SEMI NON NNN NS NS SMM Nee
eeecoteeeoeeFteee@ePeteeeveee eee ees eaeciecancecec

ASSAD KREEH ORK MNASCOD FON ME ANME NYVUOOQM amma
DNDRLL LE TNFTMMMMM UNARNDOOFNMMNSs cmH CORR ON
ecrcee®egaoeeeeeP2teevneeeteee®e2eeeeateteeegeve00
= Sas qa aA

DOTMOMOMNDVOHYMTFOSrRnDOODRDaIM eT OFonorcnernoo
ST TOPE AOOSFMNTTHOHRVTOODNMNMVNSLDMOUONE HCO
SN NE FEE DSNHAHOUMTNNVEEAHRHDKHRHR DOLL AARHRON
e@eeetetoeoeveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteaeetongeoe &
« = -

VRMEDD OUR CNVELE SMO DURTMOMVEVOFUN seonrvue
DRAENEI TE OME OM IORVNANTVOEFOMMFOMcCANVNOMPFaoMmungd
@eeerteeeeoe2reeteeoeeaeeeesG®ee2re ee eeeeo8t28e000

ett St SII NICU PD SF Sm SOON 0 ON CY OD DD PD

FeMNNSTPFOURDMODVNODEUM ST SHE TONMVSTAUSHRFEAMMOKMA
e@eeeeeeeteeoee ee de? €¢080068 fF S&F @& 882 OSHSoee EB

Bown sr gM KRODOCWNMMNNaSaHqSs STOMUNANee
«

WSO Mss CantFNOrPfPeQNsPOsaNMoocmMonarrtgrcr
eeaoet®@eteeeoeetoaeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeqgaerteoeeeoeeweeeeaee @
SNM DD ANDO SATO aeMN COSC DRM Reo QunnnMrorcrte
Set SISSON NNMO MOD ST PSM ANNNNNMOMT ST CONN Mere

eceeteeeet® oot 2 ©Cegqeoe e227 eeFe2t®e® FL eetFFHe000
NOVDVD UNM aMAVOKNDOTM FVUSNSSTITDOAMEAURKHHNKDH
SHDMHDEVHOMOSM—ASSOTSVNEMONHAEUNS@VWOT
Nest SS ASSIS SAIS MMO MNNG 4 SSNS StS IMUM NA ai

e@ceoteteeeaeet@eet?t®eteeteet®eeeeteseseoee eget eeeee oe
STUNNASDVMOKNDAVNTOS SDADeOQMUOMD ATOR AN CNW
StS SS AMM STAT CIFMMOAVUFUVNSUCAUDNMAHROHDONHRSHDND
NEON OS ON et et ct wt tt tt St PO ON NI IN SI MNO

@erpertieag@2eeae%F FG qgoe8GG8FH9HEFHFHFHFEFHE OH DAO ®
SKNNescooOncocoooeoscesesorosescoc9ooSsscoeSsess cS
ano be) va
=

®Coeceevre®eoe® SP eer®eo2eFe2 022% e2e2 220200
BDOVDNUNUAHRVOIMANM SSN VARKROHMDKR HMI ao QuNnaN Qua «+
ASSO BUMS TSAO M ST TUOVN SHUN MMTHADMNOWKAHSWM
NANA RRM SS. SMO MO NM NQUANN RUSS MOMM NAMA

D@ eee eeaoaoF®FeeFeee2 ee FF Fee BGG F820 Oe
ScOoummer¢ reer sT SOOO CNOWNOCANSe CT OTONS ST ODOOSS
FSV AMMSTN Tes MMMMMTNCOUDUUNNYNSTsVoOcroNuWNM

@eeseeeeoeretoeese? ©e-82O0:928SGCeSkCABPHCeHee THF SHSE FE SE

NUNNSOcoWGeOVIUNSDOOVOlrTVuTcCeVUsTOVUCNotNT TO

ANDKDWOETVCMMMMMNVUMMHAUNDOOr CONT tensor wow
= Son en hem hee hon) eet

SSNUMSTOMUNAUMNEAMNNMSMOM NGOS VOFOMLYNAMFOWM
WOHONNNATN NSMNSMBONN DS TAHNMSM SHaTANOMOMA
© FSH LF FO CO KL O-LO © 0~O. ROS 9-0-0 0 09 99% 0-0 0 Oo HO
UWNMMM Me TeNVUUE KH GoMMmMMs ts STM OR ROTTS OURS

errsrrrrrrrrrercrrrrss error rrgsersrsrsrscsr
WucsUVDOVUOUOUVWVNOVUSKUOUUUOUY DUVUUUNOUWUYW
@eeeeoeeereeeceeaeteeeweeereecet PF eceeeneseeeeoese
Perr P Perf cere Pr Terrr ts Terr ree Terres rTse

@eotceeevrereeseerecreereceeserseecoeree2eacee
See eS tI SIS St SH St SS Set St tet SII UNO

WV UY VOVVVVUVWUDVAARAKRAHHRMAMHARARKHVAAANNAA
Aaa esate

61

PT-2 breakwater with MS-3 (d = 4.7 m).

Table A-5.

4.700 (m)
66-000 (cm)

Water depth
Tire diameter

DT
:B

12.200 (m)

Breakwater beam
Log spacing

3.660 (m)
0.140
18.485

: BLOG

DT/D

Relative draft

B/DT

B/DT

°
:

5-545

BLOG/DT =

BLOG/ DT

L/B CT H/DT

H/L

Ihe

HT

(y) (DT) (DT)

(m)

(cm)

RSE NOMSSMGOMNVDOMCMNUTAN TOTNUVIOM DARN ST ONE

TITTITTIMNVNGC ROBO OCON DOM LITMAN RDODDLLE HO MMoN

@e@eooeot®eeeeeeeeeeeveeteeteevoeeeeeteeee te ee @
a

ANMOOCNY AEM Sas CMY AMHR SBODMITOURDOANGH
FOOMTIHVDGRVOMNN SNORT UMOADAHROE KWH CF LTMNAON
e@eceoeeo®teoeeveevpeeeetr?geeeeoeeeeeet?eaeeeeeteeee et © Gg @
BNNs NAS Ssae NN Nast See

DAMDVAFOCUMCOTAFCOTMNWHOMLOMLEONECMHSCMOoM

AHOADN FINM ACSTODIVVaMNMNKDDMMRVNARVAVADNSREM

MAUMN FIND EAHONHDDRNOLK DEE DANDHAHLDECOKKAKHRHAH

eeeeot®eaeeseeeet®egeeeeeeeeeseeete@ eeeteee © @ @ @
Cy

PODMVONVD STUDEVOEVDER SPP EOE HRVUAT TIP EN
DRKNAN SCPOMEFSMIRANTVUEOMPFOMUR NUE OME SMunn
eeeettegevee2e2eSFeeoett2e2e Fes FF ee FeSO e 8

DAURVRKMOHKNON FT ARASDPVUPDVVTNOAPOMARMOTanMoren
@-6 08 2 @ 6608 F82F SHS SCE O89 FFF SFG SFO. fe OS ES

BROVIVNAUNaAas REYSIMNAeSeeae PVUNENANSSs
an

WSSO FORN SAPARD SAR PHRHMOVNASPVBOONTOLTVDNaTaOoas
e@eec®t®®eqgqeoe®eoest®?eeoeeeeeeetee geeoeteteqeteeereeeae @&
SAUNMN DRO ROE OTORNFCANMKAMKSTDAaASaNNMrclran
SSS SS ANNAN ST TN AVRANNNMMS STNOANNAM Mee ee

eeeteseseWen#teoeee@eeeeeeeeeeset? @eeeete Geeee see
BVMOKRODVNSRR Re tT NVAaATH NE TT STOUQVORPMNEDAVAD
OE BEN MNSVaTUNSN SAD HNN PODSSRITNNANTUM OAS
Ansa AMMA A FONSRN a

@eeteeeeoteoeet*?eoteoeteeeeeeee PF eeee® &ege eee &
ONMFADRDADNE NER TUM N eae TO TT RUAIMOMPFMCAS
SOMMA HREM TNNON VA VNOSNED TI OUTMO NM Past rTrmMmnN
NNNN Sew TNHIMNSeas SIMO MOM aaa

dD @2@e 0g 8020202 © & @ o-F FOF 0&2 0.08 FFG 07 FH8 98888
WUMMVDOEDBOCSCSOCSSSCSOVUSSCS CHOSOCSCOSCSeS Fo2S900So

co Oo
ann N

e@eoeoeteseeet®eSFeeveeeeeeeenet?e2teeateeo® 2 & @ o &
ONTOE STSOSNANITNE EST OM NE DR ~TOTOQUM NONE VAARAOS
SOKNSDEMSNT RMON TMND TT OUND Tar rNmmn
NN AN Sates FOTN FOMMMasAI-

@eeeeeteeteeoeeeteeegeeeeeeteetesteeeeteoeet® © Fe & @

SSOANMANDUONAVTONATVSSOSTOVNATND TOC NNANS

Mtr rNONMNeSTeTTSMMMARCOCTH cOoOuUNTsasSoNTDProNM
Oe be oe}

eoeoeoeeee @PGeoqoeeeGgeeeseeeeeegeae®F SCtHEeetGeet &€FEeSe

FINVTOSINVSSOVUSTOCOUTWUVOANTONDTNGDAONYVOCUSTUSo

HMOMADKNHROUNS TIM NMMNMMaHNoderQouwMsseMnmaDorcrwow
as aA =< Se hee hae

NASR MAM sOOnVIOGaNroOMMOooonrnmaoconMmMIcSoNnaT
WVFTCOVNMOSTANSNMSCMOENNDOTHR HMOnecnooaernvowoswnese
© @ & Oo 2 0-0. Bp 0-8 O-2. ee 8 -O O.4 O-O @ @ eC @ege®eee? O08 8
AQNNMM MS SSN OOEESCMMMS eT NOUR aOMter WN OCR ODO

AMNSFRDO MM MNAURAHKHKAKHKRAHAMK HAHAHAHAHA AHA HAHXHAKAHKRG
WVVVVOVUDWVUU CODON UCDUSDUVNOUUVEWUNOUNUUNY
eeeoefteereeeeeeresesesetoeeegeeveoesneeeg ot © & &
weerrrrrrerrrrrsrrsrr ret ter rr rer reer rsrrerS

e@eceetmoooeceeeteceeerereeceszcoececeoece ae SC eeoe &
MARS AA RN ted tt et at St RN III INN
WDD WODODVDUVUY GQUNTDAAARKRAAADRAAQAAANAN AANA

SS east SIS SS

62

cr W/DT TyTN) T)

L/B

PT-2 breakwater with MS-3 (d = 2.0 m).
(kg/m)

(kg/m)

Table A-6.
(kg/m)

3.660 (m)

2.000 (m)
66.000 (cm)
12.200 (m)
0.330
18.485

5-545

:D

:DT

2B

: BLOG
:DT/D
:B/DT
:BLOG/DT =

T

Water depth
Tire diameter
Breakwater beam
Log spacing
Relative draft
B/DT

BLOG/ DT

RODD WOAM SO MIRCMRORDRROMATROUTR aM MUOMURETRWo
NANA Nat Ne COR ROM TIL CO MN SNR NO LONDON eNMINM
CCPC ee HOC OC RO Ce Coe C CCC CCC CCC CCDC CD DCO eC

I SMMMODNUNVADSOSLHAAHONSTHANERONMARRORONMRAD
SSF FEET OTMMMNSNOSCONDEDNDVDWUNN OM WDORDRMAHONnOR
° DOD BOOT OF O50 OF OIO OO OOO OO OOOO OM O OO OUD OG UOmlIG
= ey Sanaa FASS Seid

TOTEDVONSTOITNOSTMRITNTOTEMVBMVETNNOCDNADOWOMON

TMOWVAW TORMAIDAMVDOOSTMAYTOTFODNMMNAMNDVANADMoCDANOUM]E

NMS TTF OP OR COMM M eT ITs TTONNNOORF ss smMNCIrNNNOY

W900 00020 OT O OOK OOOO OOO OOOO OOOODOCODOGODOOU
-

ETO ONT AAMAS AOOSTMNSNON RAST NUNROOUMNMNROACWDORX
F ONS AVM DAMN EDD HORBUMNKRDAMNRMNOAMNUMSEHNANSTVO
eeoneeeteeereee et eoece reece eee e eee eee oe ee eo een ©

Rete IAI QCUN CUCU AAAS ANNANN Sates See UCC

NIEND FUNSCM TAN QUONDOLATNNAVENOMNANCMANocearin
@ e028 F862 FF LE SHHS BEL ELC OCC HCL ELEC OL OS ELE Oe SOC
= QNM MMM Aaa FOUTS IEMANNA ARREST MMMANKNRA

FMSNASN FERNAND MSIHMONINCHMLNATNOMNAREMODMRO
eceeesteeeeeeet eet eeeeseteenoetFeeeeet geet eenece
KNOAMVNTMNVDOMNDSAVNOANMNUYDOMTS®IANAMNWOMEMINnKounN

hd rt at CO ON Dt tt ad SE OO OO DD et St et SO CDOT PTD

erxreeteeteseree ee ee ®Feceeee® eceoeecsre2e2recrevne et eeece
NOSODM—HSAUNDVONVOTMVUENNONMMEMOVeMenaoroOnOsosr
SRASDVOVDNSINVGNASTHEDVQODOKR OTONADACTRONCNHOMND
Saeet aSSsSsqges SOOM VAN eet

e@eeeteete®eeteteeete® tee ®eereeteex2eereeeaeeeee
KHOMMONOHR-NM-ODUNDN VM VUE VOM MN aNMOanr NR BUNTRINNA
SANNA OFOMNMNTNNVSTASeNATMOFOFOUOVOaeNMmMNAmMeENW
Aneaa ANNAN Sas SS MOST SENMNNANS

@ STF HHH AaS OST HFC LEO MEZA DP EOFOHEO TA KFLSC OT CBE OF OROECE
TRO OOOSCSSSSCC SO BDOCOOCO OOO CDOS OCOOCOCOO DOS OOS
curW

e@eeetrteetetet® Gee eeeneetFeeeeeeeseeeeeevtesee®&e eee
DOMMONS ON DVND LOMO NOW MNANHNNSEH RONEN
RAN NA OF SwWMNneg NNGERTNRTMOR OFOSCMUVORAMNaMSeNWN
esas = ANNNNN See FS NMS TSVNMONNNe

eefeeeeetee ee eS eFeeette et FFeFFe2eFetFoeFeeeFeeeteo

SNNSNNTNSCOCOSCDR Ee TUNNNOSTNOUDUVUEOWNNNT NOT USN
NANNY AN UN NNNONN BAND IMMMMMMMANNNNT Se Tee TSEMPMIMY

Pees ®eeeteoeeoeeweeeeoeet ©GeePeeeet®F GCeeKeeeeeteeeeeeete®ee

aOOSDONVOATOWSCONNSTNINOEONNOSTSOTSTOSOCOTWONVASCSNH

WDOTSTWOUMANMAN NNR OCH OF CDOWWNS SOM GoOasAr OSE OWN
- Co Lon hen!

NDR NSN SOCDP-MVODMOT VRTNROMNUMOLT OS MCOOAM Se
CONN OSSTHANGCHSNMNSK CNY HDSTHNMOMWGCMONMODSCsDWCceCMo
© 0.6 © 0:82 ©. 0 © © © © & © © c.e © © © & ©-8 © © &-8-@€ 60 0 & © © Oe BO 2 eo

RAMOS STU SCOP EDOM STO CURE OMMMT Ss SMOORE

WOES EEO LIE LI RP RR LOU Le IS
SGOOc ec OOSCCCOLOE COCSCOCLOOCSIMDOOGCCEC ADE eCOCCee CSe-u
e@oxv tesveer Feoet ete ete eoFeeeee7ee ee eee eeeee ee
NOUN AINE NOS CS CEOIN NINO NAO OS OI IOI CUCU ONIN NOON IOLA CL

eoececererea ere eoeotF Fe eee eee eee eeevoete te eoees eae te 8 eoe
I tt Sh st et St tt I INO NOUN UN OCI

DON WOW SD OWDOOW LWADONAOHOSMAMDMOARHAANOS ANNAN AOe:
Sh tt tt et ot

63

PT-DB breakwater with MS-3 (d = 4.7 m).

Table A-7.

4.650 (m)
= 101.600 (cm)

Water depth

DT
B

Tire diameter

25.900 (m)

Breakwater beam
Log spacing

3.350 “m)

0.218
25-492

3.297

BLOG
DT/D

Relative draft

B/DT

B/DT

BLOG/ DT

BLOG/ DT

L/B CT H/DT

H/L

HT
(cm)

(y) (DT) (DT)

(kg/m)

(m) (8) (cm)

(cm)

ANOS TMOEMOMW NAD OROSHNIWE THCNUMQAGOGNOS
SO tt at tt ah tt St EON ON OO CU
OVO OOOOOOVIOOGCOOCOOD OOOO DO ODDO OG GOD

POM gar AK PEEK a COOF OME OVnnMnstsTON OK ems

BMOPGOFDNON TMOMOMMNUMSCOFFNNMMN ST Tee OtDnrrww

eeceneve7e0ee2eeetoeeseeee?eet®eeeee eeog 0 o
= aS aAa4

PWD OMVSEAN NEN NODDNHRSOW EL AMMSOM ai ereans Ss
NEATFDMOQMNODIDRANAUED GE MMOnDnNVEONQVM ANIONS
SOCRANTMRUPEFNDAHRAMS CORNDDRN ODOWVGHDD DOD
@ceeeeteee et ese eeeee ee eee see eed eee

HUM SONTHRMHDMODMTRHNSHMSOTOVMVARMSORnMNDMR
TINGE LODHANTORrADDDRAMSTO-DHANMMSMrao
@eetoeetdeeeteegeeeeeeeeteteeeeoeeeee gee

Saas AAAS AS SAAS ata

MOS SAMOQRASTON GE NSTMOEMVTMHSONOLNSTHHRWOSN
@eeeoereeeateot®eeetenvneeee2f®eegeeteeeoave

DAVCSTMMONNSS OIF MNNSASS FOMNNS ae
=

WSR UNsOANS HOOF OMAMUNDOWQUNAUAHrOaVS
e@eeeeoceeeetetaeoeeeteeoeaeeteeeeet eeee e @
SAM NDSSCKDM ERASE ANMNAME SLTOaNaMQrastcacn
AAS AANA ND IS SEFTON SST NNMMMMST eT

edeoereereeeeoeone 22 eee eee eee eee eee oO
INS ert DO NSS TOON NNO VNV SDD ANEOMW
SADR aS TOSTCMOMSTONITMN CMD ODWOMNN ID OPO
NN SSS S334 SOO NANANN aNAMaVNaemaC

@eeoeeee2ee 0229 208228 e000 60.0008 © © Coe
AD-OOBMSONADNMNSVDOABFCOCOUVUVSOUFN TOMA rovw
NNO ADU OMWMaAcCOCAASCMGRCAE NOTE MSF HSS

TOIN NI ttt te tt SS IT FPN IOP St CP PP)

-@ @5© © O~2 © @.0-o © 0-8-0-2 @ 0 @ 9-@ &-e © © © & © © © 8-2 o-0-6
SOTO OCSCSBOSCSSSOSSCsSeosoeocoee ceocoqoceoeo

e@eceeeteeeget®eteaeveeeretFeeeeeteetee 8 82 eee &
AD STaVTOOMANNMDOSCOCSSVORHE ON sEMaOornOortw
NNO SCHON MMNAOO GaAs COCuDrsmONuVMrrutannce
NCVNS RSS eet ST TMONN RR NUM ANIM MAM ANM ARO

eteeoerteoec ee eoser ere cet aoe es 2 et oF eee oc e
AUST TSTNUDOVIOT ST OUSOWOTUTSOOVNUSONNNG eros
MANO TOM MOC MMANMNNNMWNON TSH eee ouwM

eeeteeeeoereeeeaeeeeceeeeeeeeteeeteese @

TOUNDITUNDACDWANCAUANDS CWVVUOUVVDA VVANDS

BAOE-CHM TMOMNHMAMoGOenonworewaeSGomrrwvwd
=a asain

ee
oN
acm
-

NDOT EMOMM ANDER EMD ME Maar SCmMUNTtDUNEOn
MFSNNDSOqC$H NSM HSTIVSOAIMNSMNSVUSAHRVNDOMNSVS
~O7 0.9. @ S2040, 0g, 0-920°8- oO. B29 Hi Ge so 2 G.0 .@-8 © o @ e-ere

UNMM MO Meee NUORRoe seo NCORRocnoNnuUcnrs

HOODINNM WI OWI MN HWW NUINGYV QDYUNDVODWUUMWMNWHMNMWMWY
WOWVW GDYUDVGDVOVODUWO OVO VOY COVODVUUUONS
@eeotoeraeereresneee®% geet Fe 2 & O59 FA e eo >
werrr tree rrr rr ese errr er trrrre rts

Seer eeSeeetoere ste 2e2 ce 6 F007 eS e 0 0 ©
Seas SS ett St Set St te RSI SI NINN SUNOS
OWRD WN IW OUVF FARA RAAHAKRA UVUQny aan cn

et Retest St a

64

APPENDIX B

FORCE MEASUREMENT CORRELATION (PT-1)

65

(KG/M }
300.00

PEAKLGAD F
225 -00

150.00

450 -00 525 -00

375-00

75 -00

-00

CERC.JUNE.1979.PT-1 BREAKWATER MOORING TYPE L,

.00 75.00 150.00 225.00 300.00 375.00
MaAWLOR Fe Uwe)

DEPTH = 2.0M.

450 .00 525 .00

Figure B-]. Correlation of F and F, (MS=1, d = 2.0 m).

66

F

PEAKLGAD

150.00

375.00 450-00 625 .00

225.00

75-00

CERC.JUNE.1979,PT-L BREAKWATER.MOGRING TYPE 1. DEPTH = 4-65h.

-00 75 .00 150.00 225.00 300-00 375.00 450.00 525.00
REAKEORDI RA yeCKhEAn)

Figure B-2. Correlation of F and F (MS-1, d = 4.7 m).

67

(KG/M }
300.00

Peis — |F
225.00

150.00

450.00 525 -00

375 -00

75 -00

CERC.JULY.1979.PT-1 BREAKWATER.MGORING TYPE 2. DEPTH = 4-6H.-

-00 75.00 150.00 225 .00 300.00 375 .00 450.00 525 .00

FeARMMLORIO Fez CW)

Figure B-3. Correlation of F and F, (MS-2, d = 4.7 m).

68

(KG/M }
300.00

PERISLORIO IF
225.00

150.00

450.00 525 .00

375 -00

75 .00

CERC.JULY.1979.PT-L BREAKWATER MOORING TYPE 3. DEPTH = 4.6H.

00 75 .00 150.00 225 -00 300.00 375 -00 450.00 525 -00

PEAKLOGAD F2 (KG/M)

Figure B-4. Correlation of F and 13s (MS-3, d = 4.7 m).

69

(KG/M J
300.00

PERICLOED lr
225.00

150.00

450.00 625.00

375 -00

75.00

p-00

==
-00 75 -00 150.00 225 .00 300.00 375.00

CERC.JUNE.1979.PT-1 BREAKWATER.MOORING TYPE L. DEPTH x 2.0M.

450.00 525.00
SIGNIFICANT PEAKLGAD FS (KG/M)

Figure B-5. Correlation of F and 19 (MS-1, d = 2.0 m).

70

(KG/M)
300.00

F

PEAKLOAD

450.00 525.00

375.00

75 -00 150.00 225 -00

0.00

0.00

CERC .JUNE.1979.PT-1 BREAKWATER MGGRING TYPE 1.

75 .00 150-00 225.00 300.00 375.00
STGNIFICANT PEAKLGAD FS (KG/M)

DEPTH = 4.65H.

450.00 525 .00

Figure B-6. Correlation of F and 13 (MS-1, d = 4.7 m).

7

(KG/M }
300.00

F

PEAKLGAD

150.00

450 .00 625.00

375.00

225.00

75 -00

p00

CERC.JULY.1979.PT-L BREAKWATER MOORING TYPE 2.

.00 75 .00 150.00 225.00 300.00 375.00
SIGNIFICANT PEAKLGAD FS (KG/M)

DEPTH = 4-6H.

450.00 525 -00

Figure B-7. Correlation of F and F, (MS-2, d = 4.7 m).

72

(KG/M }
300.00

AD F
225 .00

PEAKLO

160.00

450.00 525.00

375.00

76 -00

ele)

.0.

0.

CERC.JULY.1979.PT-1 BREAKWATER niJORTNG TYPE 3, DEPFH = 4-6.

See Wi) SE Serena ee
00 150.00 225.00 300.00 375.00
SIGNIFICANT PEAKLOAD FS (KG/M}

Figure B-8. Correlation of F and F, (MS-3, d = 4.7 m).

73

Says ce
450 .00 $28.

APPENDIX C

DETAILED WAVE TRANSMISSION DIAGRAM

74

Wove Height Transmission Ratio (C,)

Wove Height Transmission Ratio (C, )

LEGEND
(H/L) 10°
+ O.7 (oy Le)
° 2.0 to 6.0
x 6.1 to 1t.6
x 40
D/a = 0.22

(0) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 315 4.0
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure C-1. PT-1 wave transmission data for MS-l.

LEGEND
(H/L) 10°
O37 TO 12)
2.0 to 60
6.1 to 11.6
O/a = 0.22
10)
(0) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure C-2. PT-l wave transmission data for MS-1
(discrete H/L).

75

Wave Height Transmission Ratio ( Cy)

1.20 r T a earls T Sarre lee
D/d=0.22
ae % 4
1,00 ‘ ? a u |
Wy £ i t 6 +
(0)
0.80 2 xv
‘ 8 ®
@ 6 (e)
ro) oO
0.60 -
) x
(2) Oo
0.40} LEGEND _
ro) (H/L) 10
, + 0.6 to 1.9
x © 2.0 to 6.0
0.20 X 6.1 to 10.0
x x
0 = 1! hee es aes fee aay a
O 0.50 1.00 1,50 2.00 2.50 3,00 3.50 4.00
Relative Wavelength (L/B)
Figure C-3. PT-1 wave transmission data for MS-2.
eo a T iamecern ale ar Sananiealine: =
D/d=0.22
1.6 AS
= 1.00 edz E18 412 YG 99
© a L4+ 234.09 tg +10. 7.45
= + 269 W822 g:1:7 28 Roe
° sq 1Ot 9 : 2
= GO AG Ml 6 eyo)
= 22 Sho UNO. Gj C8 S
° ites
a 0.80 GED) al Pe
3,38 t
5 339 A ‘02.3% 3.8
ry 03.3 945
—E 02.8
@ 060 Bets
o 045 x6
= 05.0 04.9
r=
2 0,40 __LEGEND _
r 57 (H/L) 10°
@ + 0.6 to 1.9
3 mes © 2.0 to 6.0
= 0.20 X 6.1 to 10.0
x x 10,0
8.3
(0) 1 See
0) 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Figure C-4.

Relative Wavelength (L/B)

PT-1 wave transmission data for MS—-2
(discrete H/L).

76

Wave Height Transmission Ratio Cy

Wave Height Transmission Ratio Cy

1.20 T T T =n T Tr T T

D/d=O.22
a
1,00 ref in
A
oo Oa: as tas
h
0.80
Oo
0.60
acre oi
(H/L) 10
+ 0.6 to 19
© 2.0 to 6.0
0.20 xX 6.1 to 10.1
O ot ij. Ey
oO 0.50 1.00 1,50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Relative Wavelength L/B
Figure C-5. PT-1l wave transmission data for MS-3.
1.20 in Seal! = sal 7 — T T
D/d =0.22
+ 1.0
|,00}- 1.4 +1.3+06
1.6 4.0.9 0.8
b Ito LOT
2,3 ! hie SOR
t 5 +0,0
0.80 pig 923
3.8 03,3
si 8 219
3,4 az 3.0
0.60}-
6
af
0.40 LEGEND
(H/L) 10
+ 0.6 to 19
© 2.0 to 6.0
0.20 X 6.1 to 10.1
O Se eee 1 1
oO 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Relative Wavelength L/B

Figure C-6. PT-l wave transmission data for MS-3
(discrete H/L).

77

LEGEND
(H/L) 10?
OL i) Tee)
2.0 to 61

6.1 to 10.1
D/d = 0.51

Wove Height Transmission Ratio (C;)

32029 B35,

{@) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure C-7. PTI-l wave transmission data for MS-3
(d = 2.0 m, discrete H/L).

1.20

D/d =0.14

1,00

0.80

Wave Height Transmission Ratio (C+)

6
a0:88 LEGEND
(H/L) 10°
+ 0.6 to 1.9
0.40 ° 2.0 to 6.0
X 6.0 tolh2
0:20
O

0) 0.50 1.00 1150 2.00 2.50 3,00 3:50 4.00 4.50
Relative Wavelength (L/B)

Figure C-8. PTI-2 wave transmission data for MS-3
(discrete H/L).

78

Wave Height Transmission Ratio Cy

1.20

°
}

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

PT-2
D/d= 0.22

1.3

im
3.1 + +12
@25 1.4
02-0 + tetis

+14 41.6
e2.1 o2.
043 250 939
O37 02-4

LEGEND

(H/L) 107
+ 06to0 1.9
9 2.0to 6.0
x 6-!1 te 10.0

0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00
Relative Wavelength L/B

Figure C-9. PT-2 wave transmission data for MS-3

(d = 2.0 m, discrete H/L).

79

Le9 7=C8" OU da1gcn° €07COL
*y-78 “ou £((°S*N) aequa9
yoreesey Butiseutsuq Teqjseoj) tedeq Teo~uyse, :setseg *A °(°S°n)
Joque) yoleessy ButiseuTsuq TeqIseopD “AI °W Jleqoy ‘uasuaer0s “TTI
°f souueor ‘yUTIAISEM “TI "aTATL “I *uotqesedoad aaem °C
“SOIT, °y “SuTIoom *€ “*SaAeM °Z “*SiaqzeMyPeAq BuTIeOCTY “I
*230 ‘satod suoydeteq ‘sadtd ajaa19u0.
Io [993s se yons sisqWaM TeoTApuTTAD sATssew ButT,ei1odaooUuT pue
S917] eTTqowoqjne Ao yOnN1Q deids jo ATInq (itaqemyeeIg-Jd) 1eqyeMyeo1g
e1tl-edtq ey Jo s3seaq saTeds—adhjoj01d Jo sjz[nse1 saptaoad j10day
«C861 1990390,
*9TITI AeA0D *(4-ZB cou { JaqUaD YyoIPasay
SutiseutTsuy [eqseog / aoeded ~eotuydey)--°wo gz § “TIT: «d [6]
“7861 “SIIN Wo1z aTqeTrTeae
2 °eA SplTetTysutidg ‘1aquej) yoIeesey BSuTiseuTZuq Teqseo) ‘siseuTSuy
jo sdiop ‘Away *S*n : *eA SITOATaG JIOq--usSUaI10S *W J1eqoy pue
“yuTIe sem *f souuror ‘sureH *M JexTOA Aq / siaqeMyeeIq BuTIeOTI
2e1tq-edtd Jo soT}sTIaqoeIeYD 9d10J-ZuTAcow pue uoTsstTMsuel} aAeM
°M JeyxTOA ‘swizeq

L09 7-78 °ou dargcn° €072OL
°4-78 “ou $((°S°nN) Aaque9
yoreesey BuyieouTZuq Te3seo)) Jedeq TeoTuyoeL :seties *A *(°S°n)
Jaques) yoieassy BSutivseutTsuy [eqseog °AI “WH JAaqoy ‘uasuaiz0s “TIT
*f souuror ‘yUTIeISAeM “TI “eTITL *I “*uorqzesedoad aaemM °¢
“SOITL *y “SuTIOOW *€ “*SaAeM *Z “*SiaqeMYeeIq BuTWeOTY *]
°293e ‘satod auoydete, ‘sadtd a3a19u00
Jo [9943S se yons sieqwem TedTApuTTAD satTssem ButjeaodaoouT pue
S91T] eTTqowojne ito yONIQ deizds Fo ATINq (AsIeMYyeeIG-—Id) Je IeMyeeIg
eitl-edtd ey Jo s3saq aTeos—adhj0j}0A1d Jo sq [nse1a saptAoad j10day
«C861 1290390,,
*8T3T2 TeA0D °(47-7g cou £ AaqUaD YIIeaSOYy
BuTiseutsuq ~Teyseo) / aaded [eoruyoeay)---wo gz § *T{Tt: *d [6/]
°7861 “SIIN Wo1z eTqeTTeae
: *eA *pTetzyButads ‘1aqua) yoIessoy ButieeutT3uy Teqseog ‘sasouTsuq
jo sdiop ‘Amay *S°f : *eA SATOATAaG JIOq¥--ussuset0S *W JIeqoy pue
‘yuTIeqsom *f souueor ‘smzey °M JAYTOA Aq / SAaIeMYReIG BuTAeOTF
e1tj-aedtd jo soTystTieqoeIeYyD 9d10J-Buyioow pue uotTsstTwsueI sAEM
*M T2xTOA ‘smiey

L709 7-¢8 °ou d31gcn° £0201
"y-7B ‘ou $((*S*N) 1equeD
yoreesoy Buyiseutsuq Teyseo)) jedeq TeoTuyde], :seties “A °(°S°N)
Jajue yoieesay Butiveutsuyq [eqseo) “AI ‘“*W Jieqoy ‘uasuet0S “TTI
*f souueor ‘yUTIA4ISOM “II “eTITL ‘I ‘uotzedsedoid onaeM °C
*SeITlL *7 “°‘SuTioo *€ *sanemM *Z *siaqemyearq Bup\eoTy °T
*o3e ‘satod suoydeteq ‘sedtd aje1du09
Jo [Tee3S se yons sisqua TedTApuT[AD oeATssew BuytzesodioouTy pue
S291T} aTTqoWojne 1oO yon deids Fo ATINq (JaqemMyYeeIg-Id) IeIeMyeoig
e1tl-edtq ey, JO sjsaq sTeos—adAhj0j0I1d jo sjz[nsea saptaAoad jy 10day
«" T86T 19909390,
*aTIT} JaAoD °*(4-7g cou { Jaqueg YyorResay
SuTiseuTsuy Teqseoj / zeded TeopTuyosay)—--wo gz f “TIE: °d [6/]
°786I “SIIN Worz eTqeTTeae
: °eA SpTetTz3utads ‘19que9 yoieesey BSutTieseutTsuyq [eq3seo) ‘siseuTSuy
yo sdiop ‘Away *S*n : *eA SATOATegG J1Oq--uasuUaiIOS *W J1Ieqoy pure
‘yutieqsem *f seuueor ‘smiey °*M IeHxTOA fq / SiajemyeeIq But IeoTIZ
aitq—edtd jo soT4ystTiaqIeIeyS v9d1IOJ-BZuTIooW pue uoTSSTWsUPIR BAPM
°M JaXxTOA ‘swaey

(eg) 7=C8) ou d3argcn° £02OL
*7-7B sou F((*S°N) JeqUa9
yoieesoy Buptiseutsuq Teqyseog)) Jedeg [edTuyIe, :setias “A °(°S°N)
Jajue yoiessay ButisveutTsuy [e3seo) “AI °H JAeqoy ‘Suasuait0s “JIT
*f souueor ‘yUTIeISeM “II “eTITL *I “°uorzesedoad anemM °C
*SolITL *y ‘BuTioom °€ “*SaeAeM °Z “*SiajeMYyeeIq BuTWeoTY *T
*o3a ‘sotod suoydete3 ‘sadtd 9q01Du09
JO [983s se yoONs siequem TedTApuT{AD svATssew Buy zeiodiosut pue
S817} eTTqoWojyne 10 yOnNAQ deads Jo ATING (1ajJeMyeeIG—-Id) JeIemyeoIg
e1tl-aedtg ayy jo sjsaq atTeds—adfjo 01d jo sjz[Nsei1 sapTAoad jaoday
«C861 1990390,,

*aTIT] TaA0CD °*(4¥-ZB cou f IajzUaD YIeasey
SutiseutTsuy ~Teyseoj / teded Teotuyoey)--°mo gz ‘ “TTT : *d [6/]
*7861 “SIIN Wo1y aTqeTTeae
: °eA ‘ppTetzyZutads ‘1aque9 yoieesey ButieseuTsuy Teqseog ‘silosuTZuy
jo sdiopg ‘Away *S*h : *eA SATOATeG JIO™——UBSUaINS *W J1eqoy pue
‘yuTieqsem *f sauueor ‘smieyH *M AeYTOA Aq / SiaqeMyeaIq BuTIeOoTIJ
aitjq—-adtd jo sot 4stia\oeAeYyD V9dIOF-ZuTIOOM pue UOTSSTWSsuUeIy BAeM
°M TeXxTOA ‘swIeH