Comparison Studies of Laboratory Tests on Eleven Armor Types

Eleven types of armors were laboratory tested and their performances concerning the random placements of armors for two different surface slopes of rubble mound breakwater were compared. The three major categories of performance comparison are wave reflection, wave run-up and run-down, and armor stability. Due to the vast differences both in the setups of experiments and in the methodologies of data acquisition and analyses, the multitude of existing literatures yielded extremely scattering results, which are generally quite inconclusive and inconsistent, as well as incomparable. To cope with these problems the present research carries out the following: (1) Factors that affect armor behaviors are detailed and those that are modeled or not are indicated; (2) A real time laboratory system for data acquisition, monitoring, calibration, and analyses is developed, and the integrated program aims to provide accurate, convenient, and automated on-site processes; (3) Based upon the intrinsic properties of waves in flume and theoretical aspects of proper analyses, various optimizations and a unified approach for both the implementation of tests and the processing of data are deliberated, especially, the employment of the wave separation technique. (4) Various statistics of one-way and two-way ANOVA for the different comparison subjects are individually and mutually checked to substantiate the physics and the purposes of the comparisons. With these due cares, all the digitally acquired data have been subjected to a common and non-varying standard, as well as exactly the same treatments. The data utilization achieves a rate of 100\% and neither omission nor selection of data, or any sort of intervention, has ever been done. Compared to earlier literatures, the yielded outcomes here are far more conclusive and show clearly better trends, and the various phenomena exhibit properties of upright coherence with easy explanations and logical conformities. For the stability coefficients, there still exists the main subjective problem regarding the judgements of damage both in the criteria and in the measurements. But overall, the basic wave data are excellent and the results of the three performance subjects are well consistent and meaningfully linked. That is to say, the comparisons here are definite and conclusive to a certain degree.

主辦單位：港灣技術研究中心
主管： 蔡立宏
計劃主持人：李勇榮
研究人員：李勇榮
聯絡電話：04-26587183
傳真號碼：04-26560661

Eleven types of armors were laboratory tested and their performances concerning the random placements of armors for two different surface slopes of rubble mound breakwater were compared. The three major categories of performance comparison are wave reflection, wave run-up and run-down, and armor stability. Due to the vast differences both in the setups of experiments and in the methodologies of data acquisition and analyses, the multitude of existing literatures yielded extremely scattering results, which are generally quite inconclusive and inconsistent, as well as incomparable. To cope with these problems the present research carries out the following: (1) Factors that affect armor behaviors are detailed and those that are modeled or not are indicated; (2) A real time laboratory system for data acquisition, monitoring, calibration, and analyses is developed, and the integrated program aims to provide accurate, convenient, and automated on-site processes; (3) Based upon the intrinsic properties of waves in flume and theoretical aspects of proper analyses, various optimizations and a unified approach for both the implementation of tests and the processing of data are deliberated, especially, the employment of the wave separation technique. (4) Various statistics of one-way and two-way ANOVA for the different comparison subjects are individually and mutually checked to substantiate the physics and the purposes of the comparisons. With these due cares, all the digitally acquired data have been subjected to a common and non-varying standard, as well as exactly the same treatments. The data utilization achieves a rate of 100\% and neither omission nor selection of data, or any sort of intervention, has ever been done. Compared to earlier literatures, the yielded outcomes here are far more conclusive and show clearly better trends, and the various phenomena exhibit properties of upright coherence with easy explanations and logical conformities. For the stability coefficients, there still exists the main subjective problem regarding the judgements of damage both in the criteria and in the measurements. But overall, the basic wave data are excellent and the results of the three performance subjects are well consistent and meaningfully linked. That is to say, the comparisons here are definite and conclusive to a certain degree.

LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Scope and purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 The Planning of the Comparison Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Armor stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 (A) Factors related to the armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 (B) Factors related to waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.3 (C) Factors related to the breakwater structure . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.4 (D) Factors otherwise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3 Wave run-up and run-down . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.4 Wave reflection coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3 The Optimization of Experiments and Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.1 Test facility and equipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2 The development of the laboratory real-time system . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3 The uniformization and the signification of test conditions and data analyses 65
3.3.1 Uniformization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3.2 Signification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4 Data Analyses and the Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Reflection coefficient Kr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.1 Kr values and the distributions and trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.2.2 Kr ANOVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.2.3 Kr regressions and their field applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3 Relative wave run-up Ru and run-down Rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3.1 The Ru and Rd and the distributions and trends . . . . . . . . . . 146
4.3.2 The ANOVA of Ru and Rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.3.3 Average run-up run-down and the regressions . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4.3.4 Trends and the relations with Kr phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . 148
4.4 Stability coefficients KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
APPENDIX 1 􀀀Asyst Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
APPENDIX 2 􀀀A Few Slide Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351