See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268313891

Wave reflection and wave run-up at rubble mound breakwaters

Conference Paper · January 2006

DOI: 10.1142/9789812709554_0362

CITATIONS READS
42 4,248

3 authors:

Markus Muttray Hocine Oumeraci

Delta Marine Consultants DMC Technische Universität Braunschweig
38 PUBLICATIONS 303 CITATIONS 121 PUBLICATIONS 1,282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Erik ten Oever

Delta Marine Consultants DMC
7 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

XblocPlus breakwater armour development View project

Breaching of Coastal Barriers under Extreme Storm Surges and Implications for Groundwater Contamination View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Markus Muttray on 03 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WAVE REFLECTION AND WAVE RUN-UP AT RUBBLE MOUND
BREAKWATERS

Markus Muttray1, Hocine Oumeraci2, Erik ten Oever1

Wave reflection and wave run-up at rubble mound breakwaters with steep front slope
were investigated in large scale model tests. The two-way dependency of wave run-up
and wave reflection and the governing hydraulic parameters for wave reflection were
investigated. The wave run -up height is closely related to the clapotis height in front of
the breakwater. An empirical wave run-up formula that includes the reflection coefficient
was developed. The wave height has little influence on the wave reflection from porous
structures. An empirical wave reflection formula is proposed for rubble mound structures
with steep front slope.

INTRODUCTION
The wave reflection coefficient is a bulk parameter for the hydraulic
processes at a breakwater or coastal structure, i.e. for wave breaking, wave
penetration into the structure, wave transmission and wave overtopping.
Reflection analysis is mostly performed in order to determine the incident wave
conditions in front of the structure. The reflection coefficient is not further used
for the interpretation of the hydraulic processes at the structure.
The main objective of this paper is (i) investigating the two-way
dependency of wave run-up and wave reflection and (ii) determining the
governing hydraulic parameters for wave reflection.
This study focuses on rubble mound structures with a steep front face
(steeper than 1:2) as these structures are especially in deeper water more
economical than gently sloping structures. Wave reflection and wave run-up
were investigated in hydraulic model tests; experimental results are presented in
this paper.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Wave reflection and wave run-up were investigated in large scale model
tests in the Large Wave Flume (GWK) in Hanover, Germany. A rubble mound
breakwater with typical cross section and 1:1.5 slopes was installed; the layout
of the breakwater and the measuring devices are shown in Figure 1. The
breakwater had an armour layer of Accropodes (unit size 40 kg) and a core of
gravel (average grain size 3.1 cm, porosity 39%). Wave run-up was measured
on the armour layer; wave reflection was determined by the 3-gauge method

1
Delta Marine Consultants b.v., H.J. Nederhorststraat 1, P.O. Box 268, 2800AG Gouda,
The Netherlands
2
Techn. University Braunschweig, Leichtweiss Institute, Beethovenstr. 51a, 38106
Braunschweig, Germany

1
2

(Mansard & Funke, 1981). The range of tested wave conditions comprised wave
steepness H/L = 0.005 to 0.053, relative water depth h/L = 0.05 to 0.23, relative
wave height H/h = 0.08 to 0.40 and breaker index ξ ≥ 6. Details of experimental
set-up, measuring devices, wave conditions and analysis can be found in
Muttray (2000) and in Muttray & Oumeraci (2005).

Figure 1: Cross section of breakwater model

WAVE RUN-UP
The wave reflection at the seaward face of a rubble mound breakwater
causes a partial standing wave field in front of the breakwater. The water
surface envelope on the foreshore and at the structure is plotted in Figure 2 for
regular wave conditions.

Figure 2: Water conditions in the near field and wave motion on the breakwater slope

The water surface envelope forms a knot at the breakwater toe and an anti-
knot further seaward. The wave run-up and run-down on the breakwater slope
 3

can be interpreted as a slightly distorted anti-knot of the partial standing wave

system. One can conclude that clapotis height and wave run-up height are
probably related. The clapotis height Hc signifies the local wave height at an
anti-knot:
H c = H i + H r = H i (1 + Cr ) (1)

with incident wave height Hi , reflected wave height Hr and reflection

coefficient Cr = Hr/Hi.
The run-up height R describes the vertical distance between highest run-up
level Ru and deepest run-down Rd (which is similar to the definition of wave
height). The wave run-up height R is plotted in Figure 3 against the clapotis
height Hc for regular and irregular waves. The run-up height for regular waves
exceeds 2 m; the significant run-up height Rm0 for irregular waves (derived from
0th moment of wave run-up spectrum) reaches almost 2 m. Run-up height and
clapotis height are closely related; the relation can be approximated by the
following empirical equation:
R = a H i (1 + Cr ) (2)

where coefficient a was found to be about 1.31 for regular waves and 1.17 for
irregular waves.

Figure 3: Wave run-up height vs. clapotis height for regular and irregular waves

The maximum wave run-up level Ru on the slope is of more practical

importance than the wave run-up height R. The highest wave run-up depends on
wave run-up height R and on the asymmetry of the wave run-up Ru/R. The latter
was determined from experimental data.
The wave asymmetry of progressive waves (i.e. ratio of crest level and
wave height ηmax/H) can be determined by higher order wave theory. The wave
asymmetry for uniform waves on a horizontal seabed can be approximated
according to Muttray (2000) by:
4

η max 1 1 Π 1 Π2
= + +
H 2 3 Π + 1 2 6 Π 2 + 1 30
3
(3)
H  2π  H L 
Π= coth 3  h =  0 
L  L  L L
The approximation according to equation 3 is based on Fourier wave theory
and confirmed by experimental results (Muttray, 2000).
The wave asymmetry of partial standing waves was determined
experimentally at the first anti-knot in front of the breakwater. The results are
plotted in Figure 4. The asymmetry of a partial clapotis is about 2/3 of the
asymmetry of a progressive wave and can be approximated by:

η max 1 2 Π 1 Π2
= + + (4)
H 2 9 Π + 1 2 9 Π 2 + 1 30

Figure 4: Wave asymmetry of a partial standing wave system (at anti-knot)

The asymmetry of the wave run-up is plotted in Figure 5. The run-up

asymmetry is almost identical to the asymmetry of a partial clapotis and can be
approximated by equation 4 (replacing ηmax/H by Ru/R).
Irregular wave tests were performed with TMA wave spectra. Non-breaking
wave conditions were investigated, i.e. no wave breaking occurred on the
foreshore. The distribution of incident wave heights and wave run-up heights is
almost identical. In this case they are both Rayleigh distributed. The maximum
run-up height for irregular waves (or a run-up height with a specific probability
of exceedence) can be derived from equation 4 (replacing ηmax/H by Ru/R) and 2.
The significant wave height shall be replaced in equation 2 by the maximum
wave height (or by the wave height with the corresponding probability of
exceedence). Typical run-up heights are as follows: Rmax = 1.87 Rm0 (based on
1000 waves); R2% = 1.41 Rm0; R10% = 1.27 Rm0 and R50% = 0.63 Rm0.
 5

Figure 5: Wave asymmetry partial standing wave system

WAVE REFLECTION
In hydraulic model studies wave reflection is typically determined from the
spatial variation of wave conditions. Wave gauge arrays are used for this
analysis. Wave reflection cannot be directly measured; the uncertainties of the
reflection coefficient are thus significantly larger than the uncertainties of
directly measurable wave parameters like local wave height or wave pressure.
The wave reflection at a non-overtopped rubble mound structure is
determined by two processes:
• Wave energy dissipation on the slope, which is mostly wave breaking;
• Wave penetration into the structure.
The wave reflection from impermeable slopes can be assessed according to
Muttray & Oumeraci (2002) by:
 H0 3 / 2  2  H0
C r = 1 −  1 −  ; < 1 (non - breaking waves)
H   π H 0,crit
 0,crit 
2 H 0,crit H0 (5)
Cr = ; ≥ 1 (breaking waves)
π H0 H 0,crit
2α sin 2 α
H 0,crit = L0
π π
The terms ‘non-breaking’ and ‘breaking’ refer to wave breaking on the
breakwater slope (with slope angle α between slope and horizontal) and not to
depth-induced wave breaking on the foreshore. This approach is based on
Miche’s reflection hypothesis (Miche, 1951). When the actual wave steepness
H0/L0 exceeds the critical wave steepness (H0/L0)crit waves start breaking; the
incident wave energy is partly dissipated (by wave breaking) and partly
reflected. The critical deep water wave steepness (H0/L0)crit was derived by
Miche (1951) theoretically from second order Stokes wave theory. Wave
6

reflection is thus proportional to H0,crit/H0; the reflection coefficient increases

with decreasing wave steepness (i.e. Cr ∝ L / H ).
The following empirical approach has been proposed by Muttray &
Oumeraci (2002) for the wave reflection from porous walls:
Hi
Cr = 1 − [1 − (1 − n) 3 ]1 / 6 + (1 − n 5 / 6 ) (6)
h
This approach is applicable for vertical walls with an opening ration n of
12% to 40%. The wave reflection is not affected by the wave length. The
reflection coefficient increases with decreasing opening ratio n and with
increasing relative wave height Hi/h. (i.e. C r ∝ n −1 , H / h ).
The wave reflection from a rubble mound structure will probably vary with
wave steepness and with relative wave height. The effect of wave height, wave
length and water depth on the wave reflection from a rubble mound breakwater
was determined from experimental data (see Figure 6). It can be seen that:
• The wave reflection is primarily affected by the wave period; the reflection
coefficient is proportional to the wave period ( Cr ∝ T );
• The wave reflection is slightly decreasing with water depth ( Cr ∝ h −1 );
• The effect of wave height on wave reflection is negligible.

Figure 6: Reflection coefficient vs. wave height, water depth and wave period

The effect of wave breaking (i.e. decreasing reflection coefficient with

increasing wave height) and the effect of permeability (i.e. increasing reflection
coefficient with increasing wave height) are approximately balanced. The effect
of wave height on the reflection coefficient is almost evened out.
A linear wave reflection approach (i.e. an approach that is independent of
wave height) has been derived. It is assumed that Cr ∝ T 2 / h (or Cr ∝ L0 / h ).
The wave reflection from rubble mound structures with steep front face can be
approximated by the following empirical approach:
 7

1
Cr = (7)
2π
1.3 + 3 h
L0

Measured reflection coefficients (from regular and irregular wave tests) and
predicted reflection coefficients according to equation 7 are plotted in Figure 7.
The standard deviation between measured and predicted reflection coefficients
is 0.06 (14%) for regular waves and 0.02 (5%) for irregular waves.

Figure 7: Reflection coefficients for regular and irregular waves

The new reflection approach is applicable for regular and irregular waves.
As this approach is independent of wave height (linear approach) it can be also
applied as a frequency dependent transfer function between incident and
reflected wave spectrum.
Most literature approaches use the ratio of slope angle and wave steepness
as governing parameter for the wave reflection. These approaches are apparently
focused on the hydraulic processes on the slope (i.e. wave breaking) and are
mostly neglecting the effect of porosity (i.e. wave penetration). Hence, the wave
penetration into the structure would be according to these literature approaches a
secondary effect.
Empirical wave reflection approaches that use the breaker index
ξ = tan α / H / L as governing parameter are a.o. Battjes (1974), Gimenez-
Curto (1979), Seelig & Ahrens (1981), Buerger et al. (1988), Postmar (1989),
Davidson et al. (1996) and Zanuttigh & van der Meer (2006). A modified
breaker index is applied a.o. by van der Meer (1992) and Hughes & Fowler
(1995). They assume implicitly that (i) wave energy dissipation on the
breakwater slope is determined by wave breaking and (ii) wave energy that is
not dissipated will be reflected (reflection hypothesis of Miche, 1951). Predicted
reflection coefficients according to above empirical formulae were compared
with the experimental results from irregular wave tests; the outcome is
summarised in Table 1.
8

Breaker index Reflection formula Standard

Mean
Author ξ 1) deviation
Cr error
abs. rel.
tan α
Battjes (1974)
2)
0.1ξ 2 2.34 0.59 138%
H / L0

Gimenez-Curto tan α 1 exp(−0.125 ξ )

(1979)
− 0.67 0.16 37%
H / L0 2 2
Seelig & Ahrens tan α 0.6 ξ 2
1.20 0.12 28%
(1981) H / L0 6.6 + ξ 2
Buerger et al. tan α 0.6 ξ 2
1.09 0.10 24%
(1988) H /L 12 + ξ 2
tan α
Postmar (1989) 0.125 ξ 0.73 1.23 0.14 33%
H / L0

van der Meer tan 0.62 α

(1992)
3) 0.07 ( P −0.08 + ξ ) 1.23 0.16 37%
( H / L0 ) 0.46
Hughes & Fowler h 1
0.94 0.06 14%
(1995) gT 2 tan α 1 + 7.1ξ 0.8

Davidson et al. tan α 0.298 ln ξ

0.88 0.09 20%
+ f (D, P, h, α , H , L0 )
4)
(1996) H / L0

Zanuttigh & van tan α

der Meer (2006) tanh(0.12 ξ 0.87 ) 1.32 0.15 35%
H / L0
This study – Equation 7 0.99 0.02 5%
1 n C
1)
Mean error = ∑ r ,calculated
n i =1 Cr ,measured
2)
Not applicable for rubble mound structures
3)
Includes besides breaker index wave transmission D/H , permeability P , roughness of
slope ( D / L0 cot α ) and relative water depth at the toe h / L0 (with rock diameter D)
Permeability coefficient P = 0.4 for multi layered rubble mound structures
4)

5)
Uses wave period Tm-1,0 (= m-1/m0) instead of peak wave period
Table 1: Applicability of empirical wave reflection formulae for rubble mound
structures with steep front face

The predicted reflection coefficients deviate significantly from measured

coefficients. The approach of Hughes & Fowler (1995), which does not include
the wave height, provides the best approximation with a relative standard
deviation of 14%. The relative standard deviation of all other approaches that
use the wave steepness as governing parameter exceeds 20%.
 9

Little variation of the breaker type can be observed on slopes steeper than
1:2 according to Muttray & Oumeraci (2002). The experimental results indicate
that the effect of wave breaking and the effect of permeability are almost
balanced (see Figure 6). The reflection coefficient is thus almost independent of
wave height. Predictive equations based on breaker index ξ overestimate the
effect of wave breaking. They are apparently not applicable for rubble mound
breakwaters with steep front slope as they do not include the effect of
permeability.

CONCLUSIONS
The wave run-up is closely related to clapotis height in front of the
structure. A linear relation was found between run-up height R and clapotis
height Hc at the breakwater toe. The wave reflection is the key to a simple
deterministic wave run-up model. The reflection coefficient has been applied for
the wave run-up prediction and will be probably also applicable for a
deterministic wave overtopping model. An empirical wave run-up formula,
which includes the reflection coefficient, has been developed (equation 2).
Predictive equations for wave reflection that are based on the breaker index
ξ overestimate the effect of wave breaking. They are not applicable for rubble
mound breakwaters with steep front slope. An empirical wave reflection
formula is proposed that is based on the relative water depth h/L0 (equation 4).

Figure 8: Measured vs. predicted wave run-up for regular and irregular waves

Reflection and run-up formulae are applicable for regular and irregular
waves. The reflection formula can be also applied as a transfer function between
incident and reflected wave spectrum. The formulae shall be applied only for
non-breaking waves (i.e. no wave breaking on the foreshore) and for conditions
with little or no wave overtopping. The wave run-up formula with empirical
coefficients a = 1.2 – 1.3 is only applicable for 1:1.5 slopes. The reflection
formula is applicable for rubble mound structures with a porosity of about 40%
and with 1:1.5 slopes.
10

A comparison of measured and predicted wave run-up heights (according to

equations 2 and 4) is plotted in Figure 8. Measured and calculated wave run-up
are in close agreement, the standard deviation is less than 5 cm (4%) for regular
waves and 3 cm (3%) for irregular waves.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study has been supported by the German Research Council (DFG)
within the research unit SFB 205 – project B13 (‘Design of rubble mound
breakwaters’) and within the research programme Ou 1/3/1-3 (‘Design wave
parameters in front of reflective structures’). The support of Delta Marine
Consultants is also acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Battjes, J.A. (1974): Surf similarity. Proc. Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Vol. 14, No.
1, pp. 466-477.
Buerger, W.; Oumeraci, H.; Partenscky, H.W. (1988): Geohydraulic
investigations of rubble mound breakwaters. Proc. Int. Conf. Coastal Eng.,
Vol. 21, pp. 15; Malaga, Spain.
Davidson, M.A.; Bird, P.A.D.; Huntley, D.A.; Bullock, G.N. (1996): A new
non-dimensional number for the analysis of wave reflection from rubble
mound breakwaters. Coastal Engineering, Vol. 28, pp. 93-120.
Gimenez-Curto, L.A. (1979): Behaviour of rubble mound breakwaters under
wave action. Ph.D. thesis, University of Santander, Santander.
Hughes, S.A.; Fowler, J.E. (1995): Estimating wave-induced kinematics at
sloping structures. Journal of Waterway, Vol. 121, No. 4, pp. 209--215.
Meer, J.W. van der (1992): Conceptual design of rubble mound breakwaters.
Proc. of the Short Course on Design and Reliability of Coastal Structures,
pp. 447-510, Bologna.
Muttray, M. (2000): Wellenbewegung in einem geschütteten Wellenbrecher.
PhD thesis, Technical University Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
and http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=961606452
Muttray, M.; Oumeraci (2002): Wave transformation at sloping perforated
walls. Proc. Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Vol. 28, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Muttray, M.; Oumeraci, H.; Reedijk, J. (2004): Wave Damping in Rubble
Mounds. Proc. Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Vol. 29, Lisbon, Portugal.
Muttray, M.; Oumeraci, H. (2005): Theoretical and experimental study on wave
damping inside a rubble mound breakwater. Coastal engineering, Vol. 52,
No. 8, pp. 709-725.
Postmar, G.M. (1989): Wave reflection from rock slopes under random wave
attack. M.Sc. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Seelig, W.N.; Ahrens, J.P. (1981): Estimation of wave reflection and energy
dissipation coefficients for beaches, revetments, and breakwaters. CERC,
Technical Paper, No. 81/1, pp. 41, Fort Belvoir.
 11

Zanuttigh, B.; van der Meer, J.W. (2006): Wave reflection from coastal
structures. Proc. Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Vol. 30, San Diego, CL.
 12

KEYWORDS – ICCE 2006

WAVE REFLECTION AND WAVE RUN-UP AT RUBBLE MOUND

BREAKWATERS
Markus Muttray , Hocine Oumeraci , Erik ten Oever
Abstract 713

Wave reflection
Wave run-up
Rubble mound breakwaters
Wave breaking
Wave penetration
Hydraulic model tests

View publication stats