Technical Note

Experimental Investigation on Wave Reflection

Characteristics of Slotted Vertical Barriers with an
Impermeable Back Wall in Random Wave Fields
Subramaniam Neelamani1; Khaled Al-Salem2; and Altaf Taqi3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Experimental investigations were carried out to assess the wave reection characteristics of slotted vertical barriers with an imper-
meable rear wall. This study was carried out to investigate whether these barriers can be used instead of sloped rubble mounds, which occupy a
signicant area in ports/harbors/marinas, for wave energy dissipation. Thirty-seven different wave barriers (1 vertical wall, 6 different sloped
breakwaters, and 30 slotted vertical barriers with porosity in the range of 1050% and 16 slotted barriers) were tested in random wave elds
of the JONSWAP spectra in different combinations of signicant wave heights and peak periods. For relatively long waves (water depth/wave-
length ratio of d/Lp > 0.2), the performances of many combinations of slotted vertical barriers were much better than those of the conventional
sloped rubble-mound breakwaters. The results of this study show that by increasing the number of porous walls from one to six, it is possible
to reduce the value of the reection coefcient from 0.9 to 0.3, especially for a d/Lp greater than 0.2. Also, the results show that for a d/Lp less
than 0.2, increasing the number of porous walls did not signicantly reduce wave reection. Overall, these results suggest that slotted barriers
can be a good alternative to sloped rubble breakwaters for ports, harbors, and marinas, especially in places where good-quality stones are ex-
pensive. In addition, this solution helps increase the effective use of space inside the harbor better than do sloped rubble-mound structures.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000395. 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Reection coefcient; Laboratory investigation; Wave ume; Slotted vertical barriers; Rubble-mound breakwaters;
Random waves.

Introduction obtain wave reection characteristics that are either equivalent or

Developing a new port/harbor marina is a cost-intensive opera-
tion. Hence, optimization in each engineering construction activ-
ity is important. A signicant quantity of rubble is used inside the
harbor to dissipate the wave energy entering through the entrance
of the harbor during certain seasons. To dissipate this wave
energy, most of the harbors around the world use conventional
breakwaters (typically a rubble mound), which occupy a signi-
cant part of the inner harbor space as shown in Fig. 1. For exam-
ple, for a mean water depth of 7 m, the base width of the rubble-
mound breakwater with an impermeable back wall can be from
12 to 16 m. In such a situation, an effective width of 2432 m at
the inner side of the harbor cannot be utilized. The question is
whether it is possible to replace the sloped breakwaters with a
vertical array of porous walls. If it is possible, how many porous
walls are needed, and what is the optimum porosity required to
1
Senior Research Scientist, Coastal Management Program, Kuwait
Institute for Scientic Research, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait
(corresponding author). E-mail: nsubram@kisr.edu.kw
2
Research Specialist, Coastal Management Program, Kuwait Institute
for Scientic Research, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait. E-mail:
ksalem@kisr.edu.kw
3
Research Associate, Coastal Management Program, Kuwait Institute
for Scientic Research, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait. E-mail:
altaqi@kisr.edu.kw
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 5, 2016; approved on
December 27, 2016; published online on March 9, 2017. Discussion pe-
riod open until August 9, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Waterway,
Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, ASCE, ISSN 0733-950X.
better than sloped breakwaters?
A detailed investigation is needed to answer this question, and
this necessity was the motivation for the present work. Detailed
laboratory investigations were carried out on a vertical wall, 6 dif-
ferent sloped breakwaters, and 30 different vertical porous bar-
riers of different numbers and different porosities to assess the
wave reection characteristics for a wide range of random input
wave conditions. In an ideal situation, the sloped rubble-mound
breakwater is created with the minimum number of high porosity,
vertical, wall-type barriers to reduce the volume of material used
for construction (economical) without increasing the wave reec-
tion characteristics compared to those of sloped breakwaters.
Coastal industries prefer porous vertical breakwaters if they meet
these two requirements; therefore, the study was undertaken in
this direction, and the results of the laboratory investigation are
presented with this perspective in mind.
In countries such as Kuwait, where the required quantity and
quality of rocks are not readily available (they are typically
imported from other neighboring countries and, hence, expensive),
it is worth pursuing slotted vertical barriers (Figs. 2 and 3). Also,
because of the latest prefabrication technology, installing slotted
vertical barriers is faster than constructing sloped rubble-mound
breakwaters. If the width of the vertical slotted barrier array is
smaller than the sloped breakwater (for the same wave energy dissi-
pation), then it will help secure more inner harbor space.
Literature Review
The research on slotted vertical barriers is one extended area of in-
terest in the eld of coastal and harbor engineering. The focus of the
research is on wave energy reection and dissipation, wave forces

ASCE 06017002-1 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002

 and dynamic pressures on the slotted wall, and the wave run-up
on the impermeable caisson breakwater back wall. Knowledge
on these topics is needed for the optimal design of this type of
breakwater. Jarlan (1961) was the rst to introduce the concept
of a perforated-wall caisson consisting of a front-slotted barrier,
a solid back wall, and a wave absorbing chamber in between
(Fig. 4). It is named the Jarlan-type breakwater.
Introduction of a perforated front wall has been found to help
reduce wave reection, wave force, and wave run-up on the rear
side of the solid caisson structure (Suh et al. 2006; Li 2007). The
hydrodynamic character was found to be a function of relative wave
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
chamber width, B/L (where B is the wave chamber width and L is
the incident wavelength as shown in Fig. 4), and the porosity of the
perforated front wall. An explicit expression for the reection coef-
cient for a Jarlan-type breakwater was derived by Sahoo et al.
(2000). Investigations to understand the different hydrodynamic
characteristics of the Jarlan-type breakwater were carried out by
many researchers. Kondo (1979) and Chwang (1983) focused on
the porosity effect. Chwang and Dong (1984) and Fugazza and
Natale (1992) observed that when the reection coefcient is at a
minimum, the incident wave passes through the front perforated
Fig. 1. Space occupied by rubble breakwater in Sharq Marina, Kuwait
(image by Altaf Taqi)
Fig. 2. Marina with rubble mound and vertical slotted wave barrier
ASCE 06017002-2
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002
wall without changing the wave phase, while the waves reected by
the impermeable back wall and the incident waves at the front wall
have opposite phases. Kakuno et al. (1992) found that if the thick-
ness of the front wall is large compared to the water depth, the fun-
damental resonant mode may occur when B/L is less than 0.2. This
nding was also described by Zhu and Zhu (2010). According to
data published by Bennett et al. (1992), Ou-Yang et al. (1997), Zhu
and Chwang (2001), the fundamental resonant mode occurs in the
range of 0.2 < B/L < 0.25. Yu and Chwang (1994) showed that for
a xed B/L the reection is controlled by the geometrical porosity
of the front wall. Park et al. (1993), Li et al. (2006), and Cho and
Kim (2008) found that for a normal incident wave, the shape of the per-
foration (e.g., silts, circular holes, rectangular holes) has no signicant
effect on reection. Yip and Chwang (2000) studied the hydrodynamic
performance of a perforated-wall breakwater with an internal horizon-
tal plate. It is suggested that a horizontally submerged plate be installed
inside the wave chamber to enhance the stability of the structure.
Many investigators have studied the benets of multiple perfo-
rated front walls, viz, Sawaragi and Iwata (1978), Kondo (1979),
Fugazza and Natale (1992), Williams et al. (2000), Chen et al.
(2002), Li et al. (2003), and Huang (2006). A caisson breakwater
with three slotted barriers was constructed in Porto Torres harbor,
Italy (Franco 1994; Franco et al. 1998). A caisson breakwater with
ve slotted barriers was constructed for the Dalian Chemical
Production Terminal in China Huang et al. (2011).
Li et al. (2003) conducted an investigation on a fully perfo-
rated breakwater with two perforated front walls. They deter-
mined that the addition of the middle slotted barrier had little
effect, especially on long waves. For a perforated single chamber
breakwater with a small geometrical porosity, the addition of a
middle perforated plate does not signicantly change the reec-
tion coefcient for B/L less than 0.1, but it can signicantly
reduce the reection of short waves (B/L > 0.4) and increase the
reection of intermediate waves (0.1 < B/L < 0.4). However,
when both the geometrical porosity of the rst wall and B/L are
large, a middle slotted barrier can signicantly reduce the reec-
tion coefcients; these predicted results were observed in other
experimental tests for breakwaters with two fully slotted barriers
(Sawaragi and Iwata 1978; Kondo 1979) or breakwaters with two
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.
 partially slotted barriers (Chen et al. 2002). The tests conducted
by Sawaragi and Iwata (1978) indicated that the reection coef-
cients of a double-slotted barrier breakwater with a uniform po-
rosity of 20% were smaller than those of a single chamber struc-
ture with the same porosity. In the tests conducted by Kondo
(1979), a slotted barrier with a porosity of 20% was installed
inside the chamber of a breakwater with a single-slotted barrier of
porosity 34%; the addition of the middle slotted barrier signi-
cantly reduced the reection coefcients compared to those of the
original structure.
Chen et al. (2002) found that adding a middle slotted barrier was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
helpful for enhancing the structures wave-absorbing ability when
the porosity of the front slotted barrier was 40%. However, opposite
results were observed when the porosity of the front slotted barrier
was 20%. Therefore, caution needs to be exercised when designing
breakwaters with two or more slotted barriers. Structures with mul-
tiple slotted barriers can also be used as highly effective wave
absorbers in wave umes or basins (Evans 1990; Twu and Lin
1991; Losada et al. 1993, etc.).
According to Twu and Lin (1991), the wave absorbing ability of
such structures is mainly controlled by the spacing between the neigh-
boring porous walls and the arrangement of wall porosities: The geo-
metrical porosities of slotted barriers should be arranged in a gradually
decreasing order in the direction of the incident waves. The optimal
Fig. 3. Projected appearance of a marina with slotted wave barriers
Perforated
d front wall
Fig. 4. Sketch of Jarlan-type breakwater
ASCE 06017002-3
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002
ratio of the spacing between the neighboring porous walls to water
depth was 0.88 when the ratio of the water depth to the incident wave-
length varied from 0.05 to 0.5. Under optimal conditions, the theoreti-
cal reection coefcient could be as low as 0.04 (Twu and Lin 1991).
A review article by Huang et al. (2011) described the scientic issues
and possible solutions related to the hydraulic performance and wave
loading of slotted coastal structures.
Literature is available on wave interaction with slotted vertical
barriers. However, a detailed experimental research with up to six
porous vertical barriers and a detailed comparison with conven-
tional sloped rubble barriers are unavailable. There is no study that
recommends the optimal number of porous walls or porosity for a
specic condition. The present research work is focused on obtain-
ing such information. The experimental results presented in this pa-
per will be useful for the numerical modelers working in this area as
a means of validating their numerical models.
Experimental Investigation
The wave reection characteristics of slotted barriers with one two,
three, four, ve, or six rows and porosities from 10 to 50% with an
impermeable wall and conventional benchmarks for breakwaters were
studied in a wave ume using laboratory investigations. Random waves
of a wide range of signicant heights and peak periods were used. The
details of the experimental investigations are provided in this section.
Model Details
In the present study, acrylic sheets of 10-mm thickness and 100-mm
height were used to fabricate slotted barrier models [Figs. 5(a) and
5(b)]. The vertical spacing between the plates was easily adjustable
to provide the needed porosity. Stainless steel angles, bolts, nuts,
and spring washers were used to x the plates in place to get the
slotted barrier as shown in Fig. 5(b). The slotted barriers were rig-
idly xed in the ume using clamps.
For slotted-barrier type units, one, two, three, four, ve, and six
walls were used and the porosity of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50% were
used for each slotted-barrier type. Porosity was dened as the ratio
between the areas of slot between the plates to the area of plate. For
example in Fig. 5(a), the gap between the plates was 10 mm, and the
plate height was 100 mm; hence, the porosity was 10%.
The net horizontal distance between the porous walls was
200 mm (i.e., c/c distance between the vertical slotted barriers was
Solid
B Back wall
Wave absorbing
chamber
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. (a) Slotted wall (front view); (b) two-slotted wall conguration (typical) (image by Altaf Taqi); (c) sloped breakwater models with different
armor units and two different slopes (image by Altaf Taqi)

201 cm) and the water depth was 700 mm. Hence, when six walls
were used, the total width was 1,200 mm. This helped in the com-
parison of the conventional sloped structure and the slotted-barrier
structure with a maximum width of 1,200 mm.
Three different conventional sloped rubble-mound breakwaters
(rubble-mound breakwater with armors of stone, Dolos and Seabee
units) were used as the benchmark cases for assessing wave reec-
tion characteristics. For each sloped breakwater, two different
slopes [0.9:1.2 and 0.7:1.2 m vertical distance/horizontal distance
(V/H)] were used [Fig. 5(c)].
The laboratory study was carried out in the Hydraulics and
Coastal Engineering Laboratory at the Kuwait Institute for Scientic
Research (KISR) in a glass ume, which was 60-m long, 0.6-m
wide, and 1.2-m high. A typical front view of the perforated barrier
in the ume is shown in Fig. 6. Table 1 presents the details of the
harbor walls used for the laboratory investigation. Thirty-seven
different congurations were used for assessing wave reection
Fig. 6. Model of perforated vertical barrier (front view) (image by
characteristics. Table 2 lists the conguration numbers of the
Altaf Taqi)
model and their descriptions.

ASCE 06017002-4 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002

 Table 1. Reference Wave Barriers Table 3. Random Wave Parameters

Test Slope Peak wave period [Tp (s)] Significant wave height [His (mm)]
number Wave barrier (degrees)
1.0 50, 100, 150
1 Vertical wall (without porosity) and vertical 90 1.5 50, 100, 150
perforated wall (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 walls with 2.0 50, 100, 150
10, 20, 30, 40, and 50% porosity) 2.5 50, 100, 150
2 Rubble mound, 900:1,200 mm (V/H) 36.87 3.0 50, 100, 150
3 Armor mound Seabee, 900:1,200 mm (V/H) 36.87
4 Armor mound Dolos, 900:1,200 mm (V/H) 36.87
5 Rubble mound, 700:1,200 mm (V/H) 30.26 was used to measure the wave history and to assess wave reection.
Incident waves were measured in the absence of structures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 Armor mound Dolos, 700:1,200 mm (V/H) 30.26

7 Armor mound Seabee, 700:1,200 mm (V/H)
Table 2. Slotted Barrier Characteristics According to Conguration
Number
Configuration
number Model description
1 Vertical wall
2 Rubble mound, 30.256 slope (0.7:1.2 m V/H)
3 Armor mound with Seabee, 30.256 slope (0.7:1.2 m V/H)
4 Armor mound with Dolos, 30.256 slope (0.7:1.2 m V/H)
5 Rubble mound, 36.87 slope (0.9:1.2 m V/H)
6 Armor mound with Seabee, 36.87 slope (0.9:1.2 m V/H)
7 Armor mound with Dolos, 36.87 slope (0.9:1.2 m V/H)
8 Slotted wall: 1 with 10% porosity
9 Slotted wall: 2 with 10% porosity
10 Slotted wall: 3 with 10% porosity
11 Slotted wall: 4 with 10% porosity
12 Slotted wall: 5 with 10% porosity
13 Slotted wall: 6 with 10% porosity
14 Slotted wall: 1 with 20% porosity
15 Slotted wall: 2 with 20% porosity
16 Slotted wall: 3 with 20% porosity
17 Slotted wall: 4 with 20% porosity
18 Slotted wall: 5 with 20% porosity
19 Slotted wall: 6 with 20% porosity
20 Slotted wall: 1 with 30% porosity
21 Slotted wall: 2 with 30% porosity
22 Slotted wall: 3 with 30% porosity
23 Slotted wall: 4 with 30% porosity
24 Slotted wall: 5 with 30% porosity
25 Slotted wall: 6 with 30% porosity
26 Slotted wall: 1 with 40% porosity
27 Slotted wall: 2 with 40% porosity
28 Slotted wall: 3 with 40% porosity
29 Slotted wall: 4 with 40% porosity
30 Slotted wall: 5 with 40% porosity
31 Slotted wall: 6 with 40% porosity
32 Slotted wall: 1 with 50% porosity
33 Slotted wall: 2 with 50% porosity
34 Slotted wall: 3 with 50% porosity
35 Slotted wall: 4 with 50% porosity
36 Slotted wall: 5 with 50% porosity
37 Slotted wall: 6 with 50% porosity
Random waves in different combinations of signicant wave
heights and peak periods were generated (Table 3). The incident and
the reected wave elds were measured using standard capacitance
wave probes, and reection coefcients were assessed using the
standard analysis package, MIKE Zero. The three-wave probe method
30.26 Laboratory investigations were carried out for all 37 model cong-
urations. For each conguration, 15 different random wave time series
(5 different peak periods and 3 different signicant wave heights, as
shown in Table 3) were used. The JONSWAP spectrum was used
because it is widely used around the world for random wave study in
wave umes. A total of 555 runs were conducted. Incident waves
were measured without the model in the wave ume. Complete inves-
tigations were carried out with a water depth, d, of 70 cm.
Hydrodynamic Input Details
The details of random waves used in modeling are listed in Tables 3
and 4. The data for random wave tests were collected for 330 s. The
data sampling interval was 40 samples/sec. The dimensionless input
parameters for random waves are listed in Table 4. The present
investigation covered a wide range of dimensionless input condi-
tions, as shown in Table 4, where, His was the incident signicant
wave height; Tp was the peak wave period; d was water depth; Lp
was the incident wavelength and was estimated by using the disper-
sion equation (Lp = 1.56; Tp2 tanh 92p d/Lp). The dimensionless
input parameters of the present study were His/d was the signicant
relative wave height; His/Lp was incident wave steepness; Ur was
HisL2p =d3 , the Ursell parameter; d/Lp and kpd (where the wave num-
ber, kp, = 2p /Lp) were relative water depths. Because the distance
between the porous walls, B, was 0.2 m and the water depth, d, was
0.7 m, the value of the relative water depth, d/Lp was 3.5 B/Lp.
As shown in Table 4, the signicant relative wave height (His/d)
ranged from 0.071 to 0.214. The range of incident wave steepness
(His/Lp) was 0.0070.097, which covers the practical wave steep-
ness range observed in the eld. The d/Lp ranged from 0.093 to
0.452, indicating that the study covered a large range of intermedi-
ate water-depth conditions. The Ursell parameter (Ur) ranged from
0.35 to 24.638, meaning the wave interaction covered the linear to
nonlinear range.
Reflection Analysis
MIKE Zero software has a WS reection analysis module, which is
used for reection analysis. The analysis requires measurements of
waves at three different locations. The reection analysis software w
based on the method described by Mansard and Funke (1987) and
extended by Zelt and Skjelbreia (1992). The reection coefcient, Kr,
was dened as the square root of the ratio of area between the reected
wave energy spectrums to the incident wave energy spectrum.
Dimensional Analysis
For discussion of results and their direct application to eld con-
ditions, dimensional analysis is required. The wave barrier con-
sists of surface-piercing slotted walls that extend from the sea
oor and subjected to unidirectional random nonbreaking waves
that act normal to the barrier. The performance of the proposed
slotted wall in front of an impermeable back wall depends on a

ASCE 06017002-5 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002

 Table 4. Normalized Input Parameters for Random Waves

Sample number His (m) Tp (s) Lp (m) His/d His/Lp Ur d/Lp kpd
1 0.05 1.0 1.549 0.071 0.032 0.35 0.452 2.841
2 0.10 1.0 1.549 0.143 0.065 0.70 0.452 2.841
3 0.15 1.0 1.549 0.214 0.097 1.05 0.452 2.841
4 0.05 1.5 3.115 0.071 0.016 1.41 0.225 1.412
5 0.10 1.5 3.115 0.143 0.032 2.83 0.225 1.412
6 0.15 1.5 3.115 0.214 0.048 4.24 0.225 1.412
7 0.05 2.0 4.624 0.071 0.011 3.12 0.151 0.952
8 0.10 2.0 4.624 0.143 0.022 6.23 0.151 0.952
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 0.15 2.0 4.624 0.214 0.032 9.35 0.151 0.952

10 0.05 2.5 6.055 0.071 0.008 5.35 0.116 0.727
11 0.10 2.5 6.055 0.143 0.017 10.69 0.116 0.727
12 0.15 2.5 6.055 0.214 0.025 16.04 0.116 0.727
13 0.05 3.0 7.506 0.071 0.007 8.21 0.093 0.586
14 0.10 3.0 7.506 0.143 0.013 16.43 0.093 0.586
15 0.15 3.0 7.506 0.214 0.020 24.64 0.093 0.586
Min 0.05 1.0 1.549 0.071 0.007 0.350 0.093 0.586
Max 0.15 3.0 7.506 0.214 0.097 24.638 0.452 2.841

number of variables. The wave reection (signicant reected
wave height, Hrs) depends on the signicant incident wave height
(His), peak period (Tp), water depth (d), distance between the bar-
rier (B), the number of barriers (n), porosity of the barrier (P),
gravity (g), uid density ( r ), viscosity ( m ), and the thickness of
the wave barrier, t, as follows:
Hrs f His ; Tp ; d; B; n; P; g; r ; m ; t (1)
Number of slotted walls,
Porosity,
Changing the conguration, and
Signicant wave height and peak wave period.
A clear understanding of different input parameters on wave
reection will help for optimizing a conguration with a minimum
number of porous walls of the highest porosity and for assessing the
space gain inside the harbor compared to a sloped breakwater.

Because wavelength (Lp) is linked to the wave period and water

depth and because wavelength increases with wave period, Tp can
be replaced by Lp.
In the experimental investigation the following parameters
were kept constant: t = 10 mm; d = 700 mm; and B = 200 mm.
Hence, d/B = 3.5. His, Tp, n, and P vary widely, and therefore, we
have to focus on these parameters. Acceleration due to gravity
(g), uid density ( r ), and viscosity ( m ) of water is constant
because the experimental investigation was carried out in a ume
under controlled temperature.
Using dimensional analysis, the reection coefcient, Kr (Kr =
Hrs/His) can be expressed in the form
Kr f1 d=Lp or B=Lp ; His =d or His =Lp ; n; P (2)
Because for every value of d/Lp a constant B/Lp value exists, ei-
ther the d/Lp or B/Lp value can be used. From a eld application
point of view, d/Lp is more useful because the user tries to select the
suitable slotted barrier for a specic water depth. Also, because the
results can be used widely in coastal engineering applications, using
His/d is most appropriate. These practical considerations lead to
Kr f1 d=Lp ; His =d; n; P (3)
The nondimensional values on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) are
used for describing their effects on wave reection.
Results and Discussion
To select the most suitable wave barrier conguration for the design
condition of a marine site, it is necessary to understand the effects
of the following on wave reection:
Effect of Number of Slotted Walls on the
Reflection Coefficient
Knowing the effect of a specic number of slotted walls on Kr is im-
portant for selecting the minimum number of slotted walls needed
to obtain the minimum possible Kr value for the prevailing wave
condition. Fig. 7 reveals the effects of the number of slotted barriers
and the effect of d/Lp on Kr when His/d was 0.214 for 10, 30, and
50% porosity, respectively. The minimum value of Kr possible for
10% porosity was 0.58. For 10% porosity, adding more walls was
found to be ineffective for reducing the wave reection because
most of the waves are reected back by the rst wall. With 10% po-
rosity, two rows of porous walls seem to be better, especially for
d/Lp less than 0.2 (relatively long waves). For 30% porosity, the Kr
value was higher for the single porous wall case because of the min-
imum surface exposure for wave interaction. Increasing the number
of walls increases the wave interaction and hence reduces the value
of Kr. Wave dissipation seems to be effective for as many as three
porous walls. Adding four, ve, and six porous walls did not reduce
the value of Kr because by the time the wave reaches the third wall
most of the wave energy has dissipated and been reected back. For
50% porosity, the value of Kr was the highest for the single po-
rous wall case because most of the wave energy was penetrated
into the chamber and is reected by the rear wall. Adding more
walls resulted in a signicant reduction in reection because of
greater energy dissipation. With 50% porosity, three rows of slot-
ted walls were sufcient to dissipate the wave energy for rela-
tively short waves (d/Lp > 0.2). However, for relatively long
waves (d/Lp < 0.2), a greater number of porous walls was needed.
With 50% porosity, Kr could be reduced to 0.34.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of increasing the number of porous walls
on Kr. The effect of increasing the number of porous walls was

ASCE 06017002-6 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002

 1.0
0.9
Reflection coefficient, Kr
0.8
0.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.05 0.10 0.15
Fig. 7. Effect of the number of walls and relative water depths on the reection coefcient (Note: His/d = 0.214; P = 10, 30, and 50%)
signicant for relatively long waves (d/Lp < 0.2) but was less signif-
icant for relatively short waves (d/Lp > 0.2).
Effect of Porosity on the Reflection Coefficient
It is essential to understand the effect of the porosity of the slotted
barriers on wave reection characteristics. Higher porosity means
less material is needed for constructing the slotted barrier and hence
lessens the cost of the project. Therefore, if reection is reduced
with increased porosity, then it is an advantage.
Fig. 8 shows the effects of porosity of the slotted wall and d/Lp
on Kr, when His/d was 0.214, for the single, three, and ve porous
wall cases. For a single porous wall, in general, the Kr value was
reduced with increases in d/Lp for any porosity within the P range
of 1050%. For any d/Lp, increases in porosity resulted in increases
in reection because for a high porosity single wall, waves can eas-
ily penetrate into the chamber and get reected by the rear impervi-
ous wall. For d/Lp less than 0.1 (relatively long wave), the single-
slotted barrier behaved almost like a vertical wall with signicant
reection. Among the ve different porosities, the slotted barrier
with 10% porosity seems to be the best because of lesser reection.
During the experimental investigation, signicant phase lag
between the front and rear sides of the porous wall, especially with
10% porosity, was observed, which resulted in appreciable energy
dissipation caused by turbulence and waterfall-type effects. A mini-
mum Kr value of 0.46 was achieved only when d/Lp was greater
than 0.4 and for 20 and 30% porosities.
For three walls with different porosities, the observations were
different than for the other cases. For example, at 10% porosity, the
Kr value was almost constant (0.56) for the range of d/Lp studied;
whereas at 50% porosity, the Kr value was reduced from 0.6 to 0.3
when d/Lp was changed from 0.093 to 0.225. It is clear from Fig. 8
ASCE
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002
1 Wall, P=10%
2 Walls, P=10%
3 Walls, P=10%
4 Walls, P=10%
5 Walls, P=10%
6 Walls, P=10%
1 Wall, P=30%
2 Walls, P=30%
3 Walls, P=30%
4 Walls, P=30%
5 Walls, P=30%
6 Walls, P=30%
1 Wall, P=50%
2 Walls, P=50%
3 Walls, P=50%
4 Walls, P=50%
5 Walls, P=50%
6 Walls, P=50%
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Relative water depth, d/Lp
that for three porous walls, increasing the slotted wall porosity is
better because it helps reduce the Kr value signicantly (from 0.62
to 0.34). This outcome provides the opportunity for cost savings
because volume of material is also saved due to the increased poros-
ity. The minimum Kr value achieved was 0.34 for the porosity of
50% when d/Lp was 0.225. Therefore, for a site, if the predominant
peak wave period is such that the d/Lp is 0.225, then three porous
walls with 50% porosity will perform better than the others.
For ve porous wall cases, it is clear from Fig. 8 that for a partic-
ular porosity, the Kr value did not change signicantly when d/Lp
was changed from 0.093 to 0.452. For the range of d/Lp studied, the
Kr value was higher for smaller porosities and was reduced at higher
porosities. For example, when d/Lp was 0.151, Kr values were 0.55,
0.44, 0.34, 0.34, and 0.30 for P values of 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50%,
respectively. Therefore, it is clear that for the ve porous wall case,
increasing the porosity is advantageous because the wave reection
was reduced appreciably with increased porosity. The minimum Kr
value achieved was 0.34 for the porosity of 50% when d/Lp was
0.151. Therefore, for a site, if the predominant peak wave period is
such that the d/Lp is approximately 0.151, then the selection of ve
porous walls with 50% porosity will be ideal because the Kr value is
0.34.
In summary, changing the value of d/Lp from 0.093 to 0.452
reduced the value of Kr for a single porous wall. Adding more po-
rous walls with low porosity (P = 10%) helps to reduce the reec-
tion for the low values of d/Lp (d/Lp < 0.2) but does not change it
for high values of d/Lp (d/Lp > 0.4) (Fig. 7). However, changing the
porosity from 10 to 50% reduces the value of Kr with more porous
walls. Also, with more porous walls, it is possible to reduce Kr,
especially for smaller d/Lp values (d/Lp < 0.2) values (i.e., relatively
long period waves). Therefore, in locations where the peak wave
periods are large, it is advisable to use a greater number of high
06017002-7 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.
 1.0
0.9
Reflection coefficient, Kr
0.8
0.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.05 0.10
Fig. 8. Effect of wall porosity and relative water depth on the reection coefcient (Note: His/d = 0.214 for one, three, and ve walls)
porosity walls for effective dissipation of wave energy through the
increased interactions of waves with the more porous walls.
Effect of Wave Barrier Configuration on Wave Reflection
It is important to compare the wave reection characteristics of dif-
ferent porous wall congurations with conventional sloped break-
waters for different incident wave conditions. It is necessary to use
Table 2 for understanding the meaning of congurations used in the
x-axis for the plots in this section.
Fig. 9 shows the effect of congurations on wave reection
when His/d was 0.071, 0.142, and 0.214 and when d/Lp was 0.452,
0.151, and 0.093. A careful interpretation and cross comparison of
different plots in Fig. 9 show that the effects of d/Lp were more sig-
nicant on various Kr values than were the effects of His/d.
When d/Lp was 0.452 for Conguration 1 (vertical wall), the
reection coefcient is close to 1.0. For Congurations 27 (sloped
breakwaters), a minimum reection less than 0.2 was achieved only
for Conguration 7 [i.e., rubble mound with Dolos as armor and
slope 0.9:1.2 m (V/H)]. From Congurations 837 (various number
of walls with different porosities), no porous wall conguration per-
formed better than the sloped breakwaters. For example, the best
porous wall conguration was 21 (two slotted walls with 30% po-
rosity) because the reection coefcient was closer to 0.28.
Therefore, for higher d/Lp values (short period waves), rubble-
mound structures are better.
When d/Lp was 0.151 for Conguration 1 (vertical wall), the
reection coefcient was close to 1.0. The minimum Kr value
achieved from sloped breakwaters was 0.36 for Conguration 7.
For this d/Lp case, many porous barrier congurations had Kr values
much smaller than 0.36. For porosities greater than 20%
(Congurations 1537), adding a porous wall resulted in signicant
reductions of Kr value. For example, the value of Kr has reduced
ASCE
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002
P=10%, 1 Wall
P=20%, 1 Wall
P=30%, 1 Wall
P=40%, 1 Wall
P=50%, 1 Wall
P=10%, 3 Walls
P=20%, 3 Walls
P=30%, 3 Walls
P=40%, 3 Walls
P=50%, 3 Walls
P=10%, 5 Walls
P=20%, 5 Walls
P=30%, 5 Walls
P=40%, 5 Walls
P=50%, 5 Walls
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Relative water depth, d/Lp
from 0.9 to 0.3 by varying the Congurations 3237; i.e., by
increasing the wall from one to six with 50% porosity.
When d/Lp was 0.093, the minimum Kr value achieved from
sloped reference breakwaters (Congurations 27) was 0.58.
However, many porous barrier congurations offered Kr values
much smaller than 0.58; some were less than 0.3. Therefore, it is
clear that when d/Lp is 0.093 (relatively long wave condition), a
slotted vertical barrier is a much better replacement than a sloped
rubble barrier.
Discussion of the Physics of Wave Interaction with
Multiple Rows of Slotted Vertical Barriers
During the experimental investigation, attention was given to
understanding how the waves were interacting with multiple rows
of slotted vertical barriers and explain the physics of turbulence,
energy dissipation, and reection. The observations are linked
with the results presented. It was observed that increasing the
number of rows of vertical slotted barriers was needed for long
waves (d/Lp < 0.2) because the wave energy in the long waves is
capable of penetrating well into the slots and reaching up to the im-
pervious back wall. During the energy transmission it encounters
and interacts with all the barriers and dissipates a part of its energy
by vortex shedding from each slab and through zig-zag movements
(because slabs are arranged in a zig-zag way). Relatively short
waves (d/Lp > 0.2) encounter signicant wave reection from the
rst vertical slotted wall itself and the remaining energy is insignif-
icant for penetration into the chambers. This is the main reason
why adding more slotted walls does not change the wave reection
signicantly (Fig. 7). High porosity and more slotted walls are bet-
ter for reducing wave reection because when porosity is high, a
signicant order of wave energy penetrates into the chambers one-
by-one, which results in more interactions between the wave and
06017002-8 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.
 d/Lp=0.452, His/d=0.071 d/Lp=0.452, His/d=0.142 d/Lp=0.452, His/d=0.214
d/Lp=0.151, His/d=0.071 d/Lp=0.151, His/d=0.142 d/Lp=0.151, His/d=0.214
d/Lp=0.093, His/d=0.071 d/Lp=0.093, His/d=0.142 d/Lp=0.093, His/d=0.214
1

Reflection Coefficient, Kr 0.9

0.8

0.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Configurations

Fig. 9. Effects of congurations on reection coefcient (Note: d/Lp = 0.452, 0.151, and 0.093)

barrier for better dissipation and hence smaller reection (Figs. 8 Table 5. Material Required for Different Slotted Wall and Porosity
and 9). This discussion of the physics of wave interaction with a Combinations as Percentage Required for 0.9:1.2 m (V/H) Sloped
multiple slotted barrier proves that reduction of reection can be Breakwater
achieved, especially for long waves, by selecting more rows of Required material (%)
slotted walls with high porosity (approximately 4050%).
Number of 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
perforated walls porosity porosity porosity porosity porosity
Analysis of Cost Savings Using a Vertical Slotted 1 3.50 3.11 2.72 2.33 1.95
Wave Barrier 2 7.00 6.22 5.45 4.67 3.89
3 10.50 9.34 8.17 7.00 5.84
For a marine site with design input conditions in which d/Lp is 4 14.00 12.45 10.89 9.34 7.78
0.093 and His/d is 0.214 (Fig. 9) the best options for a conventional 5 17.51 15.56 13.62 11.67 9.73
sloped breakwater are Dolos armor and slope 0.9:1.2 m (V/H). The 6 21.00 18.66 16.33 14.00 11.67
reection coefcient was 0.58. From the vertical slotted barrier
results (Fig. 9), the best possible congurations (Table 2) and corre-
sponding reection coefcients were 10 (0.55), 11(0.58), 12(0.56), 37 is used, the cost of construction of the wave barrier for the inner
16(0.50), 17(0.45), 18(0.44), 19(0.46), 22(0.52), 23(0.46), 24 harbor will be 35% of the costs of a sloped rubble mound. However,
(0.36), 25(0.43), 28(0.55), 29(0.41), 30(0.39), 31(0.37), 35(0.46), if Conguration 28 is used, then the cost of construction will be
36(0.38), and 37(0.33). From these 18 possible options, the best per- approximately 21% of the sloped rubble mound. For Conguration
forated barrier conguration, according to the minimum Kr value, 28, the width of the breakwater can be reduced by 50%, and as a
result, the effective space inside the harbor is also increased.
was 37 (i.e., six slotted walls with 50% porosity); while the best per-
forated barrier conguration based on minimum number of barriers
was 28 (i.e., three slotted walls with 40% porosity). Conclusions
The percentage volume of material required for the different
combinations of different numbers of slotted walls and porosities, The wave energy reection characteristics of 37 different wave bar-
compared to the volume required for the 0.9:1.2 m (V/H) sloped rier congurations (vertical wall, six sloped breakwaters, and 30 slot-
breakwater, is provided in Table 5. On the basis of these combina- ted barriers of varying number of barriers and porosities) with an im-
tions, for Conguration 37, 11.67% concrete is needed when com- pervious back wall were assessed based on a laboratory investigation
pared to rubble mounds. For Conguration 28, 7% concrete is for a wide range of random wave conditions. The main conclusions
needed when compared to a sloped rubble-mound barrier. For ma- from the experimental investigation are summarized as follows:
rine construction work, the cost of concrete is almost three times the For relatively short waves (d/Lp > 0.20), porous vertical bar-
cost for rubble-mound construction in countries such as Kuwait, riers with Kr values smaller than that of the sloped breakwater
where good quality stones are imported. Therefore, if Conguration of 0.9:1.2 m (V/H) with Dolos as armor were not found, but for

ASCE 06017002-9 J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.

J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002

 relatively long waves (d/Lp < 0.20), many vertical barrier com-
binations were found with Kr values smaller than that of the
sloped breakwater.
In general, the value of Kr is reduced with increases in d/Lp
values.
For slotted vertical wave barriers with 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50%
porosities, the minimum possible values of Kr were 0.52, 0.40,
0.32, 0.30, and 0.28, respectively, in the range (16) of number
of porous walls.
By increasing the number of porous walls from 1 to 6, it was
possible to reduce the value of Kr from 0.9 to 0.3, especially
for relatively long waves (d/Lp < 0.20). For short waves,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG on 09/29/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increasing the number of walls did not help in reducing the
value of Kr.
For relatively long waves, an array of slotted vertical barriers
is better than the sloped breakwater from the perspective of
minimum Kr and space savings.
An increase in porosity of the vertical barrier helps in reducing
the Kr value, especially for four-, ve-, and six-wall congura-
tions. For a single slotted barrier, an increase in porosity
increases the wave reection.
For any porosity and for four-, ve-, and six-porous wall con-
gurations, changing the value of d/Lp from 0.093 to 0.452
resulted in an insignicant change in Kr values.
Increasing the inner harbor spacing is possible if the slotted
wave barrier is used instead of the sloped rubble barrier with-
out sacricing wave reection performance.
Suggestions for Future Studies
The following are suggestions for subjects of future studies:
Effect of varying the space between the slotted walls on hydro-
dynamic performance, and
Effect of varying the porosity of each wall on hydrodynamic
performance, especially the effect of progressively decreasing
the porosity from the front wall to the rear wall on wave energy
dissipation.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the upper management of the Kuwait
Institute for Scientic Research for nancing this study. The
commitment of the staff and technicians for facilitating the model
fabrication and the experimental works at the Hydraulics and
Coastal Engineering Laboratory, Kuwait Institute for Scientic
Research, is appreciated.
References
Bennett, G. S., McIver, P., and Smallman, J. V. (1992). A mathematical model
of a slotted wave screen breakwater. Coastal Eng., 18(34), 231249.
Chen, X. F., Li, Y. C., and Sun, D. P. (2002). Regular waves acting on double-
layered perforated caissons. Proc., 12th ISOPE, Vol. 3, 736743.
Cho, I. H., and Kim, M. H. (2008). Wave absorbing system using inclined
perforated plates. J. Fluid Mech., 608(Aug), 120.
Chwang, A. T. (1983). A porous-wave maker theory. J. Fluid Mech.,
132(Jul), 395406.
Chwang, A. T., and Dong, Z. (1984). Wave-trapping due to a porous
plate. Proc., 15th Symp. on Naval Hydrodynamics, Session 6, 3242.
Evans, D. V. (1990). The use of porous screens as wave dampers in narrow
wave tanks. J. Eng. Math., 24(3), 203212.
Franco, L. (1994). Vertical breakwaters: The Italian experience. Coastal
Eng., 22(12), 3155.
ASCE 06017002-10
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 2017, 143(4): 06017002
Franco, L., de Gerloni, M., Passoni, G., and Zacconi, D. (1998). Wave
forces on solid and perforated caisson breakwaters: Comparison of eld
and laboratory measurements. Proc., 26th Coastal Engineering Conf.,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 19451958.
Fugazza, M., and Natale, L. (1992). Hydraulic design of perforated break-
waters. J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-950X(1992)118:1(1), 114.
Huang, Z. (2006). A method to study interactions between narrow-banded
random waves and multi-chamber perforated structures. Acta Mech.
Sin., 22(4), 285292.
Huang, Z., Li, Y., and Liu, Y. (2011). Hydraulic performance and wave
loading of perforated/slotted coastal structures: A review. Ocean Eng.,
38(10), 10311053.
Jarlan, G. E. (1961). A perforated vertical wall breakwater. Dock Harb.
Auth., XII(486), 394398.
Kakuno, S., Oda, K., and Liu, P. L. F. (1992). Scattering of water waves by
vertical cylinders with a back wall. Proc., 23th Coastal Engineering
Conf., ASCE, New York, 12581271.
Kondo, H. (1979). Analysis of breakwaters having two porous walls.
Proc., Coastal Structures 79. ASCE, New York, 962977.
Li, Y., Liu, Y., and Teng, B. (2006). Porous effect parameter of thin perme-
able plates. Coastal Eng., 48(4), 309336.
Li, Y., Dong, G., Liu, H., and Sun, D. (2003). The reection of oblique
incident waves by breakwaters with double-layered perforated wall.
Coastal Eng., 50(12) 4760.
Li, Y. C. (2007). Interaction between waves and perforated-caisson break-
waters. Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Asian and Pacic Coasts, 116.
Losada, J., Losada, M. A., and Baquerizo, A. (1993). An analytical method
to evaluate the efciency of porous screens as wave dampers. Appl.
Ocean Res., 15(4), 207215.
Mansard, E. P. D., and Funke, E. R. (1987). On the reection analysis of
irregular waves. Tech. Rep. TR-HY-017, NRCC No. 27522, National
Research Council of Canada, Ontario, Canada.
MIKE Zero [Computer software]. Danish Hydraulic Institute, Hrsholm,
Denmark.
Ou-Yang, H. T., Huang, L. H., and Hwang, W. S. (1997). The interference
of a semi-submerged obstacle on the porous breakwater. Appl. Ocean
Res., 19, 263273.
Park, W. S., Chun, I. S., and Lee, D. S. (1993). Hydraulic experiments for
the reection characteristics of perforated breakwaters. J. Korean Soc.
Coast. Ocean Eng., 5(3), 198203 (in Korean).
Sahoo, T., Lee, M. M,, and Chwang, A. T. (2000). Trapping and generation
of waves by vertical porous structures. J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:10(1074), 10741082.
Sawaragi, T., and Iwata, K. (1978). Wave attenuation of a vertical break-
water with two air chambers. Coast. Eng. Jpn., 21, 6374.
Suh, K.-D., Shin, S., and Cox, D. T. (2006). Hydrodynamic characteristics
of pile-supported breakwaters. J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2006)132:2(83), 8396.
Twu, S. W., and Lin, D. T. (1991). On a highly effective wave absorber.
Coast. Eng. 15(4), 389405.
Williams, A. N., Mansour, A.-E. M., and Lee, H. S. (2000). Simplied ana-
lytical solutions for wave interaction with absorbing-type caisson break-
waters. Ocean Eng., 27(11), 12311248.
Yip, T. L., and Chwang, A. T. (2000). Perforated wall breakwater with internal
horizontal plate. J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2000)126:
5(533), 533538.
Yu, X., and Chwang, A. T. (1994). Water waves above submerged porous
plate. J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1994)120:6(1270),
12701282.
Zelt, J. A., and Skjelbreia, J. E. (1992). Estimating incident and reected
wave elds using arbitrary number of wave gauges. Proc., 23rd Int.
Conf. on Coastal Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA, 10.1061
/9780872629332.058, 777789.
Zhu, D., and Zhu, S. (2010). Impedance analysis of hydrodynamic behav-
iors for a perforated-wall caisson breakwater under regular wave orthog-
onal attack. Coast. Eng., 57(8), 722731.
Zhu, S., and Chwang, A. T. (2001). Investigation on the reection behav-
iour of a slotted seawall. Coast. Eng., 43(2), 93104.
J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng.