Hydraulic Stability of BPPT - Lock On Breakwater Head

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Design of a Spun Pile Vertical Wall
Hydraulic Stability of BPPT – lock on Breakwater Breakwater for the Improvement of
Damaged Cellular-Cofferdam
Head A Subarkah, D Folmen, S A Latief et al.
- Quantitative consideration in selection of

breakwater concrete armor unit based on
To cite this article: Salestiano Cuimbra et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1081 012026 unit’s internal tensile stress response
Andojo Wurjanto and Adi Putra Hardaya
- Testing of Early Stage of BPPT-3MW

Condensing Type Small Scale Geothermal
Power Plant – Kamojang - Indonesia
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Bambang Teguh Prasetyo, Suyanto, MAM
Oktaufik et al.
This content was downloaded from IP address 182.4.68.138 on 24/04/2023 at 18:16

The 3rd Maritime Safety International Conference (MASTIC) 2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1081 (2022) 012026 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1081/1/012026
Hydraulic Stability of BPPT – lock on Breakwater Head
1
Salestiano Cuimbra, 1Haryo Dwito Armono, 1Wahyudi
1
Department of Ocean Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
Abstract. Breakwater is one of the coastal buildings built by humans to protect coastal areas
such as ports, settlements, and tourist attractions from wave attacks. This test aims to determine
the condition damage of BPPT – lock in one- and two-layers placements in the head of the rubble
mound breakwater. The method used to conduct this research was physical model test and
carried out at laboratory of Balai Teknologi Infrastruktur Pelabuhan dan Dinamika Pantai
(BTIPDP) Yogyakarta – Indonesia. The armour unit model used BPPT–locks were 66.048 grams
or equivalent to 2.268 tons in prototype and tested in various wave heights, starting from 7.5 cm,
9.2 cm, and 11.4 cm with period 1.5 S or equal to 4 meters of wave height in the prototype.
Based on the laboratory results of testing, installing a double armour layer was recommended
because the percentage of damage of the double armour layer was lower, and the coefficient of
damage was higher.
Keywords: BPPT- lock, single and double layer, breakwater, irregular waves.
1. Introduction
Breakwater is one of the artificial coastal structures to protect coastal areas such as ports, residential
areas, and tourist attractions from wave attacks. The breakwater will help reduce wave energy so that
the waters behind the breakwater become calm (Jauzi et al., 2020). The activities behind the breakwater,
such as activities in the port (loading, unloading goods, and passengers), residential areas on the beach,
and tourist places, will not be disturbed by incoming waves. Before 1933 there was no method for
calculating breakwater type rubble mounds but only based on experience and qualitative criteria such as
the influence of wave height, angle of inclination, and the armour units' weight. Castro ( 1933 ) was the
first to publish a formula for calculating the weight of rock material from rubble mound breakwater
(Vanhoutte, 2008). After 1950 various types of armour units were designed and have wave stability
interlock with adjacent units, one of the breakwater units designed with interlocking capacity is Tetrapod
(de Rover et al., 2009). Based on the historical review of the previous armour units produced in various
countries (Jauzi et al., 2020), Balai Teknologi Infrastruktur Pelabuhan dan Dinamika Pantai ( BTIPDP
/ BPPT ) has been developed a new concept of the armour units by considering technical and economic
advantages. The new armour unit was named BPPT–lock, developed and designed to be placed
randomly, single layer and interlocked between armour units. The patent for BPPT – lock has been
submitted to the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia. The patent certificate
was issued in August 2012 with ID P0031532 (Balai Teknologi Infrastruktur Pelabuhan dan Dinamika
Pantai, 2021). Figure 1. Prototype of BPPT - lock below show the prototype of BPPT – lock at
Laboratory of Balai Teknologi Infrastruktur Pelabuhan dan Dinamika Pantai (BTIPDP).
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Figure 1. Prototype of BPPT - lock
This study was conducted to assess the stability of BPPT – lock on the head of rubble mound
breakwater with the physical model test. The armour layer installed on rubble mound breakwater was
one, and two layers were built based on bathymetric data, water depth, tide, and wave height. Figure 2.
Structure rubble mound breakwater, shows the head of the rubble mound breakwater model.
Figure 2. Structure rubble mound breakwater
The purpose of this test is i) to evaluate the damage of BPPT – lock in one layer and two layers placement
on the head of rubble mound breakwater, ii) to determine the percentage damage of BPPT – lock unit
on the head of rubble mound breakwater, and iii) evaluate the hydraulic parameters that affect the
stability of BPPT – lock unit on the head of rubble mound breakwater. This paper describes the material
preparation, process construction, testing with different wave heights, and interpreting results to
determine the stability of BPPT – lock on the head of rubble mound breakwater. Physical modelling and
testing in the laboratory were performed to observe the failure mechanism, which was directly
influenced by hydraulic parameters such as wave variation and water elevation (Triatmadja &
Sulistyowati, 1996) and (Briggs, 2013). The physical model test is chosen as the mathematical model
(Latham, Xiang, & Higuera, 2015) will not show the physical displacement or armour damage and does
not entirely describe the interaction process between the structure and wave. The armour unit's stability
analysis is usually evaluated based on the Hudson formula (Hudson, 1958) and Van der Meer (Meer,
1988).
There are several physical model testing activities to determine the hydraulic stability of BPPT –
lock on the head of rubble mound breakwater, namely model preparation, testing, and interpretation of
the result. Physical modeling is a process of replication cases in the field or prototype that will be
reduced according to the law scale, similarity criteria, and laboratory capacity to get a good result and
prevent the problem of scale effects (de Rover et al., 2009). If the scale factor is not used correctly, the
scale effect will occur and lead to inaccurate or unrealistic results from the model test. There are three
similarities in the similarity scaling criteria: dynamic similarity, kinematic similarity, and geometry
similarity. In the dynamic similarity, the force acting in the model must be the same as the force in the
2
field or prototype (friction force, surface tension, pressure, and gravitational force) because the model
represents the actual shape or prototype. The kinematic similarity refers to the fluid motion similarity
between the model and the prototype particle. Geometry similarity is needed to ensure that all the
dimensions in the model have the same ratio as the prototype's dimension. The model's shape must
represent the prototype to show that the model is geometrically the same.
2. Research Methodology
The scaling model used in the physical model test on the head of structure rubble mound breakwater is
based on the Froude number. The Froude number is the main scaling criterion for modelling coastal and
inland processes with the free surface flow (Briggs, 2013). In this study, since gravity wave is the
dominant driving force, the similarity was based on the Froude number was expressed as:
𝐹 𝜌𝐿2 𝑉 2 𝑉
𝐹𝑟 = √𝐹𝐼 = √ 𝜌𝑔3 𝑔 = (1)
𝑔 √𝑔𝑙
Therefore, the Froude similarity between model and prototypes was expressed as:
𝑉 𝑉
𝐹𝑟 = ( )𝑚 = ( )𝑝 (2)
√𝑔𝐿 √𝑔𝐿
where Fr is Froude number, g is gravity (m / s2), V is the velocity (m/s), L is length (m), and subscript p
and m refers to prototype and model. In the rubble mound stability test, there are driving forces that will
affect the movement of the unit of BPPT – lock, such as drag force, lift force, share force, and gravity
force (van Buchem, 2009). Drag force comes from water movement, causing waves and hits BPPT –
lock units, expressed as:
1
𝐹𝐷 = 2
𝐶𝐷 . 𝜌𝜔 . 𝐴𝑓 . 𝑢. |𝑢|. (3)
where FD is the drag force, CD is the drag coefficient, 𝜌𝜔 is water density, Af is the cross-sectional area,
and 𝑢 is the object's speed relative to the fluid. The lift force comes from the differential pressure
between the top and bottom of the armour unit. It was expressed as:
𝐹𝐿 = ( 𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 − 𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 ). 𝐴𝐿 (4)
where FL is the lift force, 𝑝 is the pressure, and AL is the subjected area.
Shear force (Fs) is caused by water flowing along with the armour unit. This force was expressed as:
1
𝐹𝑆 = 𝐶𝑓 . 2 . 𝑝𝜔 . 𝑢. |𝑢|. 𝐴𝑠 (5)
where FS is shear force, CF is share coefficient, 𝜌𝜔 is water density, AS is the cross-sectional area, and 𝑢
is the object's speed relative to the fluid. Physical model tests are affected by gravity force because the
test is carried out in the laboratory.
𝐹𝐺 = = ( 𝜌𝑐 − 𝜌𝑤 ). 𝑉 . 𝑔 (6)
3
Since the gravity force is dominant, the model is based on the Froude similarity presented above.
However, the Reynolds number for physical model testing on the head of the rubble mound breakwater
is maintained above 3 x 104 to ensure that the viscosity force does not affect the experiments.
𝑙𝑎 √𝑔𝐻
𝑅𝑒 = 𝜐
(7)
where 𝑅𝑒 is Reynolds number, 𝑙𝑎 is the dimension of the stone (m), g is the acceleration of gravity force
(m/s2), H is wave height in front of the model (m), 𝜐 is the kinematic viscosity of water (at 28oC, the
value is 1 x 10 -6 m/s2).
The quasi three dimensional of physical model test on the head of rubble mound breakwater was
tested in 3 scenarios, where tests 1 used a single armour layer and tests 2 and 3 used double armour
layers and the test was executed in the wave flume at the Laboratory of Balai Teknologi Infrastruktur
Pelabuhan dan Dinamika Pantai (BTIPDP) and Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT),
which is under of Kedeputian Teknologi Industri Rancang Bangun dan Rekayasa (TIRBR), Yogyakarta
– Indonesia. Specifications of wave flume facilities available in the laboratory to test physical models
on the head of rubble mound breakwater are follows; (Basin et al., n.d.). Figure 3. Condition of wave
flume, wave generator, wave probe, and control room shows the wave flume, wave generator, wave
probe, and control room condition. The following features are available in the BTIPDP laboratory.
➢ Piston paddles: Equipped with a single or dual electric actuator.

➢ Active wave absorber: To reduce waves reflected from the paddles and calm the basin or flume
after the test.
➢ Wave absorbing beach: To prevent splashing from the rearward paddle's movements.
➢ Flume: width 1.9 meters, length 40 meters, height 1.6 meters.
➢ Water depth operation: 1 meter (maximum).
➢ Wave periods: 0.4 – 0.5 seconds ( wave frequency of 0.2 Hz to 2.5 Hz )
➢ Significant wave height: 0.25 meters.
➢ Maximum regular wave high ( H ): 0.52 meters.
➢ Maximum irregular wave high ( H ): 0.25 meters.
Figure 3. Condition of wave flume, wave generator, wave probe, and control room
Variation parameters used to test the structure of rubble mound breakwater were single and double
armour layer, water deep, wave type, wave height, slope, and duration of testing. Each test was repeated
three times. Table 1. The testing parameters, shows the various parameters that were used to test the
structure.
4
Table 1. The testing parameters

Wave input
Testing Armour Water Duration of
Wave Period Wave Inclination
number layer type deep (cm) testing (Min)
height (cm) (sec) type
Single
1
layer
Double
2 9,12,17,20 1,5 Irregular 24,7 1: 2 60
layer
Double
3
layer
In this test, the weight and volume of 20 BPPT–lock model units were measured to estimate their
BPPT – lock weight
densities ( BPPT – lock density = ). The measurement process is shown in Figure 4.
BPPT – lock volume
Weighing BPPT - lock and measurement density in the laboratory and in the Table 2. The average value
of BPPT - lock weight, volume BPPT - lock, and BPPT - lock Density show the average value of BPPT
– lock weight, volume BPPT – lock, and BPPT – lock density.
Figure 4. Weighing BPPT - lock and measurement density in the laboratory
Table 2. The average value of BPPT - lock weight, volume BPPT - lock, and BPPT - lock Density
Average
No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Value
BPPT -
lock weight 68,36 62,5 67,06 70,2 69 67,86 61,77 70,26 63,25 63,98 67,43 65,9 67,2 65,49 66,5 67,6 66,48 63,1 63,21 64,16 66,048
(gram)
Volume
BPPT - 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
lock (ml)
Density of
BPPT -
2,011 1,84 1,972 2,06 2 1,996 1,817 2,066 1,86 1,882 1,983 1,94 1,976 1,926 1,95 1,99 1,955 1,86 1,859 1,887 1,94259
lock
(gram/Cm3)
The armour units used in testing numbers 1,2, and 3 are BPPT – locks, with an average weight of
66,048 grams. The total armour units used in testing 1 are 2145 units and installed single layer, while
the total armour units used in testing 2 and 3 are 2902 units and installed in a double layer. Table 3.
Availability of BPPT - lock units at BTIPDP - BPPT shows the type of armour unit, weight average of
armour unit, average density, and total armour unit.
5
Table 3. Availability of BPPT - lock units at BTIPDP - BPPT
Total Average armour unit Average density

Testing number Armour unit
armour unit weight (gram) (gram/cm3)
1 2145
2 2902 BPPT - lock 66,048 1,943
3 2902
The process of converting the armour unit model or BPPT – lock in the model to armour unit
prototype or BPPT – lock in the prototype use the Hudson equation, and the calculation process can be
seen in Table 4. Calculation process and Table 5. Conversion model to prototype
𝑁𝜌 (𝑁𝐻 )3
𝑁𝑊 = (8)
𝑁𝐾 (𝑁∆ )3 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑡𝛼
𝑊 𝜌
where : Nw = 𝑊𝑝 is weight scale, Nρ = 𝜌 𝑝 is the density scale, ρp is the prototype density of BPPT – lock
𝑚 𝑚
𝜌𝑝
( ton / m ), ρm is the density model of BPPT – lock ( gram/m3 ), NH =
3
is scale wave height, Hp is
𝜌𝑚
𝜌𝑝
wave height in prototype ( m ), Hm is wave height in the model ( cm ), NK = 𝜌 is a scale of coefficient
𝑚
𝜌𝑝 𝜌
damage, KDP = 𝜌 is coefficient damage of prototype, KDm is coefficient damage of model, N∆ = 𝜌 𝑝 is a
𝑚 𝑚
scale of relative density, ∆P is the relative density of BPPT – lock prototype, ∆m is the relative density
𝜌𝑝
of BPPT – lock model, Ncotα = 𝜌 is the scale of structure slope, Cotαp is structure slope in prototype
𝑚
and Cotαm is structure slope in the model.
Table 4. Calculation process

Prototype Density Sea
Water
density of model of 𝑁 = 𝜌𝑝 water 𝜌𝑟 ∆𝑚 = ∆𝑝 𝜌𝑝 Hp Hm 𝑁𝐻𝐻 = 𝑁𝐾 = 𝑁𝐶𝑜𝑡𝛼 =
No 𝑝 density ∆𝑝 = 𝜌 − 1 𝜌𝑟 𝑁∆ = 𝑁𝑝 = 𝑝 Kdp Kdm 𝐾𝐷𝑃 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝛼𝑝 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝛼𝑀 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝛼𝑝
BPPT – BPPT – 𝜌𝑚 density 𝑤 −1
𝜌𝑤
∆𝑚 𝜌𝑀 (cm) (cm) 𝐻
(pw) 𝑚 𝐾 𝐷𝑚 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝛼𝑀
lock (𝜌𝑝 ) lock (𝜌𝑚 ) (𝜌𝑟 )
1 2,2 1,94 1,134021 1,025 1 1,1463415 0,94 1,219512 1,13402 380 10 38 17 17 1 2 3 1
Table 5. Conversion model to prototype

Weight of Nw x weight
BPPT - of BPPT - BPPT -
No Nw Nρ NH NK N∆ Ncotα
lock model lock model lock (ton)
(gram) (gram)
1 34309,41 1,13 38 1 1,21951 1 66,048 2266068,16 2,266
The rubble mound breakwater model consists of sand, gravel, BPPT – lock, plywood, and spraying
paint. Sand is used as the core layer; gravel is used as the second layer; BPPT–lock is used as the armour
layer; plywood is used as a template for the breakwater structure; and finally, the amour units were
colored using spraying paint. The models have a structural height of 37.83 cm; bottom structure diameter
is 234.61 cm, head structure diameter is 56.17 cm, parapet diameter is 22.24 cm, and incline angle is
1:2. Figure 5. Dimension of rubble mound breakwater shows the dimension of the rubble mound
breakwater model, and Figure 6. process construction of rubble mound breakwater shows the
construction process of the structure rubble mound breakwater.
6
Figure 5. Dimension of rubble mound breakwater model
Figure 6. process construction of rubble mound breakwater
The structure testing of rubble mound breakwater is built in the middle of the wave flume, with a
minimum distance of the bathymetric slope apron to the wave generator are 3 – 5 meters. The distance
from the edged apron to the model is between 3 – 5 times wavelength, and the slope of the bathymetric
foot apron to the bottom of the flume tank is recommended maximum of 1:10. Figure 7. Position rubble
mound breakwater in the wave flume shows the rubble mound breakwater position in the wave flume.
Figure 7. Position rubble mound breakwater in the wave flume
Sensors placed in the wave flume to measure water level elevation and wave high during physical model
testing on the head of rubble mound breakwater totaled 11 sensors. Sensors 1, 2, and 3 were placed in
front of the wave generator and at the center of the platform. In front of the model, sensors 4, 5, 6, and
7 were placed to record incoming wave height. Furthermore, sensors 8 and 9 were placed on the top and
behind the model, while sensors 10 and 11 were placed in the left and right of the model to measure run-
up. Figure 9 shows the position of the sensor in the wave flume.
7
Figure 8. Position sensor in the wave flume
After preparation of the model and placement of the sensor has been completed, calibration and setting
of the equipment process called basic research test ( BRT ) were needed to check the ability of the wave
generator and the measurements process of wave probes. The wave generator had to generate the wave
design / Hd (Hd is the wave with a return period of 100 years / H100 years ). The wave probes measured
the water level fluctuation, and with further analysis, the significant wave height and periods were
obtained. This process is needed to ensure that the data obtained from the physical model test can be
accurate and follow the predetermined design wave. Physical model testing was carried out at a high
water level ( HWL ) with water deep of 24.7 centimeters, and the test duration was 60 minutes for each
test. According to the Froude scale, 60 minutes of testing in the laboratory is the same as storm
conditions with a return period of 100 years in the prototype. The test was carried out three times, namely
testing 1, 2, and 3. Each test starts by generating wave heights of 9 cm, 12 cm, 17 cm, and 20 cm with a
duration of 60 minutes.
To calculate the structural stability on the head of rubble mound breakwater using an average of
BPPT – lock weight, BPPT – lock volume, average density, wave height, percentage of damage, and
coefficient of damage ( KD ). The percentage of damage (% damage) is the ratio of amour unit number
that move from their position to the total amour units that use in the test times 100 percent or damage
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
ratio or ( 𝐷𝑖 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑥 100 % ). The coefficient damage (KD) was evaluated
based on armour unit density, wave height, armour unit weight, relative density, and structure slope
using Hudson's formula (Hudson, 1958). This formula is shown in the following equation :
𝜌𝑎𝐻3 𝜌𝑎 𝐻 3
𝑊= 𝐾𝐷 ( 𝑆𝑟 −1 )3 𝐶𝑜𝑡𝛼
or 𝐾𝐷 = 𝑊 ( 𝑆𝑟 −1 )3 𝐶𝑜𝑡 𝛼
(9)
Where: W is weight average of armour unit (gram), H is wave hight in front of the model (cm), α is
structure slope, Sr is relative density (ρa / ρw), ρa is BPPT - lock density (gram / cm3), ρw is water density
(gram / ml = gram / cm3).
3. Results and Discussion

The quasi-three-dimensional physical model test on the head of rubble mound breakwater obtains data
on wave height, armour unit damage, armour unit average volume data, armour unit average weight
data, and average density data. The percentage and coefficient damage to each test can be calculated.
The structure is considered stable when the damage is below 0.05%. In this test, a 2% damage is set as
the upper limit and 0.5% as the lower damage limit. If the percentage damage to the armour unit is above
2%, the structure is considered unstable. The damage of the armour unit below 0.5% means that there is
no damage to the structure. Table 6. The percentage damage in the testing 1, Table 7. The coefficient
damage in testing 1, Table 8. The percentage damage in the testing 2, Table 9. The coefficient damage
in testing 2, and Table 10. The percentage damage in the testing 3, shows the percentage damage and
coefficient of damage on testing 1,2, and 3.
8
Table 6. The percentage damage in the testing 1
Testing 1
Wave height in Total BPPT –
Number of
No Minutes front of the lock on Accumulation Damage
damages
structure (cm) breakwater head
1 60' 7,5 2145 5 5 0,23%
2 60' 9,2 2145 5 10 0,47%
3 60' 11,2 2145 28 38 1,77%
4 60' 11,4 2145 93 131 6,11%
Table 7. The coefficient damage in testing 1

Testing 1
Wave Average
Weight Density of
height in density of Coefficient
average of water at
No front of the Damage Cot α BPPT – Sr (Sr - 1 )3 of damage
amour unit 25oC
structure lock unit (KD)
(gram) (gram/cm3)
(cm) (gram/cm3)
1 7,5 0,23% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 7,408
2 9,2 0,47% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 13,674
3 11,2 1,77% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 24,671
4 11,4 6,11% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 26,016
Testing 2
Wave hight in Total BPPT –
Number of
No Minutes front of the lock on Accumulation Damage
damages
structure (cm) breakwater head
1 60' 7,3 2902 1 1 0,03%
2 60' 9,1 2902 3 4 0,14%
3 60' 10,4 2902 1 5 0,17%
4 60' 11,1 2902 0 5 0,17%

Testing 2
Wave
Weight Average
hight in Density of
average density of Coefficient
front of % Of water at
No of amour Cot α BPPT – Sr (Sr - 1 )3 of damage
the damage 25oC
unit lock unit (KD)
structure (gram/cm3)
(gram) (gram/cm3)
(cm)
1 7,3 0,03% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 6,831
2 9,1 0,14% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 13,233
3 10,4 0,17% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 19,753
4 11,1 0,17% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 24,016
9
Testing 3
Total BPPT –
Wave hight in
lock on Number of
No Minutes front of the Accumulation Damage
breakwater damages
structure (cm)
head
1 60' 7,3 2902 0 0 0,00%
2 60' 8,9 2902 0 0 0,00%
3 60' 10,3 2902 1 1 0,03%
4 60' 10,8 2902 0 1 0,03%

Testing 3
Wave Weight Average
Density of
height in average density of Coefficient
% Of water at
No front of the of amour Cot α BPPT - Sr (Sr - 1 )3 of damage
damage 25oC
structure unit lock unit (KD)
(gram/cm3)
(cm) (gram) (gram/cm3)
1 7,3 0,00% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 6,831
2 8,9 0,00% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 12,379
3 10,3 0,03% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 19,188
4 10,8 0,03% 66,048 2 1,942 1 1,942 0,837 22,121
The results of tests 1, 2, and 3, which are shown in tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, will be displayed
in graphical form to see the relationship between the percentage of damage ( % damage ), wave height
( Hd ) and the coefficient of damage ( KD ) in each test. In the graph, the Y-axis direction represents the
percentage of damage (% damage), and the X-axis direction indicates the wave height ( Hd ) and
coefficient of damage ( KD ). The blue line in the graph shows the results of the percentage damage and
the coefficient of damage for the different waves. Figure 9. The effect of wave height on the percentage
of damage and coefficient of damage in testing 1, show the relationship between wave height ( Hd ),
percentage of damage, and coefficient damage.
Testing 1 Testing 1
7.0% 7.0%
6.0% 6.0%
5.0% 5.0%
Damage
Damage
4.0% 4.0%
3.0% 3.0%
2.0% 2.0%
1.0% 1.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0 5 10 15 0 10 20 30
Wave height ( cm ) Coefficient damage ( Kd )
Figure 9. The effect of wave height on the percentage of damage and coefficient of damage in testing 1
10
Testing 2 Testing 2
0.20% 0.20%
0.15% 0.15%
Damage
Damage
0.10% 0.10%
0.05% 0.05%
0.00% 0.00%
0 5 10 15 5 10 15 20 25
Wave height ( cm ) Coefficent damage( Kd )
Testing 3 Testing 3
0.04% 0.04%
0.04% 0.03%
0.03% 0.03%
Damage
Damage
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02% 0.02%
0.01% 0.01%
0.01% 0.01%
0.00% 0.00%
0 5 10 15 0 10 20 30
Wave height ( cm ) Coefficen damage ( Kd )
The result of tests 1,2 and 3 in tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be summarized in tables 12, 13 and 14 to
see the various damage and coefficient damage that occurs.
Table 12. Recapitulation of the percentage damage and coefficient of damage on test 1
Testing 1
Single layer
Average of armour unit weight (gram) Wave height (cm) Damage Coefficient damage
7,5 0,23% 7,408
9,2 0,47% 13,674
66,048
11,2 1,77% 24,671
11,4 6,11% 26,016
11
Testing 2
Double layer
Average of armour unit weight
Wave hight (cm) Damage Coefficient damage
(gram)
7,3 0,03% 6,831
9,1 0,14% 13,233
66,048
10,4 0,17% 19,753
11,1 0,17% 24,016
Testing 3
Double layer
Average of armour unit weight (gram) Wave hight (cm) Damage Coefficient damage
7,3 0,00% 6,831
8,9 0,00% 12,379
66,048
10,3 0,03% 19,188
10,8 0,03% 22,121
The test results for a single armour layer show that the damage and coefficient of damage increase when
the wave height increases. The 7.5 cm wave height caused 0.23% damage with a value of coefficient
damage (KD) are 7.408, for 9.2 cm wave height caused 0.24 % damage with 13.674 coefficient damage
(KD), for 11.2 cm wave height caused 1.77% damage with 24.671 coefficient damage (KD), and finally,
11.4 cm wave height caused 6.11% damage with a 26.016 coefficient damage (KD).
The double armour layer test shows the percentage of damage is smaller while the coefficient of
damage increases. The 7.3 cm wave height caused 0.03% damage with 6.831 coefficient damage (KD).
The 9.1 cm wave height caused 0.14% damage with 13.233 coefficient damage (KD). The 10.4 cm wave
height caused 0.17% damage with 19.753 coefficient damage (KD), and the 11.1 cm wave height caused
0.17% damage with 24.016 coefficient damage (KD). In the last test, a repeating test for the double
armour layer, the percentage of damage is minimal. No damage was found at 7.3 cm and 8.9 cm wave
height. The coefficient damage (KD) for both tests are 6.831and 12.379. At 10.3 cm wave height, the
0.03% damage was observed with a 19.188 coefficient of damage (KD), and for 10.8 cm wave height,
it caused 0,03% damage with a coefficient of damage (KD) 22.121.
The results of testing in the laboratory show that two armour layers are more stable than one armour
layer for a breakwater head. Therefore, installing a single armour layer on the structure breakwater head
is not recommended. BPPT – lock units' average weight was 66.048 grams or equivalent to 2.268 tons
in the prototype, and the wave height was 11.4 cm or equal to 4 meters of wave height in the prototype.
As the damage reaches 6.11%, however, it is recommended to install two armour layers because tests 2
and 3 show that the value of percentage damage is 0.17%, with coefficient damage (KD) being 24.016
at 11.1 cm of wave height or equivalent to 4 meters of wave height in the prototype.
4. CONCLUSION
The results of tests 1, 2, and 3 show that the damage condition for the single armour layer (test 1) is
higher than the double armour layer because the single armour layer shows the damage is 0.23% at wave
heights 7.5 cm, 0.24% at wave height 9.2 cm, 1.77% at wave height 11.2 cm and 6.11% at wave height
11.4 cm. For the double armour layer (test 2), the percentage of damage is 0.03% at wave height 7.3 cm,
12
0.14% at wave height 9.1 cm, 0.17% at wave height 10.4 cm, and 0.17% at wave height 11.1 cm. Test
3 (double armour layer) shows the percentage of damage is 0.00% at wave height 7.3 cm, 0.00% at wave
height 9.9 cm, 0.03% at wave height 10.3 cm, and 0.03% at wave height 10.8 cm.
The test results show that the structure is considered stable if the armour layer is double because the
percentage of damage is below 2%. The single armour layer is considered unstable since the results of
the damage is above 2%. The hydraulic parameters that primarily affects the stability of the BPPT –
lock unit is the wave height, as the higher wave generates increment of the percentage of damage.
References
[1] Basin, W., Basin, W., Flume, W., & Flume, W. (n.d.). Spesifikasi Wave maker dan Kolam
Gelombang. 2(m), 1–5.
[2] Bppt-lock, I., Di, U., Sanur, P., Bppt-lock, P., Aplikasi, C., Di, X., Dunia, S., & Lokasi, D. I.
(2021). Implementasi BPPT-lock untuk di Pelabuhan ( SANUR, BALI ).
[3] Briggs, M. J. (2013). Basics of Physical Modeling in Coastal and Hydraulic Engineering. US
[4] Army Corps of Engineers, 1(September), 11.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258440862_Basics_of_Physical_Modeling_In_Coasta
l_and_Hydraulic_Engineering
[5] de Rover, R., Verhagen, H. J., van den Berge, A., & Reedijk, B. (2009). Breakwater Stability
With Damaged Single Layer Armor Units. 3368–3380.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814277426_0279
[6] Jauzi, M. Z., Istiyanto, D. C., Subarkah, A., & Suranto. (2020). BPPT-lock Armor Unit
Implementation for Improving Breakwater Sustainability at the Pacitan Power Plant. Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 1625(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1625/1/012047
[7] Triatmadja, R., & Sulistyowati, S. (1996). gamapod stability.pdf. Media Teknik, 2.
[8] van Buchem, R. V. (2009). Stability of a single top layer of cubes. September.
[9] Vanhoutte, L. (2008). Hydraulic stability of Cubipod armor units in Breaking conditions.
13

Hydraulic Stability of BPPT - Lock On Breakwater Head

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydraulic Stability of BPPT - Lock On Breakwater Head

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydraulic Stability of BPPT - Lock On Breakwater Head

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Quantitative consideration in selection of

- Testing of Early Stage of BPPT-3MW

This content was downloaded from IP address 182.4.68.138 on 24/04/2023 at 18:16

Hydraulic Stability of BPPT – lock on Breakwater Head

Figure 1. Prototype of BPPT - lock

Figure 2. Structure rubble mound breakwater

𝐹𝐿 = ( 𝑝𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 − 𝑝𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 ). 𝐴𝐿 (4)

➢ Piston paddles: Equipped with a single or dual electric actuator.

Table 1. The testing parameters

Figure 4. Weighing BPPT - lock and measurement density in the laboratory

Table 3. Availability of BPPT - lock units at BTIPDP - BPPT

Total Average armour unit Average density

Table 4. Calculation process

1 2,2 1,94 1,134021 1,025 1 1,1463415 0,94 1,219512 1,13402 380 10 38 17 17 1 2 3 1

Table 5. Conversion model to prototype

Figure 5. Dimension of rubble mound breakwater model

Figure 6. process construction of rubble mound breakwater

Figure 7. Position rubble mound breakwater in the wave flume

Figure 8. Position sensor in the wave flume

3. Results and Discussion

Table 6. The percentage damage in the testing 1

Table 7. The coefficient damage in testing 1

Table 8. The percentage damage in the testing 2

Table 9. The coefficient damage in testing 2

Table 10. The percentage damage in the testing 3

Table 11. The coefficient damage in testing 3

You might also like