o o
<
+ A
(1)
7
Eq. (1), with representative wave height H
rep
, shape factor =B/D, wave
velocity coefficient , drag coefficient C
D
, lift coefficient C
L
, friction coefficient
f and slope angle , forms the physical basis for the chosen dimensionless
stability number. Assuming no severe wave run-down the can be replaced
by a +. Since the shape factor is a function of the width B and height D of
the tube ( =f(B, D)), the stability number H
rep
/((BD)) is, from a theoretical
point of view, not a solid stability number. However, for engineering purposes,
this stability number turns out to be very useful as will be demonstrated below.
All parameters of Eq. (1) are described in the following sections.
Representative wave height H
rep
. Breaking waves results into transmitted
wave energy E
t
, and so-called blocked energy E
b
, consisting of dissipated and
reflected energy. The blocked energy can be splitted into energy components on
the tube E
b,tube
, and on the structure underneath E
b,struc
. Since the interest lies in
the wave energy on the tube, the following equation with reduction parameter ,
representtative wave height H
rep
, significant incident wave height H
s
, blocked
wave energy on tube E
b,tube
, and incident wave energy E
i
is suggested:
, rep b tube
s i
H E
H E
_ = = (2)
The energy components, with transmission coefficient for a situation with only
underneath structure C
tr,struc
, and transmission coefficient for a situation with
underneath structure and tube C
tr,tube&struc
are given by:
With tube:
, , , & i b tube b struc tr tube struc
E E E E = + + with
2
, & , & tr tube struc tr tube struc i
E C E = (3)
Without tube:
, , i b struc tr struc
E E E = + with
2
, , tr struc tr struc i
E C E = (4)
Combining Eq. (2), Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) gives:
2 2
, , tr struc tr struc tube
C C _
+
= (5)
The transmission coefficient can be determined in various ways. In this analysis,
the method described in Van der Meer et. al. (2003) is applied. A graphical
representation, which is restricted to a situation with perpendicular wave attack
(wave angle = 0) and a water level equal to the level of the highest point of
the tube (crest height R
c
=0), of this approach is derived and given in Fig. 5.
The representative wave height H
rep
of Eq. (1) is described by:
rep s
H H _ = (6)
8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
H
s
/D
X
p =1
p =2
p =3
Figure 5. Design graph for reduction coefficient (applicable for Rc = 0, = 0).
Friction coefficient f, slope angle . The friction coefficient f between the tube
and its foundation layer can be determined by performing friction tests as
described in Deltares (2010). The representative slope angle is known for
each situation and can be determined as described in Deltares (2010).
Drag coefficient C
D
, lift coefficient C
L
, wave velocity coefficient . In case of
no lift forces, lift coefficient C
L
is equal to zero. Eq. (1) is rewritten by:
2
1
( cos sin )
D
H
f
B C
o o
<
A
(7)
In case of no drag forces, drag coefficient C
D
is equal to zero. Eq. (1) is
rewritten by:
2
1
( cos sin )
L
H
f
D f C
o o
<
A
(8)
Literature gives some values for drag coefficient C
D
, lift coefficient C
L
(e.g.
Recio, 2008) and wave-velocity coefficient (according to Pilarczyk (2000): =
1-1.5). Since it is unlikely that drag coefficient C
D
, lift coefficient C
L
and wave-
velocity coefficient will be determined for each specific situation and the fact
that the friction coefficient f has not much influence since the lift forces are
relatively small (fC
L
), these parameters are collected within dustbin
coefficient C
x
which can be determined based on experiments. Eq. (1) is
rewritten by:
Onlydrag
,1 1
( cos sin )
s
s
H
N C
B f
_
o o
= <
A +
with
1 2
1
D
C
C
= (9)
Onlylift
,2 2
( cos sin )
s
s
H
N C
D f
_
o o
= <
A +
with
2 2
1
L
C
f C
= (10)
Drag and lift
,3 3
( cos sin )
s
s
H
N C
BD f
_
o o
= <
A +
with
3 2
( )
D L
C
C fC
=
+
(11)
9
Test results as function of deri ved dimensionl ess stabi li ty numbers (Ns,x)
Test results as function of three dimensionless stability numbers are given in
Fig. 6. On the horizontal axis, dimensionless stability number N
s,1
(upper
graphs), N
s,2
(middle graphs) or N
s,3
(lower graphs) is given. On the vertical
axis, displacement per test, made dimensionless with width of tube (x/B) (left
graphs), and cumulative displacement, made dimensionless with width of tube
(x
cum
/B), (right graphs) are given.
Figure 6. Test results are function of derived dimensionless stability numbers.
In the upper graphs of Fig. 6, it can be seen that there is a data collapse
indicating that the chosen dimensionless stability number (based on drag forces
F
D
and no lift forces F
L
, tube height D has no influence) is a representative
stability number. However, Configuration F1 (tube with low filling percentage)
seems to be an outlier. Probably this is caused by lift forces, which played a
significant role for this specific configuration, where the tube was relatively
thin and wide. In the middle graphs, it can be seen that there is almost no data
collapse indicating that the used dimensionless stability number (based on lift
forces F
L
and no drag forces F
D
, tube width B has no influence) cannot be
10
applied. In the lower graphs, data collapse can be seen clearly, indicating that
the chosen dimensionless stability number (based on drag forces F
D
and lift
forces F
L
, width B and height D both included) is a proper dimensionless
stability number. The only outlier is Configuration F4a. This can be explained
due to the position of the tube at its supporting foundation layer. The tube of
Configuration F4a was in a (relatively) more seaward position than the tubes
during other configurations. Assuming an accepted cumulative sliding distance
of 5% of the tube width (B), the following equation is suggested:
0.65
( cos sin )
s
H
BD f
_
o o
<
A +
(12)
Eq. (12) is verified by the physical model tests under the following conditions:
Crest height relative to water level R
c
= 0 m
Breaker parameter
p,toe
= 2
Friction coefficient f = 0.55
Angle of foundation layer 0
o
< < 5
o
Filling percentage 66 % < p
A
< 109 %
Radiusof tubewhen100%filled 0.57 < R
100%
< 0.75
Characteristic distance 1.2 < a/D < 2.0
Accepted relative sliding distance x
cum
/B < 0.05
ANALYSIS STABILITY MULTIPLE PLACED TUBES
Installing two tubes behind each other (Configuration P2) does not significantly
increase the stability. The tube at landward side started to shift due to hydro-
static pressure caused by water entrapped between the two tubes and hydrostatic
pressure caused by the wave action at seaward side of the tubes. Therefore, the
stability relation as given in Eq. (12) should also be used for a structure consis-
ting of two tubes placed behind each other. Width B should then be chosen as
the width of a single tube.
Placing two tubes behind each other with a third tube on top (Configuration P3),
resulted into a so-called slip circle. In the performed tests, the slip circle in
landward direction was blocked by applying a fixed bar at the landward side of
the tube. At the seaside, such a bar was not placed resulting in a slip circle in
seaward direction. A stability analysis based on acting forces on the stack of
tubes is carried out and described in Deltares (2010). The calculated results
approximated the results obtained from the physical model tests.
ANALYSIS SETTLEMENT OF GEOTEXTILE TUBES
Based on the tests with a single placed tube, the relative deformation is deter-
mined and given in Fig. 7. On the horizontal axis, filling percentage p
h
(defined as actual height divided by the height of a tube which is maximum
filled) and filling percentage p
A
(defined as the actual fill area divided by the
11
maximum fill area that is possible given the circumference of the geotextile) are
given. On the vertical axis, relative vertical deformation of the tube S
tube
, based
on initial height D
ini
and height after test program D
aft
, is given.
aft ini
tube
ini
D D
S
D
= . (13)
0
4
8
12
16
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
filling percentage p(%)
s
e
t
le
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
t
u
b
e
,
S
tu
b
e
(
%
)
filling percentage ph
filling percentage pA
Equation 14
Equation 15
Figure 7. Relative vertical deformation of the geotextile tubes as function of pA and ph.
Based on regression analysis the following formulas are given:
0.41 32.3
tube h
S p = + (14)
0.28 32.6
tube A
S p = + (15)
Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) are applicable for same conditions as given for Eq. (12).
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the Caterpillar Mechanism, geotextile containers become unstable when
located in the breaker zone. Therefore, it is recommended to avoid the use of
containers in the zone where waves break (between SWL and 2H
s
below sea
level) without applying proper measures (e.g. protection cover). In case internal
sand migration is possible, Froude scaling is not applicable and dimensionless
stability numbers such as H
s
/(D) and H
s
/((BD)) cannot be used.
For tubes, which usually have a relatively high filling degree, Froude scaling is
applicable. A physical sound dimensionless stability number has been derived
(Eq. (11)) to determine the stability against sliding. This dimensionless stability
number includes the significant wave height H
s
, tube height D, tube width B,
relative density of the tube , reduction parameter to include wave energy
transmission , slope angle between tube and supporting foundation layer ,
and friction between tube and foundation layer f. Eq. (12) (stability) and Eq.
(14) and Eq. (15) (settlement) can be used as a first approximation for the
design of structures consisting of geotextile tubes under wave attack. However,
for specific projects where geotextile tubes are applied in a wave-breaking zone
(and where it is very likely that physical conditions will be different from those
12
in the described experiments), it is recommended to perform additional
physical model tests to study the stability for specific characteristics of that
structure. The methodology described in this paper can serve as a basis for
design of those physical model tests and interpretation of test results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The study on the stability of geotextile containers was sponsored by Delft
Cluster. The contribution to the physical model on the stability of geotextile
tubes by Ten Cate and De Vries & van de Wiel is very much acknowledged.
The contribution of Mark Klein Breteler was essential to produce Deltares
(2008) and Deltares (2010), which forms the foundation of this paper.
REFERENCES
Bezuijen, A., E. Vastenburg, 2008. Geosystems, possibilities and limitations for
applications. EuroGeo 4, paper nr. 282.
CUR, 2004. In Dutch: CUR 214: Geotextile zandelementen (CUR 214:
Geotextile encapsulated sand elements), Stichting CUR, Gouda.
CUR, 2006. In Dutch: CUR 217: Ontwerpen met geotextiele zandelementen
(CUR217: Design with geotextile encapsulated sand elements), Stichting
CUR, Gouda.
Deltares, 2008. Large scale physical model tests on the stability of
geocontainers, Deltares report H4595, May 2008, Delft.
Deltares, 2010. Large scale physical model tests on the stability of geotextile
tubes, Deltares report 1200162-000, February 2010, Delft.
Lawson, C.R., 2008. Geotextile containment for hydraulic and environmental
engineering, Geosynthetics International, 15, No 6, 384-427.
Oh, Y.I., E.C. Shin, 2006. Using submerged geotextile tubes in the protection
of the E. Korean Shore, Coastal Engineering 53, 879-895, Elsevier.
Pilarczyk, K., 2000. Geosynthetics and geosystems in hydraulic and coastal
engineering, 2000, Balkema Rotterdam.
Recio, J., H. Oumeraci, 2009. Process based stability formulea for coastal
structures made of geotextile sand containers Coastal Engineering, 56 (5),
p. 632-658, May 2009.
Van der Meer, J.W., B. Wang, A. Wolters, B. Zanuttigh, M. Kramer 2003
Oblique wave transmission over low crested structures Proc 4
th
Int. Coastal
Structures Conf, Portland, OR, 26-30 Aug 2003. ASCE, reston, VA, pp567-
579.
Venis, W.A., 1968. Closure of estuarine channels in tidal region, Behaviour of
dumping material when exposed to currents and wave action, De
Ingenieur, 50, 1968.
13
KEYWORDS CSt2011
p0021
LARGE-SCALE PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS ON SAND-FILLED
GEOTEXTILE TUBES AND CONTAINERS UNDER WAVE ATTACK
Van Steeg, Paul
Vastenburg, Erik
Bezuijen, Adam
Zengerink, Edwin
de Gijt, J arit
Caterpillar Mechanism
Container
Delta Flume
Geotextile
Physical model
Stability
Tube
Wave attack
Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.
Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.
Batalkan kapan saja.