ACCROPODE™ II

PRELIMINARY DESIGN
GUIDELINES

1
Version V03 – Published in February 2023

2
Contents

1. Presentation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
2. Glossary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
3. Standard values - ACCROPODETM II unit…………………………………………………………………………………………….6
4. Unit Shape and characteristics………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
5. Typical cross-section of a breakwater with a single-layer armour facing……………………………………………8
6. Summary of the preliminary design………………………………………………………..............................................9
7. Data required………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
8. Preliminary sizing of the unit…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
9. Underlayer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
10. Design guide table…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
11. Toe mound……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
12. Crest of the structure………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24
13. Steps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
14. Roundhead……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..26
15. Inner slope………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………27
16. Transitions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………28
17. Quantity estimate…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29
18. Physical scale modelling………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….30
19. Technical assistance………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33
20. Calculator………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37
21. Terms and conditions of use……………………………………………………………………………………………………………38

3
1. Presentation
The design guidelines
This document is intended for designers of
maritime structures who wish to use the
ACCROPODE™ II technique for protecting rubble-
mound breakwaters. These guidelines provide the
key information required to perform the
preliminary design of ACCROPODE™ II armour
facings in accordance with the basic principles of
the technique developed by SOGREAH (now
ARTELIA) over more than 40 years.

Reliability through
experience
CLI is the leader in breakwater protection
technology using so-called “single-layer” systems.
It has taken part in more than 380 projects in many
countries involving ACCROPODE™, ECOPODE™,
ACCROBERM™ and CORE-LOC™ units in a wide
variety of conditions. It has acquired more than 70
years of experience in the construction of concrete
armour facings for maritime breakwaters, starting
with the TETRAPODE unit in 1953. 1981 saw the
invention of the first single-layer unit, named the
ACCROPODETM, which became the industry
benchmark as the years went by. ACCROPODE TM
units have been used in sizes ranging from 0.7m3 in
areas with moderate waves to 28m3 to protect
structures in Japan against the very strong waves
of the Pacific Ocean. The ACCROPODE™ technique
is far more than a mere concrete unit; it is a
complete procedure guaranteeing that the
characteristics developed by its inventor are
achieved in full on the projects where it is applied.
CLI’s specialist team provides technical assistance
at all stages of the project. This assistance is
intended for parties such as Owners, Engineers,
physical scale modelling laboratories and, more
particularly, construction contractors. To complete
the package, CLI provides a compliance certificate
issuing procedure enabling all parties to ensure
that the breakwater is built in accordance with the
ACCROPODE™ technology.

The ACCROPODE™ II unit

The experience acquired on a substantial number
of projects led to the invention of a new generation
of armour units. This new version retains the
legendary qualities of its predecessor and, thanks
to some changes to its shape and placing grid,
further enhances stability under wave action while
being faster and easier to place. The
ACCROPODE™ II unit, which was launched on the
market in 1999, thus improves the original concept
by optimising its use.

4
Figure 1: ACCROPODETM II units in Kuwait
 2. Glossary

Symbol Description
Unit

H ACCROPODE™ II unit height m

HS Significant wave height: In this document, Hs is considered to be equal to H1/3 m
h Water depth at the toe of the structure m
V ACCROPODE™ II unit volume m3
∆ Relative density of the material considered ∆ = (𝜌𝑐 − 𝜌𝑤 )/𝜌𝑤 -
𝛼 Slope angle degrees
ρc Concrete density kg/m3
ρr Rockfill density kg/m3
ρw Sea water density kg/m3
𝛾𝑓 Layer roughness coefficient -
KD Unit stability coefficient -
KS Shape coefficient -
Kt Layer or underlayer thickness coefficient -
hT Water depth above the crest of the toe mound m
T ACCROPODE™ II armour thickness m
ZC Crest level of the structure (above the last row of units) m
ZP Level of the lower face of the concrete armour toe (below the first row) m
Dn50 Nominal diameter of the elements m
L Scour apron width m
DH Theoretical horizontal distance between the centres of gravity of two units m
Dv Distance parallel to the theoretical slope between the centres of gravity of two rows of units m
Dn Nominal diameter - single-layer armour unit m
NLL Nominal Lower Limit of the mass of the natural rockfill used for the underlayer t
NUL Nominal Upper Limit of the mass of the natural rockfill used for the underlayer t
W50 Median weight of the rockfill N
N Number of armour units per unit area U/m²
Ns Stability number -
𝛾ℎ Moist unit weight - single-layer armour unit kN/m3
𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 Saturated unit weight - single-layer armour unit kN/m3
c Interlocking cohesion - single-layer armour unit kPa
𝜑 Angle of friction - single-layer armour unit °

Table 1: Abbreviations and symbols

5
3. Standard values – ACCROPODETM II unit

Unit volume 𝑉 = 0.2926 𝐻²

Nominal diameter 𝐷𝑛 = 𝑉 1/3

Shape coefficient 𝐾𝑆 = 0.2926 𝐻²

Stability coefficient 𝐾𝑑 = 16 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 (𝑐𝑓. 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑟 8)

Placing density 𝜙 = 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 0.635 𝑡𝑜 0.610

Layer porosity 𝑉𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 53.31% to 55.15%

Thickness coefficient of an ACCROPODE™ II unit layer 𝐾𝑡1 = 1.36

Thickness coefficient of an ACCROPODE™ II unit underlayer 𝐾𝑡2 = 1.15

Armour thickness 𝑇 = 0.902 𝐻 𝑜𝑟 𝑇 = 𝐾𝑡1 . 𝐷𝑛 = 1.36 𝐷𝑛

Layer roughness coefficient 𝛾𝑓 = 0.44 [cf. note 1]

Dry unit weight – single-layer armour unit 𝛾ℎ = 15 𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 [cf. note 2]

Saturated unit weight – single-layer armour unit 𝛾𝑠𝑎𝑡 = 19 𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 [cf. note 2]

Interlocking cohesion - single-layer armour unit 𝑐 = 10 𝑘𝑃𝑎 [cf. note 2]

Angle of friction - single-layer armour unit 𝜑 = 45 ° [cf. note 2]

Table 2: Standard values for an ACCROPODETM II single-layer armour facing

Note 1 – Source: Eurotop Manual Table 6.2 (values for a slope of 1:1.5)

Note 2 - Indicative values estimated by ARTELIA in order to model ACCROPODE™ II unit layers as “ground” elements

6
 4. Unit shape and characteristics

The ACCROPODETM II unit is a hexapod

which fits into a cube, ensuring perfect
interlocking in all directions by
harnessing the forces of the
neighbouring units according to a
specific grid.
The bevels to which the sharp angles are
cut make it easier to manage unit
interlocking and prevent units becoming
jammed during placing This ensures
simple, fast interlocking close to the
optimal density. As a result, subsequent
settlement at the construction site is
limited in comparison with other types
of unit.
The pyramids on each leg of the unit
serve two purposes. They are designed
to create more contacts between the
units and increase their ability to
harness the forces created by the
neighbouring units. These are also
sacrificial components that absorb the
energy generated by impacts during unit
placing.
The stability of the ACCROPODE™ II unit
is partly due to its shape, which results
from the experience gained with the first
generation of ACCROPODE™ units. This
stability is also induced by the placing
technique, which harnesses the forces
from the neighbouring units. This
combination of features enables high
levels of stability to be obtained.
Right - Figure 2: ACCROPODETM II unit
 5. Typical cross-section of a breakwater with a single-layer armour facing

Zc

harmour
Design
HS

hb – water depth
above the toe

h - water depth at
mound

the toe of the

structure
Zp

Crown wall Crest/berm Core Underlayer Artificial armour facing Scour apron Toe mound Natural bed Bed slope in front of the structure

Figure 3: Typical cross-section of a breakwater with a single-layer armour facing

8
6. Summary of the preliminary design

① COLLECTION OF INPUT DATA

Site conditions
• Waves
• Water levels
• Bathymetry

Characteristics of the structure

• Roundhead
• Crest level
• Etc.

② CALCULATION OF UNIT VOLUME

Determination of the stability coefficient (KD)

Initial estimation of unit size using the Hudson formula

Adjustment of unit size

• Number of rows
• Structure in the wave breaking zone
• Structure with low permeability

PHYSICAL
SCALE ③ DESIGN OF THE ARMOUR FACING
MODEL
TESTS
Underlayer
Adaptation to the armour unit and the site conditions

Toe mound
Choice of type of toe mound and stability check

Crest
Definition of crest type. Consideration of construction aspects

Figure 4: Outline of the preliminary design process

9
 7. Data required

The information below is required for the preliminary design of the armour facing:
• Precise bathymetry in the vicinity of the structure;
• Reference wave;
• Water level: tide variations, influence of storms, levels induced by climate change;
• Wave breaking conditions;
• Minimum concrete density at the site;
• Sea water density;
• Rockfill density;
• Armour crest level zc;
• Foundation level of the first unit at the armour toe zP;
• Lifetime of the structure;
• Return period of design-critical events.
N.B.:
In the context of a preliminary design, the
Figure 5: Hydraulic shovel and lattice boom crawler crane during ACCROPODE TM II unit placing
wave to be used is H1/3. This corresponds to
the “significant wave height, the average of
the highest third of the waves, based on
time domain analysis”, for the Hudson and
Van der Meer formulae. The locations of
wave points are selected by the structure
designer depending on the site conditions.

10
10
 8. Preliminary sizing of the unit

The Hudson formula is commonly

used for the preliminary sizing of
armour units. It is simple and has
benefited from extensive feedback. ① Stability
This method takes the design wave coefficient
height into consideration, along
with other factors that influence
unit stability. The preliminary sizing
of armour units is summarised in ② Theoretical
estimation of
the diagram opposite. unit size

③ Factors
Right - Figure 6: Diagram explaining the influencing unit
preliminary unit sizing process size

Below - Figure 7: Breakwater with

ACCROPODETM II units - view from the
pedestrian walkway on the crest – marina ④ Number of
in Kuwait rows on the
slope

11
11
 Stability coefficient

The first step is to estimate the stability ON ROUNDHEADS OR BENDS

coefficient value to be used, as this is factored On roundheads and bends, the stability coefficient
into the Hudson formula. This coefficient may must be reduced by 30% in order to account for the
vary depending on the bed slope in front of the three-dimensional effects of wave action as well as
structure, the wave-breaking conditions, and the the fact that unit interlocking is more difficult to
type of trunk section or bend/roundhead. obtain during the works.
As is the case on trunk sections, the stability
ON TRUNK SECTIONS coefficient is influenced by wave breaking.
The unit stability coefficient depends, among For the case of a breaking wave, Figure 9 gives an
other things, on the type of breaking wave. This estimated KD value to be used on a bend or
breaking wave is itself influenced by the wave roundhead.
characteristics, the bathymetry and the water The following conditions are applied:
depth. • For the case of a non-breaking wave, the KD
• For the case of a non-breaking wave, the KD value used is that of a bed slope of less than 1%.
value used is that of a bed slope of less than • For the case of a breaking wave, Figure 9 gives
1%. an estimated KD value to be used on a bend or
• For the case of a breaking wave, Figure 8 roundhead.
below gives an estimated KD value to be • With a bed slope steeper than 10% in front of
used for sea bed slopes from1 to 10%. the structure, the structure designer must use
• With a bed slope percentage greater than an even lower KD value and perform physical
10% in front of the structure, the structure scale model tests to validate the stability of the
designer must use an even lower KD value units. A conservative approach is strongly
and perform physical scale model tests to recommended.
specify the stability of the units. A
conservative approach is strongly
recommended.

Bed slope (%) Bed slope (%)

ACCROPODETM II with breaking wave ACCROPODETM II without breaking wave ACCROPODETM II with breaking wave ACCROPODETM II without breaking wave

Figure 8: KD values on a trunk section Figure 9: KD values on a roundhead or bend

12
 Figure 10: photograph of ACCROPODETM unit
placing using a crane mounted on a barge

Estimating unit size

Hudson formula
The size of the ACCROPODE™ II units is calculated
using the Hudson formula, with a hydraulic
𝑯𝑺 𝟑
stability coefficient that varies as indicated in the 𝑽=
previous section. 𝑲𝑫 ∆𝟑 𝒄𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒏 𝜶

On the right: Hudson formula modified so as to

obtain the unit volume directly - Ref [1] CIRIA - CUR
- 2009 Rock Manual section 5.2.2.2

Where
V ACCROPODE™ unit volume m3
HS Significant wave height (H 1/3) m
Δ Concrete relative density (𝜌𝑐 − 𝜌𝑤 )/𝜌𝑤 kg/m3
ρc Concrete density kg/m3
ρw Sea water density kg/m3
KD Hydraulic stability coefficient [-]
cotan α Cotangent of the slope angle (see notes below) [-]

Notes

Generally speaking, slopes of 4:3 or 3:2 may The usual concrete density values range
be used. In the Hudson formula, it is between 2,300 kg/m3 and 2,500 kg/m3.
preferable to use a slope of 4:3 (cotan(α) = Outside this range, the hydraulic response
1.33). Gentler slopes lead to lower friction and may differ from that of a standard armour
interlocking forces, which are detrimental to facing.
unit stability.

13
Factors influencing unit stability

Other factors must be considered in fine-tuning the preliminary design obtained using the Hudson
formula. Table 3 below indicates the influential parameters that are encountered most frequently.
There may be others specific to the individual work site.

SITUATION EFFECTS CORRECTION

Structure in the wave breaking Frequent waves close to the It is suggested to reduce the stability
zone design wave. Fatigue effect. coefficient by 20%.

The units tend to be more

Reducing the unit size is not
Oblique waves stable when wave attack is
recommended.
oblique.

In the Hudson formula, it is

Unit interlocking is less recommended to use a cotan α value
Armour slope is 3:2 or less
effective. equivalent to a slope of 4:3, i.e. 1.33.
Stability tests are compulsory.

Significant action related to

Physical scale model checks must be
Low-crested structures1 overtopping on the angle and
carried out.
crest lines.

According to the work of Burcharth et al.,

stability can decrease by 50% with a core
composed of fine materials, and can
Breakwater with impermeable or Risk of additional forces on
decrease further with wave periods of TP
low-permeability body the units, and of overtopping.
> 15 s. Reducing the stability coefficient
by 50% is hence recommended on non-
permeable structures.

Increase the unit size or modify the toe

Risk of more significant
Many rows of units on the slope mound in order to comply with the
cumulative settlement.
criteria recommended in table 4 below.

Table 3: Factors influencing unit stability

Note

1
According to [1] CIRIA-CUR-CETMEF Rock When several factors among those listed in
Manual, The use of rock in hydraulic table 3 are combined, they must be
engineering – 2009, section 5.2.2.1, a low- addressed with a conservative approach to
crested structure has a crest level above or be on the safe side. Less is known about
below the still sea water level. combined effects, and they are difficult to
control. In this case, the lowest stability
coefficient KD value must be selected and
then reassessed with an increased safety
factor left to the discretion of the structure
designer. It is advisable to increase the size
of the units. Physical scale model testing
remains strongly recommended in all cases.

14
Number of rows on the slope

The number of rows on the slope must

be limited in order to control any
cumulative settlement arising due to ACCROPODE™ II Recommended maximum
normal rearrangement of the armour unit size number of rows on the slope
units. CLI therefore recommends the
values given in table 4 opposite. These Less than 4 m3 22
values are not mandatory but, should
they be exceeded, CLI recommends 4 to 8 m3 20
oversizing the units in order to limit the
8 to 16 m3 18
stresses exerted on them by the design
wave and, hence, to limit settlement. More than 16 m3 16

Table 4: Recommended maximum number of rows

Rows of ACCROPODE™ II units on the slope

To limit the number of rows, there are
Be careful to abide by the recommended maximum
two possible solutions: number of rows indicated - cf. Table 4. The row at the
toe and those on the crest are not concerned

Increase the size of the units. While this

solution slightly increases concrete
consumption, it significantly reduces
the number of units to be fabricated and
placed. It also provides an additional
safety factor.

Figure 11: Schematic diagram - number of rows counted on the slope

Raise the foundation level of the armour Zc

toe (see Figure 12 opposite) to limit the
harmour

number of rows of armour units. This

type of change may have an impact on
wave breaking. The stability of this
foundation and the toe mound must be
checked. Zp

Figure 12: Schematic diagram of a cross-section of a breakwater with a raised toe

foundation level.

15
 9. Underlayer

Layout
Single-layer armour units are placed on an
underlayer with specific properties. To guarantee a
suitable base for the armour units, the rockfill
forming the underlayer must be laid so as to:

• Achieve a roughness suited to the size of the

armour units,
• Achieve a porosity that will absorb the wave
energy correctly,
• Respect the filtration rules between the core
and the armour facing.

The underlayer must comply with the rules

governing the rockfill grading and shape given in
the CIRIA – CUR 2009 Rock Manual.

Right - Figure 13: Photograph of an underlayer with

broken faces - for the new deep-water terminal at the
port of Kuantan (Malaysia) Port side.

Rockfill weight and geometry

Table 5 summarises the geometrical information on the rockfill to be used to build the underlayer.

Description Limit values Note

Please refer to the recommendations given in the design table

Rockfill weight NUL and NLL - Ref [2]
available on CLI’s website www.concretelayer.com and below

L: the largest dimension

G: the largest measurable dimension perpendicular to direction L
Rockfill shape L+G/2E ≤ 3 and L/E<3 E: the largest dimension perpendicular to the plane LG

Table 5: Rockfill of the underlayer

The nominal limits (NLL and NUL) of natural rockfill for the underlayer must be between 7% [NLL] and 14%
[NUL] of the armour unit mass (see Ref [1] section 5.2.2.3). However, a tolerance may be applied to optimise
the number of rockfill categories required for a given project. (see Table 6)

The grading must not be too narrow (as this leads to difficulties during construction) or too wide (as this
reduces filter porosity and poses a potential risk of segregation). To ensure an evenly distributed grading, the
following relation should preferably be used: 2 ≤ NUL/NLL ≤ 3 (see Ref [1] section 5.5.5.3 and Ref [2]). The
rockfill must have angular shapes and a large number of broken faces.

16
 Figure 14: Photograph of an underlayer

In the event that natural quarry rockfill is

not available, artificial rockfill such as
Thickness of the underlayer shattered concrete or other rock types can
be used. Specific studies will have to be
performed to demonstrate that the
proposed substitutes are equivalent to
The thickness of this underlayer is calculated as follows: natural quarry rockfill.

𝑒 = 𝑛 . 𝐾𝑡 . 𝐷𝑛50 Note concerning construction of the

Where underlayer
e: thickness of the underlayer; It is important to bear in mind that the
n: number of layers; underlayer must be constructed in
Kt2: underlayer coefficient; for ACCROPODE™II, Kt=1.15 accordance with the placing tolerances
Dn50: nominal diameter of the underlayer rockfill related to the ACCROPODE™ II technique;
in other words, the permissible tolerance
at any point of the underlayer is +/- H/6
with respect to the theoretical profile, H
being the height of the ACCROPODE™ II
unit considered (this measurement is
taken vertically).

17
 The Design Guide Table for ACCROPODE™ II and ECOPODE™ provides information on
the characteristics of the units, concrete consumption, density, etc. This table is given
10. Design Guide Table below and can be consulted on CLI’s website [https//www.concretelayer.com]. It is
advisable to refer to the version available on the website, as this contains the most
recent updates.

Kt=0.9* : minimum value that

depend on rocks shape and
placing methodologies. For Table 6: Extract from the ACCROPODETM II and ECOPODETM Design Guide Table
primary armour directly exposed
to the waves effects kt=1.15 is to 18
be used.
 11. Toe mound
The toe mound plays a key role in ensuring the stability
of armour facings. The designer must bear in mind that
the toe mound must be constructible and that any
difficulties related to its construction (depth, nature of
the seabed, bed slope, waves) must not undermine the
stability of the structure;
Figure 15: Photographs - construction of the detached
breakwater for the new deep-water terminal in the port of
Kuantan
Figure 16: rockfill toe mound and V-shaped trench

1919
 Types of toe mound
ACCROPODE™ TOE MOUND
The ACCROPODE™ toe mound is the basic
solution to ensure good stability in the
majority of cases. It is the most widely used,
because it is the easiest to construct. It
consists of a row of armour units placed on a
scour apron and reinforced by a double layer
of rockfill so as to guarantee the stability of
the first unit. The thickness of the rockfill must
not exceed that of the single-layer armour
units. The thickness of the toe mound should
not normally be less than two-thirds of the
unit height.

TYPE I EMBEDDED TOE MOUND:

LOOSE SOIL AND ROCK
This type of toe mound is usually
recommended in shallow water when it is
difficult to stabilise the rockfill or the scour
protection materials sufficiently. The
configuration is similar to the previous one,
but simply laid in a trench excavated at the
toe of the structure. In case of scouring risk
or soil punching, additional under-layer is to
be placed underneath the first ACCROPODE™
unit
TYPE II EMBEDDED TOE MOUND:
ROCK
This type of toe mound is generally used in the
most exposed areas of the structure, where
conventional toe mounds cannot withstand
the wave action. The units are placed in a V-
shaped trench excavated into the rock. Since
this type of toe mound is more difficult to
build, it is only used in the most severe cases.
It must be built with great care. Its quality
depends greatly on the nature and dip of the
rock.

ROCKFILL TOE MOUND:

V-SHAPED TRENCH
This toe mound is rarely used, because it is
much more complex and costly to build. The
alternative types of toe mound presented
above avoid this complexity. This toe mound
is generally built in good visibility conditions,
in shallow water (less than 2 m), and with
rockfill of less than 2 T. The use of a hydraulic
shovel is virtually unavoidable. See figure 16.

Opposite:
Figure 17: ACCROPODE™II toe mound
Figure 18: Type I embedded toe mound - loose soil and rock
Figure 19: Type II embedded toe mound - rock
Figure 20: Rockfill toe mound in V-shaped trench
20
 ACCROBERM™ I AND II
TOE UNITS Below:
Figure 21: 3D view - ACCROBERMTM I placement
Figure 22: ACCROBERM™ I unit in toe position
To provide a more reliable and more Figure 23: 3D view - ACCROBERMTM II placement
economical solution, two types of toe unit Figure 24: ACCROBERM™ II unit in toe berm position
have been developed. Both of these solutions
must be used in the specific conditions
describe below.

yNACCROBERM™ I
a o
This unit replaces the first row of
u y II units and does away with the
ACCROPODE™
double layer a of rockfill that serves as a toe
us berm in a standard toe mound. Therefore it

S-co significantly reducesu the footprint of the

structure on the bed and the quantity of
ouus materials to be used. It overcomes the

c-ch
difficulties of stabilising the rockfill in
conventional toe mounds.

oeu
This unit is particularly suitable when the bed
slopes opposite the structure are between 0

ch
and 5%. For a steeper bed slope, this unit may
not be sufficient to stabilise the toe. In this
e
case an embedded toe mound will be
required.
The weight of the unit is the same as that of Dv
the ACCROPODE™ II unit that it supports. The 4 Dv
4
So 3
grid is also determined according to that of the usS
-coou
So
u 3

Noyau usc-c sS-co

ACCROPODE™ II unit that it supports. hoeu ouus
ch c-chDv
oeu
The methodology for placing the first row of e ch
Dv

e
ACCROPODETM II armour units is adapted in
S

Noyau Seabed slope

Core
Noyau Noyau
order to optimise load transfer between the Noyau pente des fonds

Noyau
ou

facing and its toe mound. This first row may be

placed in a systematic manner and a similar
orientation. Tapis de pied
o Dv
Tapis de pied
sS-

ACCROBERM™ II
y

hc e
aThis unit is used in an eco-design approach. It
coo

N is u
positioned as a reinforcing “toe berm” as a
uus

A
o
substitute for rockfill. The centre of this ring-

ocheu
shaped unit is filled with rockfill of a specific
y
Dv
c-ch

size depending on the targeted species and

uousc-
a development stages.
their habitats and
4
It substantially reduces the footprint of the
u a new ecosystem. The
oeu

structure and creates

larvae captured by the textured surface of the
3 D

-sSco
v
units find a suitable substrate on which to
ch

grow and develop in a protected area at the

toe of the structure. The size of the rockfill
placed inside the ACCROBERM™ II uit is
oS u
3
e

adjusted so as to create cavities of varying

v

dimensions to suit the targeted species. Other

eco-design and filling methods can also be Dv

4
used with this unit. 4
So 3
The size of the ACCROBERM™ II units is usS
-coou
usc-c

Noyau
determined according to the armour unit grid. hoeu Dv

It is hence advisable to contact CLI to ch

e
determine the most suitable size. Core
Noyau v
Noyau D

21
Noyau 4
General approach
to toe mound
depth

Whenever possible, the crest of

the toe mound (ht) on the
seaward side is generally at a
minimum depth of 1.5Hs below
low water. Ref [1] section 6.1.4.2.

Detailed information on rockfill

sizing and toe mound position are
given in section 5.2.2.9 of the
Rock Manual Ref [1].

For structures in shallow water of

Hs < hT < 1.1 Hs, toe mounds of the
embedded type are strongly
recommended.

On the harbour side, the toe

mound depth depends on the
wave disturbance inside the basin
and the scale of overtopping (Ref
[1] section 6.1.4.2). It is essential
to complement this initial
approach with physical scale
model tests.

Right - Figure 25: photograph

of a breakwater under
construction

22
22
Toe mound stability

When the toe mound is composed of rockfill,

it is important to bear in mind that the
stability of the rockfill is vital to the overall
stability and durability of the armour facing.
This rockfill must be stable and not be
remodelled by waves in the design
conditions.

The toe mound must guarantee that the

armour facing remains properly wedged
throughout the working life of the structure.

The rockfill must not be thrown onto the

armour facing (risk of armour units breaking).

It must guarantee protection against scour

when necessary.

The use of strict stability criteria is strongly

recommended, such as a maximum damage
number Nod = 0.5. It must be borne in mind
that the minimum width must be 3 x Dn50 in
the case of a standard toe mound or a so-
called rockfill toe mound.

The formula of Van Der Meer et al (1995),

given below, is commonly used for the
preliminary design of the toe mound, but this
initial approach must be complemented by
physical scale modelling.

3
𝐻𝑠
𝑊50 = ( ) 𝜌𝑟
(2 + 6.2 (ℎ/ℎ𝑏 )2.7 ) 𝑁𝑜𝑑 0.15 ∆

Ref [1] section 5.2.2.9

𝑊50 : Median weight of the rockfill

h: water depth at the toe of the structure
hb: water depth above the toe mound
Nod: Damage number
(number of units displaced by a distance Dn)
✓ = 0.5 start of damage
✓ = 2 slight flattening
✓ = 4 toe mound completely flattened
∆: Relative density of the rockfill
ρw: Sea water density
ρr: Rockfill density

Left - Figure 26: ACCROPODE™ II units on a breakwater

23
 12. Crest of the structure

The type, level and width of the breakwater crest are generally defined by the following parameters:

• Overtopping rate, in accordance with the design criteria and, in particular, the purpose of the structure
• Whether or not the crest of the structure must be made accessible
• Constructional aspects enabling the project costs to be optimised.

Generally speaking the following minimum values are adopted for the width of a berm made of artificial
armour units:

• 3 x Dn when there is crown wall

• 2 x Dn when there is rockfill behind the last unit
• 3 x Dn when the crest is completely covered

With Dn = V1/3 for one ACCROPODETM II unit

These principles ensure that the units are sufficiently interlocked with each other and with the crown wall.
Below this limit, it is still feasible to place the units but implementation becomes more difficult. On the
other hand, only having a single row of units on the crest against a crown wall is strongly discouraged. There
is a risk that this single row will not be blocked correctly between the slope and the wall. Special attention
must be paid to low-crested breakwaters (crest level less than a height H s from the design maximum sea
water level), because armour units placed on a horizontal surface are less able to interlock with each other.
It is hence recommended to increase the unit weight of the units and to conduct physical scale model tests
in order to determine their stability (Ref [1] section 5.2.2.4). Moreover, with a view to maintaining the
future structure and its armour facing, provision for an access road is recommended. If an access road
cannot be built to carry out maintenance on the structure, this work can potentially be done from the sea.

3 Dn 3 Dn

Figure 27: Example of a crest with a crown wall Figure 28: Example of a completely covered crest

24
13. Steps

Steps can be built into the

armour facing. In the absence of
a crest slab or access path, steps
can provide access in order to
maintain equipment (such as
lighthouses, lamps, etc.).

Steps of this type must be

positioned at the least exposed
points of the breakwater. They
should preferably be positioned
in a calm area such as the inner
slope, and not close to the
roundhead.

The steps must be designed and

built in accordance with local
regulations.

Left, opposite:
Figure 29 & Figure 30:
Photographs of the reinforced
concrete access steps

25
14. Roundhead

The roundhead is generally

the most exposed part of the
structure, owing to wave
diffraction and overtopping.
Interlocking of the units
protecting this section of the
breakwater is more difficult
on account of its conical
shape, so particular
attention must be paid to
this stage of placing. The
design criteria must include
an additional safety margin.
The radius of the roundhead
must be at least 2.5 times
the design wave height (the
radius is measured
horizontally from the centre
of the roundhead to the
outer side of the armour
facing at the maximum sea
water level considered for
the project).

If wave attack occurs in the

same direction as the
breakwater axis, it is
advisable to adopt a
minimum roundhead radius
of three times the design Hs
or more, measured at sea
level.

Left, opposite:
Figure 31: 3D view of a
roundhead
Figure 32: Photograph of the
roundhead on the project to
extend the Port of Constanta in
Romania

26
15. Inner slope
The main parameters for designing the armour facing of the breakwater inner slope are defined by:

• The water volumes overtopping the structure

• Wave disturbance inside the harbour basin (diffracted, reflected or incident waves, wind)
• Transmission of waves through the breakwater

There is no specific formula for sizing the single-layer armour facing on the inner side of the breakwater.
The Hudson formula can be used for an initial approach if waves penetrate inside the harbour, but its
limits will soon become apparent. Given the effects listed above, a physical scale modelling approach is
preferable. Special attention must be paid during these tests to the toe mound on the inner side and to
the consequences of overtopping.

Laboratory physical scale models will be required to determine the stability of this inner slope.
Below - Figure 33: Photograph of a breakwater with ACCROPODETM II units in Aberdeen (Scotland)

27
27

27
 16. Transitions
Transitions between different unit sizes/types or with rockfill are specific points that require special attention,
because they result in a grid loss in the armour facing which must be considered as a critical point.
First of all, positioning these transitions in places that are critical in terms of wave action (roundhead and bends)
is strongly discouraged. Physical model tests can help to locate the wave concentration zones, in order to avoid
position transitions elsewhere.

A transition between units must be made along a line at an angle of 45° over the slope height. The larger units
must be placed below the smaller ones. Whenever possible, the difference in unit volumes must not exceed 30%
in order to avoid differences in armour thickness. When the differences in armour thickness are small (less than
H/6), it is preferable to align the sections of the underlayer. When the differences exceed H/6, it is preferable to
consult CLI.

Whenever possible, a transition between units should also be followed by a change in underlayer size. It is also
possible to make transitions between two-layer and single-layer units. It is preferable to align the outer armour
facings to avoid step-like effects between the units.

45°

Figure 34: Transition between two different ACCROPODETM II unit sizes Figure 35: Close-up of the transition in Figure 34

• The transition is made at 45°

• The smaller units are supported by the larger ones
• Units of different sizes must be interlocked carefully
• While placing the units, pay attention not to create lose interlocking
• Adapt the grid to the transition (according to the placing drawing)
• Differences in thickness between the two armour facings should be avoided, by adapting the underlayer.
• Limit differences between two unit sizes to 30%

28
 17. Quantity estimate

Stages
The conventional method for
performing the quantity estimate
consists in using a graph-based
solution.

⓪ Determine the volume of the

ACCROPODETM II units

① Determine the position of

the neutral fibre graphically
The neutral fibre (axis) is situated
in the middle of the
ACCROPODE™ II armour facing,
i.e. at T/2, T being the thickness of
one armour layer. T is a function
of the ACCROPODE™ II unit height
(cf. Design Guide Table - table 6).
The neutral fibre must be
determined graphically for each
profile/section, and its length
must be adjusted depending on
the type of toe mound and the
edge effects (cf. figure 36 1.5 Dv
opposite, right).
The end result is a neutral fibre
length for each section.

② Determine the theoretical

surface area on which
ACCROPODE™ II units are
distributed
Theoretical surface area = sum of
the lengths of the neutral fibres
multiplied by the length of section
to be applied

③ Number of ACCROPODE™ II
units
Number of ACCROPODE™ II units
= Theoretical surface area x N
Where N, number of units/m²

④ Concrete volume
Concrete volume = theoretical
surface area x concrete
consumption in m3/m² (cf. Design
Guide Table - table 6).
Right - Figure 36: Positioning the
neutral fibre graphically N.B.: For the Dv of each size, it is advisable to contact CLI in order to obtain the exact value

29
18. Physical scale modelling

Model units and laboratory assistance

Physical scale model tests are a vital stage of designing a project. They provide an understanding of
complex phenomena which cannot be calculated using empirical formulae. These tests are strongly
recommended, and often a must in finalising the project.
In the context of the technical assistance related to licensing of the ACCROPODE™ trademark, CLI
assists stakeholders during physical scale modelling at any laboratory worldwide. This assistance
consists in supplying the model units required and in training the laboratory staff to place them. This
training comprises a theoretical component and a practical component, and ensures that the units
are placed in accordance with the requirements of the technique. The quality of placing and
compliance with the placing density are critical factors that contribute to a successful project
outcome. A document summarising the placing methods is systematically supplied to the laboratory
whenever a CLI expert provides on-site assistance. The list of available model units can be obtained
upon request from CLI either via the Contact page of the website www.concretelayer.com or by
sending an email to [email protected].

Below - Figure 37: Physical scale model - 3D - construction phase

30
Unit stability on a
physical scale model

INFORMATION ON THE TESTS

The structure designer must refer to the

standards relating to physical scale model
tests, including the Hydralab manual, ref
[3], which is an essential document. The
only information given below is that which
provides a greater understanding of the
tests relating to ACCROPODE™ II armour
units.
The design of an ACCROPODE™ II single-
layer armour facing must take a “no
damage” criterion based on the design
wave conditions into consideration.
The tests are generally performed while
incrementing the size of the waves, from
the smallest to the largest (e.g. for return
periods of 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 50
years, 100 years or even more if necessary).
Tests with an overload wave are strongly
recommended, and form part of the usual
testing programmes. This wave is generally
120% of the design wave. These tests
provide a means of estimating the hydraulic
stability reserve of the armour facing. The
wave characteristics and periods will be
determined by the structure designer.
Water levels have very significant effects on
wave behaviour, so it is important to test
the structure under the various possible
water levels and their combination with
design waves. Low water levels often have a
direct effect on toe mound stability.
In all cases, special attention must be paid
to the toe mound and its foundation. The
toe mound must perform its role in all wave
conditions. It must not be significantly
remodelled, and rockfill must not be thrown
against the armour facing.
The damage criteria are determined by the
structure designer, as this is the only person
who is familiar with the details of the design
and the specific site conditions. The
designer can obtain assistance from CLI if he
or she has questions regarding the unit
technique.

Opposite - Figure 38: Physical scale model -

3D - construction phase

31
USUAL DAMAGE CRITERIA USED WITH PHYSICAL SCALE MODELS

Usual damage criteria for design wave conditions (Hs):

✓ No ACCROPODE™ II model units extracted;

✓ Limited ACCROPODE™ II unit settlement;
✓ Less than 1% permanent oscillation for the ACCROPODE™ II model units;

For a 120% overload of the design wave conditions (120% Hs), the damage criterion is:

✓ No ACCROPODE™ II model units extracted.

Below - Figure 39: Photograph of a model breakwater with ACCROPODE TM II units during laboratory testing

32
 The technical assistance provided by CLI in
relation to the sub-licence agreement for

19. Technical assistance the units is a key factor that contributes to

a successful project outcome. For this
reason, CLI supports the players
throughout the various project stages,
from the feasibility study through
construction and on to monitoring of the
structure during its working life. This
technical assistance includes the services
described below.

Assistance with the

structure design phase
ASSISTANCE WITH THE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE
ARMOUR FACING
CLI assists the various players during the
preliminary conceptual design of the
armour facing. The aim of this assistance is
to provide the structure designer with
general information on the specific
features of the armour units. This ensures
that the structure designer has the
essential basic information required to
design the structure without CLI being
involved in the actual design process.

PHYSICAL SCALE MODEL TESTS

CLI provides the model units required to
perform 2D and/or 3D physical scale model
tests in the laboratory chosen by the client.
A CLI expert also provides on-site technical
assistance at the laboratory in order to
provide the placing training required to
ensure that ACCROPODE™ II units are used
in accordance with the specific rules of the
technique.

TENDERING PHASE
During the tendering phases, CLI experts
are also available to answer any questions
regarding the technique, in the strictest
confidence.

Left - Figure 40: On-site technical assistance

from a CLI representative

33
 Assistance during the
construction phase
AT THE START OF THE WORKS
In the context of the sub-licence agreement, CLI
supplies the specifications required by the
contractor in charge of the construction works.
The services provided include:
• Provision of the Technical Information Document,
drawing together the specifications and the
experience acquired through the 380 projects
completed worldwide.
• Supply of a list of experienced ACCROPODE™
II formwork manufacturers, or of available
second-hand formwork;
• Supply of unit shape definition drawings and
simplified formwork drawings;
• Review of and advice regarding the methods for
fabricating and placing ACCROPODE™ II units;
• Assistance with setting up a quality monitoring
system.

DURING THE WORKS

Thanks to a team of specialists dedicated to this
technique, CLI:
• Performs site visits dedicated to training and
advising the contractor on the works relating to
the ACCROPODE™ II units
• Supplies simplified unit placing drawings
• Advises the contractor between site visits on the
correct implementation of the ACCROPODE™
technique. This advice may be provided by email,
telephone or video conference. CLI has a video
conference room, including scale models, which it
uses for remote training.
• Provides the handbook on monitoring and
maintaining the ACCROPODE™ II armour facing.

COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
On request, following the feasibility study and at
the very start of the works, CLI can set up a
“Compliance Certificate” procedure to confirm
that the ACCROPODE™ II armour facing is
constructed in accordance with the specifications
and best practice.

Left - Figure 41: On-site technical assistance from a CLI

representative

34
Inspection and
maintenance of the
structures

All maritime structures must be regularly

inspected and maintained right from the
end of the construction phase. Rubble-
mound breakwaters are no exception to
this. Moreover, armour facings of
breakwaters are “flexible, ‘living’
structures designed from the outset to
undergo deformation and sustain damage
throughout their working life” [1]
Fascicule 4). Single-layer armour facings do
not generally require regular
replenishment to compensate for the
gradual downward movement of units
under the effect of gravity. When
monitoring is scheduled on a regular basis,
Figure 42: Upper Zakum project in the United Arab Emirates
the transport of additional materials and
large-scale maintenance operations are
minimised. In light of the above, however,
it is vital to draw up a plan to monitor and
maintain the structure on a regular basis
and following specific events. The main
advantage of these inspections is detecting
any change to the armour facing that is
likely to worsen. Artificial armour facings
are better able to withstand waves than
natural rockfill facings. However, they
deteriorate more quickly as soon as the
initial damage appears. Minor damage
must hence be monitored or repaired at a
relatively early stage, before it quickly
turns into serious damage requiring large-
scale repair works.

CLI assists project owners by providing the Figure 43: 3D point cloud of an ACCROPODE™ armour facing
appropriate documentation and proposing
comprehensive armour facing
inspection/assessment services performed
by its experts and specialists. These
inspections are based on the
implementation of 3D numerical models
with centimetre accuracy that detect all
movements irrespective of the underwater
visibility conditions. In most cases the
intervention of divers is not required.

Figure 44: Virtual 3D modelling of armour units

35
 CLI’s Project in the world

Key

Years
1981 – 1988

1989 – 1994

1995 – 1999

2000 – 2005

2006 – 2011

2012 – 2017

Figure 45: map showing the locations of projects completed by CLI

36
120. Calculator
A tool for estimating unit size is
available on the CLI website:

www.concretelayer.com/fr/calculateur

It incorporates the variation in KD of

the ACCROPODE II™ units depending
on the bed slope and whether the
waves break on the trunk section and
the roundhead.

This is a preliminary design tool.

Right - Figure 46: CLI calculator available on

the website

37
21. Terms and conditions of use

Intellectual property
and rights of use
ACCROPODE™, ECOPODE™ and
ACCROBERM™ are registered trademarks
and protected internationally by Artelia.
CORE-LOC™ is a registered trademark
protected internationally the USCOE. The
use of any of the technologies stated
above requires the prior signature of a
sub-licence agreement with CLI.

Warnings relating to
this document
This document is intended for specialised
readers who have a solid grounding in the
dimensional design of rubble-mound
breakwaters and maritime hydraulic
structures.
The dimensional design of armour facings
is a complex process. This document does
not claim in any way to constitute the
complete source of data or information
required to design an armour facing.
Users must refer to best practice and the
applicable standards in designing their
structure. The aim of this document is to
provide general information and the
initial conditions for the preliminary
design of breakwaters with an
ACCROPODE™ II single-layer armour
facing. This document is not a design
handbook and it does not take into
consideration all the aspects of designing
a breakwater; it only covers the main
information relating to or influencing the
armour facing. The structure designer
remains responsible for the design of the
structure in its entirety. It is vital to
confirm the structure design with the aid
of 2D and 3D physical scale models. CLI or
Artelia will not be held liable under any
circumstances for direct or consequential
damage resulting from use of the content
of this document.
A number of online resources to be used
in parallel with and as a complement to
this document are available on the
www.concretelayer.com website.

Left - Figure 47: Lifting an ACCROPODE™ II unit

on the project to build a marina in Kuwait

38
 References Contacts
[1] CIRIA-CUR-CETMEF The Rock Manual: The CONCRETE LAYER INNOVATIONS
use of rock in hydraulic engineering – 2009
6, rue de Lorraine
[2] Standard EN 13383 Armourstone 38130 ECHIROLLES – France

[3] Hydralab III Guidelines for physical model Tel.: +33(0) 476 044 774
testing of breakwaters. Rubble mound Fax: +33(0) 476 044 775
breakwaters NA3.1-2 August 2007
Website: www.concretelayer.com
Email: [email protected]

39
39
 ACCROPODETM II

ACCROPODETM I

CORE-LOCTM

ECOPODETM

ACCROBERM TM I

ACCROBERM TM II

40
41