FLOATING BREAKWATER DESIGN

By Bruce L.fMcCartney,1 M. ASCE

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'(f) ,,_
ABSTRACT: {Floating breakwaters are inventoried. The various types are sepa-
rated into 4 general categories, wMehSale Box, Pontoon, Mat, and Tethered
Float. The Tethered Float was identified as a special category but lacked suf-
ficient prototype experience for detailed analysis. Advantages and disadvan-
tages of the Box, Pontoon and Mat are presented. Hydraulic model test results
and prototype experience for these 3 types are presented. Alternative mooring
systems and anchorage methods are summarized. The engineering studies ttstt*
aBy^needed for a suitable design are outlined. Costs and design data for se-
lected prototype installations are tabulated.-]

INTRODUCTION

Floating breakwaters are used increasingly as a means of protecting

small boat marinas in the United States. This paper presents an inven-
tory of typical floating breakwater types,, model test information, pro-
totype installations, a n d design considerations."

ANALYSIS

Floating breakwaters have m a n y potential applications for boat basin

protection, boat r a m p protection, a n d shoreline erosion control. Some
of the conditions that favor floating breakwaters are:

1. Poor Foundation.—Floating breakwaters m a y be the only solution

where poor foundations will not support bottom-connected breakwa-
ters.
2. Deep Water.—In water depths in excess of 20 ft (6.1 m), bottom-
connected breakwaters are often more expensive t h a n floating break-
waters.
3. Water Quality.—Floating breakwaters present a m i n i m u m of inter-
ference with water circulation and fish migration.
4. Ice Problems.—Floating breakwaters can be removed and towed to
protected areas if ice formation is a problem. They may be suitable for
areas w h e r e s u m m e r anchorage or moorage is required.
5. Aesthetics.—Floating breakwaters have a low profile and present a
minimum intrusion on the horizon, particularly for areas with high tide
ranges.
6. Breakwater Layout.—Floating breakwaters can usually be rear-
ranged into n e w layout with m i n i m u m effort.
a
Hydr. Engr., Hydr. and Hydrology Div./ Office Chief of Engrs., U.S. Army
Corps of Engrs., Washington, D.C. 20314.
Note.—Discussion open until August 1, 1985. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on
August 30, 1982. This paper is part of the Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal
and Ocean Engineering, Vol. I l l , No. 2, March, 1985. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X/
85/0002-0304/$01.00. Paper No. 19610.
304

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 BOX
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SOLID R E C T A N G L E R E I N F O R C E D CONCRETE UNITS

A R E T H E MOST COMMON T Y P E .

S T A N D A R D B A R G E SIZES ON
I N L A N D WATERWAYS A R E
195' X 35' X 12' A N D 1 7 5 ' X 26' X 1 1 '
I N C L I N E D BARGES (ONE E N D SU B-
MERGED1HAVE BEEN T E S T E D .

PONTOON

TWIN P O N T O O N C A T A M A R A N SHAPE
FLO TAT/ON
BALLAST

OPEN COMPARTMENT ALSO C A L L E D ALASKA TYPE

•*- WOOD SHEET

SECTION

nr. •*
^M= DECK IS OPEN WOOD FRAME.

MAT

T I R E MAT S C R A P T I R E S S T R U N G ON P O L E
F R A M E W O R K OR B O U N D T O G E T H E R
WITH C H A I N OR B E L T I N G . FOAM
F L O T A T I O N IS U S U A L L Y N E E D E D .

L O G R A F T C H A I N E D OR
CABLEDTOGETHER.

TETHERED FLOAT

FLOAT
F L O A T S P L A C E D IN ROWS.
TETHER
ANCHOR - / ' V PLATFORM ^
SECTION

=• ARRANGEMENT SIMILAR TO SPHERES.

S T E E L DRUMS WITH B A L L A S T S C A N
B E USEO IN L I E U O F T I R E S .

FIG. 1.—Various Types of Breakwaters

305

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 FLOATING BREAKWATER TYPES

In recent times, many types, of floating breakwaters have been model-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tested and some have been constructed. Ref. 8 provides a comprehen-

sive survey of floating breakwater types. These breakwaters can be sub-
divided into four general categories: box, pontoon, mat, and tethered
float. Some floating breakwaters in each category are shown in Fig, 1.
The box, pontoon, and mat types have considerable model and proto-
type experience, which is summarized in this paper. The tethered float
is only identified as a unique type worthy of a separate category. How-
ever, since the known published information (summarized in Ref. 8) is
experimental, the tethered float breakwater is not examined further in
this paper.

PROTOTYPE PERFORMANCE

Performance of prototype installations was recently investigated for

the east and west coasts of the U.S. These surveys (2,14) showed that
used tire mats were used primarily on the east coast and concrete box
or pontoon types, on the west coast. The tire mats had a high failure
rate or exhibited poor performance due mainly to placement at sites where
wave forces exceeded the mooring system capacity, flotation material
was lost, or flexure failure of connection materials occurred. Better anal-
ysis of site conditions and a proper engineering design of the tying ma-
terials and mooring system could decrease the failure rate. Although
modular connection and mooring hardware are their weaker points, the
concrete box or pontoon breakwaters have generally performed satis-
factorily; however, their first cost is considerably higher than tire break-
waters. Life cycle costs between various types of floating breakwaters
have not been developed.

TIRE MAT BREAKWATER

Three types of tire mats have been model-tested and constructed: Wave
Maze, Goodyear, and Wave-Guard (also called Pole-tire and pipe-tire)
as shown in Figs. 2-4. Advantages of the tire mat'breakwater are: (1)
Low cost; (2) easily removed and beached for maintenance or to prevent
ice damage; (3) can be constructed with unskilled labor and minimal
equipment; (4) lower anchor loads than box type; and (5) much lower
reflected waves than box type. Disadvantages are:

1. Lack of buoyancy.—Loss of trapped air in tire crown, marine growth,

and silt accumulation in tire bottom can sink the breakwater. In order
to ensure flotation, foam is usually needed for extra buoyancy and reg-
ular maintenance is needed to control marine growth. Holes in tire bot-
tom can be used to prevent or reduce silt accumulation.
2. Design life.—Design life of the tire breakwater is still unknown. A
properly designed breakwater and mooring system with adequate main-
tenance may have a 15-20-yr life.
3. Limited application.—Present use has shown that tire mat break-
waters are only effective in mild wave climates (less than 3-ft high, 3-
308

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. a.-r-Wave Maze (Ref. 11)

, Cornet tires are
.rotated 100°

Note: Each individual

' module is 1.98 by 2.13 by
0.76 m.

FIG. 3.—Goodyear (After Ref. 7)

B- <=*=*=*(II 3 S l ngggEjK^acz^r, Q

B ocDcajn n ] J J [ JrCZHmcZKZIKZZH-
-H
CHAIN

3 § TIRE-STRING

- o o o ( [ JJ J [ ]}CZHZ3C=M=K=>-
-H
ANCHOR =

-CZMZ3C3{[]J fl flf1)c=H^H=H=H=i-
Q- -Q
FIG. 4.—Wave-Guard or Pipe Tire (After Ref. 10)

307

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 1.0 1 1 i 1 1 1 P 1 1 1 1 r
H
/L<*0-04 GOODYEAR-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

v
„ - H=WAVE HEIGHT
l_ = WAVE LENGTH
B = BREAKWATER WIDTH
^-WAVE-GUARD p = BREAKWATER DRAFT
C, 0.5 d=WATER DEPTH

Dt W D/d d/L B/D

(cm) (cm)

GOODYEAR 8.415 50-380 .06-.44 0.4-1.4 7-42

WAVE-GUARD 8.4 100 .06-;23 .10-.26 14
WAVE-MAZE 15 71-309 ,25-.52 .09-.69 5-11
i i i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i—
0 1 2 3 4
L
/W

FIG. 5.—Comparison of Wave Coefficient, c,, versus Wavelength-to-Breakwater

Width, L/W, for Wave Maze, Goodyear, and Wave-Guard Scrap Tire Floating
Breakwaters (After Ref. 9)

sec period waves). Wide mats or a series of unconnected mats may ex-
tend application to more severe wave climates.
4. Litter entrapment.—Field experience shows the tire mat breakwa-
ters tend to accumulate floating debris, which some consider unattrac-
tive.

Fig. 5 shows the wave attenuation performance of the Goodyear, Wave

Maze, and Wave-Guard breakwaters. Caution must be used in extrap-
olating the L/W (wavelength-to-breakwater width) parameter for design.
Final design generally is based on "model" or "prototype" tests of the
site-specific proposed mat dimensions and predicted wave climate. Refs.
7 and 10 present prototype scale wave tank tests of the Goodyear and
Wave-Guard breakwaters. Model test data for the Wave Maze are found
in Ref. 11.

Box BREAKWATER

Most box-type breakwaters have been constructed of reinforced con-

crete modules. The modules either have flexible connections or are pre-
or post-tensioned to make them act as a single unit. Modular and moor-
ing connections are primary points of concern for this type of design.
Presently installed floating box breakwaters have a cross section less than
25 ft (7.6 m) wide with 5 ft (1.5 m) or less draft. Large units can be made
either of steel or concrete. New or use^d barges may be suitable when
large units are needed. Standard barges built for the inland waterways
are 175 ft (53.3 m) long, 26 ft (7.9 m) wide, and 11 ft (3.4 m) deep. Jumbo
barges are 195 ft (59.4 m) long, 35 ft (10.7 m) wide, and 12 ft (3.7 m)
deep. Barges 175 ft (53.3 m) by 26 ft (7.9 m) cost about $230,000 new,
and the 195 ft (59.4 m) by 35 ft (10.7 m) barges cost about $300,000 new
(1981 prices). Used barges can be purchased for 50% or less than new
308

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 6.—Physical Model of Solid Rectangular Box-Type Floating Breakwater Eval-

uated In Two- and Three-Dimensional Wave Flume for Potential Application at
Olympia Harbor, Washington (Ref. 4)

OPEN HOPPER BARGES

LENGTH BREADTH DRAFT CAPACITY
TYPE FEET FEET FEET TONS
STANDARD 175 26 9 1000
JUMBO 195 35 9 1500
SUPER JUMBO 330-290 40-52 9 2500-3000

COVERED HOPPER BARGES

LENGTH BREADTH DRAFT CAPACITY
TYPE FEET FEET FEET TONS
STANDARD 175 26 9 1000
JUMBO 195 35 9 1500

INTEGRATED CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM BARGES

LENGTH BREADTH DRAFT CAPACITY
FEET FEET FEET TONS

FIG. 7.—Predominate Barge Sizes in United States (Ref. 12)

costs. Other barges are made up to 300 ft (91.4 m) long, 54 ft (16.5 m)

wide, and 12 ft (3.7 m) deep. The barges could be ballasted to the de-
sired draft with sand or rock. Some prototype (1) and model (5,13) tests
have been made of barges with one end submerged to form an inclined
pontoon breakwater. Fig. 6 shows a typical surface-type concrete unit,
and Fig. 7 shows typical barges used on the inland waterways system.
Advantages of the box-type breakwater are: (1) 50-yr design life; (2) unit
will allow pedestrian access for fishing and temporary boat moorage; (3)
simple shape to build (however, construction requires a high degree of
quality control); (4) proven performance; and (5) effective in moderate
wave climate.
309

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 1 1
MODEL SCALE: 1 : 10
BTWT DlMEN- 12- ANO 16-FT WIDE
96-FT LONG
V 5-FT DEEP
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.5-FT DRAFT
-
N
\V
WAVE CONDITIONS: H = 1.5 - 3.5 FT
T = 2.S - 4.0 SFC
inurr d = 25 FT
ANCHOR CHAINS; CROSSED

w • n FT • •A \

V-

FIG. 8.—Wave Transmission Coefficient, c,, versus Breakwater Width to Wave-

length, W/L, for Box-Type Breakwater Tested for Olympia Harbor, Washington
(After Ref. 4)

Disadvantages are: (1) High cost compared with the mat type; (2)
maintenance, if damaged, may require towing to dry dock; and (3) con-
nectors can be a problem if not adequately designed.
Fig. 8 shows the wave attenuation performance of the box-type break-
water. The caution of using the L/W (or W/L) parameter discussed above

\ \
W

FIG. 9.—Module of Open Compartment (Ladder Type) Floating Breakwater Used

In Two-Dimenslonal Model Study of Olympia Harbor, Washington (Ref. 4)

FIG. 10.—-Twin-Pontoon (Catamaran Type) Floating Breakwater Considered for OaSc

Harbor, Washington (Ref. 6)

310
^i

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 2J-FT WIDE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

120-FT LONG
6-FT DEEP
4.5-FT DRAFT

FIG. 11.—Wave Transmission Coefficient, c,, versus Breakwater, Width to Wave-

length, W/L, for Ladder Type Breakwater for Olympia Harbor, Washington (After
Ref. 4)

also applies to box-type breakwaters. Large deviations can be expected

in attenuation coefficients when moorings are modified due to devel-
opment of harmonics in the spring mass system.

PONTOON BREAKWATER

A typical pontoon type (also called Alaska or ladder type) is shown

in Fig. 9. A smaller, less expensive twin pontoon (catamaran type) is
shown in Fig. 10. Advantages and disadvantages of the pontoon break-
water and caution on L/W (or W/L) parameter are similar to the box
type. See Fig. 11 for wave attenuation data on the ladder type and Figs.
12 and 13 for the wave attenuation and mooring force data on the cat-
amaran type.

MOORING

Floating breakwater can be held in place by: (1) Piling, which allows
the breakwater to rise and fall with the tide but not move laterally; (2)
concrete mass or ship anchors and line; or (3) stake piles and line. The
three types of moorings are shown in Figs. 14-16. Pile-anchored break-
waters are limited to fairly shallow sites [about 30-ft (9.1-m) water depth]
and require suitable bottom material to allow adequate pile penetration
and sufficient lateral strength. Stake piles can be steel H beams or tim-
ber. Generally, they are driven below the mud line to develop the great-
est strength and prevent destruction of wood piles by marine borers.
Stake piles are suitable for fairly firm foundations and water depth less
than 50 ft (15.2 m). Anchors can be the deadweight type, such as con-
crete blocks or ship anchors. Deadweight anchors (shown in Fig. 17) can
be used in any water depth, but work best in sand or mud bottoms to
311

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 1 1 1 1
! 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

— 3.5 SEC

.-'
*'s -3.0 SEC

^ - 2 . 5 SEC
2.0 SEC'
1 1 1 !
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
INCIDENT WAVE HEIGHT H , FT

d = 10 FT

d =?9.5 FT

FIG. 12.—Wave Transmission Data for Chain Moored Twin-Pontoon Floating

Breakwater Considered for Oak Harbor, Washington (After Ref. 6)

allow some embedment. Concrete block anchors with skirts use soil shear
strength to develop greater load capacity than similar weight concrete
block anchors. Propellant-embedded anchors (shown in Fig, 18) could
also be considered. Mooring lines can be synthetic (such as nylon), chain,
steel cable, or combinations of these three. Line elasticity must be con-
sidered to estimate loads transferred to the anchor or stake pile. Two
methods which have been proposed to reduce the impact loads on the
anchor are to include tires in the mooring line (Fig. 19) or clump weights
hanging on the line (Fig. 20). These devices are intended to act as shock
absorbers; however, a prototype test of a concrete box floating break-
water in Puget Sound, Washington, showed anchor forces were higher
with clump weights than without. Mooring lines can be crossed as shown
in Fig. 21, or uncrossed as in Fig. 22. An advantage of crossed lines is
to provide additional keel clearance for boats moored alongside. If crossed
312

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 V ^1
WAVH PERIOD
1 1
WAVE PERIOD WAVE PERIOD
SEC SEC SEC
• 25 3.0

i
3.5
/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

' // / ¥
3/
1 //
7 / A ^^
^
J/A
r
-
-IDENT WAVE HEIGH

1 •NCIDENT WAVE HEIGHT b r ^ "

WAVE: P E R I O D
SEC
2.0 WATER DEPTH = 29.5 FT

LEGEND
2 J TYPE FOP1CI

WERAGE O N E - T H I R D HIGHEST

TOTAL I N I T I A L FORCE ON T H E
S E A - S I D E ANCHORS WAS IOC LB PER
OF S T R U C T U R E WIDTH

FIG. 13.—Chain Anchor Forces on Seaside of Twin-Pontoon Floating Breakwater

Considered for Oak Harbor, Washington (After Ref. 6)

(np- "T2I

0 D
|0|
B R E A K W A T E R Uh IT

K51 I31 R51 lol

FIG. 14.—Pile Anchorage

FIG. 15.—Anchor and Line

CHAIN OR L I N E

}^/>>jj/;^}^j,///^,,^T^ffTj>j?jjj>}?}/^rTTr^rr/t?jf/j))'i'j'//^)'i>}'///>}i>/lf

tjt (f f
',!M.i/""<j tuu^' <<.<!,m.lt.<&!.M««""«««}{<il.W<j(.'. 'J<!1W^
mm FIRM BOTTOM

FIG. 16.—Stake Pile and Line

313

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NAVY ST0CKLES5 S T A T O ANCHOR

ANCHOR

D A N F O R T H ANCHOR L I G H T WEIGHT
(LWT) ANCHOR

BOSS ANCHOR MUSHROOM

ANCHOR

EMBEDMENT ANCHORS PENETRATIOl

FIG. 17.—Ship Anchors (After Ref. 16) FIG. 18.—Propellant-Emhedded Anchors

(After Ref. 15)

FIG. 19.—Tire Load Dampers

y< 7VX7 ^7X7^— " ^ W

FIG. 20.—Clump-Weight Load Dampers

-^=- r~~T ANCHOR LINE

Zh.
FIG. 21.—Crossed Anphor Lines

FIG. 22.—Uncrossed Anchor Lines

314

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 23.—Single Floating Breakwater Layout

FIG. 24.—Multiple Floating Breakwater Layout

lines are used, they should be offset to prevent chafing. Mooring line
scope is usually between 3-1 and 5-1 regardless of anchorage type.

BREAKWATER LAYOUT

Breakwaters can be arranged as a single line of defense or a series of

lines that reduce the wave to acceptable height. Example layouts are
shown in Figs. 23 and 24. A multiple breakwater layout was model-tested
for protection of the Seabrook Lock approach, Lake Pontchartrain, La.
(3).

BREAKWATER LIMITATION

Presently, most floating breakwater applications are for short-period

wind wave or boat wake protection at semisheltered sites in estuaries,
reservoirs, lakes, and rivers. The limiting design wave for single box or
pontoon type breakwaters is presently 4 ft high and 4 sec period. How-
ever, future investigations of larger structures, such as barges, inclined
pontoon, and multiple rows of breakwaters, may extend application to
longer periods and higher waves. Caution must be used in extrapolating
the L/VV parameter for design. Final design is usually based on model
or prototype tests of the proposed breakwater and predicted wave cli-
mate. Periodic maintenance is usually needed to repair damage from
fatigue, abrasion, and electrolysis.

COST DATA

Table 1 lists some prototype breakwaters with design conditions and

costs.
315

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 TABLE 1.—Floating Breakwater Construction Costs
Total
Design cost
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Wave
Con- (Height) Trans- per
struc- (width) mission H„ T, in foot,
tion (length), coeffi- in sec- in
Location date Type in feet cient feet onds Anchor type dollars
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Lund, British 1966 Pontoon (18) (25) (360) 0.4 4.5 2.8 Deadweight 230
Columbia, A frame Draft 12-18
Canada
Tenekee, Alaska 1972 Pontoon (5) (21) (300) 0.5 3 4 Deadweight 425
Alaska Draft 3.7
type
Port Orchard, 1974 Box (3) (12) (1,550) 0.3 2 2.5 Stake pile 175
Washington Reinforced Draft 1.8
concrete
University of 1978 Box (4.5) (15) (390) ? 3 3.5 Deadweight 580
Washington Reinforced Draft 3.5
Laboratory concrete
Friday Harbor,
Washington
Ketchican, 1980 Pontoon (6) (21) (2,100) 0.5 3.2 3.5 Deadweight 1,400
Alaska Alaska Draft 4.7
type
East Bay 1983 Box (5.5) (16) (700) 0.4 2.0 2.8 Piling through 1,175
Olympia, Reinforced Draft 3.5 cast holes
Washington concrete
Little Harbor 1977 Mat — (30) (540) a a a Ship anchor 46b
Gilford, Goodyear
Connecticut tire
Keewandin Point 1979 Mat — (19.5) (400) ? ? ? Tied to piling 24b
Alexandria Goodyear
Bay, New York tire
Lake Champlain 1978 Mat — (30) (650) ? ? ? Mushroom 16"
Westpoint, Goodyear anchors and
New Jersey tire railroad
wheels
a
Anchor system failed during severe storm; Hs = 6-8 ft in 1978.
Approximate estimates from owners, probably low (3).
Note: 1 ft = 0.305 m.

DESIGN STUDIES

The following studies will usually be needed to develop a suitable de-

sign:

1. Wave Forecasts.—Wave forecast procedures or mathematical models

can be used for preliminary design. Wind and wave measurements at
the site are recommended for final design.
2. Water Level, Current, and Ice Conditions.
3. Hydrographic Surveys.
4. Foundation Exploration.—This would include bottom samples and
bore holes needed for mooring system design.
5. Determine Level of Protection.
6. Select Suitable Methods of Protection.—These can be floating
breakwater and conventional bottom-connected breakwater. Reference
material in Appendix I should be reviewed.
7. Select Mooring System.—Driving and pulling test piles combined
316

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 with borehole data can be used to evaluate the stake pile mooring sys-
tem.
8, Model Tests.—Models are usually needed to predict wave trans-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mission conditions a n d anchor load. Mathematical models can be u s e d

for preliminary design; however, physical hydraulic models are usually
needed for final design. Two-dimensional flume models are u s e d for
wave transmission characteristics a n d anchor loads. Three-dimensional
models are needed to determine wave heights at various locations in a
boat basin as a result of wave transmission u n d e r the breakwater a n d
diffraction through the basin entrance. Irregular wave generators should
be used for both two- and three-dimensional hydraulic model tests w h e n
possible.
9. Estimate Costs for Suitable Designs.
10. Evaluate Environmental Impacts.
11. Select Best Design.—Consider reliability, durability, cost, a n d so-
cial and environmental impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

Floating breakwaters can provide suitable protection measures for small

boat harbor at some locations. However, they must be properly de-
signed for the site conditions with an understanding of their limitations.
This paper presents an inventory of typical floating breakwater types,
their limitations, and some design considerations.

APPENDIX,™REFERENCES

1. Atturio, J. M., and Jones, D. B., "Sloping Float Breakwater: Initial Model
Tests and Handling Tests of Navy Lighter (NL) Pontoon Modules," Technical
Note N-1601, U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Calif.,
Feb., 1981.
2. Baird, A. V., and Ross, N. W., "Field Experiences with Floating Breakwater]
in the Eastern United States," MP 82-4, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Re-
search Center, CE, Fort Belvoir, Va., July, 1982. ^
3. Bottin, R. R., and Turner, K. A., "Seabrook Lock Complex, Lake Pontch-
artrain, Louisiana, Design for Wave Protection at Lock Entrance; Hydraulic
Model Investigation," Technical Report HL-80-7, U.S. Army Engineer Water-
ways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss., May, 1980.
4. Carver, R. D., "Floating Breakwater Wave-Attenuation Tests for East Bay
Marina, Olympia Harbor, Washington; Hydraulic Model Investigation,"
Technical Report HL-79-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion, CE, Vicksburg, Miss., July, 1979.
5. Carver, R. D., Markle, D. G., and Dubose, W. G., "Sloping Float Breakwater
Study: Oregon Inlet, N.C.," U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss., unpublished.
6. Davidson, D. D., "Wave Transmission and Mooring Force Tests on Floating
Breakwater, Oak Harbor, Washington; Hydraulic Model Investigation,"
Technical Report H-71-3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
CE, Vicksburg, Miss., Apr., 1971.
7. Giles, M. L., and Sorensen, R. M., "Prototype Scale Mooring Load and
Transmission Tests for a Floating Tire Breakwater," TP 78-3, U.S. Army Coastal
Engineering Research Center, CE, Fort Belvoir, Va., Apr., 1978.
8. Hales, Lyndell Z., "Floating Breakwater: State-of-the-Art, Literature Pre-
view," TR 81-1, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, CE, Fort
Belvoir, Va., Oct., 1981.

317

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318

 9. Harms, V. W., and Bender, T. J., "Preliminary Report on the Application of
Floating-Tire-Breakwater Design Data," Water Resources and Environmental En-
gineering Research Report No. 78-1, State University of New York, Buffalo, N.Y.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur on 04/19/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Apr., 1978.
10. Harms, A. W. et al., "Wave Transmission and Mooring Force Characteristics
of Pipe-Tire Floating Breakwaters," TP 82-4, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering
Research Center, CE, Fort Belvoir, Va., Oct., 1982.
11. Kamel, A. M., and Davidson, D. D., "Hydraulic Characteristics of Mobile
Breakwaters Composed of Tires or Spheres," Technical Report H-68-Z, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss., June,
1968.
12. Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, "Layout and Design of Shallow-Draft
Waterways," EM 1110-2-1611, Washington, D.C., Dec, 1980.
13. Raichlen, F., "Experiments on an Inclined Pontoon Breakwater in Water
Waves," Report No. N62583/78 M R668, U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Labo-
ratory, Port Hueneme, Calif., Nov., 1978.
14. Richey, E. P., and Heavner, J. W., "Floating Breakwater Field Experience,
West Coast," MP 82-5, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, CE,
Fort Belvoir, Va., July, 1982.
15. Taylor, N. J., Jones, D., and Beard, R. M., "Handbook for Uplift-Resisting
Anchors," U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, Calif.,
Sept., 1975.
16. U.S. Navy, "Design Manual-Harbor and Coastal Facilities," NAVFAC DM-
26, July, 1968.

318

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 1985, 111(2): 304-318