Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995 – 1025

www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Local scour at roundhead and along the

trunk of low crested structures
B. Mutlu Sumer a,*, Jørgen Fredsøe a, Alberto Lamberti b, Barbara Zanuttigh b,
Martin Dixen a, Kjartan Gislason a, Antonio F. Di Penta a,1
a
Technical University of Denmark, MEK, Coastal, Maritime and Structural Engineering Section (formerly ISVA),
DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
b
Università di Bologna, DISTART Idraulica, viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
Available online 27 October 2005

Abstract

This paper summarizes the results of an experimental study on scour around submerged breakwaters. The objective of the
study is to make a systematic study of scour around low-crested structures/submerged breakwaters. Both the trunk scour and the
roundhead scour have been investigated. The breakwater models have a side slope of 1 : 1.5. To substantiate scour measure-
ments, velocity measurements also were made. The latter data were used to obtain steady streaming in front of the breakwater.
Regarding the trunk-scour study, the experiments indicated that substantial scour may occur at the toe of the structure. This is
irrespective of whether the breakwater is impermeable or porous. The scour data (although very limited) indicated that the scour
depth is in the same order of magnitude as in the case of emerged breakwaters. The trunk experiment further showed that scour/
deposition bathymetry does not exhibit the pattern experienced in the case of emerged breakwaters where the scour and
deposition areas are bcorrelatedQ with the nodal and antinodal points of the standing wave in front of the structure. Furthermore,
it was found that scour occurs not only at the offshore side of the breakwater but also at the onshore side. As for the roundhead-
scour study, it was found that severe scour can be experienced at the roundhead. The scour can occur both at the offshore side of
the roundhead and at the back. The one at the offshore side is caused by the combined effect of severe waves and the steady
streaming and that at the back is caused by wave breaking/wave overtopping. It was found that the streaming-induced scour is
governed by the free-board-to-wave-height ratio, F / H, and the Keulegan–Carpenter number, KC, whilepthe ffiffiffiffiffiffiplunging-breaker-
ffi
induced scour is governed by the free-board-to-water-depth ratio, F / h, and the plunger parameter, Tw gH =h (Tw being the
wave period). The maximum scour depth at the toe of the structure and the plan-view extent of the scour hole are given in terms
of the governing parameters. The results from the present laboratory tests (for the roundhead scour) are compared with
prototype observations undertaken in the present study. Recommendations are made for toe protection for both the trunk scour
and the roundhead scour.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +45 45 93 06 63.

E-mail address: bms@mek.dtu.dk (B.M. Sumer).
1
On leave from University of Rome. Present address: Via Giulia 171, 00186 Rome, Italy.

0378-3839/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.09.012
996 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
1. Introduction
Local scour is one of the failure modes of low-
crested structures/submerged breakwaters. Soundings
reveal large potential risks. Recent surveys in Italy (at
locations such as Pellestrina, Lido di Dante and sev-
eral others) made by the University of Bologna (Sec-
tion 4.4) have indicated the presence of local scour
holes around the surveyed structures. (These field
measurements will be discussed in detail later in the
paper in view of the present findings).
Scour at emerged breakwaters has been studied
fairly extensively in the past.
Carter et al. (1973) were the first to recognize the
scour-and-deposition process in a field of standing
waves in conjunction with the development of sand
bars parallel to the shore line. Scour in front of a
breakwater occurs in much the same way as in the
case of the sand bars developing parallel to the shore
line. De Best et al. (1971), Xie (1981, 1985), Irie and
Nadaoka (1984) and Hughes and Fowler (1991)
investigated this scour (the 2-D trunk-section scour)
in front of a vertical-wall breakwater while Sumer and
Fredsøe (2000) studied the 2-D trunk-section scour in
front of a rubble-mound breakwater. The mechanism
of scour in this 2-D case is well understood, and the
design practice is well established. Detailed accounts
of the scour processes and design practices can be
found in Coastal Engineering Manual (2001) and
Sumer and Fredsøe (2002).
Sumer and Fredsøe (1997) and Fredsøe and Sumer
(1997) investigated scour at the roundhead of a break-
water. The former study was concerned with vertical-
wall breakwaters and the latter with rubble-mound
breakwaters. These studies showed that the roundhead
scour may be very large, revealing the results of the
extensive field observations reported in Lillycrop and
Hughes (1993). The mechanisms responsible for this
3-D roundhead scour (in both the vertical-wall break-
water case and the rubble-mound breakwater case), is
understood fairly well, and design guidelines are
given in Coastal Engineering Manual (2001) (see
also Sumer and Fredsøe, 1997; Fredsøe and Sumer,
1997; Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002).
Sutherland et al. (1999) (see also Sutherland et al.,
2000) carried out experiments on the scour and
deposition around a single detached offshore rubble-
mound breakwater with particular emphasis on the
interaction between the 2-D trunk-section scour and
the 3-D roundhead scour.
Scour at berm breakwaters also has been investi-
gated, van der Meer and Veldman (1992) and Tørum
et al. (2003).
Breakwater failures due to scour have been
reported by various authors, Oumeraci (1994a,b), Lil-
lycrop and Hughes (1993), Gunbak, Gokce and Guler
(1990) and Bartels et al. (2000).
Although quite a substantial amount of knowledge
has accumulated so far on scour at/around emerged
breakwaters, very little is known about scour at/
around low-crested structures/submerged breakwaters;
scour has been very little covered in recent research
which has advanced knowledge of stability of low-
crested structures/submerged breakwaters (e.g., Vidal
et al., 1992), but not of scour. Recently Sanchez-
Arcilla and his co-workers have assessed the wave
field over/through/around the trunk section of sub-
merged structure from an observational analysis
based on rigid bed (Gironella and Sánchez-Arcilla,
2000) and sediment-bed tests (Sanchez-Arcilla et al.,
2000) with the same combinations of seabed and
breakwater geometry. The sediment-bed tests (San-
chez-Arcilla et al., 2000) were executed with perme-
able and near-impermeable breakwaters (i.e. with and
without core) in a large-scale wave flume, and paid
particular attention to the scouring in front of the
structure. The bed evolution around the structure,
and particularly the scouring in front of it, has been
analyzed from the tests. Three test series corresponded
to submerged permeable breakwaters (the free board
being 0.25 m in one test and nil in the other two). For
the high free board and the conditions tested, the scour
depth is small at the toe whereas for the zero-free
board case the scour moves in the offshore direction.
In the latter case, most of the scouring takes place
under the anti-node of the standing wave pattern, and
there is also a large accretion at the toe of the struc-
ture. The previously described research undertaken by
Sanchez-Arcilla and his co-workers focused on 2-D
trunk-section scour. To the authors’ knowledge, no
study is yet available, investigating scour around the
roundhead of a low-crested structure.
The purpose of the present study is to make a
systematic study of scour around low-crested struc-
tures/submerged breakwaters, for both the 2-D trunk
section scour and the 3-D roundhead scour.
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
The paper is organized in six sections. The experi-
mental set-up is described in Section 2. This is fol-
lowed by two major sections: Scour at trunk section
(Section 3) and Scour at roundhead (Section 4) where
the results of the present study are presented. Of
particular interest is a comparison exercise under Sec-
tion 4 where the results from the present laboratory
tests are compared with prototype observations made
under the present study. Some remarks about the
practical application of the present study are included
in Section 5 while Section 6 briefly addresses the
issue of scour protection. The paper ends with Con-
clusion section (Section 7).
2. Experimental set-up
2.1. Experimental setup for the trunk (2-D) tests
2.1.1. Flume and model structure
The experiments were conducted in a wave flume,
0.6 m in width, 0.8 m in depth and 28 m in length.
Waves were produced by a piston type wave generator
equipped with DHI AWACS system (Active Wave
Absorption System). AWACS measures the reflected
waves on the wave paddle, isolates the reflected part
by means of digital filters and servo system, and
imposes an opposite movement of the paddle, result-
ing in the desired absorption so that simultaneous
generation of a desired incident wave and active
absorption of reflected wave are achieved (Schaffer
et al., 1994). All experiments were done with regular
waves.
Five kinds of breakwater models were used:
1. An emerged vertical-wall breakwater;
2. An emerged, sloping-wall breakwater (slope:
1 : 1.5);
3. A submerged sloping-wall breakwater (slope:
1 : 1.5);
4. An emerged, rubble-mound breakwater (slope:
1 : 1.5); and
5. A submerged, rubble-mound breakwater (slope:
1 : 1.5).
The first two models acted as two reference cases.
In the first three cases, the breakwaters were
impermeable; in 1 and 2, the model structure was
997
made of a simple plywood plate while in 3, it was
made of a truss structure covered with plywood
plates. The dimensions of the model in the latter
case are shown in Fig. 1. The last two rubble-
mound breakwater models were made of stones
the size D = 4.4 cm in which  D was obtained
3
from the relation G ¼ cs pD6 , G being the weight
of stones, c s the specific weight. The porosity of
the rubble-mound structure was 0.41 (cf. the poros-
ities 0.38–0.40 for quarry stone, 0.47 for cubes,
0.50 for tetrapods, 0.63 for dolos; Shore Protection
Manual, 1977). The dimensions of the submerged
rubble-mound breakwater model were the same as
in Fig. 1.
The free board in all submerged breakwater tests
was F =  7.5 cm; Fig. 1.
The distance from the wave generator to the break-
water was 14.9 m (measured from the wave generator
to the mean-water level at the sloping wall in the case
of Breakwater Models 2 and 4, and from the wave
generator to the offshore edge of the top of the break-
water in the case of Breakwater Models 3 and 5). It
may be noted that this distance (14.9 m) coincides
with 4.5L in which L is the wave length. The water
depth was 31 cm.
2.1.2. Measurements/instrumentation
Three kinds of measurements were made in the
experiments: (1) scour and deposition; (2) water-sur-
face elevation; and (3) velocity.
The sediment used in the scour tests was Acrylic
the size d 50 = 0.44pmm (theffi geometric standard devia-
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
tion being rg ¼ d84 =d16 ¼ 1:1), with the specific
gravity s = c s / c = 1.13, the fall velocity w = 2 cm/s and
the angle of repose u = 318. This sediment was
selected in favour of sand because of its relatively
small specific gravity. As will be seen later, the wave
heights in the experiments were not very large (to
avoid asymmetry between the crest and trough half
periods), and therefore sediment motion at the bed
Fig. 1. Submerged breakwater (Breakwater Model 3 and 5). Trunk
experiments.
998 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

could be achieved only with a blightQ sediment such as
that used in the present tests.
The thickness of the sediment layer was 2 cm in all
the tests except the submerged-breakwater tests. In the
latter tests, this thickness was 2.5 cm on the offshore
side and 3.0 cm on the onshore side. The plan-view
extent of the sediment layer was 60 cm (i.e., across the
entire width of the flume) in the transverse direction
and about 200 cm in the longitudinal direction.
The scour/deposition was monitored visually. The
maximum scour/deposition near/at the breakwater was
recorded at 5 min intervals to keep track of the time
development of the process. When the scour/deposi-
tion process reached its equilibrium state, the waves
were stopped, and the equilibrium scour/deposition
profiles were measured, using a bed profiler (equipped
with an infrared light sensor, Christensen, 1981). The
space resolution of the instrument was 0.1 cm.
An ordinary, resistance-type wave gage was used
to measure the water-surface elevation at different
positions to get the envelope of the surface elevation
and to identify the nodal and antinodal points.
The velocity measurements were made in the case
of the first three model structures 1, 2 and 3. In these
experiments, the bed of the flume was changed to a
rigid bed. The primary purpose of the velocity experi-
ments was to measure the steady streaming in front of
the breakwater, an important element of the scour
process. The velocity measurements were, for the
most part, made with a two-component DANTEC
Laser Doppler Anemometer (LDA) with a fiber-
optic probe with a focal length of 31 cm. The mea-
surement volume was approximately 0.1  0.1  1.5
mm (the first two figures being the width and the
last figure the length). A few supplementary measure-
ments were made with a fiber-optic, submerged probe
with a focal length of 8 cm. The measurement volume
for the latter probe was approximately 0.2  0.2  3
mm (the submerged probe was used because the 31
cm focal-length probe was not available at the time).
The sampling frequency was 20 Hz. The total
number of waves sampled was 40.
2.1.3. Test conditions
The test conditions are summarized in Table 1. As
seen, the standing wave height was maintained con-
stant, at 4 cm, in all the experiments to make compar-
ison on the same basis. To this end, larger incident
wave heights were required in the case of the rubble-
mound breakwaters and in the case of the submerged,
impermeable breakwater with the sediment bed (Table
1, Columns 5 and 6).
2.2. Experimental setup for the roundhead (3-D) tests
2.2.1. Flume and model structure
These experiments were carried out in a medium-
scale wave flume, 4 m in width, 1 m in depth and 28

Table 1
Test conditions for trunk (2-D) experiments
Test Rigid-bed Breakwater Height of Free Incident Standing Wave Wave Water depth The depth-
(1) or scour (3) breakwater board, wave wave period, length L associated to-wave-length
expts. (cm) (4) F (cm) height, height, Tw (s) (m) with the ratio, h / L
(2) (5) H (m) (6) (m) (8) (9) incident wave, (11)
(7) h (m) (10)
1 Rigid bed Emerged, vertical wall, l +l 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
impermeable
2 Rigid bed Emerged, sloping wall, l +l 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
impermeable
3 Rigid bed Submerged, impermeable 23.5 7.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
4 Scour Emerged, vertical wall, l +l 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
impermeable
5 Scour Emerged, sloping wall, l +l 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
impermeable
6 Scour Emerged, rubble mound l +l 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
7 Scour Submerged, impermeable 23.5 7.5 3.8 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
8 Scour Submerged, rubble mound 23.5 7.5 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.3 0.31 0.094
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
Fig. 2. Test setup. Plan view. Roundhead experiments.
m in length. Waves were produced by a piston type
wave generator. All experiments were done with reg-
ular waves.
The model structure was placed at the junction
between the main flume and the onshore-end
bchamberQ of the wave flume, Fig. 2. To reduce the
reflection from the side wall adjacent to the break-
water, a thick mat of absorbing material is placed at
the side wall extending about 2 m, Fig. 2. Fig. 3
shows the cross-section of the structure at the junction
between the roundhead and the trunk section. The
slope of the breakwater was 1 : 1.5, which is at the
Fig. 3. Breakwater models for the roundhead experiments.
999
steeper side of the range 1 : 1.3–1 : 2 generally encoun-
tered in practice; this is to avoid the blockage effect in
the flume environment. The water depth was h = 40
cm. The sand layer thickness was 25 cm. The sand
size was d 50 = 0.14pmm with ffi the geometric standard
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
deviation of rg ¼ d84 =d16 ¼ 1:33.
Four values of the free board were tested in the
experiments (Fig. 3): F =  19 cm (submerged);  9
cm (submerged); + 1 cm (slightly emerged); and +8
cm (emerged, reference case).
The model breakwater was not a rubble-mound
structure, sitting on the sand bed. Rather it was a
rigid, impermeable structure (a truss structure covered
with metal sheets), extending down to the base bottom
(Fig. 3). This was for two reasons: (1) to keep the
integrity of the structure intact throughout the test, and
(2) to avoid complications that may be caused by
slumping down of stones into scour holes.
2.2.2. Measurements/instrumentation
Three quantities were measured in the experiments:
(1) scour and deposition; (2) water-surface elevation;
and (3) velocity at the bed, both in the far field, and in
some tests near the breakwater.
Thin (3 mm diameter) measuring pins were used to
measure the scour/deposition. These pins were driven
into the sand over a fairly large bed area, about 5 m in
the onshore–offshore direction and 3.5 m in the long-
shore direction, with a bmeshQ size of Dx = 20 cm by
Dy = 20 cm. Outside this area (at the offshore end), a
less-dense mesh was used, extending over an area of
2.5 m in the onshore–offshore direction and 3 m in the
longshore direction with Dx = 50 cm by Dy = 50 cm.
The scour/deposition at the toe was measured with the
help of parallel lines, 1 cm apart, drawn on the surface
of the structure. The resolution of the scour/deposition
measurements was 0.25 cm.
 1000
Table 2
Test conditions for roundhead (3-D) experiments
Test Free board, Waves Wave Wave Max. orbital Max. Shields KC Breaker F /H F /h Max. scour Max. scour Symbols
(1) F (cm) (2) break? height, period, velocity at friction parameter, number parameter,
pffiffiffiffiffi (11) (12) depth at the depth. used in
Tw gH
(3) H (cm) (4) Tw (s) (5) the bed velocity, U fm h (8) (9) h ð10Þ toe. Streaming Breaker the paper
(measured), (cm/s) (7) induced, S induced, (15)
U m (cm/s) (6) (cm) (13) S (cm) (14)

B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

9 19.0 submerged No 6.5 1.4 16.0 1.1 0.048 0.10 2.8 2.91 0.475 0.5 0 5
10 ,, ,, 6.6 2.3 14.5 1.1 0.054 0.15 4.6 2.87 ,, 1.0 0 ,,
11 ,, ,, 12.6 2.9 21.8 1.3 0.072 0.28 8.1 1.51 ,, 1.75 0 ,,
12 ,, ,, 11.8 4.76 17.2 1.0 0.045 0.36 12.8 1.61 ,, 1.25 0 ,,
13 ,, ,, 11.4 5.6 21.8 1.2 0.068 0.54 14.8 1.67 ,, 2.5 0 ,,
14 ,, ,, 9.8 5.6 23.7 1.1 0.051 0.59 13.7 1.93 ,, 2.0 0 ,,
15 9.0 submerged Yes 7.3 1.4 14.1 1.0 0.041 0.09 3.0 1.23 0.225 1.0 0 o
16 ,, ,, 7.5 2.3 16.6 1.1 0.050 0.17 4.9 1.2 ,, 2.0 14.5 ,,
17 ,, ,, 10.0 2.9 16.5 1.0 0.048 0.21 7.2 0.90 ,, 2.75 2.75 ,,
18 ,, ,, 8.4 3.2 23.6 1.4 0.084 0.33 7.3 1.07 ,, 1.5 0 ,,
19 ,, ,, 12.9 4.76 18.0 1.1 0.051 0.38 13.4 0.70 ,, 6.0 0 ,,
20 ,, ,, 13.2 4.76 18.3 1.1 0.052 0.39 13.5 0.68 ,, 5.25 0 ,,
21 ,, ,, 9.7 5.6 18.3 1.1 0.050 0.46 13.7 0.93 ,, 2.75 0 ,,
22 ,, ,, 11.7 5.2 20.3 1.2 0.061 0.47 13.9 0.77 ,, 2.75 0.5 ,,
23 ,, ,, 10.9 5.6 23.9 1.3 0.079 0.59 14.5 0.82 ,, 4.0 0 ,,
24 +1.0 slightly emerged Yes 8.7 1.4 15.1 1.0 0.046 0.09 3.2 0.12 0.025 1.25 0 j
25 ,, ,, 4.9 2.3 18.6 1.2 0.060 0.19 4.0 0.21 ,, 6.0 0 ,,
26 ,, ,, 12.6 2.9 22.4 1.3 0.079 0.29 8.1 0.08 ,, 5.0 0 ,,
27 ,, ,, 15.2 4.76 20.5 1.2 0.063 0.43 14.5 0.07 ,, 6.5 8 ,,
28 ,, ,, 11.7 5.6 21.7 1.2 0.068 0.54 15.0 0.09 ,, 5.0 7.75 ,,
29 ,, ,, 16.3 5.1 30.2 1.6 0.12 0.69 16.1 0.06 ,, 6.0 26 ,,
30 +l, emerged Yes 9.6 1.4 14.6 1.0 0.043 0.09 3.4 +l +l 2.25 0 w
31 ,, ,, 4.8 2.3 19.4 1.2 0.062 0.19 4.0 ,, ,, 5.5 0 ,,
32 ,, ,, 20.8 2.9 27.4 1.6 0.11 0.35 10.4 ,, ,, 7.0 1.0 ,,
33 ,, ,, 19.1 4.76 25.5 1.4 0.091 0.54 16.3 ,, ,, 6.0 0 ,,
34 ,, ,, 12.8 5.6 27.0 1.5 0.096 0.67 15.7 ,, ,, 5.25 0 ,,
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
The water surface elevation was measured at the
breakwater section, 10 cm from the side wall, using an
ordinary wave gage (Point A in Fig. 2). At the same
section but 20 cm from the side wall, the orbital
velocity was measured using a bi-directional micro
propeller.
The near-field velocity measurements were made
using the fiber-optic submerged LDA probe described
in Section 2.1.2. In these tests, the LDA probe was
held so that it was shooting vertically downwards.
Similar to the 2-D experiments, the primary purpose
of the velocity experiments was to measure the steady
streaming in front of the breakwater. The sampling
frequency was 20 Hz. The total number of waves
sampled was over 50.
Finally some particle tracking experiments also
were made in the tests to get a picture of steady
streaming around the breakwater. Trajectories of par-
ticles (the size 2 cm and the specific gravity s = 1.14)
near the bed were videotaped from above, similar to
the particle tracking tests in the work of Fredsøe and
Sumer (1997).
The time development of scour/deposition was
monitored at several locations using an underwater
mini video camera. This was achieved by videotaping
the bed levels at these locations at 30 min intervals
during the first 4 h of the tests and at 1 h intervals
thereafter. When the scour process reached its equili-
brium, the waves were stopped and the bed level was
recorded at each and every measuring pin using the
underwater video camera over the entire mesh.
2.2.3. Test conditions
The test conditions for the roundhead experiments
are summarized in Table 2. In the table, h is the
Shields parameter
Uf2
h¼ ð1Þ
gðs  1Þd50
in which U fm is the maximum value of the undis-
turbed friction velocity, s the specific gravity of sedi-
ment grains and g the acceleration due to gravity.
Also, KC is the Keulegan–Carpenter number
Um Tw
KC ¼ ð2Þ
B
in which U m is the maximum value of the undis-
turbed orbital velocity at the bed, Tw the wave
1001
period, and B the width of the breakwater at the
bed level; Fig. 3.
3. Scour at trunk section
3.1. Mechanism of scour. Emerged breakwater
The mechanism of scour in front of an emerged
breakwater may best be described with reference to a
vertical-wall breakwater (Fig. 4). The standing wave
in front of the breakwater generates a field of steady
streaming, a system of recirculating cells (consisting
of bottom and top cells); Fig. 4. The formation of the
bottom cells is related to the boundary layer over the
bed. The sediment on the bed essentially responds to
these recirculating cells. If the sand size is relatively
small, the sand stirred up by the waves (by the phase-
resolved component of the wave-induced flow) and
brought up into suspension will be carried to higher
elevations, and therefore it will respond mostly to the
top cells. If the sand size is relatively coarse, on the
other hand, the sand will be transported in the no-
suspension regime, and therefore will respond mostly
to the bottom cells. In the latter case, for example,
scour closest to the breakwater will occur at midway
between the wall and the first nodal point while
deposition will occur at the nodal point etc., and the
end result will be an alternating scour-and-deposition
pattern lying parallel to the structure (Fig. 5a; see also,
e.g., Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002). It is to be noted that
the preceding description implies that the scour-and-
deposition pattern is heavily dependent on the mode
of sand transport; we shall return to this point shortly.
Fig. 4. Steady streaming in the vertical plane in front of a vertical-
wall breakwater.
1002 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

Fig. 5. Scour/deposition in front of four kinds of breakwaters. Trunk scour. (a) Test 4. (b) Test 6. (c) Test 7. (d) Test 8.

In the case of an emerged, rubble-mound break-
water, Sumer and Fredsøe (2000) demonstrated
that an alternating scour-and-deposition pattern
also occurs in this case (with some differences,
however), as will be discussed in the following
paragraphs.
3.2. Mode of sediment transport
As mentioned in the previous sub-section, the
mode of sediment transport (suspension or no-suspen-
sion regimes) heavily influences the scour-deposition
process. The parameters controlling the mode of trans-
port are (Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002, p. 335) the
Shields parameter, h, and the fall velocity parameter,
w / U f.
The Shields parameter in the present tests (calcu-
lated for the incident wave) was found to be h = 0.16–
0.3 and the grain Reynolds number dU f / m = 4–6. For
these values of h and dU f / m, the Shields parameter is
always smaller than the value for the initiation of
suspension from the bed (Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002,
Fig. 7.8), meaning that no suspension occurred from
the bed in the present tests.
In addition to the criterion related to the initiation
of suspension from the bed, there is another criter-
ion which concerns whether or not sediment (if
suspended) is maintained in suspension. The latter
is expressed in terms of the fall-velocity parameter,
w / U f, and the criterion reads: sediment is main-
tained in suspension if w / U f b 1. Now, for the pre-
sent experiments, w / U f was found to be w / U f N 1,
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
indicating that the sediment cannot be maintained in
suspension.
Hence, from the above considerations, it may be
inferred that sediment in the present tests was trans-
ported in the no-suspension regime.
3.3. Submerged breakwater
Fig. 5 displays the bed profiles obtained for the
following four cases: The vertical-wall breakwater
(Test 4, Fig. 5 a), the emerged rubble-mound break-
water (Test 6, Fig. 5 b)), the submerged imperme-
able breakwater (Test 7, Fig. 5 c) and the submerged
rubble-mound breakwater (Test 8, Fig. 5 d). The
emerged breakwater cases (Fig. 5 a and b) are
included for two reasons: (1) to validate the experi-
mental system/method; and (2) to make comparison
with the results of the submerged breakwater tests. It
may be noted that the wave properties in all these
four tests are exactly the same (Table 1), and there-
fore any change in the bed morphology is to be
attributed to the breakwater geometry. (It should be
noted that the profiles given in Fig. 5 are obtained
by simple, moving averaging; in the actual bathy-
metry recordings, ripples (typically O(1 cm) in
height and O(4–5 cm) in length) were also
resolved).
The following conclusions can be drawn from
Fig. 5.
1. The emerged breakwater results (Fig. 5 a and b)
agree with the existing work (Section 3.1), including
(1) considerable scour occurs in the case of the rubble-
mound breakwater at the toe (Fig. 5 b) in contrast to
the zero scour in the vertical-wall case (Fig. 5 a)
(Sumer and Fredsøe, 2000); and (2) the precise loca-
tion of the maximum deposition in the case of the
rubble-mound breakwater is shifted in the onshore
direction (cf. Fig. 5 a and b) (Sumer and Fredsøe,
2000). (It is to be noted that there is scour at the toe in
the case of sea walls, but there is zero scour at the toe
in the case of vertical-wall breakwaters. The scour in
the case of seawalls is caused by breaking waves.
Clearly when waves do not break the seawall will
act like a vertical-wall breakwater and therefore there
will be no scour at the toe; Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002,
Fig. 8.11).
2. The scour depths at the emerged breakwaters (at
the toe in the case of the rubble-mound breakwaters
1003
and near the toe in the case of the vertical-wall break-
water) agrees fairly well with the previously published
results (Sumer and Fredsøe, 2000):
Emerged h S S
L H H (Sumer and
breakwater (present) Fredsøe, 2000)
Vertical wall 0.088 0.50 0.53
Rubble mound 0.088 0.17 0.18
This validates the present method/setup for mea-
surements of scour in the case of the submerged
breakwater experiments. It may be noted that, in the
case of the emerged, impermeable sloping-wall break-
water (Test 5), there was a slight deposition at the toe
with a scour hole offshore in much the same appear-
ance as in the case of the vertical-wall breakwater
(Fig. 5 a). The scour depth in this case was S /
H = 0.73 cm / 2 cm = 0.37.
3. The bed profiles in the case of the submerged
breakwater (Fig. 5 c and d) change markedly with
respect to the emerged breakwater profiles (Fig. 5 a
and b).
4. Scour always occurs at the toe in the case of
the submerged breakwater irrespective of whether
the breakwater is impermeable or porous. This toe
scour occurs over a large area in the offshore direc-
tion in front of the breakwater, certainly much larger
than the emerged rubble-mound breakwater case (cf.
Fig. 5 b, c and d).
5. In the case of the submerged breakwater, there
appears no clear scour/deposition picture in terms of
nodal/antinodal points (Fig. 5 c and d), in contrast to
the emerged breakwater situations (Fig. 5 a and b).
As mentioned earlier, the steady streaming is one
of the key components of scour processes at break-
waters. To observe the steady streaming in various
cases, this quantity was measured in three experi-
ments, Tests 1–3 (Table 1). This was achieved by
measuring the two components of the velocity (see
Section 2.1) and averaging the measured time series
of each measurement point over a long period of time.
The picture obtained in this way in the case of the
vertical-wall breakwater (supported by the bed shear
stress measurements made with a hot film probe)
revealed the pattern displayed in Fig. 4. Fig. 6 illus-
trates the steady streaming pictures in the case of the
emerged, sloping wall, impermeable breakwater (Fig.
6 a, Test 2) and in the case of the submerged,
1004 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

Fig. 6. Steady-streaming pictures. Trunk. (a) Test 2. (b) Test 3.

impermeable breakwater (Fig. 6 b, Test 3). The velo-
city scales are indicated in the figures.
The most important difference between the two
steady streaming pictures is that the steady streaming
is tremendously larger (even an order of magnitude
larger at places) in the case of the submerged break-
water. This may be attributed to the return flow, an
effect similar to that in the case of an ordinary pro-
gressive wave. (The return flow observed in the
laboratory may be considered to behave in the same
way as the undertow in a real-life situation).
It is to be noted that the recirculation cell just
above the junction between the bed and the break-
water in the case of the submerged breakwater (Fig. 6
b) coincides with the scour hole at the toe observed in
Fig. 5 c and d. The recirculation cell is at exactly the
same position as the scour hole. Its x-extent also
coincides with that of the scour hole at the toe;
namely, the x-extent of the recirculation cell (Fig. 6
b) is O(20 cm) while that of the scour hole at the toe is
O(25 cm) in the case of the impermeable breakwater
(Fig. 5 c) and O(30 cm) in the case of the rubble-
mound breakwater (Fig. 5 d). The small increase in
the scour hole width is likely due to the flow from
inside the breakwater towards the sediment layer. No
such bcoherentQ recirculation cell at the point where
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025 1005

depth nearest the

Maximum scour
toe scour occurs exists in the case of the emerged

S /H

0.37
0.20
(13)

?
rubble-mound breakwater (cf. Fig. 5 b and Fig. 6 a).

toe onshore
Also, the width of the scour hole at the toe in the latter

S (cm)
case is very limited and caused by the combined

0.61
(12)
1.4

?
action of the low-speed steady streaming and the

0.036
flow from inside the breakwater towards the sediment

S /H

0.16
0.33
(11)
Scour depth
layer, as discussed in Sumer and Fredsøe (2000,

at the toe
offshore
pp. 67–68).

S (cm)

0.85
(10)
From dimensional analysis, the scour depth can be

0.6
1.0
found to depend on the following parameters (follow-

wave-length
ing the analysis of Sumer and Fredsøes, 2000, for

ratio, h / L
Depth-to-
emerged breakwaters)

0.094
0.094
0.12
 

(9)
S h L F
¼f ; a; h; ; Re; ð3Þ

incident wave,
H L d50 h

Water depth
associated

h (m) (8)
with the
in which a is the breakwater slope, Re = aU m / m, a is

0.31
0.31
1.0
the amplitude of the orbital motion of water particles,
and U m the maximum value of the orbital velocity at

T p = 2.86 s
the bed. Sumer and Fredsøe (2000) argue that the

period,
Tw (s)
Wave
scour depth can, to a first approximation, be expected

2.0
2.0
(7)
to vary with the parameters h / L and a for emerged
breakwaters. In the case of the submerged breakwater
Standing

there will be an additional parameter, namely F / h. height

wave

(cm)

4.0
4.0
(6)
The submerged-breakwater scour-depth data of the

?
present tests are given in Table 3, and plotted in Fig. 7
wave height,

H s = 33 cm
in the traditional way as in the case of emerged break-
Incident

H (cm)

waters (where the scour depth is normalized by the

3.8
3.0
(5)

incident-wave height and plotted versus the water

depth-to-wave-length ratio), Fig. 7 a. In Fig. 7 a, the
Free board,
F (cm) (4)

emerged breakwater data (represented by solid lines

 7.5
 7.5
25.0

and taken from Sumer and Fredsøe, 2000, 2002) are

included as reference lines.
Fig. 7 also includes the submerged-breakwater data
Rubble mound
Rubble mound
Impermeable

(Fig. 7 b) from the large-scale irregular-wave experi-

Breakwater

ment of Sanchez-Arcilla et al. (2000) (see also Sumer

Submerged breakwater. Trunk experiments.

et al., 2001). This data is given in Table 3 where H s is

(3)

the significant wave height and T p is the peak period.

Test

The wavepheight
ffiffiffi for the latter data is calculated
pffiffiffi from
(2)

7
8
–

H ¼ Hs = 2. (The quantity H ¼ Hs = 2 reduces to

Sanchez-Arcilla et al. (2000)

the ordinary wave height in the case of regular

waves). In Fig. 7 b, Sumer and Fredsøe’s emerged-
breakwater irregular-wave data (represented by the
Scour depth at toe

solid line in Fig. 7 b) is also included as a reference

line. Sumer and Fredsøe’s data is for the side slope of
Source (1)

a = 408 (Slope = 1 : 1.2), the only set of data available

Table 3

Present

in Sumer and Fredsøe (2000) for the case of irregular

waves.
1006 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

Fig. 7. Scour depth at the breakwater. Trunk scour.

Although the data is very limited, Fig. 7 indicates
that the scour depth in the case of the submerged break-
water is in the same order of magnitude as in the case of
the emerged breakwater. The mechanism of scour in the
submerged breakwater is not precisely the same as that
in the case of the emerged breakwater, and yet the
results (although limited to only three tests) seem to
be in fairly good agreement. No clear explanation has
been found for this. Nevertheless, the results may be
used to make assessments of scour depth in the case of
submerged breakwaters, namely the scour depth for
submerged breakwaters may, to a first approximation,
be predicted from the existing data for emerged rubble-
mound breakwaters reported in Sumer and Fredsøe
(2000, 2002). Also, in such applications, it should be
borne in mind that the tested ranges of the free-board
parameter is F / H =  1 to  2, and the breakwater
slope 1 : 1.5.
As a final remark regarding the data in Fig. 7, the
scour depth in irregular waves is smaller than in regular
waves. Also, the large difference between the results of
Sanchez-Arcilla et al. (2000) and the present study in
Column 11 in Table 3 may be attributed to the fact that
the waves were irregular in the former study.
As mentioned previously, scour-deposition profiles
were also measured on the onshore side of the sub-
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
Fig. 8. Scour/deposition at the back (on the onshore side) of sub-
merged breakwater. Trunk scour. (a) Test 7. (b) Test 8.
merged breakwater; Fig. 8. As seen from Fig. 8, there
was a considerable difference between the imperme-
able and the rubble-mound cases. While the process
was 2-D in the latter case (Fig. 8 b), it was completely
3-D in the former situation (Fig. 8 a). In the rubble-
mound case, there were scour holes at the two sides of
the flume (at the immediate onshore side of the struc-
ture) while no scour hole existed at the centerline, as
illustrated in Fig. 8 a. This difference may be attrib-
uted to the fact that there was wave breaking over the
breakwater in the impermeable case, resulting in an
onshore directed flow whereby a secondary flow
apparently develops (with two helicoidal vortices
near the side walls of the flume) and this secondary
flow is responsible with the observed 3-D scour/
deposition pattern. This type of scour (with alternating
longitudinal scour holes and longitudinal ridges) has
been observed for turbulent wall layers/jets which is
destabilized by the concave curvature of the water/
sediment interface where streamwise Gortler vortices
create the alternating scour/sediment ridge pattern
(Hopfinger et al., 2004).
Finally, the maximum scour depths nearest the toe
are given in Table 3, Columns 12 and 13. As seen, the
1007
onshore scour depth is S / H = O(0.2–0.4), in the same
order of magnitude as the offshore scour depth (Table
3, Column 11).
3.4. Time scale
Fig. 9 shows the time development of the maximum
scour depth (corresponding to that at about x = 1.3 m,
Fig. 5 d) in the case of the submerged rubble-mound
breakwater. The time scale of the scour process may be
defined by (Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002)
  t 
St ¼ S 1  exp  ð4Þ
T
in which S is the equilibrium scour depth and T the
time scale of the scour process (Fig. 9). Following
Sumer and Fredsøe (2000), the time scale can be
normalized in the following way
 
3 1=2
gðs  1Þd50
T4 ¼ T ð5Þ
H2
in which H is included in the preceding equation as the
length scale of the scour process (cf. Eq. (3)). The
quantity T* is a function of the following non-dimen-
sional parameters (Sumer and Fredsøe (2000)
 
h L F
T4 ¼ g ; a; h; ; Re; : ð6Þ
L d50 h
A full investigation of the preceding relation is
beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless,
the normalized time scales for the submerged break-
water tests, Tests 7 and 8, are calculated from the
present data for both the offshore- and the onshore-
side scour processes and presented in Table 4 where
the number of waves corresponding to the time scale
T also are given. Clearly, the time scale information
Fig. 9. Time development of the maximum scour depth (correspond-
ing to that at about x = 1.3 m, Fig. 5 d) in the case of the submerged
rubble-mound breakwater (Test 8). Trunk scour. The sloping line is
tangent to the scour-versus-time curve at t = 0.
1008 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

given in Table 4 is at best suggestive. However, it may

help assess the time scale for scour in corresponding
real-life situations.

4. Scour at roundhead

The present experiments show that there are two

kinds of scour mechanisms: (1) steady streaming
induced scour, and (2) plunging-breaker induced
scour. The former is responsible for scour in front of
the breakwater while the latter is responsible for scour
at the back of the breakwater.

4.1. The steady streaming induced scour

Fig. 10 displays trajectories of particles released at

the bottom in the near field. (See Section 2.2 for the
experimental details regarding the particle-tracking
tests). As seen, the particles persistently leave the Fig. 10. Particle trajectories. Test 12. Circles indicate the positions
where the particles were released. Roundhead scour.
marked area, indicating the presence of a steady
streaming from the marked area outside. This suggests toe of the breakwater is, on dimensional grounds,
that the following scouring mechanism is taking given as (Fredsøe and Sumer, 1997)
place. The waves stir up the sediment and put it in
S
the main body of the water, and the steady streaming ¼ fs ðKC; h; aÞ: ð7Þ
carries the sediment away from the breakwater, result- B
ing in scour inside the marked area in Fig. 10 and In the case of the submerged breakwater, there is
deposition outside. one additional parameter, namely F / H, the parameter
Fig. 11 shows the scour/deposition picture obtained representing the free board for the submerged case,
under exactly the same wave conditions as in Fig. 10. and therefore the preceding equation reads
 
As seen from Fig. 11, scour takes place in the marked S F
¼ fs KC; h; a; : ð8Þ
area in Fig. 10 while deposition takes place outside, B H
revealing the mechanism described in the preceding For a given slope, a, and for the live-bed scour
paragraph. (h N h cr, the dependence on h being weak), the scour
The preceding mechanism is exactly the same as depth will be
that experienced in the case of an emerged break-  
water, Fredsøe and Sumer (1997) (see also Sumer S F
¼ fs KC; : ð9Þ
and Fredsøe, 2002). In the latter case, scour at the B H

Table 4
Time scale of scour
Offshore-side or Test (2) Impermeable or Time scale, Number of waves Normalized time
onshore-side scour (1) rubble mound (3) T (min) (4) corresponding to T (5) scale, T * (6)
Offshore 7 Impermeable 40 1200 17.3
8 Rubble mound 40 1200 27.8
Onshore 7 Impermeable 90 2700 39.0
8 Rubble mound 150 4500 104
Trunk experiments.
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025 1009

Fig. 11. Bathymetry. Equilibrium state. Roundhead scour. Test 12.

It may be noted that, in the present experiments, live- Fig. 12 shows the contour plot of the maximum
bed conditions prevailed (h N h cr). The fact that the scour at the toe, S / B, as function of these two para-
bed was covered by ripples (the size O(2–3 cm) in meters, KC and F / H. The figure also includes data for
height and O(10 cm) in length) revealed the latter. the case of emerged breakwaters from Fredsøe and
1010 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

Fig. 12. Maximum scour depth at the breakwater toe as function of KC and F / H. Streaming-induced roundhead scour. Symbols: see Table 2 for
!
the present tests. : Fredsøe and Sumer (1997) (irregular waves). +: Lillycrop and Hughes (1993) (Field). x: ISVA (irregular waves), from Dixen
(2003). D: ISVA, from Dixen (2003).

Sumer (1997), Lillycrop and Hughes (1993) (field
data), and further data for the case of submerged
breakwaters obtained in an earlier study reported in
Dixen (2003). It may be noted that, for all the data
plotted in Fig. 12, the breakwater slope is 1 : 1.5
except the field data where it is 1 : 2.
The following conclusions can be drawn from
Fig. 12:
Fig. 13 gives the steady streaming velocity as a
function of KC measured in the case when F =  9
cm. The measurement point was 6 mm above the bed
and adjacent to the toe of the breakwater, as indicated
in Fig. 13. In the measurements, the bed was main-
tained plane; the test was stopped and the bed was
leveled off as soon as the bed forms emerged. The

1. For KC b 0.05, it appears that there is no scour.

(The data presented in Fredsøe and Sumer (1997)
for emerged breakwaters, when extrapolated, sug-
gests that S / B will practically go to 0 when
KC b 0.05, implying that scour will not at all
occur in the case of submerged breakwaters when
KC b 0.05).
2. For a given value of KC, the scour (S / B) decreases
with increasing value of the free board, as
expected. Clearly S / B Y 0 as the free board, F,
approaches the water depth.
3. For a given value of the free board, S / B increases
with increasing KC. This is because the streaming
increases as KC increases; and therefore the scour
should increase with KC. It should be noted, how-
ever, that the increase in the scour depth with KC is Fig. 13. Steady-streaming velocity. The component in the direction
weak. opposite to wave propagation. Tests 15–18, 20, 22 and 23 (Table 2).
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
streaming velocity, U, was obtained by taking the
period average of the time series of the velocity
component in the direction opposite to the wave
propagation. (Note that the measured undisturbed
steady streaming velocity profile indicates that the
steady streaming velocity at the same position is in
the direction of wave propagation with a magnitude of
O(2 cm/s), the Longuet-Higgins (1957) steady
streaming in a progressive wave, the so-called mass
transport). Fig. 13 shows that (1) the steady streaming
at the measurement point (where a bmassiveQ scour
occurs, Fig. 13) is in the direction opposite to the
wave propagation, and (2) its magnitude increases
with increasing KC, revealing the above argument
(under item 3 above) that the steady streaming
increases with increasing KC.
Fig. 14 gives the locations of maximum scour
depth at the toe for different intervals of the free-
board parameter, F / H. The figure shows that, irre-
spective of the free-board value, the location of
maximum scour generally moves along the toe
Fig. 14. Location of maximum scour at the toe. Streaming-induced roundhead scour.
1011
towards the offshore direction with increasing KC.
This is related to the increasing extension of the area
of streaming with KC, as pointed out by Fredsøe
and Sumer (1997) in conjunction with emerged
breakwaters.
Fig. 15 presents the contour plot of the plan view
extent of scour hole (plotted in the same fashion as
in Fig. 12). (1) For KC b 0.05, there is no scour (cf.
Fig. 12); (2) for a given KC, the quantity Ly / B
decreases with increasing value of the free board
(again, cf. Fig. 12); and (3) for a given value of
the free board, Ly / B increases with increasing KC,
cf. Fig. 12.
The data plotted in Figs. 12 and 15 are both
regular and irregular wave data. When plotted as a
function of KC, the present regular-wave data and
Sumer and Fredsøe’s (1997) irregular-wave data for
emerged breakwaters (including Lillycrop and
Hughes’ (1993) field data), show no clear difference
between the regular and irregular wave results. This
is because the bforcingQ (i.e., the combined effect of
1012 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
Fig. 15. Plan-view extent of scour hole. Streaming-induced roundhead scour. Symbols are the same as in Fig. 12.
streaming and phase-resolved velocity) is not
reduced in the case of irregular waves, not as
strongly as in the 2-D situation (one side of the
breakwater is bopenQ in the present case). There are
various scour scenarios where the regular-wave scour
and the irregular-wave scour agree fairly well; for
example, scour below a pipeline (Sumer and Fred-
søe, 1996) and scour around a pile (Sumer and
Fredsøe, 2001).
Finally, it is to be noted that the mode of sediment
transport may influence the scour/deposition process,
an issue discussed in conjunction with the 2-D trunk-
section scour above (Section 3.2). In the present tests
and in the tests of others in connection with Figs. 12
and 15, the transport is in the no-suspension regime.
In the case of the suspension-mode transport, the
scour may be expected to be larger, drawing an ana-
logy between the present scour process and that in
front of a vertical-wall breakwater (Xie, 1981, 1985;
see also, e.g., Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002, Fig. 7.10).
The work of Xie (1981, 1985) shows that the scour
depth in the case of the suspension-regime transport
increases by 20–50%.
4.2. The plunging-breaker induced scour
The plunging-breaker induced scour is another
scour process that occurs around the breakwater.
This scour occurs at the back of the breakwater, as
mentioned earlier.
The flow regimes that occurred for the four free
boards (namely F / h =  0.475;  0.225; +0.025; and
+ l) tested in the present study (Table 2) are as
follows:
1. For F / h =  0.475 (submerged breakwater), waves
did not break (Fig. 16 a).
2. For F / h =  0.225 (submerged breakwater), waves
broke over the breakwater and a plunger formed
(Fig. 16 b).
3. For F / h = +0.025 (slightly emerged breakwater),
waves broke over the breakwater and a plunger
formed. The plunger was much stronger (Fig. 16
c) than that in the previous case. It formed close to
the tip of the breakwater, in the form of a bscrewQ
and traveled longer distances (from the tip) along
the length of the breakwater.
4. For F / h = +l (emerged breakwater), the breaking
process is rather similar to the previous case.
The plunging breaker is basically the key ele-
ment of the scour process. After its formation, the
plunger travels some distance along the length of
the breakwater, eventually bdescendsQ towards the
bottom, impinges on the bed and mobilizes the sand
there, leading to a scour hole, as illustrated in Fig.
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025 1013

Fig. 16. Flow regimes for the tested free boards.

17. Fig. 18 displays the scour picture obtained in For a given breakwater slope a and for the live-bed
Test 29. scour (h N h cr where the dependence on h is assumed
On dimensional grounds, the characteristics of the to be weak), the scour depth will reduce to
plunging-breaker induced scour can be given by the  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
following non-dimensional equation S Tw gH F
¼ fp ; : ð11Þ
H h h
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
S Tw gH F
¼ fp ; h; a; ð10Þ Fig. 19 presents the contour plot of the maximum
H h h plunging-breaker induced
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi scour as a function of the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi two parameters, Tw gH =h and F / h. The figure also
in which Tw gH =h is the bplungerQ parameter (first includes the data for the case of emerged breakwaters
introduced by Fredsøe and Sumer, 1997, in conjunc- from Fredsøe and Sumer (1997) and Lillycrop and
tion with their work on scour at emerged break- Hughes (1993) (field data). For all the data in Fig. 19,
waters).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi The numerator in this parameter, namely the breakwater slope, a, is 1 : 1.5 except for Lillycrop
Tw gH , represents the amount of water in the plun- and Hughes’ field data where a is 1 : 2.
ging breaker entering in the main body of water; and The following three conclusions can be deduced
the denominator, h, represents the distance to be from Fig. 19:
penetrated.
1. No scour occurs for F /phffiffiffiffiffiffi b ffi O(0.4) in the
basymptotic caseQ when Tw gH =h Y l. This is
in fact expected because there is no wave breaking
for F / h =  0.475 (see the above discussion), and
therefore there will be no scour for such small
values of the free board.
2. The maximum scour occurs near F / h = 0. This is
related to the fact that the plunger in this case is
strongest, as observed visually in the present tests.
3. For a given value of F / h, the scour increases
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi with
increasing value of the parameter Tw gH =h. This
is also expected because the larger the value of this
Fig. 17. Scour caused by plunging breaker. From Fredsøe and parameter, the stronger the penetration of the plun-
Sumer (1997). ger, and therefore the scour should increase with
1014 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

Fig. 18. Bathymetry. Equilibrium state. Roundhead scour. Test 29. The top of the breakwater is truncated for the plotting purposes.

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
increasing Tw gH =h. Clearly no scour will occur Fig. 20 displays the countourplot of the plan view
when the penetration distance,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi h, becomes very extent of the scour hole, plotted in the same fashion as
large (or alternatively Tw gH =h Y 0). in the previous figure. In the figure, F1.1 is the
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025 1015

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 19. Maximum scour depth at the breakwater toe as function of Tw gH =h and F / h. Plunging-breaker-induced roundhead scour. Symbols:
!
see Table 2 for the present tests. : Fredsøe and Sumer (1997) (Irregular waves). +: Lillycrop and Hughes (1993).

standard deviation of the sample. Apparently, the size regardless of the values of the governing parameters.
of the scour hole remains practically constant regard- This behaviour is precisely the same as that found in
less of the breakwater type (emerged/submerged) and the case of the emerged breakwater (Fredsøe and

Fig. 20. Plan-view extent of scour hole. Plunging-breaker-induced roundhead scour. Symbols are the same as in Fig. 19.
1016 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
Sumer, 1997) where no strong dependence was
found of the scour-hole width on the plunger para-
meter. No clear explanation has been found for this
behaviour.
4.3. Time scale
Fig. 21 displays two time series of scour devel-
opment, one in front of the submerged breakwater
where the scour is caused by the steady streaming
(Fig. 21 a) and the other at the back of the break-
water where the scour is caused by the plunging
breaker (Fig. 21 b). The scour processes eventually
reach their equilibrium states through a transitional
period. The time scale, T, of the scour processes may
be defined in the same way as in Eq. (4), and, on
Fig. 21. Time development of scour in (a) Test 12 and (b) Test 16.
Roundhead scour.
dimensional grounds, it may be normalized in the
same manner as in Eq. (5):
 
3 1=2
gðs  1Þd50
T ¼
4 T ð12Þ
B2
but now using B, the width of the roundhead (Fig. 3),
as the length-scale parameter.
1. For the case of the streaming-induced scour, the
normalized time scale was found to be
T* = O(10)  O(10) 3 for the tests where the
break-water was completely submerged ( F /
h =  0.475 and F / h =  0.225), while it was
found to be T* = O(5)  O(10) 3 for the tests
where the breakwater was slightly emerged and
emerged ( F / h = + 0.025 and + l). For both
cases, the time scale in terms of number of waves
was found to be 1000–5000.
2. For the case of the plunging-breaker-induced scour,
T* = O(10) for the tests where the breakwater was
completely submerged, F / h =  0.225, (recall that
no plunger-breaker scour occurs when F /
h =  0.475), while it was found to be T* = O(1)
for the tests where the breakwater was slightly
emerged ( F / h = + 0.025). This is because the plun-
ger is much stronger in the case of the slightly
emerged breakwater (as noted above), and there-
fore scour occurs faster in this case. Finally, the
number of waves corresponding to the time scale
of scour is O(5000) for the former, and O(500) for
the latter.
As in the case of the 2-D scour, a full investigation
of the time scale is beyond the scope of the present
study. Nevertheless, the information regarding the
normalized time scales given in the preceding para-
graphs may help assess the time scale for scour in
corresponding real-life situations.
4.4. Comparison with prototype observations
4.4.1. Lido di Dante
A recent multi-beam bathymetry carried out in
Lido di Dante (Italy) by the University of Bologna
showed, a part from the erosion around the round-
heads due to wave–current interactions, the presence
of a 52  26  1.2 m scour hole offshore the Northern
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025 1017

roundhead. The complete bathymetry is presented in Under the hypothesis that this storm caused the scour
Lamberti et al. (2005—this issue), whereas Fig. 22 hole, we will apply the prediction method just
shows the detail of the scour hole whose formation described for localised erosion induced by steady
can be related to the intense and prolonged action of streaming.
wave reflection. It is particularly difficult to observe The following data are assumed: Toe barrier width
this kind of erosion in the field, as it is partially B = 40 m, seaward barrier slope = 1 : 2, mean sediment
bcancelledQ by the sediment accumulation that typi- size in front of the barrier d = 0.1 mm, bottom depth
cally occurs in front of the barriers due to currents that seaward the barrier h =  4.5 m, significant wave
tend to intensify along the barriers, turn around the height H = 1.8 m over the bottom h =  4.5 m, peak
roundheads and then flow out through gaps. wave period Tw = 6.0 s.
The bathymetry was measured in mid-January Wave length in deep water L 0 is calculated
2004. In December 2003 a long-lasting wave attack
from Bora, with several days of intense storms, was gTw2 9:81  62
L0 ¼ ¼ ¼ 56:23 m
recorded. Data collected at the buoy in Punta della 2p 2p
Maestra are lacking of several days, thus data col-
and then the parameter h / L 0
lected by an ADCP placed seaward the barrier (see
the caption of Fig. 22) during a field campaign h 4:50
performed in the period 23 November 2003–3 Jan- ¼ ¼ 0:08:
L0 56:23
uary 2004 were used (Fig. 23). The number of storm
days is around 12, with peak wave height of 1.8 m Using the Dalrymple solver (Dean and Dalrym-
where the bottom elevation was approximately 3 m. ple, 1991) the wave number k is found to be 0.17

Fig. 22. Detail of the multi-beam bathymetry carried out in Lido di Dante in January 2004, showing the scour hole offshore of the breakwater.
Dashed line indicates the extent of the scour hole filled by sand. ADCP is placed at the location with coordinates (153 m, 185 m).
1018 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025

Fig. 23. Wave data collected every hour with the ADCP seaward the Northern barrier (see the caption of Fig. 22 for the location of ADCP).
Period 2003/11/22–2004/01/04.

m 1 and the Ursell number U can be calculated The critical value for the initiation of suspension
as from the bed, h s, is (from Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002,
HL2 H ðL0 tanhðkhÞÞ2 p. 337):
U¼ 3
¼  0:05  

h h3
dUf dUf
1:8  ð56:23  tanhð0:17  4:5ÞÞ2 hs ¼ 0:7exp  0:04
¼ ¼ 26:33: m m
4:53  

As U is much greater than 15, the linear theory cannot dUf

þ 0:26 1  exp  0:025
be applied. The maximum velocity U m and the orbital m
amplitude at the bottom a are evaluated with the ¼ 0:19bbh
stream function theory implemented by Dalrymple
(and available on the Internet: http://www.coastal. which indicates that the transport of sediment is in the
udel.edu/faculty/rad/). suspension mode. Also, the fall-velocity-to-friction-
Furthermore, the Shields parameter is evaluated to velocity ratio is, w / U f = 0.8 / 7.0 = 0.11, which is smal-
assess the mode of sediment transport: ler than unity, and therefore sediment put into suspen-
fw Um2 sion will be maintained in suspension (Sumer and
h¼ Fredsøe, 2002, p. 336).
2 gðs  1Þd
We will now determine the parameters necessary to
3:3  103 1:72
¼ implement the plot in Figs. 12 and 15. After the rock
2 9:81  ð2:65  1Þ  0:1  103 charge in June 2003, the barrier, which was 0.2 m
¼ 2:94 submerged in the project and settled at around 0.4 m,
where s is the specific gravity of sand grains and f w is is now emerged, on average, of 0.2 m. The normalized
the friction factor which is estimated from Fredsøe free board is then (using the positive freeboard F for
(1984), under the hypothesis of smooth active bed emerged structures)
 
Um a 0:16 F þ 0:2
fw ¼ 0:035ðReÞ0:16 ¼ 0:035 H
¼
1:8
¼ þ 0:11
m
 0:16 and the Keulegan–Carpenter, KC, number is
1:7  1:4
¼ 0:035 ¼ 3:3  103
106 Um Tw 1:7  6
KC ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:25
where m is the water kinematic viscosity. B 40
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025 1019

Fig. 24. Detail of the multi-beam bathymetry of Pellestrina, October 2002, showing scour hole inshore of the breakwater.

From Fig. 12, the values F / H = +0.11 and KC = 0.25 We can now compare the predicted and measured
give a point falling in the area where the predicted values. The depth of the scour hole is 1.2 m and is
depth S of the scour hole is in the middle of the range of the estimated value.
S Due to suspension, the effective scour depth would
0:02b b0:04
B be expected larger than the predicted one based on
and thus S assumes values between 0.8 and 1.6 m. pure bedload transport; this apparent discrepancy
Likewise, from Fig. 15, the same values of KC and F / can be explained considering that some time elapsed
H give a point which falls in the area where Ly / B (the between the storm and the survey and current action
extension of the scour hole in the cross-shore direction at the roundhead is intense: it is clear, in fact, that
normalized by the berm width B) is part of the scour hole close to the barrier has been
Ly already filled in by the current induced deposit and
0:40b b0:80
B thus the erosion is localised at around 25 m from
and thus Ly is found between 16 and 32 m. the barrier axis, with extension Ly equal to 18 m,
Finally, the time necessary to produce such erosion which is perfectly in the range of the predicted
T can be assessed from the order-of-magnitude time- values. Regarding the time scale, i.e., the total
scale figures given under Section 4.3; The normalized time duration necessary to generate the scour hole,
time scale was found to be T* = O(5)  O(10) 3 for the predicted time scale is T = O(20 days), and this
the tests where the breakwater was slightly emerged is, although somewhat larger than the total number
or emerged ( F / h = +0.025 and +l). (It may be noted of storm days, consistent with the observed length
that an order-of-magnitude analysis is normally ade- of storm periods (namely 12 days) where the scour
quate when the time scale of scour is considered, and hole developed.
therefore the previous figure, i.e., T* = O(5) 
O(10) 3, can be used). 4.4.2. Pellestrina
T 4 B2 From a recent multi-beam bathymetry of the South-
T ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ern roundhead of Pellestrina intervention (Lamberti et
g ðs  1Þd 3
   al., 2005—this issue) performed by the University of
Oð5Þ  O 103  402 Bologna in October 2002, a shoreward scour hole was
¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 3ffi
9:81  ð2:65  1Þ  0:1  103 identified. It is 50 m long, 11 m wide and 0.6 m deep
  (Fig. 24) and its formation can be related to the action
¼ O 2  106 s cOð20 daysÞ of plunging breakers.
1020 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
Barrier crest height is F =  1.80 m ( 1.50 m in
the project; however, it settled of about  0.3 m in 3
years), the bottom in front of the structure is at an
elevation of h =  4.5 m. Assuming breaking condi-
tions, significant wave height is, to a first approxima-
tion, H = 0.6  h = 2.7 m. The representative wave
climate was reconstructed, based on the statistical
analysis of historical data collected at the CNR
tower offshore Venice (Zanuttigh et al., 2004). The
most severe condition of such climate is a Bora attack
with a wave height of 2.17 m and period of 6.1 s; from
Regarding the time scale, similar to Lido di Dante,
we can employ the order-of-magnitude figure given
under Section 4.3; that is, for the case of the plunging-
breaker-induced scour, T * = O(10) for the tests where
the breakwater was completely submerged with F /
h =  0.225:
T 4H 2
T ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
gðs  1Þd 3
Oð10Þ  2:72
¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
this wave condition, by assuming a constant wave 3 3
9:81  ð2:65  1Þ  0:1  10
steepness, the breaking wave period Tw is 6.8 s.
 
Now, the relative free board is ¼ O 2  107 s ¼ Oð200 daysÞ:
F  1:8
¼ ¼  0:4 Now, the measured scour hole depth is in the
h 4:5
middle of the predicted range, i.e., 0–1.08 m, whereas
and the breaking parameter is its extension coincides with the maximum predicted
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi value, 8.1 + 2.97 (= 11.1 m). The predicted time scale
Tw gH 6:8  9:81  2:7
¼ ¼ 7:7: for a substantial amount of scour to develop is O(200
h 4:5 days). Unfortunately, we are unable to compare the
It may be noted that this case is close to conditions predicted time scale with the actual time scale of scour
of Test 17 in Table 2. because no data is available for the latter.
We can now assess the scour depth and extension
from the diagrams in Figs. 19 and 20, respectively.
Thepffiffiffiffiffiffi
calculated
ffi values of the parameters F / h and 5. Remarks about application
Tw gH =h, when plotted in Fig. 19, give a point
which falls on the limiting curve of no-erosion; the The present results were obtained for the case
actual presence of scour can, however, be justified, where there is no influence of the far-field erosion/
considering that this scour hole may have occurred deposition. The latter may be caused by different
in low tide, whose average daily range is F 0.4 m processes, such as rip currents near the roundhead of
(whereas the maximum reaches F0.8 pffiffiffiffiffiffim).
ffi By main- an offshore breakwater, large-scale eddies in front and
taining the breaking parameter (Tw gH =h) constant, at the back of an offshore breakwater, longshore
and assuming a low tide of 0.5 m ( F =  1.3 m, currents at the roundhead of an attached breakwater,
h = 4 m), etc. Although the far-field and near-field scour/deposi-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi tion processes interact in a complicated and nonlinear
F  1:3 Tw gH
¼ ¼  0:32 and manner, the total scour depth may, in most engineer-
h 4 h ing problems, be estimated as the sum of (1) that due
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
6:8  9:81  2:7 to the far-field scour/deposition process (the far-field/
¼ ¼ 8:7: global scour depth) and (2) that caused by the local
4
scour/deposition process (the local scour depth).
With these values of the parameters, Figs. 19 and
Another limitation of the present study is that the
20 give respectively
bforcingQ in the tests was waves alone whereas, cur-
S Ly rents may exist (rip currents, longshore currents, and
0:0b b0:4; and ¼ 3:0Fr
H H even tidal currents although submerged breakwaters
where r is the standard deviation equal to 1.1. The are normally implemented in areas with not very
maximum predicted scour depth is thus S = 1.1 m and strong tidal activity). The influence of currents on
the extension Ly is in the range 8.10 F 3.0 m. local scour and deposition is unknown. However,
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
the presence of currents may increase scour signifi-
cantly (as demonstrated by Sumer and Fredsøe, 1997,
for the case of the vertical-wall breakwaters), and
therefore due considerations must be given to this.
In the present study, two kinds of breakwater
models, the impermeable breakwater and the por-
ous/rubble-mound breakwater, were tested in the
trunk-scour study. The scour depth was somewhat
larger in the case of the porous model. The model
structure was an impermeable structure in the case
of the roundhead-scour study, for the reasons given
in Section 2.2. Whether or not the impermeable
breakwater model influences the scour process signif-
icantly is unknown (the latter is unknown even for
emerged breakwaters). Nevertheless, although limited
to a few cases, the good agreement between the data
obtained in the laboratory with impermeable break-
water models and the data from a field study (see
Fredsøe and Sumer, 1997) suggests that the influence
of the breakwater material on the end results is not
very significant.
In the present study, all the breakwater models used
in the experiments extended down to the base bottom,
to avoid complications that may be caused by slump-
ing down of stones into scour holes in the case of
rubble-mound models and to avoid undermining of
the structure in the case of the impermeable/rigid
models. The influence of the latter effect on scour
was investigated in an earlier study for emerged
breakwaters for trunk-section scour, Sumer and Fred-
søe (2000). It was found that the scour depth at the toe
in the case of the rubble-mound breakwater sitting on
the bed is reduced somewhat (about 30%), and the
latter authors remarked that this may be due partly to
the fact that the stones slump down in the scour
hole, and form a protective slope at the toe of the
breakwater.
As regards the scale effects, for the trunk scour,
three additional parameters, h; dL50 and Re (Eq. (3)),
may affect the end results. For the Shields parameter
(for live beds), its influence would be through the
change in the sediment transport regime (the no-sus-
pension-regime transport versus the suspension-
regime transport). This issue has been discussed
above in Section 3.2. With regard to the last two
parameters, these parameters have no significant
effect on scour, as shown in Sumer and Fredsøe
(2002, p. 338) for the trunk scour. In the case of the
1021
roundhead scour, similar to the 2-D case, the Shields
parameter may be an additional parameter. Again, the
scale effect should be through the change in the
transport regime of sediment, and this has been dis-
cussed under Section 4.2 above. As regards the plun-
ger-induced scour, the scale effect is unknown. Again,
here, too, the fairly good agreement between the data
obtained in the laboratory and that from a field survey
(see Fredsøe and Sumer, 1997) indicates that the
bsimulationQ of this process can be achieved ade-
quately in the laboratory with no significant scale
effect.
Finally, scale effects regarding sediment transport
in general and scour in particular have been discussed
by various authors, Hughes (1993), Oumeraci
(1994a,b), Whitehouse (1998), Sutherland and White-
house (1998), Sumer et al. (2001) and Sumer and
Fredsøe (2002), and scale effects for scour in berm
breakwaters have been discussed by Tørum et al.
(2003).
6. Scour protection
It is imperative to construct a protection layer for
toe protection. This protection layer may be con-
structed in the form of a protection apron. The
apron must be designed so that it will remain intact
under wave and current forces, and it should be
bflexibleQ enough to conform to an initially uneven
seabed. With this countermeasure, scour can be mini-
mized, but not entirely avoided. Some scour will
occur at the edge of the protection layer, and conse-
quently, armour stones will slump down into the scour
hole. This latter process will, however, lead to the
formation of a protective slope, a desirable effect for
bfixingQ the scour. The determination of the width of
the protection layer is an important design concern.
The width should be sufficiently large to ensure that
some portion of the protection apron remain intact,
providing adequate protection for the stability of the
breakwater.
6.1. Toe protection at trunk
On the basis of the present scour experiments and
the experiments undertaken in the work of Sumer and
Fredsøe (2000), it is recommended that the width of
1022 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
the protection apron (Fig. 25) be calculated by the
following empirical equation
L
W ¼a
4
in which a
mh
a¼1
L=4
in which 1 / m is the slope of the breakwater (Fig.
25) (for example, m should be taken as m = 1.5
when the breakwater slope is 1 in 1.5), h the
water depth and L the wave length. This is essen-
tially the width of the scour hole measured from the
crest of the nearest deposition area to the toe of the
breakwater in the case of emerged breakwaters, and
therefore a conservative estimate of the scour hole
extent for submerged breakwaters. It should also be
mentioned that this relation is valid for shallow
waters, the conditions experimented with in the
present work and in Sumer and Fredsøe (2000),
h / L b O(0.1–0.2).
This is for the scour protection at the offshore
side of the breakwater. The scour experiments
described in Section 3 suggest that the same width
may be selected for the toe protection apron at the
onshore side. Extra precautions must be exercised
towards reinforcing the protection layer on this side
to protect the protection material against damage
caused by wave overtopping.
The above equation is based on the scour experi-
ments where the mode of sediment transport was in
the no-suspension regime. In the case of the suspen-
sion-regime sediment transport, from the knowledge
of scour at emerged breakwaters, no scour is expected
at the toe (at the offshore side of the breakwater), and
therefore scour is not an immediate threat to the
breakwater. However, soil failure illustrated in Fig.
Fig. 25. Definition sketch. Scour protection.
ð13Þ
Fig. 26. Possibility of sand slide in front of breakwater.
ð14Þ
26 may be a risk for stability, and hence may need to
be considered (Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002).
Furthermore, the preceding equation is for scour
protection against the local scour caused by the com-
bined effect of steady streaming and phase-resolved
stirring of sediment by waves (Sumer and Fredsøe,
2002). Due considerations must be given to global
scour caused by the far-field flow circulations around
the breakwater.
6.2. Toe protection at roundhead
On the basis of scour-protection experiments (simi-
lar to Fredsøe and Sumer, 1997) in the present study, it
is recommended that the width of the protection apron
be calculated by the following empirical equations
F
W ¼ We N þ 0:9
if ð15Þ
H
 
F F
W ¼ 0:29 þ 0:74 We if b þ 0:9 ð16Þ
H H
in which We is the width recommended for bfullyQ
emerged breakwaters (Fredsøe and Sumer, 1997):
We
¼ A KC ð17Þ
B
in which A is 1.5 for complete scour protection and
1.1 for a scour protection which allows a scour depth
of 1% of B. Also note that negative values of F
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
correspond to submerged breakwaters according to
the sign convention in Fig. 4.
The above equation is based on the experiments
where the breakwater slope was 1 : 1.5 (i.e., m = 1.5,
Fig. 25). Therefore, for slopes steeper than 1 : 1.5, the
width necessary for protection may be increased, and
for slopes milder than 1 : 1.5, it may be reduced.
Furthermore, the above equation is for scour pro-
tection against the local scour caused by the combined
effect of steady streaming and phase-resolved stirring
of sediment by waves (Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002).
Due considerations must be given to global scour
caused by the far-field flow circulations around the
breakwater.
The recommended width is for protection at the
offshore side of the head. Experiments show that
the implemented widths of the protection layer are
able to protect the sand bed against the breaker-
induced scour at the onshore side of the head.
However, scour (damage) may occur in the protec-
tion layer itself due to wave breaking and wave
overtopping. Therefore, additional reinforcement is
recommended at the onshore side regarding the
protection material.
Finally, a check against the data regarding the plan-
view extent of scour measured in the present study
indicates that the width of the protection apron is
always smaller than the width of the scour hole in
the case of no protection, consistent with the previous
studies (see e.g. Sumer and Fredsøe, 2002).
6.3. Stability of protection work
The conventional design strategy for a stone cover
requires the stability of the top layer. For this, the
Shields criterion may be used; namely, the Shields
parameter calculated for the stones must be smaller
than h cr, the critical value of the Shields parameter
corresponding to the initiation of motion at the top
layer of the protection layer. The stability of stone
covers has also been investigated, adopting a different
strategy (Klomp and Tonda, 1995): a certain damage
is accepted for the design conditions (yet, the damage
may not lead to failure of the structure), an approach
similar to that used in the design of rubble-mound
breakwaters. A detailed account of the latter and other
aspects of protection-work stability is given in Sumer
and Fredsøe (2002, p. 115 and pp. 212–218). The
1023
subject will not be pursued further as it is beyond
the scope of the present work.
7. Conclusions
Conclusions regarding the trunk-section scour:
1. Substantial toe scour may occur at submerged
breakwaters. This is irrespective of whether the
breakwater is impermeable or porous.
2. The existing data (although very limited) indicate
that the scour depth is in the same order of magni-
tude as in the case of emerged breakwaters.
3. The scour/deposition bathymetry obtained for
submerged breakwaters does not exhibit the pat-
tern obtained in the case of emerged break-
waters where the scour and deposition areas
are bcorrelatedQ with the nodal and antinodal points
of the standing wave in front of the structure.
4. A distinct steady streaming occurs around sub-
merged breakwaters. The steady streaming veloci-
ties are an order of magnitude larger than in the
case of emerged breakwaters under similar wave
conditions.
5. There is a strong correlation between the toe scour
and the recirculation cell (associated with the afore-
mentioned steady streaming) that occurs just above
the junction between the breakwater and the bed.
6. Scour occurs not only at the offshore side of the
breakwater but also at the onshore side of the
breakwater. The maximum scour depth is in the
same order of magnitude of that at the offshore side
scour.
Conclusions regarding the roundhead scour:
1. Severe scour can be experienced at the roundhead
of a submerged breakwater.
2. The scour can occur both at the offshore side of the
roundhead and at the back.
3. The one at the offshore side is caused by the
combined effect of severe waves and the steady
streaming. It is governed by two major parameters:
the free-board parameter, F / H, and the Keulegan–
Carpenter number, KC.
4. That at the back is caused by wave breaking/wave
overtopping. It is governed by the following two
1024 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
major parameters: F / h and the plunger parameter,
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi neers and Scientists. World Scientific Press.
Tw gH =h.
5. For the scour at the offshore side, the free board
influences the scour quite substantially; the smaller
the free board, the larger the scour. Likewise, KC is
also an important parameter; the larger the value of
KC, the larger the scour.
6. For the scour at the back, again, the free-board
influences the scour quite substantially; no scour
occurs for F / h N O(0.4). Maximum scour occurs
near F / h = 0.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
7. Likewise, the plunger parameter, Tw gH =h, is
also an important parameter; the larger this para-
meter, the larger the scour.
Acknowledgments
This study has been partially funded by the Com-
mission of the European Commission, Research-
Directorate-General, Contract Nr. EVK3-2000-
00041, bEnvironmental Design of Low Crested
Coastal Defence StructuresQ (DELOS), and by the
Danish Research Council’s (STVF) two Research
Frame Programs bExploitation and Protection of
Coastal ZonesQ and bComputational Hydrodyna-
mics.Q We thank our colleagues in the DELOS
group Cesar Vidal (University of Cantabria), Julio
Zyseman (DHI Water and Environment), Hans
Burcharth (University of Aalborg) and Agustin San-
chez-Arcilla (Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya)
for the feedback during the course of the study.
References
Bartels, A., Kloos, M., Phelp, D., 2000. Failure and repair of the toe
of an Accropode breakwater. Book of Abstracts, 26th Interna-
tional Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE, Sydney, Austra-
lia, vol. 1. Paper No. 74.
Carter, T.G., Liu, L.-F.P., Mei, C.C., 1973. Mass transport by waves
and offshore sand bedforms. Journal of the Waterways, Harbors
and Coastal Engineering, ASCE 99 (WW2), 165 – 184.
Christensen, J., 1981. Sand Bed Follower with Automatic Record-
ing, Prog. Report, vol. 55. Institute of Hydrodynamics and
Hydraulic Engineering (ISVA), Technical University of Den-
mark, pp. 3 – 10. December.
Coastal engineering manual. Scour and Scour Protection, 2001.
Chapter VI-5-6, Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1100Headquar-
ters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Dean, R., Dalrymple, R., 1991. Water Wave Mechanics for Engi-
De Best, A., Bijker, E.W., Wichers, J.E.W., 1971. Scouring of
sand in front of a vertical breakwater. Proc. Conference on
Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, vol. 2.
The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway,
pp. 1077 – 1086.
Dixen, M., 2003. Scour around the Roundhead of a Submerged
Rubble Mound Breakwater. Master’s Thesis undertaken under
the supervision of B.M. Sumer and J. Fredsøe. Technical Uni-
versity of Denmark, MEK, Coastal and River Engineering Sec-
tion (formerly ISVA), DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark. Obtainable
from B.M. Sumer.
Fredsøe, J., 1984. Turbulent boundary layer in wave–current
motion. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 110 (8),
1103 – 1120.
Fredsøe, J., Sumer, B.M., 1997. Scour at the round head of a rubble-
mound breakwater. Coastal Engineering 29, 231 – 262.
Gironella, X., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., 2000. Hydrodynamic behaviour
of submerged breakwaters. Some remarks based on experimen-
tal results. Proc. Coastal Structures ’99, Santander, Spain, 7–9
June, 1999, vol. 2. Balkema, pp. 891 – 896.
Gunbak, A.R., Gokce, T., Guler, I., 1990. Erosion and protection of
Samandag Breakwater. J. Coastal Research, Proc. of Skagen
Symposium, 2–5. September, 1990, vol. 2, pp. 753 – 771.
Hopfinger, E.J., Kurniawan, A., Graf, W.H., Lemmin, U., 2004.
Sediment erosion by Gortler vortices: the scour-hole problem.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 520, 327 – 342.
Hughes, S.A., 1993. Physical Models and Laboratory Techniques in
Coastal Engineering. World Scientific.
Hughes, S.A., Fowler, J.E., 1991. Wave-induced scour prediction at
vertical walls. Proc. Coastal Sediments ’91, Seattle, WA, ASCE,
vol. 2, pp. 1886 – 1900.
Irie, I., Nadaoka, K., 1984. Laboratory reproduction of seabed scour
in front of breakwaters. Proc. 19th International Conference on
Coastal Engineering, Houston, TX, ASCE, Chapter 116, vol. 2,
pp. 1715 – 1731.
Klomp, W.H.G., Tonda, P.L., 1995. Pipeline cover stability. Proc.
Fifth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
The Hague, The Netherlands, 11–16 June, 1995, vol. II,
pp. 15 – 22.
Lamberti A., Archetti, R., Kramer, M., Paphitis, D., Mosso e, C., Di
Risio, M., 2005—this issue. Prototype experience regarding low
crested structures. Coastal Engineering 52 (10–11) (DELOS
Special Issue). doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2005.09.010.
Lillycrop, W.J., Hughes, S.A., 1993. Scour Hole Problems Experi-
enced by the Corps of Engineers; Data Presentation and Sum-
mary. Miscellaneous Papers, CERC-93-2. US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Longuet-Higgins, M.S., 1957. The mechanics of the boundary layer
near the bottom in a progressive wave. Proc. 6th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Gainesville, Palm Beach
and Miami Beach, Florida, December 1957, pp. 184 – 193.
Oumeraci, H., 1994a. Review and analysis of vertical breakwater
failures — lessons learned. Coastal Engineering, Special Issue
on Vertical Breakwaters 22, 3 – 29.
 B.M. Sumer et al. / Coastal Engineering 52 (2005) 995–1025
Oumeraci, H., 1994b. Scour in front of vertical breakwaters —
review of problems. Proceedings of International Workshop on
Wave Barriers in Deep Waters. Port and Harbour Research
Institute, Yokosuka, pp. 281 – 307.
Sanchez-Arcilla, A., Gironella, X., Verges, D., Sierra, J.P., Pena, C.,
Moreno, L., 2000. Submerged breakwater and bbarsQ: from
hydrodynamics to functional design. Proceedings of the 27th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering (ICCE’00).
Sydney, July 2000.
Schaffer, H.A., Stolborg, T., Hyllested, P., 1994. Simultaneous
generation and active absorption of waves in flumes. Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium: Waves — Physical and
Numerical Modelling. University of British Columbia, Vancou-
ver, Canada, pp. 90 – 99.
Shore Protection Manual, 1977. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering
Research Center, vol. II, Department of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 1996. Scour around pipelines in combined
waves and current. Proc. 7th International Conference on Off-
shore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, ASME,
Florence, Italy, vol. V. Pipeline Technology, pp. 595 – 602.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 1997. Scour at the head of a vertical-wall
breakwater. Coastal Engineering 29, 201 – 230.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 2000. Experimental study of 2D scour and
its protection at a rubble-mound breakwater. Coastal Engineer-
ing 40, 59 – 87.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 2001. Scour around a pile in combined
waves and current. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 27
(5), 403 – 411.
Sumer, B.M., Fredsøe, J., 2002. The Mechanics of Scour in the
Marine Environment. World Scientific. 552 pp.
Sumer, B.M., Whitehouse, R.J.S., Tørum, A., 2001. Scour around
coastal structures: a summary of recent research. Coastal Engi-
neering 44, 153 – 190.
1025
Sutherland, J., Whitehouse, R.J.S., 1998. Scale Effects in the Phy-
sical Modelling of Seabed Scour. HR Wallingford Report TR64.
Sutherland, J., Chapman, B., Whitehouse, R., 1999. SCARCOST
Experiments in the UK Coastal Research Facility. Data on Scour
Around a Detached Rubble Mound Breakwater. HR Wallingford
Report TR 98. December.
Sutherland, J., Whitehouse, R.J.S., Chapman, B., 2000. Scour and
deposition around a detached rubble mound breakwater. Editor
I. Coastal Structures ’99, Santander, Spain, 7–10 June 1999.
In: Losada, I. (Ed.), Published by A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/
Brookfield.
Tørum, A., Kuhnen, F., Menze, A., 2003. On berm breakwaters.
Stability, scour, overtopping. Coastal Engineering 49, 209 – 238.
van der Meer, J., Veldman, J.J., 1992. Singular points at berm
breakwaters: scale effects, rear, round head and longshore trans-
port. Coastal Engineering 17, 153 – 172.
Vidal, C., Losada, M.A., Medina, R., Mansard, E.P.D., Gomez-Pina,
G., 1992. A universal analysis for the stability of both low-
crested and submerged breakwaters. Proc. of the Twenty-Third
International Conference, October 4–9, 1992, Venice, Italy,
pp. 1680 – 1692.
Whitehouse, R.J.S., 1998. Scour at Marine Structures. Thomas
Telford, London. 216 pp.
Xie, S.L., 1981. Scouring Patterns in Front of Vertical Breakwaters
and Their influence on the Stability of the Foundations of the
Breakwaters. Report. Department of Civil Engineering, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. September,
61 pp.
Xie, S.L., 1985. Scouring patterns in front of vertical breakwaters.
Acta Oceanologica Sinica 4 (1), 153 – 164.
Zanuttigh, B., Archetti, R., Barbanti, C., 2004. Hydrodynamics and
morphodynamics at a protected beach: the study site of Pelles-
trina, Italy. In: Smith, J.M. (Ed.), Proc. ICCE 2004, vol. 3.
World Scientific Publishing Co., USA, pp. 2810 – 2822.